Haven't played it yet. But in theory, the combination of move + token economy seems really well-implemented!
A bit unclear on how failed rolls are resolved. Let's use the Hot Pocket scenario.
* Do the players agree beforehand that the Hot Pocket was found missing from the refrigerator on Y date at X time?
* Or is that a component of the first accusing player's Query (and therefore X time and Y date can be contradicted by a future Query)?
Now let's say that player A spends the first Query token to target player B. Player B has already declared that:
(i) they work as a freelance coder
(ii) they are vegetarian
(iii) they have a romantic partner "D" , who isn't a roommate
After spending the Query token, A claims B invited D over on Y-day at X o'clock, and let D eat the Hot Pocket.
As an Alibi, B claims they had an anniversary dinner with D (+1) at Meat Is Murder on that day, so they wouldn't have the means or opportunity. And besides, D is vegan, so neither of them would have motive to eat a Bacon and Cheddar Hot Pocket anyway.
* Is there another +1 for the vegetarian trait?
Let's say B then rolls a natural 2, so they take a Suspicion token.
That means at least one of these statements must be a lie:
- B&D's anniversary
- the dinner at Meat Is Murder
- the timing of the dinner
- D being a vegan
* Can player A (and C?) insist that *all* those claims are false?
* Can player A (and C?) now make counter-statements, which are marked on the character sheet for future rounds? For example:
- B posted a photo with D on Instagram, taken inside the apartment, and time-stamped at X o'clock on Y-day.
- The Hot Pockets were actually vegan-friendly.
- Player A was at Meat Is Murder during that time, and did not see B&D. (If so, can this be marked on A's character sheet to use as a +1 if A mentions it in an Alibi?)
Curious about the criteria for what may be treated as factual precedent during succeeding rounds.
The short answer is that the only information that players are actually required to treat as canonically accurate are the traits on your character sheet, and your successful alibis. Players can set up whatever information they want as part of the scenario - it can be as simple as "Guys! The last Hot Pocket is missing!" and then everyone runs in and starts yelling at each other, or as complex as "everyone agrees there was a Hot Pocket in the fridge at 11:30 PM last night, but when we got up at 8:00 AM and we were all gathering in the kitchen it was gone." But that doesn't actually have to be true - one player can, as part of an accusation, say, "Wait a minute, did anyone but you actually see the Hot Pocket after yesterday afternoon? Because I thought I saw you eating a Hot Pocket yesterday afternoon while you were watching wrestling."
If your alibi fails, it is entirely up to the other player how much of it they want to tear apart. However, much like traits, their counter-evidence doesn't actually become verified truth unless they incorporate it into their own alibis later. If they provide a timestamped photo, another player can absolutely accuse them of having photoshopped it as part of another accusation, and if they say the Hot Pocket is vegan someone could fish the box out to try and show that it has meat ingredients. If Player A claims to have been at Meat Is Murder, someone else can interrogate that fact, and A will have to defend it to get it as an alibi.
Generally, I assume that players are going to mostly want to tear down small sections of alibis rather than the entire thing, and will more or less treat statements as true-ish, but you can get as chaotic as you need to.
In terms of bonuses, my intent was that you only take a given +1 or -1 once, even if it could apply multiple times (although it could reduce how much of your alibi can be torn apart, since they can't contradict your traits in the process.) In the example, you still only get +1 for applying vegetarianism and your relationship, but on the other hand, your accusers can't say you broke up with your signficant other as part of their explanation.
Comments
Haven't played it yet. But in theory, the combination of move + token economy seems really well-implemented!
A bit unclear on how failed rolls are resolved. Let's use the Hot Pocket scenario.
* Do the players agree beforehand that the Hot Pocket was found missing from the refrigerator on Y date at X time?
* Or is that a component of the first accusing player's Query (and therefore X time and Y date can be contradicted by a future Query)?
Now let's say that player A spends the first Query token to target player B. Player B has already declared that:
(i) they work as a freelance coder
(ii) they are vegetarian
(iii) they have a romantic partner "D" , who isn't a roommate
After spending the Query token, A claims B invited D over on Y-day at X o'clock, and let D eat the Hot Pocket.
As an Alibi, B claims they had an anniversary dinner with D (+1) at Meat Is Murder on that day, so they wouldn't have the means or opportunity. And besides, D is vegan, so neither of them would have motive to eat a Bacon and Cheddar Hot Pocket anyway.
* Is there another +1 for the vegetarian trait?
Let's say B then rolls a natural 2, so they take a Suspicion token.
That means at least one of these statements must be a lie:
- B&D's anniversary
- the dinner at Meat Is Murder
- the timing of the dinner
- D being a vegan
* Can player A (and C?) insist that *all* those claims are false?
* Can player A (and C?) now make counter-statements, which are marked on the character sheet for future rounds? For example:
- B posted a photo with D on Instagram, taken inside the apartment, and time-stamped at X o'clock on Y-day.
- The Hot Pockets were actually vegan-friendly.
- Player A was at Meat Is Murder during that time, and did not see B&D. (If so, can this be marked on A's character sheet to use as a +1 if A mentions it in an Alibi?)
Curious about the criteria for what may be treated as factual precedent during succeeding rounds.
Thanks for the purchase, and the questions!
The short answer is that the only information that players are actually required to treat as canonically accurate are the traits on your character sheet, and your successful alibis. Players can set up whatever information they want as part of the scenario - it can be as simple as "Guys! The last Hot Pocket is missing!" and then everyone runs in and starts yelling at each other, or as complex as "everyone agrees there was a Hot Pocket in the fridge at 11:30 PM last night, but when we got up at 8:00 AM and we were all gathering in the kitchen it was gone." But that doesn't actually have to be true - one player can, as part of an accusation, say, "Wait a minute, did anyone but you actually see the Hot Pocket after yesterday afternoon? Because I thought I saw you eating a Hot Pocket yesterday afternoon while you were watching wrestling."
If your alibi fails, it is entirely up to the other player how much of it they want to tear apart. However, much like traits, their counter-evidence doesn't actually become verified truth unless they incorporate it into their own alibis later. If they provide a timestamped photo, another player can absolutely accuse them of having photoshopped it as part of another accusation, and if they say the Hot Pocket is vegan someone could fish the box out to try and show that it has meat ingredients. If Player A claims to have been at Meat Is Murder, someone else can interrogate that fact, and A will have to defend it to get it as an alibi.
Generally, I assume that players are going to mostly want to tear down small sections of alibis rather than the entire thing, and will more or less treat statements as true-ish, but you can get as chaotic as you need to.
In terms of bonuses, my intent was that you only take a given +1 or -1 once, even if it could apply multiple times (although it could reduce how much of your alibi can be torn apart, since they can't contradict your traits in the process.) In the example, you still only get +1 for applying vegetarianism and your relationship, but on the other hand, your accusers can't say you broke up with your signficant other as part of their explanation.