Lying loot-divvying game (Dolores)
Mar. 27th, 2018 10:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackMore games crate! This time the little game was Dolores, a game with a ridiculously rich flavour and really nice art about being wreckers divvying up the loot from a ship with a traditional method.
Each turn, two players turn up two cards each, and then do a simultaneously-reveal-hand-gestures thing to decide who gets what. You can agree to split it so you each get the loot you turned up (handshake gesture). But someone can easily subvert that by submitting a closed-fist gesture and taking all the loot! Or you can submit a one-thumb-up gesture which means "pick one card", which leaves the other with one or two cards (if they chose peace) or three (if they chose war). If you both choose war, all the loot is lost. If you both choose pick, all the loot is lost AND you each lose all of a single type of loot of your choice (which the scoring system makes either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on circumstance).
It works out that you *usually* want loot, but you sometimes particularly want specific pieces, and occasionally have pieces you don't want.
It doesn't actually make sense with the flavour, but it's the *sort* of complicated negotiation you imagine happening.
It's lovely but strange playing it with Liv because we both don't come very naturally to lying. And with two players you can't just always divvy it up as fairly as possible, because you have to get ahead at some point. There's enough variation in what you want and whether you can agree a split that's best for both of you that it's not exactly an iterated prisoner's dilemma -- most rounds you don't have a strong incentive to talk up one compromise and then change your mind. But you have to decide when it *is* worth agreeing to a proposal and reneging, or refusing to agree anything in advance, or when you expect your opponent to be sneaky and when that changes your throw.
We kept reassuring each other that it was ok and we didn't take it personally.
Each turn, two players turn up two cards each, and then do a simultaneously-reveal-hand-gestures thing to decide who gets what. You can agree to split it so you each get the loot you turned up (handshake gesture). But someone can easily subvert that by submitting a closed-fist gesture and taking all the loot! Or you can submit a one-thumb-up gesture which means "pick one card", which leaves the other with one or two cards (if they chose peace) or three (if they chose war). If you both choose war, all the loot is lost. If you both choose pick, all the loot is lost AND you each lose all of a single type of loot of your choice (which the scoring system makes either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on circumstance).
It works out that you *usually* want loot, but you sometimes particularly want specific pieces, and occasionally have pieces you don't want.
It doesn't actually make sense with the flavour, but it's the *sort* of complicated negotiation you imagine happening.
It's lovely but strange playing it with Liv because we both don't come very naturally to lying. And with two players you can't just always divvy it up as fairly as possible, because you have to get ahead at some point. There's enough variation in what you want and whether you can agree a split that's best for both of you that it's not exactly an iterated prisoner's dilemma -- most rounds you don't have a strong incentive to talk up one compromise and then change your mind. But you have to decide when it *is* worth agreeing to a proposal and reneging, or refusing to agree anything in advance, or when you expect your opponent to be sneaky and when that changes your throw.
We kept reassuring each other that it was ok and we didn't take it personally.
no subject
Date: 2018-03-27 09:52 pm (UTC)Curiously, when I say that, no-one believes me.
no subject
Date: 2018-03-28 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-03-29 04:09 pm (UTC)I feel very strongly that it plays best with exactly three players, by the way. That way, all possible pairs play, but on each turn one person is sitting out. In the two-player game, both co-operating is a zero-sum against both defecting, so the third player adds considerable strategic depth.
Note that you don't have to lie in HMS Dolores. Indeed, if the players are thinking on the same wavelength, there's not much point. People often just make strategic observations about the current situation. (Admittedly, if they have any sense, they choose quite carefully which things to point out.) I suspect there's still a playable game in there even if you opted for silence.
Incidentally, I now follow Bruno Faidutti on Twitter. He's recently given a very strong recommendation for Cursed Court. I really want to try it sometime.