Skip to Content
 

Need help with a dual hidden identity game [now co-op]

28 replies [Last post]
treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013

I'm not sure how I'll theme this, but I have a strange co-op idea. (Well, it starts as a co-op, anyway...)
I think the players are on a mission to Mars, maybe, and one of them is infected with a disease.
Each player has two(!) identity cards, one visible only to themselves, and one hidden to everyone.
The card visible to the player states what that player knows, like "Feeling well, nothing seems wrong" or "Coughing a lot, don't feel very well at all" These cards might have numerical values or something to make their condition more clear.
The second card states their exact condition. "Infected", "Immune", or "Vulnerable".
At start, no player knows whether or not they are infected.
During play, all of the players goal is to survive as long as possible.
The only way to find out whether or not you are infected is to have another player test you. And then that player tells you what your condition is. That doesn't mean they have to tell the truth, though...

I need some help on some obvious holes in this game.

A) How does the disease spread?
I have no clue here. I am a dice fanatic but realize that this is a bluffing game and not one that should be left to chance. Also, if the spread mechanic relates to specific players it gives away who is infected.

B) What does the disease do?
It could incur a penalty on players to make them easier to spot, for example Person 1 hasn't done this action; I think he is infected. At some point it should eliminate players. I like the idea of a way to keep players involved after death somehow.

C) What do the players do?
There must be a voting mechanic, like Mafia, to eliminate players who are suspected to be infected (rhyme!). There must be a way for a player to analyze another player, and then potentially lie about it. If there was a group player action system, that would make disease spread easier, ex. Person A has been spending a lot of time with Person B, if either of them were infected they both are now. Maybe each player has the ability to give each other player a card with an infection value on it- even if the player giving the card isn't infected with the disease?

I'd love advice and criticism on this idea.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
In addition...

There also has to be some way to link the two identity cards. If one says "Feeling really bad." and the identity says "Immune" then it won't work. Or vice versa, someone Infected drawing a "Feeling great" card. Forgot about that.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
I like your idea. Just

I like your idea. Just wondering, how does another player find out if someone else is infected?

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
No Symptoms?

Quote:
There also has to be some way to link the two identity cards. If one says "Feeling really bad." and the identity says "Immune" then it won't work. Or vice versa, someone Infected drawing a "Feeling great" card. Forgot about that.

What if there are different forms of the sickness, and there are certain infections that show no symptoms? That would add an element of uncertainty to the game.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Thanks for the feedback

Persons A, B, and C are playing. (probably way to few for a real game) Person B and C decide to collaborate, looking at each others hidden cards. Person B tells Person C their hidden card is Infected, and Person C tells Person B their hidden card is Immune.
Then Person A and Person C share hidden cards. Person C's card is Immune- so person B must have been lying.

Sorry for the confusing and lengthy talk. Hope it helps.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Different diseases

That's a great idea... Maybe some people will be trying to research a cure to survive and they need a person with that disease to create it- but contact with that person infects them? So it's a risky situation?

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Game Master/Referee

Quote:
Persons A, B, and C are playing. (probably way to few for a real game) Person B and C decide to collaborate, looking at each others hidden cards. Person B tells Person C their hidden card is Infected, and Person C tells Person B their hidden card is Immune.
Then Person A and Person C share hidden cards. Person C's card is Immune- so person B must have been lying.

Another alternative is using a game master/referee. The game master is the only one who knows everyone's hidden identity card, and he or she only reveals the information during certain circumstances.

For example, let's say Johnny is infected but he doesn't know that. During his turn, he decides to try and heal Samantha (who is coughing). At the end of the round, the game master alerts the players that Samantha's symptoms are getting worse (since Johnny is infected and has performed an action on Samantha). If you utilize a mechanic like this, you can have people accidently infecting others. You would just have to work out a system where other players cannot immediately determine that Johnny is making things worse.

