This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Traitor Games

So I know that the Geek Nights stand on hidden traitor games are inherently broken, and not a good model for make a game. But I was wondering if anyone, Rym and Scott included could think of a way that might make a hidden traitor game work.

These are just the kinds of things I like to think about, and I thought I'd make it a discussion rather then a simple musing.
«1

Comments

  • One thought I had, though it is very rough and is not fully formed, is that you could make it an almost hidden traitor game. That is to say, almost all the player are traitors. but you never know if the other players are working toward the same ends as you.

    Maybe it could have a modern spy theme. Everyone working for a different country, but the countries are randomly assigned and there are multiples of each. So in theory you could have one or more compatriots, or none.

    and Maybe part of the goal is to find out who is working for who.
  • Betrayal at House on the Hill handles this in an interesting way. Instead of hidden traitor, it's just completely fucking random. Helps give you that bit of early-game paranoia because you legitimately don't know how much you should be cooperating.

    Ultimately though the early game winds up being boring, and the late game is still a co-op vs 1 guy, which doesn't do anything to solve the smart player problem.
  • Isn't Mafia essentially what this is?
  • Matt said:

    Betrayal at House on the Hill handles this in an interesting way. Instead of hidden traitor, it's just completely fucking random. Helps give you that bit of early-game paranoia because you legitimately don't know how much you should be cooperating.

    Ultimately though the early game winds up being boring, and the late game is still a co-op vs 1 guy, which doesn't do anything to solve the smart player problem.

    It is good to use for introducing people to board games though.

    There is the random mechanic of which character you are and a few other variables which determine what scenario is played out. It is fun enough to fall into an RPG mode. Haven't really played it with a group of people who are very well versed in board games though.
  • edited November 2013
    What about just the always present ability to turn traitor and/or reaffirm your allegiance? Are there games that run on a 'any player may betray the cause at any time' mechanic?

    And I'm excluding prisoners dilemma type games that are predicated on such choices.
    Post edited by SWATrous on
  • The solution is to make a game where there aren't obvious optimal play patterns, so that there's no smart player who can identify that the traitor isn't playing optimally.

    OR, utilize secret turns and special mechanics for the traitor so that they continue to play normally during the main game, but have their own separate game to play. The only problem with this is keeping it a secret and having everyone follow the rules and not peek, and getting the person to do it quietly and not reveal themselves. Doesn't really work with a modern board game.
  • SWATrous said:

    What about just the always present ability to turn traitor and/or reaffirm your allegiance? Are there games that run on a 'any player may betray the cause at any time' mechanic?

    And I'm excluding prisoners dilemma type games that are predicated on such choices.

    You probably want to play Verrater.

    http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/72/verrater
  • "Play sub-optimally to avoid detection" is possibly the single worst game mechanic that exists in modern tabletop. It's unsatisfying in the extreme.
  • Hence why I think there needs to be separate traitor mechanics, so they can not be obvious while still having their own fun aspect to play that makes them feel like they're accomplishing something. But, that is very limiting in a board game experience.
  • SWATrous said:

    What about just the always present ability to turn traitor and/or reaffirm your allegiance? Are there games that run on a 'any player may betray the cause at any time' mechanic?

    And I'm excluding prisoners dilemma type games that are predicated on such choices.

    There's Red November, a co-op game with a team victory condition, but alternatively, a literal escape hatch that a player can jump out of to abandon the team, and win in the event that the team fails.

  • How about a competitive/cooperative game? Something where there is one secret traitor, and some number of other players. The other players are competing against one another and the traitor for victory.

    Actually, CO2 is kind of like this. You have to cooperate to build green energy plants. If you don't, everybody will lose. But there can still only be one winner.

    A game where you can have direct fucking while also having a secret traitor could hypothetically work.
  • There are two variants of the traitor mechanic that I like. One I have seen, one I have not seen.

    The first is the occasional traitor. Not like Shadows or Battlestar where someone is a traitor for the whole game. Instead, all players are playing individually, but occasionally cooperate and betray each other. Verrater, Eclipse, Dune, almost any war game with more than two players. You want to be a traitor? Just dick over your allies. Done.

    The second, which I have not seen, is the unknown number of traitors. Everyone is nominally working together for some goal, but it's possible that everyone is a traitor. It's possible that nobody is a traitor. This makes it non-trivial to determine who the members of the other team are.
  • Chrononauts has a lose condition, where a single player can destabilize the time stream enough to cause time to collapse, and everyone loses the game.
  • edited November 2013
    Apreche said:

    Everyone is nominally working together for some goal, but it's possible that everyone is a traitor. It's possible that nobody is a traitor. This makes it non-trivial to determine who the members of the other team are.

    I swear I have seen this in a game before. I just can't figure out where. But this does not feel alien to me.

    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I wonder if there is any merit to the idea where you have a co-operative game with one or more common goals, and then a secret traitor has that similar enough goals so that it doesn't raise suspicion since they are not trying to make everyone else lose, they are also trying to win, but their goals are not directly in line with the rest.

