The game is a PvP simulation of a jury trial.
One player is the State and the other is the Defense.
The main mechanic is call and response card play during one side's case to build up Proof/Doubt tokens (or supress them) into a pool that can be allocated periodically to randomized juror tiles.
The endgame mechanic compares a final score of proof for each juror vs. an initially hidden value of their Burden (threshold to vote guilty) and their Influence on other jurors.
The victory states are conviction, full acquittal, and hung jury (guilty vs. not guilty votes).
That is the minimal subset of what I will be prototyping and playtesting shortly. Lots of stretch ideas are in the pipeline such as a Justice track for judge attitude, press and justice cards for global effects, opening argument cards to set initial conditions, using cards to find out the juror's thresholds, keywords for interesting combinations, and a mistrial track for an added Defense victory condition. That stuff is worked out in my mind's eye but too large to test the base mechanics.
The question remains...would a PvP jury trial game interest today's discerning gamer?
Thanks for your time :)
WikkedWood
Thank you for your reply!
The argunents are abstracted to the cards and are brought to life with flavor text. The base and bonus values could be anything really, but thematically they buy proof and doubt tokens. During the State case they play their case cards and the Defense plays Response cards...that flips of course during the defense case. Card types played as combos and responses optimizes the amount of proof or doubt that goes to the jurors to achieve a victory condition.
That was a very long road to say there is no actual mechanic for verbally arguing anything. You probably knew that but I wanted to clear it up anyway.
Thank you again
Ww