There’s definitely an idea here for an enjoyable, playable game. I’ve had a go at fleshing out the rules, but not got anything entirely to my satisfaction, so instead I’ll list what I consider to be some important design questions.
The first is whether or not the murderer should know who they are. If they do, there’s a risk that the game turns into Mafia, with an emphasis on dealing with deception rather than assessing evidence. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s something to be aware of. If not, or if the murderer is not a player character, then some sort of time pressure needs to be introduced to force the kind of trade-offs you wanted to see.
Under what circumstances are players allowed to ask each other questions, and is this done in public or in private? With a cooperative game there would seem to be little point in keeping secrets, but with a rogue murderer opportunities for misdirection would add useful complexity.
There’s a risk that the randomisation aspect become sufficiently complicated that it would really need to be done by computer, but a game that could be played by people sitting around a table would be much more useful, and enjoyable.
This could be a fun and educational game. Possibly even commerically exploitable.
The first is whether or not the murderer should know who they are. If they do, there’s a risk that the game turns into Mafia, with an emphasis on dealing with deception rather than assessing evidence. … [If they don’t] there would seem to be little point in keeping secrets [and] … some sort of time pressure needs to be introduced.
Spot on, all all counts. There are other ideas that just got posted that might help with this; if players had a limited number of chips and were playing to maximize their chip count, then sharing info would only make sense if you thought it would give you a relative advantage. If the murderer was given weak evidence that he/she was the murderer, that might create a bit of deception without encouraging a Mafia dynamic. Accusations could be made expensive relative to other activities (i.e., you have to go to the Control Room, or gather everybody together, etc.).
Under what circumstances are players allowed to ask each other questions, and is this done in public or in private?
I had imagined that you can talk whenever your characters are in the same room, but you can’t ever physically flip over your clue cards to show people what they say. E.g. if you did an autopsy on the left leg and it revealed lead-pipe-impacts, you could say “It was a lead pipe, I swear!” but you couldn’t actually give the person your “lead-pipe-impact” card. Just like in real life, we don’t have provably-secure mind-bridges. You could, however, give the person the left leg, and then they could do their own autopsy.
There’s a risk that the randomisation aspect become sufficiently complicated that it would really need to be done by computer.
I agree, and I’ll find ways to avoid that risk. It happens to be one of my talents.
This could be a fun and educational game. Possibly even commerically exploitable.
There’s definitely an idea here for an enjoyable, playable game. I’ve had a go at fleshing out the rules, but not got anything entirely to my satisfaction, so instead I’ll list what I consider to be some important design questions.
The first is whether or not the murderer should know who they are. If they do, there’s a risk that the game turns into Mafia, with an emphasis on dealing with deception rather than assessing evidence. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s something to be aware of. If not, or if the murderer is not a player character, then some sort of time pressure needs to be introduced to force the kind of trade-offs you wanted to see.
Under what circumstances are players allowed to ask each other questions, and is this done in public or in private? With a cooperative game there would seem to be little point in keeping secrets, but with a rogue murderer opportunities for misdirection would add useful complexity.
There’s a risk that the randomisation aspect become sufficiently complicated that it would really need to be done by computer, but a game that could be played by people sitting around a table would be much more useful, and enjoyable.
This could be a fun and educational game. Possibly even commerically exploitable.
Spot on, all all counts. There are other ideas that just got posted that might help with this; if players had a limited number of chips and were playing to maximize their chip count, then sharing info would only make sense if you thought it would give you a relative advantage. If the murderer was given weak evidence that he/she was the murderer, that might create a bit of deception without encouraging a Mafia dynamic. Accusations could be made expensive relative to other activities (i.e., you have to go to the Control Room, or gather everybody together, etc.).
I had imagined that you can talk whenever your characters are in the same room, but you can’t ever physically flip over your clue cards to show people what they say. E.g. if you did an autopsy on the left leg and it revealed lead-pipe-impacts, you could say “It was a lead pipe, I swear!” but you couldn’t actually give the person your “lead-pipe-impact” card. Just like in real life, we don’t have provably-secure mind-bridges. You could, however, give the person the left leg, and then they could do their own autopsy.
I agree, and I’ll find ways to avoid that risk. It happens to be one of my talents.
Thank you! I’m glad you think so.