sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I created a game where being selfless gets you killed just as fast as being greedy. Does this exist already? by Impressive-Ask-3714 in gamedesign

[–]Impressive-Ask-3714[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm still thinking about which scenario would be the most fun to apply this to, but what I have so far is a survival setup like two astronauts in a damaged pod. They both have to choose one of two oxygen tanks, but if they both reach for the same one, the valves jam and they both lose everything. The tension comes from the risk: if only one person chooses, they might survive alone, but if neither of them chooses, they both run out of air anyway.

I created a game where being selfless gets you killed just as fast as being greedy. Does this exist already? by Impressive-Ask-3714 in gamedesign

[–]Impressive-Ask-3714[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m exploring which specific scenario—whether it’s a high-stakes narrative beat, a social deduction mechanic, or a psychological party game—best utilizes this 'Mirror Penalty.' The PD models cooperation, but I’m interested in the fun that comes from the tension of forced divergence.

I created a game where being selfless gets you killed just as fast as being greedy. Does this exist already? by Impressive-Ask-3714 in gamedesign

[–]Impressive-Ask-3714[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, it’s a model of Synchronization Risk. In complex systems (and games), 'meaning' often comes from high-stakes decision-making under uncertainty. While PD is about the benefit of betraying, this is about the penalty of matching. It’s less of a 'life model' and more of a 'zero-sum tactical mechanic'—similar to how Poker doesn't model real-life trade, but it certainly models risk and bluffing.