Maybe players can choose what their action is, but it is not revealed to the other players (only to the game master). For example, Samantha doesn't know that Johnny tried to heal her, and Johnny may not have enough information to realize he is infected (Johnny could think that someone else infected Samantha and that his healing attempt failed). After everyone chooses their actions, the game master resolves all of the actions at the end of the turn (kind of like Mafia), and players try to gather information each turn before they all die.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Game Master

I would use this mechanic, but I'd like this to be, if possible, a family game. In my family, (of four) it is difficult enough to get everyone together for a game, and then we only do that if we're playing a high player-interaction game. Eliminating a player would hurt the game. Maybe if there are enough players that could work, though. Maybe there could be a 'robotic' GM? Or a different GM each turn?

padragan
padragan's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2010
Awesome idea!

I think you're onto a very interesting theme, and I hope you find some good solutions.

Two things thack struk me as possible mechanics or solutions:

1 - Linking symptoms to actual condition.

To avoid a Game master, could it be done with the help of a computer? A program could quickly make sure the pairing is within the set rules, and I don't think it's a bad thing if the players know that more illness symptoms equals a higher risc of having a disease card (of course it COULD be a coincidence so they are not completely sure they are really ill).

2 - Spreading the disease.

When players interact, could they not pass secret tokens to each other, perhaps color coded? If a computer is used to randomize who is ill, then the computer could also interpret the effects of the tokens. For instance, in one game session it may be that blue tokens are the dangerous ones (but no player know that in advance), they only know what color they will pass to other players when they meet or do stuff (that could include contaminating places so the next person that goes there automatically picks up tokens). A healthy player will perhaps pass on yellow or red tokens (without effect, but noone knows that during gameplay). When checking, the player enters the number of each colored tokens they have received, and the computer tells that player if anythin new happens (like new symptoms).

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
I love the 'token' mechanic

Maybe each player has a color , and that's the color of their tokens. As players interact, they trade tokens with each other. So if green is infected and he trades some Green tokens for Red tokens and some tokens for Yellow tokens, than Red and Yellow will also be infected.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Help!

A log would mean you would be able to see how long you've had the disease after a point. But I still don't know how you'd know for sure if you were infected, and being infected means that... what? And being infected has to have a gameplay effect even if you don't now if you are!
I think the only way this can possibly work is with a GM/ref, which is unfortunate.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
You could use pogs and dice bags

My idea may not work for your game, but I will explain and you can decide if it works or not!

So initially NOBODY is infected, everyone has 100% health. Then each player picks out of a COMMON dice bag five (5) pogs (flat circular tokens). A token can have various *infection* levels or can be simply be nothing at all.

So what happens is that all players start with *perfect* health and then they get *downgraded* by the five (5) pogs. Some players will be healthier than others. Most will probably carry some of the infectious disease but very little...

When a player comes into contact with another player, they use another *dice bag*. Where they each put into their OWN dice bag their pogs. So each player would need to have their own *dice bag*. Next players each choose a certain amount of pogs from their opponent's bag: this is like *transmitting* the disease. Each player may get more sick or healthier (which is what people believe - if they pass the cold, they might start feeling better).

Anyhow during the game, players pick out of the COMMON bag, more disease tokens. As time goes by, everyone gets more and more sick. And with contact, they spread the disease to each other! Wonderful...

Player's could "compute" their level of disease by verifying their pogs in hand... And once they achieve a certain level of *contamination*, they are uncurable... Or perhaps they are removed from the game - because they are TOO SICK.

I'm not certain about your game's end-game goal (last one standing, finding a cure, etc.) If it was finding a cure, well the more people that are too sick, the less likely a cure will be found. Since it's a co-op maybe the goal is to find a cure to the disease.

With the player's bags, they never know what they will get from another player (which pogs) and how much more sicker they will be if they interact with that person.

This is something *functional* that could help with spreading a disease in a game...

Note: Your idea of using colours to identify the various levels of disease is very intelligent. So for example you could have three (3) different colours of tokens: Green (0 healthy), Yellow (1 contamination), Red (3 contamination). All players need to do is ADD UP the points of their tokens to see how sick they really are. If you reach a certain amount like 20 points, you are too sick and therefore ejected from the game...)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Escalation

Another aspect is *escalation*. At the beginning of a game, players each have five (5) disease pogs.

