Skip to Content
 

Help with a bluffing mechanic

5 replies [Last post]
Grall Ritnos
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011

Hey gang. I'm starting to brainstorm on a new project, and was hoping to get some feedback about a mechanic I've been thinking about. The mechanic involves an element of bluffing, but due to my relative ignorance of bluffing mechanics, I'm not sure if something like this has been done before, or if there are cleaner implementations out there. As a first question, can anyone recommend some good games with bluffing mechanics so that I can read up a bit on what's already out there.

On to the mechanic itself. My tentative idea for the game is that each player will have a hand of cards, each of which represents an operative in the player's organization (right now I'm working with a mafia theme, but this isn't set in stone). The play area will consist of a number of locations, each of which specifies a certain statistical requirement to do a mission at that location. For example, doing a mission in China Town might require 4 strength, 6 cunning and 3 stealth. On a player's turn, he may take one or more cards from his hand and place them face down at a location, forming a team of operatives, each of which adds to the statistical total to complete the mission. This is where the bluffing comes in, since his opponents don't know if the team he laid down is able to complete the task. Once a mission has begun, no more operatives may be added to the mission, although opponents may use abilities to eliminate team members at random, possibly reducing the stat totals to be below the mission requirements. Missions persist from turn to turn (unless a player decides to cancel his own mission, or it is busted by an opponent), and as long as you have a mission going at a location, you are able to use abilities at that location. Opposing players (and the game itself) will have methods of busting your mission, and if your team fails to have the necessary attributes when exposed, you will take some pretty steep penalties, including loss of most of your operatives. Hand sizes will be kept relatively small, so players have incentives to spread themselves overly thin in order to use the abilities of as many locations as possible, while trying to avoid getting caught if a team can't complete its mission.

My questions are as follows:
- For those of you familiar with other bluffing mechanics, how does this stack up? Are there factors I should be aware of when trying to balance the risks and rewards of bluffing? What are some common pitfalls of this type of mechanic?
- I want other players to have a reasonably easy way to call a player's bluff (likely this will be an ability available on multiple locations). However, I'm wrestling with how easy to make this, and what the costs should be for attempting to call a bluff and being wrong. Any thoughts on how this might be done?

Sorry if this isolated view of this one mechanic is a bit limited. As I said, I'm still in early brainstorming and although I have ideas for the supporting mechanics, I want to nail this aspect of the game and build the remainder of my mechanics around this core element. Thanks in advance for your input! Happy designing.

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Bluffing would suggest that

Bluffing would suggest that you may get away with it and it sounds like you’re always going to get exposed in the end if you send a team that is too weak. Plus there needs to be a motivation not to try and expose the opponent. Otherwise thats going to be about all people do.

For a bluffing game with your theme I would have it so another player could challenge it. If they were wrong and you had what it takes they would suffer a penalty for guessing wrong. For example to expose your team they must send an operative after the team and if it fails (wrong guess) they lose that operative.

NomadArtisan
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2011
What if you had some form of

What if you had some form of 'spy' mechanic where players can look at up to one opposing operative per turn. That way you can choose to call a bluff based on some knowledge of where their operatives are placed. For example, say you just looked at one of their face down operatives at location A, and it was the '5 cunning' operative, of which you knew was the highest cunning an operative could be, you then call their bluff on at location B, which requires a lot of cunning, knowing their 5 isn't there, but not knowing what other operatives they used.

This would incorporate hidden information, and players would have to balance obtaining knowledge with calling bluffs. So a player might be able to 'win' at a location because nobody called their bluff in time.

Hopefully that made sense.

Grall Ritnos
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Some additional details

Thanks for the input, I think this helps confirm some of the directions I was thinking. I'll try to give a bit more detail here about my other mechanics to perhaps add some context to how I see this playing out, although all of this is fairly preliminary. I'm envisioning a non-traditional deck building component to the game, where players start out with a deck of basic operatives, but can later add more powerful cards by hiring them from the criminal underworld or springing them from prison. Operatives may be removed from the deck if they are killed (the card is removed from the game) or sent to jail (where they become available for acquisition by anyone with the means to bust them out). If a player runs out of operatives, he or she is eliminated.

