diff --git a/docs/game-design/DESIGN-DECISIONS.adoc b/docs/game-design/DESIGN-DECISIONS.adoc index b74c745..9ccdde2 100644 --- a/docs/game-design/DESIGN-DECISIONS.adoc +++ b/docs/game-design/DESIGN-DECISIONS.adoc @@ -140,43 +140,113 @@ a partnership, not a contribution. *Raised by:* Claude -*Decision:* OPEN — needs discussion between Jonathan and Joshua. +*Decision:* RESOLVED (2026-07-16, Jonathan with Joshua concurring) — *neither +horn*. Ship an *immutable archetypal Core* plus a *character builder*. The player +supplies the name at their own table; nothing is printed. -*The question:* The initial design uses named historical/contemporary figures -(Queen Isabella, Gandhi, Elon Musk, Green Activist). Should these be replaced -with archetypes (The Colonist, The Pacifist, The Innovator, The Steward)? +*The question (as originally framed):* The initial design uses named +historical/contemporary figures (Queen Isabella, Gandhi, Elon Musk, Green +Activist). Should these be replaced with archetypes (The Colonist, The Pacifist, +The Innovator, The Steward)? -*Arguments for named characters:* +*Why the original framing was wrong:* Both horns lose something. Named figures +carry recognition but also likeness exposure and a shelf-life problem. Flat +archetypes are safe but bland. And the earlier "best of both worlds" compromise +— archetype mechanics with named figures as printed flavour text — still *ships +the name*, so it keeps the exposure it was trying to avoid while gaining little. -* Immediate recognition and engagement -* Historical connection reinforces educational value -* Flavourful and memorable +*What was decided instead:* A character has layers. -*Arguments for archetypes:* +[cols="1,3", options="header"] +|=== +| Layer | Content + +| *Core* (immutable) +| The archetypal essence — a *type*, never a person. Fixed. Makes the character + legible at the table. Always *public* (see DD-013). + +| *Aspects* (chosen or drawn) +| A small pool that inflects the Core — strengths, a weakness, and an + appeal/antipathy pair (who rallies to them, who recoils). *Hidden* by default. + +| *Name* (free) +| Player-supplied, at the table. Never printed. + +| *Private objective* (hidden) +| A quiet parallel goal running alongside the main game. Non-critical, but adds + challenge and risk-appetite variance. +|=== + +*Reasoning:* -* Avoids likeness/trademark concerns (especially living people like Musk) -* Ages better — public perception of named individuals shifts over time -* More inclusive — archetypes can represent broader movements, not individuals -* Gandhi as a game character is culturally sensitive territory -* Musk is polarising — could alienate part of the audience +* *Legal.* The shipped artefact never names or depicts a living individual. It + ships a *class* of figure — "a Mars-fixated, cult-followed plutocrat" — which is + satire of a type. Any resemblance is supplied by the players at their own table: + their speech, not the publisher's. +* *Humour.* Freeing the name is what *licenses* the comedy rather than suppressing + it. The players do the impression; we hand them the stage. This is an + opportunity for contemporary satire, not a constraint on it. +* *Ageing.* A type outlives a person. The Core still reads in 2046 when today's + figures are footnotes. +* *Replayability.* The aspect pool means the same Core plays differently every + game. A static role card never does. +* *Theme.* Hidden aspects and private payoffs make this a game of *incomplete + information* — see DD-013. This is the largest gain: the character system + upgrades the equilibrium the game actually explores. +* *Complexity dial.* The builder doubles as the answer to DD-008 — presets for + beginners, builder for advanced play. Same system, two depths. + +*The existing four roles are not lost — they become presets.* Queen Isabella, +Gandhi, Elon Musk and Green Activist are re-cast as *sample fully-built +characters*: identical mechanics, Core and aspects pre-chosen, name offered as a +*suggestion at the table* rather than a printing. See `player-roles.adoc` for the +framework and the four Cores. + +*Design rule — private objectives must tug against the commons.* A private +objective is only interesting when it tempts the player to defect from the shared +planetary-boundaries constraint (DD-007) on a given turn: _help the boundary, or +quietly advance my own escape hatch?