New Games for the Liar Game

22 06 2010

By drekal

I feel that I should explain what the rules to these games could be.

Let’s start with the simplest of the three I offered there… Miniature Chess. It would be played by two players, presumably under conditions similar to the second revival round. The board is 4*4, and follows rules based very loosely on traditional chess.

There are many changes, however. To begin with, the way the pieces move.

Pawns: Move one space forward, and take diagonally. Thus no initial two spaces forward movement.
Knights: Move as normal: L shape on board, taking any enemy piece they land on.
Rooks: Move one space horizontally or vertically.
Bishops: Move one space diagonally.
Royalty: Move one space in any direction (like a King normally).

But there is another key difference to this game. The players are permitted the unique ability to select any four out of those five pieces listed above, and place them on their own row in any order they wish… and which is which is hidden from the enemy.

From there the game can be taken in a wide variety of directions. Perhaps have a rule prohibiting a player from undoing the immediately previous move? And what’s to keep a player from moving a piece however they will? Clearly a rule will have to be in effect that will prevent a player from doing this. Having a judge be fully aware of both pieces, and prohibit both players from making illegal moves is an option for a balanced game, but this is the Liar Game – that sort of thing doesn’t quite fit here. Perhaps, if a player is able to demonstrate that another player has cheated given previous moves on the board, he is declared the winner?

I believe that in this case, victory should be attainable in a number of ways. The first is to do as above, the second is to simply capture all of their pieces.

A major factor in this game is the size of the board and the limitations on piece movement. As one is not aware of what any given player holds on their field, it pays to be cautious… and yet such action could easily lead to being cornered by a cunning player. On the other hand, aggression will lead to a player falling into a trap just as easily.

You may note that the rules for these games are not fully formed. This is partly intentional, since it leaves more room open for discussion. The other part is out of uncertainty on certain key elements that could make or break the game if dealt with incorrectly.

Battleship next. Unlike the above, this is a game for a much larger group. Each player is granted their own unique grid, on which they are permitted to place five boats of varying sizes. Once this is accomplished, each player is informed of how many other players have boats occupying the same spaces as their own – or at least overlapping the same spaces. With this done, the rounds begin! Each player casts a vote for three other players (but not themselves), and the players are then permitted, in order of most votes to least, to name a co-ordinate that has not yet been bombed. Then, on all grids simultaneously, those squares are bombed on each player’s grid. The only player to know how many players were struck by the bombing is the current turn player. Should he sink a boat, he gets the money the boat is worth (larger boats being worth more) from the sunk player.

There are multiple facets to this game. Manipulating the votes is, as always, a vital part of the game. Knowledge of where other players have put their boats, and what they know of other players makes for useful trading.

The final game I mentioned was the court game. I saved this one for last because it’s a doozy. The game comes in several parts, and the way it would have to work would require the LGT to explain the entire thing, play the first part on that day, and then play the rest on the next. I don’t have a specific mechanism in place for the first game, but it would have to exist for reasons that will quickly become apparent as the explanation progresses.

To begin with, there are three rooms used for this game. These rooms are the “locker room”, “court room” and “deliberation room”. At the beginning of the court game, each player is permitted in turn to enter the locker room, by themselves, for as long as they need to make a decision…

Inside the locker room, there are diamonds – though the LGT is quick to point out they’re not real, merely plastic props used for the game. Specifically, enough for each player in the game. Each player also has a locker, just large enough to fit a “diamond” and nothing else. Each player is given the key to their own locker, and the room is designed expressly so that nobody could hide the diamonds anywhere in it.

Once each player has been given private access to the room, the first player is given a secret glimpse at the number of diamonds left in the room. And then the next stage of the game begins…

Again, the turn order comes into play. In turn, each player takes on the role of accused and each round begins with the accused naming a prosecutor and a defense attorney out of the other players. Those remaining play the role of jury members. The prosecutor and defense are permitted the opportunity to question other players, including each other, in an effort to persuade the jury of the innocence or guilt of the accused. When they are finished, the jury enters the deliberation room and the other three wait in the courtroom…

In the deliberation room, the jury is permitted to discuss the “case” at length. When they are finished, each jury member casts a vote: Gulity or not guilty? The former occurs when the jury member believes the accused has a diamond in their locker. The latter when the locker is believed empty.

Should the majority vote guilty, the locker is opened. If it is empty, those that voted guilty must pay the accused “compensation”. If there is a diamond, those that voted guilty take a share of the money the accused would have gotten had the diamond been taken.

Should there be no guilty majority, the locker is left closed. The accused is thus rewarded with a large sum of money if they did “steal” a diamond. Otherwise, there is no reward or punishment.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor and defense also receive their own reward. For each “guilty” vote, the prosecutor takes a sum of money from the account of the defense. The reverse is true for each  “not guilty” vote.