As far as the abilities on locations, I envision two types. One is an ability which you can choose each turn, as long as you have a mission active at that location. These might include drawing cards, collecting money, spying on an opposing mission or gaining influence at the location (the player with the most influence at a location controls it, and controlling enough locations is one path to victory). The second type of ability involves completing a mission, where a player reveals and discards his team, demonstrating that he meets the requirements for the mission. These abilities are significantly more powerful, and may include hiring new operatives, freeing operatives from prison, assassinating opposing operatives and working toward alternative victory conditions (blackmailing the mayor, etc.).

What I'm wrestling with now is which of these categories calling a bluff should fall in to? Should it be cheaper and fairly repeatable, or more costly and periodic? I've also considered two different consequences for calling a bluff unsuccessfully: either one of that player's own missions would be busted, or that player could lose one card off the top of his deck (either killed or in jail). Obviously play testing will be needed to bear this out, but I'd be interested in any impressions about these options. Thanks as always.

Sundog
Sundog's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/09/2008
Interesting Idea

Grall - Really like your game idea! I think the mechanic you seek may present itself as you develop this game. One thing I'm trying to get my mind around is why a player would want to bluff his opponent. Are you wanting to create a "bluffing" scenario for taking over locations, or do you see "bluffing" as a natural element of the game? I think after this post, I'll write down and compare 2 or 3 scenario's where bluffing would be required - or just naturally happen.

This may seem simplistic, but a "bomb card" mixed in with a few other low valued operative cards at the "Hell's Kitchen" location would make the Coreleon mob boss think twice about sending his operatives to check it out. And if he already controls that location, "the bomb" or "boobie-trap" in your stack of cards could damage his reputation/influence in that neighborhood; or worse, destroy the warehouse where his whiskey racket is headquartered.

I really like your direction, and really like the idea of bluffing in games.

Do you envision all players having cards stacks played at every location? How many locations do you have in mind? Is there another means of victory other than controlling locations? is there more than one way to take control of a location?

Grall Ritnos
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Thanks for the encouraging words

Thanks for the encouragement Sundog. The reason for bluffing is that card drawing will not be easy to do in this game. Unlike most deck building games, players don't draw cards automatically, but rather, must use the abilities on locations to do so. Each player will have a home location which they may always use, even without a mission, so you can never be completely locked out. If you use a location's ability to draw cards on a turn, that also means you are giving up chance to use the other abilities at that location. Thus, players will obviously want to push to get as many missions going as possible, to enable card drawing and other abilities, but with such small hand sizes, bluffing allows you to expand your operation more quickly than if you actually wait until you can properly pull off all of your missions. Players obviously have the choice to play things safe, but they will expand much slower than opponents who are willing to take risks.

I LOVE the idea of a bomb card, thanks for sharing that! Wow, that type of sneaky attacking opens up tons of new play possibilities. There goes my brain for the rest of the morning :-) I've also toyed with ideas for other cool operative abilities, such as a decoy/scape goat, who can be revealed and sent to jail if a mission is busted, but allows the mission to continue, as well as a snitch, who you hire and place in an opponents deck. When that player draws the snitch, he must be revealed immediately and one of that player's missions is busted.

As far as locations, I'm envisioning including 10-12 neighborhoods with the game, seven of which are used for any given game session. A player would need to control 4 neighborhoods (maybe less with more players) to win through that route. Right now I'm thinking that influence will be the only way to control a neighborhood, but there may be multiple ways to win influence. I'm also envisioning a number of "departments" (for lack of a better word right now), such as the justice department (the courts, police and jail), the mayor's office, the local paper, and the criminal underworld (black market, drug ring, etc. depending on what age I end up targeting). These locations would be very powerful, as most of their abilities would focus on acquiring new cards/operatives and alternate victory conditions (winning an election for mayor, getting the chief of police in your pocket, etc.) but I haven't figured out mechanics for how this works yet. The number of locations at which a player is active will vary based on strategy, since players have to decide between long term gains and short term scores based on the type of abilities they choose, but I would be happy if the average player has missions at 50-80% of locations by the end of the game.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut