Prague (Planning)

[Grundbegriff]

I've been pondering a game based on those logic puzzles in logic puzzle magazines where you fill out a grid to deduce the who, what, where. The idea would be that each person is given a couple of facts to hold privately. Gameplay would consist partly of finding out what other people know in order to piece things together -- sort of like Clue, really.

Regarding that comment (originally made over here):

I've given this more thought. The game is called Prague. Here's how it could work:

• International spies have convened in Prague to covertly resolve an international crisis. They meet on the top floor of the Grand Hotel, which has been set aside for their use and locked so that they cannot depart.
• There are 18 clues. With all 18, it is possible to solve the puzzle deductively. With fewer than 18, it's possible to solve portions of the puzzle and perhaps to guess the remainder or part of the remainder.
• There are 10 players. Each player receives two clues; two of the clues are repeated to make 20 clues.
• There are two teams of 5. Each team has a private forum (notionally a suite at one end or the other of the Grand Hotel's top floor) where the team's members can share (or lie about) what they know and can plot against the other team.
• There is a conspiracy of 2, one infiltrating each team. These two operatives represent a task force dedicated to thwarting the other two alliances. The Conspiracy also has a private forum (notionally a stairwell somewhere on the top floor) or PM relationship by means of which they can plot their subversive activities.
• On each overt team, there is a Spymaster (never the conspirator) who has the ability, by night, to uncover a starting truth known by someone on the opposite team.

The game consists of four simple rules:
(a) Each day, someone by majority vote is thrown out a window of the Grand Hotel. That person's secrets are then divulged to all.
(b) Each night, the Spymasters may scan an opponent (or a teammate!) and learn one of his two original facts.
(c) A team wins when it solves the puzzle.
(d) Teams and team members thwart their opponents by lying about what they know.

Summary:
East Team: (a) Spymaster 1, (b) Spy 1, (c) Spy 2, (d) Spy 3, (e) Spy4/Conspirator 1
West Team: (f) Spymaster 2, (g) Spy 5, (h) Spy 6, (i) Spy 7, (j) Spy8/Conspirator 2
The Conspiracy: (e) Conspirator 1, (j) Conspirator 2

So tell me:
(1) Do you think this would work?
(2) Do you think this would be enjoyable?
(3) Do you want to play?

Some of my experimental games have seen a lot of participation but have been flawed by overwhelming complexity or an imbalance that became evident only in midgame. So I've tried to keep the rules and concept very simple and Diplomacy-like while retaining the fundamental Werewolf mechanism.

[stessier]

What constitutes "solving the puzzle"? And how is that demonstrated?

[LordMortis]

I like the idea of a puzzle game.

Why would you vote against your own team member? Why not remove the voting mechanism altogether? You could still create a situation with deaths and player removals by piecing together clues that allow for assassinations or something. Maybe mix your puzzle game idea with say a stratego like element, where the clues you learn about the game aren't necessarily about the flag but could be about a weapon, or a bomb, where player elimination can happen but it's not mandatory or even encouraged to the point of necessity. If that's wholly not like the kind of game you want to run then I may sit down and think about how to run a game like that.

[bb2112]

I agree with the fact that nobody would vote for their own team, unless they think they have uncovered a conspirator. Set a time limit on the game and the conspirators win if neither team figures out the puzzle before the time runs out. Maybe keep the vote for a kill optional. If a vote for a kill does happen, then the game becomes shorter by one day and both of the clues of the killed person becomes revealed to all. This allows for the possiblity of getting rid of conspirators and daytime kills, but also shortens the time to solve the puzzle since more clues will be availabe to all.

[Grundbegriff]

What constitutes "solving the puzzle"? And how is that demonstrated?

The puzzle consists of five sets of facts about five nations. For example:

Bangladesh is hesitant to allow freedom of the press and has five nukes aimed at Freedonia.
Switzerland is committed to escalate troop levels and has seven nukes aimed at Freedonia.

