Treason Blog: A Design Journal of Treason Actions

Why are there no more Trials in the game?
I purposely provide lots of opportunities to get Block Checks and few opportunities for players to check other players in Treason Actions for a very good reason. If too much information is given about the loyalties of the players then the mystery and tension of the game will be lost. Players can narrow down the suspects and just make a plan to win, eliminating those they need to – no more unknowns – The fun is sucked out of the game almost instantly and the game becomes an accounting exercise to work out who wins.

If you know too much, then Acts of Treason is no longer a game of intrigue and deception, and the essence of the game is lost. I’ve witnessed this effect many times during my early playtests, and as such, I prefer too little test to too much. You should keep the suspense of who is who until the end of the game for maximum enjoyment.

As is happening now. Act of Treason has good balance. You won’t get too many checks to reveal too much, and you’ll likely get one or two – enough to encourage additional suspicion, interaction, and conflict.

Why are there so many ways to get Exam Blocks?
Sort of the opposite question to the question above. Check Block gives Heirs and Traitors the ability to take these cards without being too suspicious – after all, when there are so many, it’s hard to avoid them… isn’t it? This makes the inspection block less suspicious.

Additionally, you don’t want the game to be overloaded with Trials, as mentioned above. Players must adapt their checks to the block in play – This just makes getting clear information much more complicated, and this is a plus. In my opinion, there must not be too many exam blocks. I’ve never seen full Test Blocking – there’s always at least one person at the table who can still be checked at the end of the game.

Depending on your loyalties, the trick is to try to make the exam block as comfortable as possible! At the very least you might want to try to stop other people from getting it, or use this opportunity to suspect them if they do!

Why do players get a Trial Block if they Take a Trial?
‘Chaining’ checks is a very powerful strategy that has been used in previous editions of Act of Treason. What is ‘chaining’? This happens when player A checks player B and then Player B checks Player C. By ‘chaining’ the checks in this way you get a very strong understanding of who is who, to the point that sometimes you actually know for sure. A cannot possibly lie unless C is on his team, and so on. The larger the chain, the stronger the information. This is very bad for the game as mentioned in ‘Why are there no more Tests in the game?’ The fun will be lost if you know too much!

As an added negative, this puts so much power into the exams that players are incentivized to get the Trials at any cost. Worse yet, the strategy is only dominant for loyalist groups, but the Traitors will be forced to follow the strategy or risk exposing themselves as Traitors! This creates a bad dominant strategy that removes all meaningful choice from the game and replaces it with “buy Trials so you can string them together.”

Trial chains have been removed from the game since its inception. Today, checks are rare and can never be proven true because the ‘chain’ has been removed. This keeps the mystery of the game going. In the current iteration of the game, players who check others or are checked get check blocking – this is what prevents the check chain. I followed this in a few games a while back and never regretted my decision to add it to the game. This is a really great mechanic to have as it keeps the distrust and intrigue going, and even adds to it!

Why can the Steward award Court cards if the Quest is successful?
The court is where players can purchase cards that give them additional powers and effects. Court Cards must be purchased, purchased with Knowledge spending. Since Knowledge is used to pass a Quest, the player will lower their chances of passing the Quest on that turn, and possibly subsequent turns.

This was mostly discussed in parts 1 and 2, but simply put, Courts are restricted to limit the amount of damage a player can do when acquiring cards from the court – knowledge spent on court cards cannot be used to pass a Quest for example. Likewise, allowing Stewards to reward cards remaining in the Field is a nice free bonus that rewards players as a group for not just buying cards outright.

Without these game mechanics, new players have a strong tendency to buy cards without knowing why it is the wrong time to buy, or what they mean. Then some new players may blame the game rather than realizing the fault is theirs. With these mechanics in place as well as tips in the rulebook, players will be more likely to develop an understanding that buying without a good reason is the reason for their downfall, not the game or anything else.

Why are Quests ranked?
This is closely related to the point above, and why it is recommended that advanced players play with unordered, randomized Quests.

For novice players, playing with ordered Quests is like playing with training wheels. In blind playtesting, some players will employ quite destructive tactics without realizing it. This can lead to them blaming the game for their actions, without realizing that they are “playing the game wrong.” Now as a designer I don’t believe players can play the game wrong, so I need to provide clearer incentives and encourage players to play in such a way. I’ve discussed this before with the social contract as discussed previously.

I’ve found that using ordered Quests helps keep the kingdom nice and controlled early in the game, with some of the more dangerous cards appearing towards the end of the game to help facilitate conflict. This guides players to understand the social contracts and tactics that keep the game on track. When the Quests are out of sequence, players must organize themselves to ensure that they stay on track and that the Quest and Court cards are not misused by other players.

Why are you experiencing the Fraud Phase?
I’ve played many games both with and without the Deception Phase, and with many different groups. The consensus is that including the deception phase is more fun and allows for more tactics with your Traitor friends. However, you don’t have to enter it as stated in the rulebook. There are optional rules that allow you to play without them. In fact for a five player game, you are obliged to play without it. Both ways of playing are equally possible, and in my opinion.

Why don’t you express Loyalty after a player dies?
This keeps the tension of the game going until the end of the match. As discussed above, revealing too much can take away from the tension, and locking the player’s loyalty after they die so they can’t be examined adds another factor to whether killing them is a good idea.

Tune in next time for the following:

Why does the Quest phase precede the Action Phase?

Why do you discard up to 4 Knowledge cards each round?

Why do Court card costs vary?

Why is there a City Watch?

Are the Court cards balanced?

It seems too difficult for Traitors/Loyalists to win the Tribute/game?

Why don’t you express Loyalty after a player dies?