There are two (2) forms of *escalation* of the disease. The first is that when it comes time to draw pogs from the COMMON dice bag (let's call if the RED bag), escalation into the infection level occurs by drawing ADDITIONAL pogs from the RED bag. Let's say on each turn a player draws ONE pog. So at the beginning of the game, the spread of the disease is rather slow. However as the game progresses players can draw 2, 3 or 4 pogs per turn... This would infect players QUICKER making the disease more powerful (in terms of contamination).

The second form of *escalation* has got to do with how the disease gets transferred between players. So at the beginning of the game, when it comes time to SHARE the disease (using the GREEN bags) player perhaps only draw 2 tokens from the other player's GREEN bag. However as the game progresses and the disease spreads, player can draw 3, 4, or 5 pogs each time they are in contact with each other.

The simplest way to control when players are in contact with each other - is something when they need to COOPERATE together. That's when they can SHARE the disease and spread/infect someone else...

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
GM Idea and Disease Stages

Quote:
I think the only way this can possibly work is with a GM/ref, which is unfortunate.

What if the GM/ref is an actual player as well? The GM knows who is infected, but he/she cannot reveal this information to the other players. The backstory could go something like this. A scientist (the GM) is researching a cure for some deadly cancerous disease. He conducts clinical trials on a few of his friends. Everything seems to be going well, but all of the sudden, some research indicates that his treatment will actually accelerate the disease. Feeling ashamed, he does not tell the others but works as fast as he can to undo what he has done. As the game progresses even the GM can get infected.

Quote:
being infected means that... what?

Being infected could be the opposite of a victory point. Once everyone is infected (at the disease’s terminal level), the game ends and everybody loses. In contrast, if everyone is cured, everyone wins. Being infected does not eliminate a player from the game, but is an indicator that they will die at the end of the game. There can be different stages of the disease (stage 1, stage 2, terminal, etc.) . Stage 1 could be relatively easy to cure, and terminal could be incredibly difficult to cure.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Those sound like good ideas.

What determines victory points apart from infection?

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Victory Points and Timer

Quote:
What determines victory points apart from infection?

I should have rephrased my sentence. I meant the infection would be "kind of like" a "reverse" victory point. If the game is a cooperative game, I don't think victory points would make sense since everybody would win or lose together. The infection would be more of an indicator of the progress of the game. It could indicate how close the players are to winning or losing.

Here is another thought. If you don't want players to be eliminated from the game, you could incorporate a timer mechanic into the game. Players can still die, but once somebody dies, the game is over. If X amount of turns passes while someone has the terminal illness, the game is over. This would add tension and urgency to the game since players would be racing against the clock.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
That's smart

Toa Lewa wrote:
...Here is another thought. If you don't want players to be eliminated from the game, you could incorporate a timer mechanic into the game. Players can still die, but once somebody dies, the game is over. If X amount of turns passes while someone has the terminal illness, the game is over. This would add tension and urgency to the game since players would be racing against the clock.

That's a good idea. If one player dies, the co-op game ends and the game is over. All players lose the game.

The good thing about this is that players will forcibly *interact* with the most terminal player... Try to *save his life* again leading for more cross-contamination. So players have no choice but to "play the game" instead of just having a player that gets ejected from the game (because he is too sick).

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
One dead player= game over

In a space team game, it would make sense for if one player is eliminated for the others to lose as well. Thanks for commenting, Quest, I have lurked without an account on the servers for a long time and you have become something of a major board game design deity in my twelve-year-old mind. That concept works as well- interaction with the sickest layer means switching your pegs for his, causing other players to become sicker as well.

BENagy
BENagy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/25/2013
What's the purpose, mechanic,

What's the purpose, mechanic, effect, etc. of having one of the "feelings" you stated, like "coughing a lot", that has to be paired with an appropriate "Infected, Immune, Vulnerable" card? If there's no compelling/practical reason, and it's more of a thematic thing, kill it, and find another way to have that theme.

Hold on, I'm having a thought, as I'm typing...

I was going to suggest pairing the cards, so one "feeling" fits on the back side of a "condition" face card. If you like it, go with that! BUT EVEN BETTER:

See if this fits. Each player is dealt one of the condition cards at the beginning of the game. Now, when people team up and look at each other's cards, have them choose a "feeling" card to give to the player. The feeling card tracks what the "helping" player is claiming their condition is. "Sick" for disease, "Coughing" for vulnerable, "Healthy" for immune. Again, though, the player doesn't have to tell the truth, but now everyone has a record of what each player has claimed a given player is. That should increase strategic depth, with little to no increase in complexity of play.

OneWheelSam
OneWheelSam's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2013
FIXED ROLE CHARACTER CARDS?

Could you put in character cards?

for instance, ships doctor must always tell the truth, the captain may always say your well so you don't panic, the mechanic may always lie?

Perhaps?

Also - if its with cards, why not involve a 'chase the Ace' mechanic?

There could be a fixed number of 'disease' cards floating in the hand of cards - each turn the player passes a card, but you could have a system with a 'hidden' and a 'seen' hand each? So, if you end up with the 'disease' card in your 'seen' hand, the next player obviously isn't going to take it, but if they choose to take from your 'hidden' hand instead, they risk taking anything.

The 'feeling ill' idea could build up though - as cards and 'germs' swap between hands during the trip - you might gather more and more 'symptoms'? and when you have too many of one sort, you are out. So it could be less about one disease, as lots of diseases on a spaceship, with some hardly harmful at all, others being super deadly where you are out when you get the one card? Or something...

Very very very cool idea! I would love to see where you go with this!

Sam

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
There seems to be

There seems to be some confusion on where I am with the game right now, and it has changed a lot since my first post, so I'm going to do another game post. (at first I wanted this to be short, but I don't think that will work...)
THE GAME IS CO-OP! So, Sam, character cards seem like an excellent idea, but they'll not work with truth-telling.
There are a number of players, each one starts with a bag. They will fill it with chits/pegs that come from a central pool, and there will be different numbers of chits for each player depending on their difficulty level (probably around four for a normal game). These chits are numbered with ones, twos and threes, maybe even some fours. They are also given a card that is visible to everyone that has a numbered value on it. That card also contributes to their infection value. Then players, starting with the one who has caught a disease on a spaceship the most recently (if no-one has done that, then something else :D ) and continuing clockwise will take turns. Players must look at their bag of chits, and may tell other players the number of chits, but not the value of them. You can talk about your condition, though. You can say that 'I've got two turns left, maybe three', or 'I have seven chits,' but you can't say 'I have a value of twelve infection on me.' flat-out.
Character cards:
Researcher-
SPECIAL ACTION: Initiate Research
When the Researcher initiates research, all research chits move to the Cure stack.
Doctor-
SPECIAL ACTION: Deploy Cure
Initiate endgame.
NEED MORE OF THESE

A turn has two phases.
1. Infect
Draw a chit (visible to everyone) and place it in your bag with the other chits.

2. Action- take up to two actions, out of these options. Actions work very differently in this game than in there games. You dedicate actions to categories, which are shown at the center of the board. I thick players will have a color, and they will have little chits in that color. (risk pieces will be used in my prototype)
Category One: Research
Chits that go here stay here until the Researcher takes xir special action. When that happens, the chits are moved from this pool to the Cure pool.
Category Two: Cure
It takes two actions to put one chit here. Chits in this pool stay here until the Doctor takes xir special action, at which point the game is over. If the number of chits in the cure pool are GREATER than the TOTAL number of disease chits (not the numbers on the disease chits, but the number OF disease chits), then the players win. Otherwise, the players lose.
Whenever the Research chits turn into Cure chits, all players who had chits in the research pool swap a chit with another player and draw a chit from the pool.
I NEED MORE ACTIONS!
As always, up for critique, suggestions, comments, and questions.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
Rest Action

Treichle wrote:
I NEED MORE ACTIONS!

How about a sleep/rest action? Resting could help to slow down a player's disease rate. However, the player would forfeit his or her turn to do so.

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
That sounds good

I'm new, so i don't know if there's an 'edit' action, but if there is i will add it. Maybe while resting you draw two chits from the center bag and take one of them?

Kroz1776
Offline
Joined: 10/09/2013
Aye Captain!

Aye, there be an edit button! Although I don't know if it allows you to use it if you've been quoted. I don't think you can edit the OP either.

Toa Lewa
Toa Lewa's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2013
treichle wrote:Maybe while

treichle wrote:
Maybe while resting you draw two chits from the center bag and take one of them?

