Laws instead of rules

To answer a part of your question: Yes, such games do exist. I think there are such "party games" and also a game called "democracy" or something like it which works like that or in a very similar manner.

Another type of game where this element is used is in trick taking games. In a trick taking game you trust that your opponent will play a "legal" card. Sometimes, either purposely or accidentally, the wrong card is played, but unless someone notices, the hand stands and play continues. Of course if you are caught, there is a penalty. The problem here is that unless you are good at counting cards, this can be hard to do.

I believe this has been done before, like the card game Bull. In the game, you must go along playing any number of cards in sequential order (1st player must play 2's, 2nd must play 3's etc.). You play them face down, and claim what they are and in what number. Other players, based on their hands, may guess that you are lying as to what the card is. If they are right, you must pick up the whole pile. If they are wrong, they pick up the pile. First one with no cards wins.

Now, when you said you will have only Laws and no Rules, that is technically impossible. All the instructions of the game are considered Rules, and only certain aspects would be Laws.

I think the dirty football game with referees is a great idea. You may move and such, but only do dirty hits when a ref is far enough away. Different actions would be more noticeable, thus the referees must be a further distance away.

However, breaking Laws through gameplay where only other players may catch you is trickier. It would probably make the game higher risk and more enjoyable, but it is difficult to get a precise set of mechanics.

An architect style game could be another idea, where you need to build city blocks as quickly as possible, through turning in sets of cards. You may, however, cut corners on productions, creating buildings cheaper and quicker, but the consequences of being caught would set you back or force you to rebuild.

It's not exactly a board game, but it reminds me of a weird RPG game we made. My friend took the 50 laws of the anime and the game setting took place in an anime world of various time periods.

Objective of the game: restore the laws of the anime by finding or triggering events that could prove that the law exist.

Any non-restored law could be used at the advantage of the bad guy at the end of the game.

That game was so cool and funky.

Knizia's Battle Line offers a chance to try out this kind of mechanic.

In the game, players play cards in groups in an attempt to capture flags. If my set of cards beats your set of cards located on the left flank, I win that flag. If your set of cards one flag in from the left flank beats my set of cards, you win that flag. The thing is, cards are only played one at a time, and in order for a group of cards to form a "set" there have to be three of them. This means that even if you have three cards that form a really strong set placed next to a flag, you won't necessarily know that you've won that flag until your opponent has placed their third card by that flag as well.

The thing is, if you have a really good set in play, there is often little incentive for your opponent to complete their set. In the game this is handled by the fact that if you can "prove" that you must be the winner of a flag, then you immediately become the winner. If for example your opponent could only beat you with a red 9, but the only red 9 in the game is already in play somewhere else, and you point this out, you get the flag.

A variant of Battle Line that incorporates this legal vs. illegal thing might go like this: Instead of having to show via proof that you've won a flag, you simply need to state that you have won, your opponent then has a fixed amount of time to prove that actually there still is a chance for them to win. If they can do this they take the flag (without actually having to play the cards to win it), but if they fail you win the flag (even though there may in fact have been a way for your opponent to win it).

coco, you may want to check out Scotland Yard. It's a very simple game where one player moves a criminal around on a board trying to avoid a group of detectives. The thing is, the criminal's actual location is a secret during most turns (the person playing the criminal simply writes down the number of the location they are moving to). Every now and then their position is revealed. The basic tension is that the detectives have to use their deductive abilities to corner in the criminal based on this limited information. The more aggressive they are, the more likely they are to find the criminal if their guess as to his/her basic location is correct, but if they are wrong, it will take them longer to redeploy to other parts of the city to make up for their mistake. (I believe Fury of Dracula has a more complicated version of something like this going on in it, but I've never played it before and don't really know that much about the game.)

How could you make law breaking With hidden information that wasn't readily evident?

The only thing that popped in to my head was players with cards that revealed the player in some manner (color, player number, etc.) being thrown in to a pile that isn't initially revealed.... the cards would reveal some information on one side that would be relevant to the play... these could be put in an envelope and have the top side be generic information that is relevant to the play, while the other side, which isn't immediately revealed, could identify the player and have some sort of indication whether the law was broken.

Example:

A game is made comparing strengths of colors - players bet in game on the color they think will be on top at the end of a round.

A law is brought forth:

Purple shall move ahead of blue on the board if the number strength is 22 or higher - penalty: reduce by 1 the color bid upon

Players play cards that have a number value into an envelope (a la Clue envelope) on the top side, and the player color and whether they actually commit their number or disavow their number (i.e., that their number shouldn't be added to make the sum) on the other side. When all players have put their cards secretly into the envelope, the cards are removed and placed face up.

Let's say there are four players and the numbers are 6,8,8, and 9. There is more than enough to reach a sum of 22. However, the players do not know if these numbers will hold until the end of the round. Perhaps there is a stage to make secondary wagers or wager alterations after the laws and subsequent cards have been played.

So, a player makes a secondary bet on purple. As long as any 3 players did not disavow their number on the other side of their card (break the law) a sum of 22+ will be reached and the law will pass (purple will move ahead of blue).

I know, this is overly complicated and I am sure coco will find a much more elegant use for this, but I thought I'd throw out an early clunky version to illustrate where my thinking was.

Comments?

This has been something that has interested me for a while. I'm always looking for good stealth mechanics (of any variety) and careful lawbreaking is a stealth mechanic in my opinion. Unfortunately, I've had trouble implementing this sort of thing. As far as games with laws instead of rules go, check out Nomic. It's not what you're talking about it, the game itself is about writing the rules. It's more akin to Democracy, mentioned earlier. A Nomic ruleset to a wargame of some kind has potential, in my opinion.

A game know as Lemma has a set of laws that players make up as they play the game. (Or were they rules? ...)

Actually: I call in my Evolution Earth the rules laws instead of rules.

http://profile.imageshack.us/user/evolutionearth/images/detail/#91/evolu...

Luonnonlait is finnish and means: laws of nature.

Sorry. Maybe a bit off topic but just came to my mind about this little detail.