Exploring deduction and induction games and learning the differences between the two using Signal (DVC Games) as an example. Can we make more highly thematic induction games?
This is fascinating. I assume it's inspired by the 2016 movie Arrival. Great film and interesting premise for a game. I've never played anything like this, but I'm down to give it a go.
It's an experimental game so I don't know how well it works in practice, but there's a mechanic in my game Sunshine Over My Shoulder where you can get evidence to make inferences but never know for certain whether the software project the characters are working on is "ready to ship". I pulled it out into a standalone subsystem for my Mosaic Strict module Big Technical Project. They both use a GM-like role to track some hidden information.
I find murder mystery TTRPGs fascinating, and I like the approach introduced (AFAIK) by Brindlewood Bay and The Between, whereby the PCs find clues, theorise the answer by tying the clues together in a narrative, and then roll dice to see whether they are correct (with possible additional implications). Although not covered in your main article, this is tackled in one of your footnotes, where there is no a-priori answer, but it can be discovered in play.
I brought my children up on Cluedo, and I taught them how much information gets leaked by other players questions and answers - as a result of which they used to crush their school friends!
Bindlewood Bay and similar games are really interesting! See Footnote 3 for a link to an article about them.
And Clue(do), for being a "family game", really is quite fun. I played a few games of it as research for this article and forgot about the strategies! It's so satisfying when you can use someone else's guess + the cards in your hand to infer information even when it's not your turn. That game holds up well.
“Deductive vs. inductive reasoning: It’s easy to mix up these definitions because they are so closely related and sometimes overlap.”
Is that really true? The supposition of the premises and the negation of the conclusion leads to a contradiction — that’s deduction, right? Is there any kind of fuzziness or bleed into induction (i.e. guessing)? Deduction is ‘empty’ in that it doesn’t go beyond the premises — no guessing is required. Of course, a conclusion may still be uncertain if the premises are uncertain, too.
Mightn’t it be better to say that a game might include both guessing and deduction. If a game includes some guessing, that is not to say players have to throw logic (deduction) out the window. But that is not to say that guessing ‘infects’ deduction. ;)
Well, I'm sure a trained philosopher or logician would be able to tell the difference and use clear definitions. :) I was more referring to the informal uses of the terms on sites like BGG where they are almost used interchangeably sometimes. In fact, "induction" is sometimes called a "subset of deduction games" where that's not the case using strict definitions.
Both David Hume and Immanuel Kant would disapprove of the BGG categorizations. ;)
oh so basically what i did w my The Fog Silent Hill TTRPG adaptation. The City (GM) decides which actions/inventory/npc interactions results on what ending for The Protagonist.
I am making an induction game which is GM-less, highly thematic, and does not use unusual material, only cards, tokens, pawns on a map and a scenario book. Working title: Dragon Alert.
I'd love to show you once we load it onto Tabletop Simulator.
Very approximate expected market time: early 2027.
How would you describe it or design it so that it is "induction" vs. "deduction" as the main mechanism? I find it hard to keep those separated when using informal definitions. Also, induction in a GM-less game is tricky!
I agree, it's not a clear-cut definition, because in a way you are still using deduction to rule out potential explanations. I guess the main point is that you can't directly see the algorithm/pattern/mechanism, but have to reverse-engineer it from its consequences. Also, you do it progressively, starting to work with what you have. A nice example is Scotland Yard or Whitehall, two similar games where a team of players chase a partially invisible enemy.
In my game, the GM is not necessary because a software has generated the scenarios by permutating and choosing one of billions of possible algorithms and precalculating the movements of the Dragon. The scenario is then stored in a book so that no software is required either.
This puts a lot of constraints to the ruleset, but apparently we found a solution that works. :)
This is fascinating. I assume it's inspired by the 2016 movie Arrival. Great film and interesting premise for a game. I've never played anything like this, but I'm down to give it a go.
It's an experimental game so I don't know how well it works in practice, but there's a mechanic in my game Sunshine Over My Shoulder where you can get evidence to make inferences but never know for certain whether the software project the characters are working on is "ready to ship". I pulled it out into a standalone subsystem for my Mosaic Strict module Big Technical Project. They both use a GM-like role to track some hidden information.
https://gamemaru.itch.io/sunshine-over-my-shoulder
https://gamemaru.itch.io/big-technical-project
I find murder mystery TTRPGs fascinating, and I like the approach introduced (AFAIK) by Brindlewood Bay and The Between, whereby the PCs find clues, theorise the answer by tying the clues together in a narrative, and then roll dice to see whether they are correct (with possible additional implications). Although not covered in your main article, this is tackled in one of your footnotes, where there is no a-priori answer, but it can be discovered in play.
I brought my children up on Cluedo, and I taught them how much information gets leaked by other players questions and answers - as a result of which they used to crush their school friends!
Bindlewood Bay and similar games are really interesting! See Footnote 3 for a link to an article about them.
And Clue(do), for being a "family game", really is quite fun. I played a few games of it as research for this article and forgot about the strategies! It's so satisfying when you can use someone else's guess + the cards in your hand to infer information even when it's not your turn. That game holds up well.
“Deductive vs. inductive reasoning: It’s easy to mix up these definitions because they are so closely related and sometimes overlap.”
Is that really true? The supposition of the premises and the negation of the conclusion leads to a contradiction — that’s deduction, right? Is there any kind of fuzziness or bleed into induction (i.e. guessing)? Deduction is ‘empty’ in that it doesn’t go beyond the premises — no guessing is required. Of course, a conclusion may still be uncertain if the premises are uncertain, too.
Mightn’t it be better to say that a game might include both guessing and deduction. If a game includes some guessing, that is not to say players have to throw logic (deduction) out the window. But that is not to say that guessing ‘infects’ deduction. ;)
Well, I'm sure a trained philosopher or logician would be able to tell the difference and use clear definitions. :) I was more referring to the informal uses of the terms on sites like BGG where they are almost used interchangeably sometimes. In fact, "induction" is sometimes called a "subset of deduction games" where that's not the case using strict definitions.
Both David Hume and Immanuel Kant would disapprove of the BGG categorizations. ;)
oh so basically what i did w my The Fog Silent Hill TTRPG adaptation. The City (GM) decides which actions/inventory/npc interactions results on what ending for The Protagonist.
Is it this one? https://cyriuscybercafe.itch.io/the-fog
I'm intrigued by the "No dice, no calculations, no character sheets. Just you and the City."!!
yes! do take your time, i been brewing this one since 2019 😅
I am making an induction game which is GM-less, highly thematic, and does not use unusual material, only cards, tokens, pawns on a map and a scenario book. Working title: Dragon Alert.
I'd love to show you once we load it onto Tabletop Simulator.
Very approximate expected market time: early 2027.
That sounds interesting!
How would you describe it or design it so that it is "induction" vs. "deduction" as the main mechanism? I find it hard to keep those separated when using informal definitions. Also, induction in a GM-less game is tricky!
I agree, it's not a clear-cut definition, because in a way you are still using deduction to rule out potential explanations. I guess the main point is that you can't directly see the algorithm/pattern/mechanism, but have to reverse-engineer it from its consequences. Also, you do it progressively, starting to work with what you have. A nice example is Scotland Yard or Whitehall, two similar games where a team of players chase a partially invisible enemy.
In my game, the GM is not necessary because a software has generated the scenarios by permutating and choosing one of billions of possible algorithms and precalculating the movements of the Dragon. The scenario is then stored in a book so that no software is required either.
This puts a lot of constraints to the ruleset, but apparently we found a solution that works. :)
this was sooo fascinating! loved reading, and would love to play some games like this, too :) thank you so much <3