That is a good idea. Basically, the player chooses the lesser of two evils.

Now this is kind of an off the wall idea, but you said that players need more actions. What if there are unique actions for each person on the ship that correlate with each player's role. For example, a pilot would have piloting actions and an engineer would have repairing actions. Each turn the players have to maintain a part of the ship. As they get ill, their actions become less powerful and the ship starts falling apart. Maybe other players can step in and take over another player's role when he or she is sick, but the player isn't as effective. For example, an engineer could pilot the ship while the pilot is sick, but the engineer isn't very good at it.

If you used a mechanic like this, I think the game could either end when the ship breaks or when someone dies.

entwater
Offline
Joined: 10/12/2013
Some thoughts

Really interesting idea but there's something that isn't clicking for me with it... it's hard to put my finger on it because I feel lots of potential in the idea.

I guess I'm confused about the dual-identity cards and bluffing aspect you presented initially. If it's a co-op game, what incentive would players have to lie to each other? It seems the game is evolving to be a race against time and playing against the game. So it's less of a Mafia-esque bluffing situation. Plus if you don't know your secret identity, it's hard to bluff anything. Maybe you've dropped this part of it.

Some action ideas could be to do with upkeep of the ship like cooking food.

The more I consider it, I'd suggest dropping the dual identity cards. It seems to present a challenge in terms of linking them (i.e. can't be immune and coughing badly at the same time). Plus, if you have two cards and they're linked then 'coughing' would be a sign the person is infected...

Here's a thought, you have different "Disease" cards. Diseases that target different areas of the body. One affects the mind, so research is harder. One affects the body, so its harder to take actions. One is more contagious, another is more resistant to cures. Etc. Etc. Could be real diseases and broken into tiers of difficulty. Measles is easy and Ebola is hard.

With that, you basically need a GM to play the Disease and keep it secret from the players. Researcher can invest actions in either tending to the sick (and slowing infection) or researching a cure. As players get infected a token is placed on the Disease card, escalating its effects. The GM could also play the "ship", tracking areas where the infected people have been (kitchen, bathroom, etc.) so you don't only have to interact with the infected players to get infected, you also interact with the area.

The chit bag is a good idea and introduces controlled randomness. Players' sickness level increases when they draw a numbered chit from the bag. They start with 4 0-value and 2 1-value chits. The Disease adds valued chits to the bags, increasing the chances of infection. Players only draw chits when they interact with an infected person. The infected person increases their sickness by X amount every turn (basically meaning you can't quarantine someone indefinitely). That person needs food, water, to use the bathroom, etc.

I'm sorry if I'm going off on a complex tangent. Just shooting from the hip here...

Good luck!

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Consider the first post obsolete

A lot of what you talk about was data from the first game post. That post is now OBSOLETE, and has been REPLACED by the latest big game post. So your complaints about the dual-identity cards and bluffing had been thought through, and the game is now co-op with many rule changes. The original game (1st post) was not co-op.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More actions!

treichle wrote:
...Category One: Research... Category Two: Cure... I NEED MORE ACTIONS!

Okay so how about it happens like in real-life:

1. The *doctor* must extract blood from the sick patient.
2. The blood is then given to the *researcher* (Could be named *Lab Technician*) who does basic blood analysis on the sample to determine how sick the patient really is.
3. The next part is the blood is sent to the *virologist* (Virus expert) who then attempts to create a vaccine.
4. Next the vaccine is injected back into the patient by the *doctor*.
5. The reaction to the vaccine must be computed by restarting from step #1...

So we could have four (4) steps with 3 roles. Only one (1) role interact DIRECTLY with the sick patient (the doctor). Players could take turns being the doctor (and of course worry about cross-contamination).

I don't know but if this is a FOUR (4) player game - it works: doctor, researcher, virologist, patient (sick or not).

Roles could alternate since a doctor can take on the role of a researcher or virologist (makes sense). They are also all patients since they need to eradicate the virus from all members including the sickest member of the crew...

Just some more ideas...

treichle
Offline
Joined: 11/09/2013
Those are excellent

Thanks a lot! I haven't worked on this for a while (or been on the site, for that matter), so it's nice to get some new inspiration.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut