New Rule

Introduction: Few things are ever as clear or well-understood as in the mind of a child. In this game, foolish and thickheaded adults are permitted to travel back to that time of unqualified wisdom and confidence when they were always right. Players tackle the heavy issues and weighty questions that children wrestle with everyday, armed with such penetrating and impregnable arguments as “Jimmy said so and he’s in Spanish class!” By their wits alone will they succeed in swaying the group and emerge as the true sage of the playground.

Players: 3+

Materials: one deck of playing cards (or other set of tokens to represent roles).

Setting Up: Separate the deck into equal numbers red- and black-suited cards such that the total number of cards is equal to the number of players. Deal one card face-up to each player for their first round roles.

How to Play: In each round, players designate a topic of discussion and debate it. At the beginning of the round, the player with the high red-suited card showing is the boss for the round . He or she designates a question or a topic for debate; the boss is free to choose any subject they please as long as the debate has two clearly definable sides (for more information, see Options and Suggestions below). If the two sides are not obviously identifiable along yes-no lines, the boss should stipulate which side he or she considers to be in favor and which is opposed. All players participate in the debate, but the role they take is determined by their cards in the following manner:

• Red Suited Cards: All players holding a red card must argue the favorable side.
• Black Suited Cards : All players holding a black card must argue the opposing side.

Each debate must not last more than five minutes. When the time has expired, all players vote on which player they believe has made the best argument; every vote cast gives one point to that player. Players may not vote for themselves. Once points have been awarded, shuffle and re-deal the cards to begin the next round.

Winning the Game: Whoever has the most points at the end of ten rounds is the winner.

Options and Suggestions: Paedocracy is best played as a role-playing game. Players are encouraged to take on the personae of children and argue according to the logic and reasons that would appeal to them. To enhance or broaden the voting phase, optional voting categories may be used and multiple sets of points awarded each round. For example, in addition to “Best Argument,” players could vote on a number of other criteria such as “Best Story,” “Most Absurd Argument,” or “Best Roleplaying.”

As this game has not been tested, ideal debate and game durations are unknown. Players are encouraged to experiment by changing these conditions.

Next: Designing “Paedocracy”

The second in my Grandiloquent Game Design subseries, this word is a doozy:

paedocracy - A government formed of children.

After much deliberation on ill-fated genres like territory acquisition in a playground or roving gangs of bullies jumping hapless victims, I remembered there is a category of social gaming based of massive, chaotic debating. The original was called Mafia. There are now numerous variations and many optional rules, but the basic premise is the same: players attempt to uncover the secret identities or roles of their fellows solely through argument and accusation. The games I’ve watched or participated in were always very engaging because they relied entirely on the direct competition of wits between the players. Thinking back to childhood and remembering the way my young cousins interact, it seemed like a “social argument” game would lend itself well.

If only it was so simple. The core mechanic of Mafia is that people are “whacked” every phase. Killing off players not only disenfranchises the losers, it’s also somewhat inappropriate color for a game about childhood. I considered trying to spin the vote each round in a positive direction—players elect one from their ranks to do some childlike task every turn that could net them points—but that was too unpredictable and prone to game-breaking loopholes. I needed a way to control the point-getting and keep all the players involved.

Enter another form of “social argument” game, the voting-based storytelling game. Apples to Apples is among the more famous members of this genre, but the ones I drew direct input from were Argue and Assumption. It allowed for an open-ended debate topic each round, and the best approximation of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand of Game Design I could come up with (I made that term up. It means the results of each player acting in their own self-interest maintains the gameplay balance). In the final draft, the rules seem solid… maybe. I have a feeling I’ve left at least a few major holes in the system, and I need outside opinion to confirm it. For example, I believe the optional rules I suggested may need to become mandatory. Limiting the game to “Best Argument” only places too much emphasis on making sense, and the game is designed for role-playing the mind of a child—with all the absurd, nonsensical, stupendous logic that entails.

Tags: Game Design //