Those two lines are sample solution lines. A solved puzzle consists of five correct solution lines.
The fuchsia variable is the name of a nation. The brown variable is that nation's diplomatic stance. The orange variable is the policy that nation is considering with that stance. The pink variable is a count of nukes/moles/whatever.

Typical clues would look like this:
Turkey is not hesitant.
Indonesia has three more nukes aimed at Freedonia than the committed nation does.

Every cycle -- I'm undecided whether at night or by day -- each of the three teams may submit a solution to the moderator. The first team to submit the five correct assignments of nation/stance/action/count is the winner. There's no penalty for error, but only one solution is permitted per round and attrition may result in the elimination of a team (out the window).

[Grundbegriff]

I like the idea of a puzzle game.
Why would you vote against your own team member?

Because he might actually be the infiltrator from The Conspiracy. Suppose you're the Spymaster and you catch your teammate in a lie about what he knows. Why did he do that?

Why not remove the voting mechanism altogether?

Because then the only mechanism for providing information is simply exposing it, and there's no risk associated with that because nobody's dying, and so there's no basis for competition. At that point, we're just solving a logic puzzle together. I want the game to entail competition and the risk of subversion.

You could still create a situation with deaths and player removals by piecing together clues that allow for assassinations or something. Maybe mix your puzzle game idea with say a stratego like element, where the clues you learn about the game aren't necessarily about the flag but could be about a weapon, or a bomb, where player elimination can happen but it's not mandatory or even encouraged to the point of necessity. If that's wholly not like the kind of game you want to run then I may sit down and think about how to run a game like that.

I think you should do that. Your game sounds like it might offer some fun. It's just different from the game I'm envisioning.

[Grundbegriff]

I agree with the fact that nobody would vote for their own team, unless they think they have uncovered a conspirator.

Yup. And maybe one of the conspirators should also be a Spymaster so the mini-team will have a better chance of actually winning.

Set a time limit on the game and the conspirators win if neither team figures out the puzzle before the time runs out.

I like the idea of defined time limits known in advance. Maybe if the game times out, the winning team should be the one that comes closest to the correct solution in a final submission to the mod. The Conspiracy wins if it falls short of outright victory but lands in a tie. And if the two normal teams land in a tie with The Conspiracy in third place, that's a stalemate.

Maybe keep the vote for a kill optional. If a vote for a kill does happen, then the game becomes shorter by one day and both of the clues of the killed person becomes revealed to all. This allows for the possiblity of getting rid of conspirators and daytime kills, but also shortens the time to solve the puzzle since more clues will be availabe to all.

That might work. I'll think on't.

[Remus West]

Sounds very interesting. I'd probably even take notes for this one.

[stessier]

]Maybe keep the vote for a kill optional. If a vote for a kill does happen, then the game becomes shorter by one day and both of the clues of the killed person becomes revealed to all. This allows for the possiblity of getting rid of conspirators and daytime kills, but also shortens the time to solve the puzzle since more clues will be availabe to all.

I think this should be reversed. If there is no kill during the day, then the length of the game is shortened by one day. This could make for some interesting moments as a team is getting close - do you refuse to lynch so that the other team doesn't get info and the game is shorter or do you lynch to verify someone's info?

Because that is why you would agree to lynch someone on your own team - to verify their info.

Also - do you start knowing your whole team? What if each player only knew 1 or two others - so you operate in a Cell type organization?

How do teams communicate? PMs or does each have their own forum? If it is their own forum, the Cell format could be fun as each person would have access to a couple and would be looking for inconsistencies - or maybe adding their own.

How is it decided who submits the Team's Guess? (I guess this depends a lot on how you answer the other two questions.)

[LordMortis]

Truth Tables are fun. I've never formally tried them in a sort of three dimensional fashion where you have to worry about whether your known facts are actually accurate and that's kinda cool.

Because he might actually be the infiltrator from The Conspiracy. Suppose you're the Spymaster and you catch your teammate in a lie about what he knows. Why did he do that?

The moment you send one of your people, conspirator or not, to the wolves, then you've put yourself in a position to lose members every day, haven't you? The next day your opponent says "I've got the 5-4 advantage, every one in favor on killing person x not from our team say "aye"".

