AI (Working Title, Deus Ex Machina?) is an experiment in player interaction. If I can successfully get the play balance together, players will be cooperating together to complete a puzzle and working secretly to complete secondary agendas that may not be in others’ interests. This will create a play style where players are forced to say one thing, and do another. That’s kind of my thing right now, Manipulation and Deception in games.

 I’ve got motivation to drive players to deceive: Independent corporate goals that may adversely affect the group goal.

I’ve got methods for discovering information: Surplus actions and opportunities for clandestine information gathering and cooperative sabotage.

 The next thing I need to do is make sure that the group goal is interesting and fun.

 What I’m imagining is a heist of some sort that the players need to pull off as puppet masters rather than operators. They don’t physically exist, so they need to manipulate NPCs into doing their work for them. It’s a unique kind of story, but can I make it fun? Can I make the roles balanced between players? Can I make the heist exciting and quick? Can I write an entertaining “season”? 4 game sessions that work together to tell a larger narrative…

Here are some ideas that I am hoping to utilize: 

A fixed number of turns or encounters per Heist, requiring timing and planning for cooperative Sabotage.

Simultaneous turn planning: Each player submits their actions for each CPU cycle per encounter.

Cooperative GMing: Players have vast control over computer systems, allowing them to create virtual structures and characters on a whim. NPC interaction and manipulation will require this device.

Saboteur is a broken betrayal game for 3+ players. Published by Z-man games in 2004, Saboteur has a simple goal- to force players to cooperate to accomplish a goal, despite efforts of a secret saboteur who threatens to undermine their mining operation.

 Unfortunately, it has a couple of -reparable- design flaws that will completely kill the game for any set of thinking and communicating players, and as a game of betrayal, play should be focused around thinking and communicating during the game. All players have even odds of drawing damage and repair cards that can be played on each other to prevent or restore one’s ability to play path cards. These are used to hinder the saboteur, or by the saboteur to stop a player from the majority.

 The game uses a fixed set of 44 pathway cards that must be played within a 9x5 grid (minus 1 starting card and 3 goal cards). Of these 44 path cards, only 14 allow forward progress. These are the cards that will allow the majority to win the game, and with 7 forward cards needed to reach the score zone, playing these valuable cards in any way other than a straight line to the last row, becomes very suspicious.

 Furthermore, the deck has 9 cards that are dead ends (always bad) and 9 cards that are turns (usually bad). If a turn card is used to change forward progress to Horizontal anywhere but the last 2 columns of play, the player becomes suspect. If a dead end is EVER used, the player is either the Saboteur or foolish, and must be stopped either way. 

 The gravest issue in Saboteur is that the players have NO REASON to ever play a bad card. The rules allow players to both skip their turns, and discard a card if their hand is not adequate. This functional alternative to playing a bad card means that IF a player EVER plays a card that closes a pathway, or otherwise reduces options, that player is the Saboteur or hasn't done the math.

 As a game of strategy and betrayal, if players agree during the first turn to never play forward tunnels unless it brings them closer to the goal, and to not break each other’s equipment unless a player has violated the group’s best interest, then the majority will win most of the time. There is still some competition between players in the majority to be the player who reaches the gold first, but with this agreement in place, it will reduces the potency of the Saboteur to one or two plays before they are completely shut down.

 So a game about communication, strategy and social nuance falls apart if players strategize or communicate.

 To fix Saboteur, we need to provide incentive and excuse for players to make sub-optimal plays.

                Completely abolish the ability to skip a turn or discard.

                If a player is in a position where they have no plays, they must reveal their hand, and then discard a card at random. They may then draw a new card, and end their turn.

 Card Counting also becomes an issue, as frequent players will rapidly learn the exact balance of important cards.

                3 paths should be removed at random before play begins.

                This will also make the game a little tougher for the majority, as this may reduce their ability to reach key locations.

                Shuffle an extra Role card, with an extra Saboteur.

                This will increase suspicion in the group. After roles are handed out, the remaining one is discarded.

If players are feeling a bit combative, we can use a popular house rule...

                Any players with broken equipment do not get any gold at the end of a round.

                This encourages majority back stabbing, and creates some "noise" that the Saboteur can use.

After a little house ruling, Saboteur is a fast, low-pressure betrayal game that plays out several rounds within an hour. It’s an approachable choice for a group looking for a  game with a strong social element that doesn’t require nearly the commitment of some of the heavier kings of the genre (such as Betrayal at the House on the Hill, Battlestar Galactica). Rounds of (House Ruled) Saboteur can pleasantly fill the time between heavier games, or occupy a corner for a part of the evening, rather than the entire party.

edit: subsequent play tests with large groups had many circumstances where players were left with unplayable hands. This situation has been rectified.

It’s the wave of the present! Kickstarter has allowed independent developers to go direct to their fans for investment, and some of these startups are going one step further and putting development in their fans’ hands as well. Letting your stake-holders provide FREE content for your developing project is a powerful opportunity to provide diverse content for your game… as long as you are able to edit out the chaff, and still maintain control of your game.

Serpent’s Tongue is the subject of my musings today, and the release of their 3.0 play test kit. Successfully kickstarted a few months back, Serpent’s Tongue is an aspiring strategy combat game, where players build a deck of spells, and cast back and forth in an effort to out-wit an opponent. It’s reminiscent of Magic the Gathering, with cards being collectible and purchasable from boosters, and the developers are going to great lengths to ensure that the game’s structure is rigidly defined. Serpent’s Tongue makes itself unique by forcing players to interpret symbols and properly speak the multi-syllabic names of the spells they are casting, while holding up one of six gestures. This will in theory, create a very thematic game, helping players to feel like modern Magi, as they imagine spells hurtling back and forth.

 The developers have just released the latest revision to their rules set, and a card creation tool for their community. Having proposed hundreds of spell cards for their initial product launch (a bold move), I can see how they plan on going about it: Crowd Sourcing.

It's an interesting play, and as I watch from the side lines, I have a few thoughts on the matter. First, getting content from your fans is a great opportunity to build and empower a community, but unless it is tightly controlled, I'm afraid that it can also lead to fundamental destabilization. Most game developers don't ask for help from their fans, assuming that their fans don't really know what's best for balance and fun. That makes this Developer's move particularly bold. Maybe Serpent's Tongue was foolish to make such a loud call to arms? Maybe as a publicly funded game company, they felt that their investors deserved visibility into their process? 

I don't know how their exercise will end, whether Serpent's Tongue will be the thematic, creative battle game we're all hoping for, or whether it will collapse under the weight of the crowd. But I am fairly certain that at the end of the year, all that will matter is the quality of their game, but as far as I'm concerned, that's not all they will be remembered for.