During the course of waking up and taking a shower, I had an idea for a game that could be (most easily) played out on a bulletin board like this one. I would like feedback on one specific question, which I’ll ask after listing the proposed rules, and of course any other suggestions that might make it a better game.
Abstract:
The game of Testimony is one in which players (3 or more) are both the witnesses and suspects of a crime, and they are trying to determine the guilty party from amongst their party. To do this they will lay the scene, offer testimony against each other, prosecute their fellows, and foremost defend themselves. There is no preset crime scene. Rather, as players continue, together they create a story as to the events surrounding the heinous occurance and what each of them was doing, what motives they might each have, and what each of them can be tricked into admitting.
The game ends when one person (the winner) successfully prosecutes another as a lying scumbag.
The game could potentially take years to play depending on how in-depth each player wished to be and how much time you wanted to give for each player to research and present his case at any given point. So this is something to consider up front and debate amongst yourselves.
The Rules:
Setup
1 - There must be at least 3 players, 5 or more is prefered.
2 - A suitable “punishment” must be decided in advance for the guilty party. This could, for instance, be paying for drinks for all later that evening, writing a 30 line ode to pink tutus, or whatever else seems fitting to the occasion and your particular bent.
3 - Decide whether you will be judging the prosecution for “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” or simply having “a preponderance of evidence.”
4 - Each player introduces a single item of forensic evidence found at the crime scene, or a single fact about the crime (like that it took place at 4pm.) They may be as detailed as they wish about the single thing, but it may only be a single thing. For instance, stating that “The murder weapon was a 9mm Glock.” is inadmissable since it presents two things. Firstly that there was a murder, and secondly that there was a gun used to commit the crime. Simply stating that “A 9mm Glock is relevant to the crime. It has yellow tape wrapped around the handle” would be admissable as the yellow tape is descriptive of the weapon not of the crime. Similarly, “The male body was found with bullet holes in its chest and rigormortis indicates that it has been dead for 12 hours” is also admissable. The person talking about the corpse could continue on to say that X number of bullets were actually found inside the body, but he would not be able to describe the bullets themselves, nor would the person who described the gun be allowed to describe the bullets as they are (collectively) a separate item of evidence.
Obviously this is rather a grey area, but use your best judegment.
5 - No item of forensic evidence may be directed at another player.
6 - You can opt to continue creating items of forensic evidence, taking turns, until your group feels that the scene is set sufficiently.
Main Play (Each round to proceed in the following order, looping back to 7 if there is no winner in the round)
7 - The first person to indicate that he wishes to do so is allowed to present testimony against another player about something he “witnessed.” These are, respectively, the Witness and the Charged. The witness may only present testimony in regards to a single item of fact–for instance, “He left the card room five minutes before the murder is indicated to have taken place.” It must be short and succint. It may not make any reference to any other players, so one could not say, “He left the card room, where we all were, just five minutes before the murder took place.” The testimony can also never be “I saw him do it.” or a variation thereof.
Note that testimony against another does place you in regards to the other person at the time of the witnessing and may be used against you.
8 - The Charged may not directly refute the evidence, but he can use whatever means necessary to cast doubt or explain away the testimony. “Like, I was just going to the restroom, man.”
9 - The Witness may choose to “Prosecute”, becoming the Prosecutor against the Charged. This gives them the chance to create an argument that the Charged has been caught in a lie. This argument may be as in-depth as desired (introducing real world statistics and such), but is not allowed to introduce any new evidence into the case. The Prosecutor does not need to make a case that the Charged commited the crime, only that they lied at some point.
If the Witness chooses not to prosecute, then the round is over.
10 - The Charged is allowed to present a defense of the accusation.
11 - The other players judge whether the Prosecutor has made his case, with a majority ruling deciding the verdict. In the case of an even number of judges, a draw is a not a majority.
12 - If the Prosecutor convinces the judges, then he wins and the Charged must go along with whatever punishment was agreed to at the start of the game.
13 - If the Charged convinces the judges that the Prosecutor did not have a reasonable case, he cannot be prosecuted until all other players have been prosecuted once as well–at which time he loses his immunity.
Now the one question I have (besides a general, “Whadya think?”), is whether rules 2 and 13 give a sufficient motive to players acting as judges to judge fairly–or if those rules are simply unnecessary? Without any sort of stick and carrot to judge fairly, it’s thinkable that players would never judge guilty since that’s giving away the crown to someone else. With the “punishment” in place, while the judges don’t get bragging rights, they are at least able to enjoy the spectacle. But due to the Immunity clause (rule 13), they have a motive to not judge guilty just for fun since if their fellow judges vote otherwise, that lowers the pool of people who can get punished. I.e. there’s a greater chance that they themselves will lose the game. …Or so goes the theory.
Obviously, feel free to ask any questions about things that are unclear.