It also doesn't seem like (d) Spy 3 and (i) Spy 7 wouldn't be vested in the game at all. If three of my team mates die, I have a role beyond publishing what I know in my private forum.

I still like the premise of a game rooted in puzzle solving. This doesn't quite seem to be on the mark for me.

[Remus West]

I like the cell idea. If spymasters know their whole team but the "under spies" are broken into two groups with the goal of the spymaster providing the correct puzzle answer. Then the spy master has to decide who is feeding him true information and who may be the infiltrator lying about their information.

You could also consider some mechanism to allow players to "steal" clues from other players - as well as counter measures against stealing sort of like the drinking game idea.

[LordMortis]

I think this should be reversed. If there is no kill during the day, then the length of the game is shortened by one day.

That's an interesting dynamic and it's very cold war, and very chicken, which is appropriate for spy games.

[bb2112]

If there are two teams, and a player that is lynched has their facts revealed upon their death, I foresee one team getting the majority and voting to kill off the other team one at a time. All the facts become available for the majority team, thereby winning. While the losing team keeps revealing facts they already know and have no way to collect the facts from the majority team.

At first I thought the cell idea could get around this by causing people to lynch others and not knowing which team they are on, but upon further reflection, what would stop me from telling Theo (my contact 1), hey, voting for Remus (my contact 2) is a terrible idea since he is on our team. I guess everyone would know fairly quickly what the teams are and then the majority problem comes into play again.

What if there were no teams and each player plays on his own? The spymaster reveals clues, but the clues are availabe for everyone, or randomly distributed to only half of the players for each spymaster? Just thinking as I write...

[LordMortis]

If there are two teams, and a player that is lynched has their facts revealed upon their death, I foresee one team getting the majority and voting to kill off the other team one at a time. All the facts become available for the majority team, thereby winning.

Except that they still have their own conspirator who could still win the game and could possibly have a slightly different set of information. Aside form that, that's close to how I see the game playing out if you elected to kill one of your own, conspirator or not.

[theohall]

If there are two teams, and a player that is lynched has their facts revealed upon their death, I foresee one team getting the majority and voting to kill off the other team one at a time. All the facts become available for the majority team, thereby winning. While the losing team keeps revealing facts they already know and have no way to collect the facts from the majority team.

At first I thought the cell idea could get around this by causing people to lynch others and not knowing which team they are on, but upon further reflection, what would stop me from telling Theo (my contact 1), hey, voting for Remus (my contact 2) is a terrible idea since he is on our team. I guess everyone would know fairly quickly what the teams are and then the majority problem comes into play again.

Good catch, bb2112. This appears to be similar to the flaw which arose in Starship R. Scott. Convicts vs Crew.

[LordMortis]

Good catch, bb2112. This appears to be similar to the flaw which arose in Starship R. Scott. Convicts vs Crew.

The moment you send one of your people, conspirator or not, to the wolves, then you've put yourself in a position to lose members every day, haven't you? The next day your opponent says "I've got the 5-4 advantage, every one in favor on killing person x not from our team say "aye"".

[theohall]

Good catch, bb2112. This appears to be similar to the flaw which arose in Starship R. Scott. Convicts vs Crew.

The moment you send one of your people, conspirator or not, to the wolves, then you've put yourself in a position to lose members every day, haven't you? The next day your opponent says "I've got the 5-4 advantage, every one in favor on killing person x not from our team say "aye"".

Sorry. tldr while at work.

[Grundbegriff]

If there are two teams, and a player that is lynched has their facts revealed upon their death, I foresee one team getting the majority and voting to kill off the other team one at a time.

Instead of death, perhaps interrogation would be more appropriate. The information known by the person who receives the majority vote is divulged to all. That person remains in the game.

I like some of the suggestions here, but I want to ensure that we don't introduce so much complexity that the game becomes too much work to play and manage.

I have the puzzle and clues ready to go. If there's interest, perhaps we could run this after the Viking game if nothing else is in the hopper.