_ An objective merely *orthogonal* to the +commons is a solitaire task that pulls attention off the table. An objective +*incentive-misaligned* with it deepens the exact dilemma the game is about. +Misaligned, never independent. -*Potential compromise:* Archetypes as the mechanical identity, with named -figures as flavour text examples ("plays like a Gandhi — nonviolent, community- -centred, slow growth"). Best of both worlds. +*Alternatives considered:* + +* *Named figures as shipped* (the original) — rejected: likeness exposure, ages + badly, and polarises. +* *Flat archetypes* (The Colonist, The Pacifist…) — rejected: safe but bland; + loses the recognition hook entirely. +* *Archetype mechanics + named flavour text* (the earlier compromise) — rejected: + still prints the name, so it retains the exposure while gaining little. -*Status:* OPEN +*Status:* RESOLVED — framework. Aspect pool and private-objective deck are Phase 1 +drafting work. *FAQ:* * _Q: Are there legal issues with using Elon Musk's name?_ - A: Potentially. Living public figures have publicity rights. Using the name - in a game without permission is legally grey. Archetypes are safer. + A: Moot under this decision — we don't use it. We ship the *type*; the player + names their own. The line to hold is *archetype, not portrait*: keep the printed + Core free of uniquely-identifying specifics (real company names, real quotes, + one-to-one biography) that would make it identifiable as one particular real + individual. A Mars-fixated plutocrat with a cult following is a *category*. + (Not legal advice — but that is the standard satire seam.) * _Q: What about Gandhi?_ - A: Gandhi's estate doesn't typically pursue game usage, but the cultural - sensitivity of reducing a complex historical figure to game mechanics is - worth considering. The archetype approach respects the legacy while - keeping the mechanical design intact. + A: Same resolution, and it defuses the cultural-sensitivity concern too. We ship + "nonviolent mass-mobiliser, cohesion over growth" as a Core. A table that wants + to name theirs Gandhi may do so; we are not reducing a real historical figure to + a stat block *in print*. + +* _Q: But players will just name it Elon anyway — isn't that the same thing?_ + A: No, and that distinction is the whole point. The game makes no claim about + any real person; it hands players a caricature of a *type* and they do as they + like with it. Fiction is not a documentary. As Jonathan put it: _"The Day of the + Triffids is never held to a standard of validity, reliability, and fidelity."_ + +* _Q: Doesn't a builder make setup slower?_ + A: Only if you use it. Presets exist precisely so a Short Game starts in a + minute — deal a built character and play. The builder is opt-in (DD-008). === DD-007: Planetary Boundaries — Dashboard as Shared Constraint @@ -217,6 +287,14 @@ comparable to Terraforming Mars (BGG weight 3.2/5) or heavier. * *Quick-start scenario:* 30-minute single-era game * *Reference cards:* Per-player aids with phase sequence and resource summary * *Turn count:* Consider 20-24 turns instead of 32 (see DD-009) +* *Character presets vs. builder:* the DD-006 character builder *is* a complexity + dial — deal a pre-built preset for beginner mode, expose the aspect pool and + private objectives for advanced play. Same system, two depths, no separate + ruleset to maintain. + +*Partial resolution (2026-07-16):* the *character-layer* dial is settled by +DD-006. The remaining question — boundary/resource/era counts, and the target +weight — still needs playtesting. *Status:* OPEN (design question for playtesting) @@ -316,18 +394,87 @@ research results, bluffing about capabilities). ''' +== Session 2: The Character Model (2026-07-16) + +=== DD-013: Information Model — Public Core, Hidden Aspects (Bayes–Nash) + +*Raised by:* Claude (structure), Jonathan (adopted; Joshua concurring) + +*Decision:* RESOLVED — the *Core is always public*; *aspects and the private +objective are hidden*. This makes the game one of *incomplete information*. + +*Reasoning:* + +Once players hold hidden aspects and private payoffs, nobody knows anyone else's +payoff function — only a distribution over the possibilities. That is precisely a +*Bayesian game*, and its solution concept is the *Bayes–Nash equilibrium* +(Harsanyi's generalisation of Nash to hidden "types"). The *reveal dial* — how +much of your build you disclose, and when — is a *signalling game* (Spence): +disclosure becomes a strategic, sometimes costly, move rather than bookkeeping. + +This matters because it makes the character system *load-bearing on the theme* +rather than cosmetic. The game's central concept is upgraded from +complete-information Nash to Bayes–Nash — a richer equilibrium space — and it +does so through the *characters*, which is exactly where players' attention +already is. The players need never hear the word "Bayesian"; they will simply +find they are reading each other rather than reading a stat block. + +*Why the Core stays public:* fully hidden information stalls a kitchen-table +game — analysis paralysis sets in, and table talk breaks down when nobody can +read anybody. Public Cores keep the table legible ("everyone can see you're a +techno-plutocrat") while the hidden layer preserves the Bayesian structure. +Legibility on the outside, uncertainty underneath. The eXchange pillar (DD-011) +depends on this: players must be able to read each other *enough to bargain at +all*. + +*Alternatives considered:* + +* *Everything public* (the current design) — rejected: complete information, no + signalling, characters reduce to stat blocks. +* *Everything hidden* — rejected: unreadable table, kills negotiation, breaks + DD-011. + +*Status:* RESOLVED (in principle). The exact reveal mechanism — voluntary, +triggered, or costed — is Phase 1 / playtesting work. + +[NOTE] +==== +*Game title deliberately parked.* The shift to Bayes–Nash raises an obvious +question about the title. It is *explicitly out of scope for now* (Jonathan, +2026-07-16): "The Nash Equilibrium" has the better ring, the audience is not +mathematicians, and the name is — remarkably — unclaimed. DD-001 stands +unchanged. Recorded here only so the reasoning chain survives and this is not +re-litigated by accident. +==== + +*FAQ:* + +* _Q: If the equilibrium is really Bayes–Nash, is the game misnamed?_ + A: No. A Bayes–Nash equilibrium *is* a Nash equilibrium — Nash's concept + extended to incomplete information, not a rival to it. The title remains + accurate. See the parking note above; this is not a live question. + +* _Q: Doesn't hidden information make the game feel unfair, like DD-007 warned?_ + A: DD-007 rejected hidden *boundary levels* — the shared constraint must stay + visible, and it does. Hiding a player's own aspects is different: it is + symmetric (everyone has hidden aspects), it is about *players*, not the world, + and it is the source of the negotiation the game is built on. + +''' + == Open Questions Tracker [cols="1,3,1"] |=== | ID | Question | Status -| DD-006 | Named characters vs. archetypes? | OPEN — Jonathan + Joshua to discuss -| DD-008 | Complexity management approach? | OPEN — playtesting needed +| DD-006 | Aspect pool + private-objective deck content | OPEN — Phase 1 drafting (framework RESOLVED 2026-07-16) +| DD-008 | Complexity management approach? | OPEN — playtesting (character dial resolved by DD-006) | DD-009 | Game length (32 turns vs. shorter)? | OPEN — playtesting needed | DD-010 | Cascade threshold (8 correct?) | PROVISIONAL — playtesting needed | DD-011 | eXchange binding mechanics? | OPEN — core design needed | DD-012 | eXperiment randomness level? | OPEN — core design needed +| DD-013 | Reveal mechanism (voluntary/triggered/costed?) | OPEN — Phase 1 (model RESOLVED 2026-07-16) |=== == Decision Template diff --git a/docs/game-design/player-roles.adoc b/docs/game-design/player-roles.adoc index 043bb95..954b2cd 100644 --- a/docs/game-design/player-roles.adoc +++ b/docs/game-design/player-roles.adoc @@ -1,20 +1,108 @@ // SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 // Copyright (c) 2026 Jonathan D.A. Jewell -= Player Roles and Asymmetric Gameplay += Player Roles, Characters, and Asymmetric Gameplay :toc: :icons: font == Overview -Players assume asymmetric roles with unique starting bonuses, constraints, and -victory paths. This encourages diverse strategies and highlights tensions between -different economic philosophies. +Players assume asymmetric characters with unique starting bonuses, constraints, +and victory paths. This encourages diverse strategies and highlights tensions +between different economic philosophies. -== Role Cards +A character is *not* a fixed role card. Per DD-006, it is built in layers: an +immutable *Core* that everyone can see, a set of *Aspects* that inflect it and +stay hidden, a *name* the player supplies at the table, and a hidden *private +objective* running alongside the main game. -=== Queen Isabella +[NOTE] +==== +*Status: framework, not final content.* The layer structure and the design rules +below are settled (DD-006, DD-013). The aspect pools and private-objective deck +are illustrative first drafts — Phase 1 work, pending playtesting. +==== -*Archetype:* Colonial Capitalist +== 1. The Character Model + +[cols="1,1,3", options="header"] +|=== +| Layer | Visibility | Content + +| *Core* +| *Public* +| The archetypal essence — a *type*, never a person. Immutable. Sets the + character's fundamental strengths, constraints, and victory path. + +| *Aspects* +| *Hidden* +| Two strengths, one weakness, and one appeal/antipathy pair, drawn or chosen + from the Core's pools. Inflects *how* this instance of the Core plays. + +| *Name* +| Player's own +| Supplied at the table. Never printed. See §6. + +| *Private objective* +| *Hidden* +| A quiet parallel goal. Non-critical to winning, but tugs against the commons. + See §5. +|=== + +=== Why the Core is public and the rest is not + +Per DD-013, this split is deliberate. Public Cores keep the table *legible* — +everyone can see you are a techno-plutocrat, and can bargain with you +accordingly, which the eXchange pillar (DD-011) requires. Hidden aspects and +objectives mean nobody knows your exact payoff function, only a distribution over +it — which is what makes the game one of incomplete information, and its +equilibrium a *Bayes–Nash* one. + +Legibility on the outside, uncertainty underneath. + +Deciding what to *reveal*, and when, is itself a move: disclosing a strength to +win a negotiation is a costly signal. The exact mechanism (voluntary, triggered, +or costed) is open — see the DD-013 tracker entry. + +== 2. The Four Cores + +Each Core is a *category* of actor, not a portrait of an individual. + +[cols="1,2,3", options="header"] +|=== +| Core | Archetype | Immutable essence (public) + +| *The Chartered Extractor* +| Colonial Capitalist +| Wealth extracted from distant territories under a licence from an authority + back home. Rich, dirty, and living on borrowed legitimacy. + +| *The Nonviolent Mobiliser* +| Cooperative Socialist +| Moves people, not armies. Social cohesion over growth rate. Cannot compel — + only persuade. + +| *The Off-World Plutocrat* +| Techno-Utopian Innovator +| Vast private capital and a cult following that grants reach far beyond any + formal power. Fixated on an exit — off this world entirely. Better at + conjuring belief than at governing or complying. + +| *The Steward* +| Environmental Steward +| Protects the boundaries everyone else is drawing down. Capital-poor, + time-rich; weak early, indispensable late. +|=== + +== 3. Presets (Beginner Mode) + +A preset is a *fully-built character*: Core plus aspects pre-chosen, with a +suggested name offered at the table. Deal one and play — no build step. Per +DD-008, presets are the low-complexity end of the same system, not a separate +ruleset. + +The four presets below are the original role cards, unchanged mechanically. + +=== Preset: "Queen Isabella" — The Chartered Extractor [cols="1,3"] |=== @@ -25,16 +113,13 @@ different economic philosophies. | Path to Victory | Exploit -> Industrialise -> Adapt (or face revolution) |=== -*Flavour:* Represents the colonial-capitalist model — rapid wealth extraction -from new territories at the cost of indigenous populations and environmental -degradation. Must transition to sustainable practices before boundaries collapse. - -*Historical parallel:* Spanish Empire, British East India Company, extraction -economies. +*Flavour:* Rapid wealth extraction from new territories at the cost of indigenous +populations and environmental degradation. Must transition to sustainable +practices before boundaries collapse. -=== Gandhi +*Parallels:* Spanish Empire, chartered trading companies, extraction economies. -*Archetype:* Cooperative Socialist +=== Preset: "Gandhi" — The Nonviolent Mobiliser [cols="1,3"] |=== @@ -45,16 +130,13 @@ economies. | Path to Victory | Sustainability -> Equality -> Collective advancement |=== -*Flavour:* Represents non-violent, community-centred development. Strong social -fabric but slow economic growth. Wins through collective well-being rather than -individual dominance. +*Flavour:* Non-violent, community-centred development. Strong social fabric but +slow economic growth. Wins through collective well-being rather than individual +dominance. -*Historical parallel:* Indian independence movement, cooperative movements, -Scandinavian social democracy. +*Parallels:* Independence movements, cooperative movements, social democracy. -=== Elon Musk - -*Archetype:* Techno-Utopian Innovator +=== Preset: "Elon Musk" — The Off-World Plutocrat [cols="1,3"] |=== @@ -65,15 +147,13 @@ Scandinavian social democracy. | Path to Victory | Automate -> Breakthrough -> Space (Dyson Sphere) |=== -*Flavour:* Represents the Silicon Valley vision — technology as the solution to -all problems. Powerful innovation engine but creates social disruption through -automation and can neglect environmental boundaries in pursuit of breakthroughs. - -*Historical parallel:* Tech industry, space programmes, nuclear power optimism. +*Flavour:* Technology as the solution to all problems. Powerful innovation engine +that creates social disruption through automation, and can neglect environmental +boundaries in pursuit of breakthroughs. -=== Green Activist +*Parallels:* Tech industry, private space programmes, nuclear optimism. -*Archetype:* Environmental Steward +=== Preset: "Green Activist" — The Steward [cols="1,3"] |=== @@ -84,53 +164,157 @@ automation and can neglect environmental boundaries in pursuit of breakthroughs. | Path to Victory | Balance -> Resilience -> Post-Scarcity (sustainable) |=== -*Flavour:* Represents the environmental movement and Green economics. Protects -planetary boundaries but starts economically weak. Becomes powerful in later eras -as boundary stress makes sustainability essential. +*Flavour:* Protects planetary boundaries but starts economically weak. Becomes +powerful in later eras as boundary stress makes sustainability essential. -*Historical parallel:* Greenpeace, Costa Rica, doughnut economics, degrowth. +*Parallels:* Environmental movements, doughnut economics, degrowth. -== Role Summary Table +=== Preset Summary Table [cols="1,2,2,2"] |=== -| Role | Starting Bonuses | Constraints | Path to Victory +| Preset (Core) | Starting Bonuses | Constraints | Path to Victory -| Queen Isabella +| "Isabella" (Chartered Extractor) | +2 Gold/turn (colonies) | No barter; high pollution | Exploit -> Industrialise -> Adapt -| Gandhi +| "Gandhi" (Nonviolent Mobiliser) | +1 Stability (nonviolence) | No military; slow growth | Sustainability -> Equality -| Elon Musk +| "Musk" (Off-World Plutocrat) | +1 Tech/turn (innovation) | High Knowledge cost; unstable Labour | Automate -> Space -| Green Activist +| "Green Activist" (Steward) | +1 Nature/turn (conservation) | Low Capital; vulnerable to exploitation | Balance -> Post-Scarcity |=== -== Expansion Roles (Future) +== 4. The Builder (Advanced Mode) -Potential additional roles for expansion packs: +Take a Core, then draw or choose: -* *Pharaoh* — Agrarian era specialist, monumental construction -* *Marx* — Revolutionary Socialist, can trigger regime change in other players -* *Pirate Queen* — Disrupts trade routes, asymmetric warfare -* *Indigenous Elder* — Deep Nature connection, unique boundary recovery abilities -* *AI Singleton* — Digital era specialist, post-human victory path +* *2 Strengths* from that Core's strength pool +* *1 Weakness* from its weakness pool +* *1 Appeal/Antipathy pair* +* *1 Private objective* (§5) -== Role Balance Notes +*Draw* for a fast, surprising game; *choose* for a deliberate one; *draft* (pass +the pool around) for a competitive one. All three are legal — the group picks. + +The same Core therefore plays differently every session, and — because aspects +are hidden — your opponents must infer which build they are facing from how you +behave. That inference *is* the game. + +=== Worked example: The Off-World Plutocrat + +Illustrative pools, to show the shape. Numbers are placeholders pending Phase 1. + +*Strengths (draw/choose 2):* + +[cols="1,3"] +|=== +| Hype Engine | Once per turn, convert Stability into Capital — belief as a resource. +| Vertical Integration | Ignore one input prerequisite per Leontief recipe. +| Regulatory Arbitrage | Relocate to dodge one crisis effect per era. +| Talent Magnet | +1 Knowledge whenever *any* player completes research. +|=== + +*Weaknesses (draw/choose 1):* + +[cols="1,3"] +|=== +| Thin Skin | Lose Stability whenever publicly defected against. +| Attention Deficit | Cannot hold more than two binding agreements at once. +| Overpromise | Must announce a breakthrough one turn before it resolves. +|=== + +*Appeal / Antipathy (draw/choose 1 pair):* + +[cols="1,3"] +|=== +| Retail believers / Regulators | Bonus while Stability is high; penalised in dealings with institutional players. +| Engineers / Labour | Bonus to research trades; penalised on Labour stability. +|=== -* Roles are intentionally *not* balanced for raw power — they are balanced for - *interesting decisions* -* Each role has a window of strength and vulnerability -* The Nash Equilibrium dynamic means no single role can win alone in most games -* Playtesting should focus on ensuring each role has meaningful agency in every era +Note that these inflect *the same public Core*. Everyone can see you are an +off-world plutocrat. Nobody can see whether you are the thin-skinned kind who +must be handled gently, or the arbitrage kind who will simply leave. + +== 5. Private Objectives + +A hidden parallel goal, drawn at setup. Non-critical — you can win without it, +and it should never overshadow the main game — but it adds challenge, and it +makes your true payoff function unreadable. + +[IMPORTANT] +==== +*Design rule: private objectives must tug against the commons — never run +orthogonal to it.* + +The shared planetary-boundaries dashboard (DD-007) is the game's commons +dilemma. A private objective is *interesting* exactly when it tempts you to +defect from it on a given turn: _do I spend this action shoring up the boundary, +or quietly advancing my own exit?_ + +An objective *orthogonal* to the commons is a solitaire task that pulls attention +off the table. An objective *incentive-misaligned* with it deepens the very +dilemma the game is about. + +*Misaligned, never independent.* Every objective drafted in Phase 1 must be +checked against this rule. +==== + +*Example — "Escape Hatch"* (Off-World Plutocrat): quietly bank Capital and +Knowledge off-world. Scores *even if the commons collapses* — but every unit +banked is a unit not spent on the boundary. This is the rule made concrete: the +objective pays best precisely when you defect, and the table cannot see you doing +it — only infer it from what you decline to contribute. + +== 6. Naming at the Table + +The name is the *player's*, always. Nothing on the printed card names a real +person. + +*The line to hold — archetype, not portrait.* Printed Cores describe a +*category* of actor. They must stay free of uniquely-identifying specifics — real +company names, real quotations, one-to-one biography — that would make a Core +identifiable as one particular living individual. "A Mars-fixated plutocrat with +a cult following" is a *type*; a great many people would recognise several +candidates, and that is exactly the point. + +This is not a limitation on the humour — it is what *licenses* it. We hand the +players a caricature of a type, and the players do the impression. The game makes +no claim about any real person. + +[quote, Jonathan, 2026-07-16] +____ +The Day of the Triffids is never held to a standard of validity, reliability, and +fidelity. +____ + +== 7. Expansion Cores (Future) + +* *The Monument Builder* — Agrarian era specialist, monumental construction +* *The Revolutionary* — can trigger regime change in other players +* *The Corsair* — disrupts trade routes, asymmetric warfare +* *The Elder* — deep Nature connection, unique boundary recovery abilities +* *The Singleton* — Digital era specialist, post-human victory path + +== 8. Balance Notes + +* Cores are intentionally *not* balanced for raw power — they are balanced for + *interesting decisions*. +* Each Core has a window of strength and a window of vulnerability. +* The Nash Equilibrium dynamic means no single Core can win alone in most games. +* Aspects must not stack into a dominant build. Phase 1 balance critics should + Monte-Carlo the aspect pools for runaway combinations before any playtest is + spent discovering them. +* Playtesting should confirm each Core has meaningful agency in every era, and + that hidden aspects create *inference*, not *confusion*.