Game Mechanic Design

1 cent: Try interrogation. One player has to discover if the other is guilty (he may not be). The other has to get out alive (he may not). I'm thinking of the great 1997 movie Deceiver.

2 cents: How about a jury? I tried doing "12 Angry Men" once. Hope you do better than me.

Keep thinking!

Hey Gravitron Nay,

Thanks for sharing your ideas!! I definitely like the idea of trying to outwitting your opponent. I've always been intrigued by such things, especially because you as the observer have the chance to try and figure it out before it happens.

There are a few things I've watched that come to mind when I think of this. For example in the famous anime Death Note, the anime is less about horror and more about different minds trying to out-think each other to "catch" the real killer. I also think of Oceans 11 and how at the ending everyone is tricked. I've been recommended the "Liar's Game" but I haven't seen that yet.

There are a few mechanics that come to mind when I think of out-thinking:

- Bluffing vs Honesty: A good out-thinker will know how to properly use bluffing to make their opponent believe something that isn't true. However, too much bluffing and the other one will always assume the truth is the opposite of what they are being told! So they have to show some honesty too. The best mix is 50/50, because then the other person just has no idea when to believe them and when not to. The simple card game "cheat" uses this idea, as well as "poker" when it comes to bidding. Of course, bluffing takes some acting skill on the part of the player. Also, when bluffing, the bluffing player has to take into account information that the other might have to KNOW they are bluffing. For example, in cheat, if you claim to be laying down 3 Aces, and another player has 2 Aces, then it is logically impossible for 3 Aces to be played, and a cheat is obvious. Same with honesty, the best way to trick the opponent is to be honest, but make them THINK you are bluffing. Again, in "cheat", playing 3 Aces with a little smirk might make another player call "cheat" on you when in reality you DID play 3 Aces. However, if you smirk every time, they will come to think you only smirk when you are honest. But at that point, they won't call "cheat" on you anymore when you smirk, so you can take advantage of that by cheating with a smirk!

- Advanced Thinking: The other side of out-thinking your opponent is just thinking ahead of their moves. Chess is very much like this. There is no luck in chess, and no bluffing, only thinking and moving. However, whoever can think further ahead is more likely to win. One of the best ways to win in this kind of game is to get into a position where the opponent thinks that they have the upper-hand, and make certain moves, which in the end falls right into your trap. Other ways are when you make moves that FORCE the other player to react a certain way in defense so that you can execute other moves that trap them.

That's about all I can think about on the subject for now... I'm thinking that you'd probably want to minimize or eliminate luck from the game, because luck has little to do with out-thinking and more to do with risk and chance. I'm not sure that I really gave you any "mechanics" ideas here, but maybe it would help stimulate your mind a bit?

Keep posting! :)

Building on the great Bluffing and Thinking Ahead post by Jean of mArc, I’d like to include Diplomacy in the mix of psychological game types.
Often this involves forming a temporary alliance against outside forces, like in many a global-war game, or games with many players like Munchkin. Settlers of Catan uses this as well, since players can wheel and deal resources to their own advantage.
Usually diplomacy in games is conducted with a trade or promise of future trade, whether resources or future “moves” that benefit the other party.
Do you want a computer game that has a physical representation – where players move around on a map, or where otherwise their location matters?
Some game themes that could make good use of all three of these types of psychological play:
- Alternate history World War 1 era game where players make and break trade and defense treaties while trying to expand their territory/spheres of influence in South America and Africa through negotiation and *minor* military squabbles (whilst avoiding total war, which is failure for all players)
- A Crete’s labyrinth game where players simultaneously build the maze and control an avatar negotiating the maze (get it; negotiating – ha! Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Hey watch the tomatos!). Players have a common pool of pieces, but can only access it if they accept placement of a labyrinth piece on their own avatar to hinder (potentially, depending on their skillz) their progress.
- A fantasy boasting game, where players have avatars with certain skill sets and equipment (that can be traded). Other players know the equipment, but not the skills of each player. Players make claims (through stringing icons together, or playing virtual cards, or whatever) of deeds they can do, and then wager whether other players can actually complete them or not, based on their equipment and skill. Basically a “can you live up to your claim, or are you bluffing” game.

Let’s keep this thread a’growin!