[Grundbegriff]

Now that I've had supper and digested this a bit, here's a proposal that integrates some of the suggestions above:

A team consists of five players.
(a) Spymaster
(b) Spy 1
(c) Spy 2
(d) Spy 3
(e) Spy 4/Conspirator 1

A team's suite consists of two forums:
Cell A forum.
Cell B forum.

• Spy 1 and Spy 2 are Cell A. They know one another. At the beginning of the game, they do not know their handler, the Spymaster.
• Spy 3 and Spy 4 are Cell B. They know one another. At the beginning of the game, they do not know their handler, the Spymaster.
• The Spymaster has read/write access to both the Cell A forum and the Cell B forum. He can monitor the discussion of both pairs. On a given night (instead of scanning? in addition to scanning?), he may reveal his identity in one of his Cell forums. From that point forward, he may contribute to that forum.
• Unbeknownst to everyone, Spy 4/Conspirator 1 also has read-only access to the other Cell forum on his team. For example, if Spy 4/Conspirator 1 is in Cell B, he also secretly has read-only access to the Cell A forum.
• At any point, a Conspirator may permanently forsake his read-only access to his team's other cell forum in order to gain access to a Conspiracy forum. This is a one-way trip.

The benefits here are many:

First, each conspirator knows as much about what happens in his team's Cell forums as the Spymaster does. He can plan his lies better.

Second, each legitimate team member now has a reason to be careful what he shares and what he withholds, since (in theory) the two conspirators have access to all the clues in both forums. At any point, they can converge in the Conspiracy forum to put those pieces together.

Third, the Spymaster now has a genuine problem on his hands. One of the people he's monitoring is a bad egg. So the Spymaster must carefully weigh (a) when to reveal himself to his underlings, and (b) what to share with them (including, possibly, false info in an effort to root out or thwart the conspirator).

Fourth, the participants in a cell forum will be left wondering whether they're (still) being monitored. At some point, the Conspirators will have to abandon their surveillance and link up to compare notes. But only they will know when that has occurred.

For the game mechanism, I think it would be better to sidestep death and keep everyone in play. But daily, the players must vote for someone whose secrets the Moderator will expose. This gives liars an incentive to avoid being elected, and the lack of death and ignorance of one's colleagues' identities keeps the voting balanced and honest.

As for time limits, the game would have no fixed number of turns, but a cycle would be forced every M/W/F (every other day, if the weekend counts as a day) until some team wins.

Thoughts?

[stessier]

Wow - I think you've fixed it!

To clarify, this -

For the game mechanism, I think it would be better to sidestep death and keep everyone in play. But daily, the players must vote for someone whose secrets the Moderator will expose. This gives liars an incentive to avoid being elected, and the lack of death and ignorance of one's colleagues' identities keeps the voting balanced and honest.

means that only a person's secrets are revealed, not their team alignment, correct?

I have to think a bit more on the rest, but it sounds fun.

[Grundbegriff]

means that only a person's secrets are revealed, not their team alignment, correct?

Correct. It's an interrogation, so to speak.

Team victory will be a management issue in this sense: only the Spymaster will know the full population of his team, and it'll be up to him when/whether to reveal to one Cell the members of the other and vice versa. Meanwhile, that gives the Conspirator on each team something to worry about as he tries to manipulate the situation: he can't reveal to the Spymaster that he actually sees as much as the Spymaster does.

Instead of segments of the top floor of the hotel, we'll have sectors throughout the city, with station chiefs, etc.

[Qantaga]

Haven't had a chance to read through all the details, but count me IN, regardless.

[Grundbegriff]

Here's a worksheet. Standard issue for field operatives.

PDF worksheet

[Grundbegriff]

I've placed a possible version of the rules in the other thread for your consideration. Suggestions are welcome.

Please put suggestions or comments in this thread so the game thread can remain clean for the game.

[Newcastle]

IN

i havent read anything, except snippets of information. So i am not 100% sure what i am getting in. I'll go through it soon to get a better feel for it.

[bb2112]

Wow! This sounds very interesting. IN

[Grundbegriff]

I've added you to the list in the game thread.

This is the right place to sign up. I encourage interested parties to read both threads and sign up!

[Remus West]

what the hay. I'll spend weeks being confused by this.

[Grundbegriff]

I'm trying to think through the decision points of this game in an effort to find additional ways to add fun and reduce the bug count.

Each handler must decide when to reveal himself to each of his two squads. (The handler could join the forums under his pseudonym and keep his OO identity concealed.)

Each handler must decide when to reveal to one of his squads the identities of the members of the other squad.

Each player must decide whether and when to declare his identity openly in the forum.

The team member who is capable of resisting interrogation must decide whether and when to reveal that fact.

Each KIM member must decide whether to lie, what to lie about, and to whom to lie.

The two teams must decide whether to take turns being interrogated.

Everyone must decide whether to toe the party line on votes to interrogate.


Perhaps there are other decision points. Those are the ones that occur to me as I type.

I'd like to introduce (a) more decision points, and (b) costs associated with the existing decision points.

For example, why not simply have a mass outing, establish a protocol for revealing information symmetrically, and then let the KIM members throw their weight around a bit over the final few clues? And why not guess when deduction has narrowed it down to just two or three combinations?

Solving the logic puzzle is inherently enjoyable. But what (aside from knowledge constraints, interrogations, resisting interrogations, and double agents) will add more game to the game?

It seems to me that we need some indeterminacy. Maybe another source for clues? Or some corruption of the clues that are doled out in the first place, along with some corrections that have to be discovered?

[RMC]

Wow... Looks very interesting, I'll give it a go and be IN.

[Newcastle]

I like the no death angle, keeps 1 team from getting too big of an upper hand.

I think time limits should be something a bit more easy than m/w/f; maybe make each game day about 5-7 days or so. Maybe even 5 for the first few days while people pick up on things, then around day 3-5 shorten it to 3 days. Just so it gives time for people to understand the nuances of things.

I think i like the 2 sub forum ideas. Keeps people guessing & wondering who is what. Is there any time when the whole spy side is joined together in 1 forum? so all 5 members can discuss things?

Q- Explain to me more the point in limiting Conspirator forum acces after the 1 way trip...is it to prevent them from getting a massive amount of information?


I would take it the game would go something like this....
main thread- jostling amongst folks to feel things out

Side A
subforum 1- people know they are on each team, but talking...how much do they trust?
subforum 2- ""
- Spymaster monitors - and intercedes when he feels he can trust them and shares information when he thinks he can.

Side B
(same as above)

Rebels
-empty foum until both enter it


--
Q - So does the spymaster have any way to detect who the conspirator is? Or is it only through analysis of what is going on in the various subforums?

If I were a spymaster I see no downside in revealing myself to my underlings, but not providing them with any information. As far as I can tell from readings. AH i see you have this as a counter:

Cycle - the Night - Preventing the Scan
One Night per game each, a KIM agent may prevent a handler's (Chief's or Advocate's) scan. To do this, the KIM agent must know the identity (i.e., OO username) of the handler. The KIM agents may exercise their one-time abilities on the same Night or on different Nights, and each may thwart either his own handler or his partner's handler. Both agents may select the same target, but not on the same night.

Q- But say, as chief, you reveal to your underlings who you are and you are then blocked...you would have a good suspicion who is on the bad side....what can you do about it?


Q - Does lynch reveal identity? Or side. I see no mention of this, so i assume not.

[stessier]

I think time limits should be something a bit more easy than m/w/f; maybe make each game day about 5-7 days or so. Maybe even 5 for the first few days while people pick up on things, then around day 3-5 shorten it to 3 days. Just so it gives time for people to understand the nuances of things.

I disagree. There is really not a bunch to discuss as the result of a day is not a permanent handicap (ie, no death, just info revealed). It's not like someone is going to suddenly reveal their secrets to avoid a lynch. I like the short time frame as it keeps things moving.

I think i like the 2 sub forum ideas.

I like it too. Is there any reason we can't all sign up under pseudonyms? Would it be game breaking if you had to take everything said in the other chambers on people's word? Would that give the spies too much of an upper hand?

I still want to sit down and try and puzzle things out, but haven't had the time yet.

[Grundbegriff]

I think i like the 2 sub forum ideas. Keeps people guessing & wondering who is what. Is there any time when the whole spy side is joined together in 1 forum? so all 5 members can discuss things?

I think that should remain awkward and complicated. It gives a bit of wiggle room for deception.

Q- Explain to me more the point in limiting Conspirator forum acces after the 1 way trip...is it to prevent them from getting a massive amount of information?

I killed this idea in the game thread, since it instantly outs the conspirators. That was originally ok in my conception of how things might play out, but I changed my mind after weighing the value of ongoing deception.

Rebels
-empty foum until both enter it

I'm not sure whether I want to allow them to conspire right from the start. I think it might be more fun for the KIM agents not to know which other player is KIM until some juncture midway through the game.

Thoughts?

Q - So does the spymaster have any way to detect who the conspirator is? Or is it only through analysis of what is going on in the various subforums?

Well, if Bubba tells the Handler "foo" in the private forum, but Bubba reveals "not foo" under interrogation, that's either going to make Bubba look like a liar or make Bubba look capable of "Resisting Interrogation".

Q-[/b] But say, as chief, you reveal to your underlings who you are and you are then blocked...you would have a good suspicion who is on the bad side....what can you do about it?

Depends. If you've only shared your identity with two of your four and then someone blocks you, that really narrows it down. But if you've shared your identity with four of your four, who knows which one's the rat? You already knew that 25% of the squad was dirty going in.

As for what to do once the turncoat is discovered: well, since the goal is to solve the logic puzzle, you'll know who's propositions to take with a grain of salt!

Q - Does lynch reveal identity? Or side. I see no mention of this, so i assume not.

I wasn't going to have forced reveals of alignment, on the theory that it might be more interesting to keep people guessing whose word can be trusted.

I also toyed with the idea of introducing two more players who are aligned but whom the Handler doesn't know. Floating agents, so to speak, who have the additional task/minigame of figuring out who their teammates are before they can be integrated.

[Grundbegriff]

Is there any reason we can't all sign up under pseudonyms? Would it be game breaking if you had to take everything said in the other chambers on people's word?

I think it might be game-enhancing instead of game-breaking. However, Handlers could always insist that "Tranche" or "Harrassowitz" say something in the main thread under the username each claims. If they couldn't do that, their ruse would be exposed.

If it's that easy to test the pseudonyms, then why bother with them.

If there were a way to enforce a ban on such tests, then I think the extra layer of possible deception would enhance the game.

Would that give the spies too much of an upper hand?

Everyone's a spy. Do you mean the double agents?

[Grundbegriff]

Y'all don't like logic problems, eh?

[Remus West]

Y'all don't like logic problems, eh?

I signed up. I could be my calm and rational mind that is scaring people off. Or not.

[Newcastle]

Y'all don't like logic problems, eh?

Maybe if you rename it Lost 3 - The Prague Dimension (Evangeline Lilly edition) you might get some more sign ups.

or you could can the prague deal and do a Lost 3, i'd sign up for that. In fact... When ARE you doing Lost 3?

[Grundbegriff]

or you could can the prague deal and do a Lost 3, i'd sign up for that. In fact... When ARE you doing Lost 3?

Lost 3: A Better Ending

[bb2112]

I'm a little dissapointed there isn't more interest in this. It is a cool concept and I'm eager to see how it works out.

Come on people, give this a try at least!

[Grundbegriff]

Here's a change I think I'll make.

instead of giving the Spying power only to the two Handlers, I think I'll allow each player to perform a nightly scan. He may choose

(a) to scan the team alignment of player X (answers: "Player X belongs to Team Goldman Saxon" xor "Player X belongs to the Blusterberg Group")
(b) to peek at a (random) Fact known by player X. This may potentially expose someone as Resisting Interrogation.

The effect of this change will be to put more clues in circulation among more people.