    At the same time, that lends itself more to a game where each person has their own set of goals, some of which are shared with others, so they have to work together, yet there is still competition.
  • Yeah, this does sound familiar. The kind of board game where everyone has their own win condition, kinda like Illuminati, but where every win condition isn't obviously inherent to just one person winning?
  • Well, specifically, a game where you all have to cooperate to do something, but also have hidden additional victory conditions. The forced cooperation is the part that makes it a traitor mechanism.
  • Yeah. There's one win condition that you have to work towards or else everyone loses, and then everyone has a unique win condition that they need to complete. Maybe it puts them at odds with other players. Maybe it doesn't. And you can't reveal your win condition.
  • I think the best way to go about it is to have separate team and individual win conditions. There are some number of teams. Each team has a win condition. If the team's win condition is met, everyone on that team wins.

    Each player has an individual win condition. If that condition is met, that player and only that player wins.

    You could have the individual conditions be complementary with the team conditions, or they could run counter to them.

    A way to simplify it is to simply have a deck of win condition cards. Everyone gets two. Some cards appear more than once. If you achieve any one of them, you win. You can never reveal your condition to anyone. Even if someone says their condition, they could be lying.

    The game needs to be structured in such a way that it is possible to convince someone to take an action that does appear to be helping their win condition, but could potentially help another condition instead in the case you trusted the wrong player.
  • Yeah, I was imagining a deck of condition cards as well. Seems like the best way to win.

    Of course, this is all purposeless without a central mechanic.
  • These are classic imperfect information games. They boil down to Chess where each side wins if they get a particular piece to a particular board position that only they know.
  • After playing Mafia, I really don't like it. Sure, it's fun to question who's the traitor and why, but in the end it all comes down to chance.
  • Apreche said:

    I think the best way to go about it is to have separate team and individual win conditions. There are some number of teams. Each team has a win condition. If the team's win condition is met, everyone on that team wins.

    Each player has an individual win condition. If that condition is met, that player and only that player wins.

    You could have the individual conditions be complementary with the team conditions, or they could run counter to them.

    A way to simplify it is to simply have a deck of win condition cards. Everyone gets two. Some cards appear more than once. If you achieve any one of them, you win. You can never reveal your condition to anyone. Even if someone says their condition, they could be lying.

    The game needs to be structured in such a way that it is possible to convince someone to take an action that does appear to be helping their win condition, but could potentially help another condition instead in the case you trusted the wrong player.

    So could you have 'the game' such that there are personal victories and 'team' or 'common' victories and one could succeed even if their side were to fail?

    Imagine a scenario where a player is a key figure in her party or 'team' yet, has a connection or other out; perhaps its a guarantee from an opposition leader of reward or to maintain her power. That would give her a successful outcome personally even if her side were to loose. That would bring up issues of whether to invest resources short term in her team's efforts, into her long-term assets, or perhaps into the opposing teams' lot. It'd be hard to say and the other players may or may not know of her immunity to the results of their struggle.

    Yet lets take the other side. Maybe a player's team is to win. But in the push for victory, a player looses their money or perhaps their lands and rank, or maybe their family is kidnapped by a crunchwrap of wildebeasts... That player then would have a negative outcome (a loss) and would not be counted among the winners, despite having helped their team win. Like you won the battle, but your family has been obliterated and you have nothing left to live for... happy fucking congratulations.

    I mean, this is essentially the outcome for Mafia I suppose, (unless you count being lynched by your own townsfolk in the process of successfully purging the mafia as a good outcome for you.) And tho I don't have personal experience, It seems any RPG of sufficient depthmust include facets of this: but in a board game context, with such mechanics as those involve, could one include a high level of resolution in terms of victory conditions between players, alliances, factions, and maybe society as a whole?
  • Rym said:

    "Play sub-optimally to avoid detection" is possibly the single worst game mechanic that exists in modern tabletop. It's unsatisfying in the extreme.

    If being detected makes you lose, it's hardly sub-optimal play to avoid it.

    Games of this nature have two aspects that I find interesting and worthwhile:
    1) Psychology - people will often play in ways that are exploitable or give away information; making use of this fact is .
    2) The "choose the right moment" game - Many such games involve a form of taking action that reveals critical information; normally this would be disastrous, but the core idea is that you wait for an opportunity in order to minimize how much you give away, and maximize the payoff.
  • Apreche said:

    The second, which I have not seen, is the unknown number of traitors. Everyone is nominally working together for some goal, but it's possible that everyone is a traitor. It's possible that nobody is a traitor. This makes it non-trivial to determine who the members of the other team are.

    Oh shit The Man Who Was Thursday The Game!
  • Oh man, that was so wierd. I am literally listen to the podcast episode where they are discussing The Man Who Was Thursday as I read that and as I am writing this.
  • Could that be a burning wheel game? The setup: you are all members of the rebellion trying to overthrow the king. Twist: everyone secretly is on the king's side and trying to sabotage the rebellion!
  • Burning Wheel often works better if they players all know eachother's beliefs.
  • edited November 2013
    :s/burning wheel/RPG/g

    I've listened to you two go on about role playing a lot, so that's the one that gets stuck in my mind.

    OK, apparently ":" followed by "s" is a weird emoticon. 2vim4vanilla.
    Post edited by Starfox on
  • This was just announced. "a meta-cooperative psychological survival game. This means players are working together toward one common victory condition — but for each individual player to achieve victory, he must also complete his personal secret objective". I didn't read any further b/c I'm not actually interested.
Sign In or Register to comment.