Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Conspiracy Game, Types of Organizations, Types of celebrities, Types of…

- - - - Asymmetrical like codenames where
        there's a clue-giver and a guesser
      - Symmetrical like codenames: duet
        where players are both clue-givers
        and guessers
      - Maybe there's a screen in common and people play with their phones like a jackbox game
  - - - Maybe one player connects yarn and another player puts things on the board
        
        Players could put things on the board from a wide range of options
    - - Like codenames, but the clue itself almost becomes another word on the table
  - - - There are specific "linking" elements
        
        Such as a post-it that has a word. For example, one that says, "created." You could link Elon Musk to Bill Gates by saying "Elon Musk created Bill Gates."
        
        Perhaps there are rules to ensure sentences make sense.
        Such as elements outlined in green can only link to other green elements.
        
        Maybe you make your own linking elements
  - - - Puppies or Curtains
        
        Triangulation
  - - - Such as "Paranoid" who can only communicate via text, but won't ever get caught
  - - - Example: There's yarn from Dairy Queen to Princess Diana. Player could say it means Dairy Queen killed Princess Diana. Or they could say Dairy Queen is actually the mother of Princess Diana and her real name is actually Diana Dairy, and someday, she will be the Dairy Queen.
        
        What are the possible constraints here?
        How is this gamified?
        
        Ok, so one player connects three words "Elon Musk Poisoned Al Gore." The other player has to guess one of those words
        
        Seems probably too hard
        
        There are a bunch of things on the board. The goal is to arrive at one of them
      - Maybe players have to guess how other players linked two concepts. Almost like reverse codenames
      - Maybe they write the meaning on linking post its
    - - Like maybe you both went on a trip to Wisconsin once and got drunk on Vodka. That might give you an incentive to connect Wisconsin to Vodka
    - - Semi-right answers? A hierarchy of answers connected with whatever your co-conspirator is doing? Having a teammate randomizes outcomes quite a bit.
        
        Word association and the potential for miscommunication is great to randomize outcomes
        
        Love this. If there are rounds, in could work especially well between them to make it increasingly difficult.
        
        I was thinking a lot about a rounds structure in regards to this too.
        Maybe at the end of each round there's kind of like a "highlights reel" that does a semi-obscure summary of your collected findings. And it's necessary for the next round / the jumping off point. Then at different intervals throughout the round players can communicate with each other.
        
        So maybe round 1 each player identifies 1 piece of information after solving some puzzles. The round ends and shows a dramatic view of someones portrait (found by player 1), and then a map of a city in Brazil (found by player 2). Player 1 will be like Brazil?! what does that have to do with it? Then based on these things the puzzles in the next round will change slightly.
        *at any point in the round players can replay the montage to refresh their memory
        End of round 2 each player shares 2 pieces of info, so the web of connections grows increasingly more complicated.
        These montages won't have conjoining words (or maybe no words at all) so after 5-10 rounds (maybe 5 is a good #?) there will still be a "reveal" filling in the gaps of how these things connect.
  - - - Possibility of incorrectly guessing symbol meaning but thinking you got it and then that making it harder later
        
        It could be that the end solution is randomized and predetermined, but through collaborative storytelling, it's up to the players to invent why it's the "right" answer. This is kind of like the "it's the journey, not the destination" approach.
        
        This also works thematically in terms of how a lot of people think about politics and conspiracies. You start with the conclusion and then justify it by making shit up.
        
        I this is totally viable. Only problem is it gives a lot of awareness to the conspirator, where they're in control of the narrative (and they realize it). Where in real life the conspirators don't know it's bs.
- - - - Risk/reward strategizing
        
        Up to spymaster how many words they try to relate in one turn
      - Replayble
        
        Due to vast amount of randomization
      - Getting your brain on the same wavelength
        
        Not so much about your logical thinking, but thinking about how the other person thinks too
      - Stakes
        
        Penalty for wrong moves
      - Cooperating with teammates to discuss clues
      - Simple and easy to learn
        
        Few rules and things you need to remember
      - Abstract and creative thinking required
    - - Waiting for people to think of clues
        
        Result of being turn-based
      - Requires full attention/
        Not actually a party game
        
        Better with more people on your team
      - Aesthetically boring
        
        Just words
    - - Communication limits
      - Team-based
      - Hidden information
      - Deduction
      - Push your luck
      - Turn limits
      - Word association
  - - - Absurdist humor
      - Sense of authorship
    - - No challenge
      - Little creative control
      - Sometimes it's so nonsensical,
        it's not actually funny
  - - - Fiasco
      - Dialect
  - - - Unique
      - Very abstract thinking required
      - No materials required
      - Absurdist humor
    - - Not structured enough for some people
- - - - What if different colors of yarn represent different links?
        
        Murder/death
        
        Money/Support
        
        Accomplice/Cahoots
        
        Created/Invented
        
        Love/Affair
  - - - Candid
      - Mug shots
      - Class photos
      - Headshots
    - - of social media
    - - Graphs
      - Charts
    - - Occult
      - Seals
    - - Government
        
        Redacted
      - Corporate
        
        Shredded
    - - Letters
      - Postcards
      - Email
      - Texts
      - Voicemails
      - Faxes
    - - Keys
      - Jewelry
- - - - Yarn represents connections
- - - - Conspiracy type
        
        Dairy Queen connects to Microsoft because they're both corporations
      - Time
        
        Dairy Queen connects to Ringo Starr because they were both made in 1940
      - Location
        
        Dairy Queen connects to Hillary Clinton because they're both from Illinois
      - Organization
      - Medium
      - Responsible Party
  - - - Chicago connects to Illinois
      - Microsoft connects to Bill Gates
- - - - Theory created by other player(s)
      - Theory created by randomization
      - Theory created by combination of randomization and other player
      - Within a specific range of turns
    - - Example: The round starts with a bunch of random elements on the board. Three of them include Dairy Queen, Princess Diana, and London. Player A needs to connect Dairy Queen to London. Player B can't think of any way to get there directly, so they first might give the clue "Royalty" which might get Player A to connect Dairy Queen to Princess Diana. Then Player B could give the clue "England" to connect Princess Diana to London.
      - Maybe they each have their own boards and are both guides and guessers
      - Maybe the guide has a collection of documents and pictures they can send to the player to put them on the right track. Maybe they can also send words they write, but they can get scrambled or maybe they only get so many words per game.