As should be clear by the nature of this game, the order in which players take their turn matters a lot as regards strategy. It would thus be necessary for the players to play a different game first, which would determine the order they entered the room. To further the strategies involved, the players would be involved of this game’s rules before playing the order making game.



17 responses

22 06 2010

Uh, sorry for the weird introduction there… I’d actually sent two emails in, asking which (if any) of these games would be interesting for people to read, and then later felt I ought to elaborate on them a bit.

Anyway, please do discuss strategies. I’ve got a few thoughts to share about them, but I’d like to see what other people think first.

23 06 2010

Yey, finally, a strategy post!!! XDDDDDD
I was also think on new games for Liar Game; although, I was think draughts or go. I’ll make something more elaborated next time.

23 06 2010

Are these fan made games? If so is it in a fanfic? If so may I read it?

Before I talk about strategy I have some issues. I don’t like the first game for the exact opposite reason I didn’t like the Russian Roulette game (It has too much strategy and lying skill is not much of a factor in this game). The last game is really nice though and is elaborate enough to fit the LGT perfectly. The second one’s strategy is like the musical chairs one.

Now strategy: for the chess game. First this is to my understanding that you can only have one of each piece. If a pawn can become any piece once it reaches the end then it is a decent piece but either way it is best used as a defense for the middle of the board (it could also be used as a second bishop and prevent movement into your side of the board). It is very unlikely that any player will reach the other side of the board unless it is a knight. Knights are likely to quickly end up in enemy spaces and the only piece to be able to safely fork two pieces. Bishops defend half the row above and below it while rooks are the only pieces (besides Royalty) that are able to defend beside itself. For pawns, how would you know when you can legally move diagonally? Do you know what piece takes your piece or when? Do you also know when a pawn is replaced by anything? Since you can’t see your opponents pieces I would place my pieces like: Knight, Bishop, Pawn, Royalty. Knight up one right two, then attack upright and if successful then see if opponent attacks. If yes then move pawn up one if no then move pawn upright one.

For the battleship: is there a penalty to bombing your own boat? If not then I’d bomb the most valuable so no one else can take the money while bombing the other boats that are in the space. If there is a penalty then is there movement because if not then it’s impossible to get the boats in your space.

This could be a great game to drain Yokoya of his money. Make Akiyama the defense and Yokoya the prosecutor every-time and make Akiyama win (though this is only for team play). This is like the third round because the strategy is outside the game. You could always hide the diamond in another player’s locker and put it in yours afterward. Place a diamond in an opponent’s locker when they are guilty. Even hide all the remaining diamonds if your team has enough lockers. The real game could be a team game and could be played alone. If it’s a team game and you know that most of the jury will vote you as guilty then you can choose your teammate as prosecutor and your enemy as the defense. You can also break teams with the previous strategy. With enough people this game is easily won but if there are people without teams then it can become like gaya again. Yokoya could actually use the fact that the jurors are alone to trick most of them to joining him (it’s a great way to make a team when two or three of your opponents are out).

23 06 2010

I developed these games, and intentionally left certain parts vague to make for more interesting discussion on how to “complete” them. As well as strategies for the games overall.

The trial game is the most complete of them, simply because I got on a roll and went almost all the way to the end with it. The only thing missing, of course, is the game that sets the order. Still, definitely like that one the most, and I can see dozens of strategies cropping up with it.

As far as fanfiction goes… I’m not confident enough in my own writing ability or intellect to craft a tale which includes Akiyama or Yokoya. Not without help.

24 06 2010

Drekal, your post seems interesting and well-thought out. If you’re interested and not busy, I think writing a collab fanfic with you would be fascinating.

I’ve been a Liar Game fan since it came out, but I’ve never been able to pick up the pen and write out a good fanfic, fearing I would screw it up… So, if possible, I’d like to seize the opportunity and see what comes out of it.

Feel free to contact me!

24 06 2010

Yeah, I’m in the same boat (fan since it came out). I’d be interested in writing a fanfiction piece, but really my biggest concern is the characterisation. Not sure I could get into the heads of pretty much anybody there. Except maybe the dealers. This thought concerns me slightly.

In case anybody is interested, I’m also working on a “pass the parcel” game, and I think something could be made out of “stock market” “dollar auction” and “pirate treasure” based games… though I’m not sure what to do exactly with those three.

24 06 2010

Interesting ideas 😀 Would like to see more! Oh, and yes it would be awesome if there was a fanfic made out of these XD

24 06 2010

@Drekal: Okay then, that just means I can go crazy with the strategies!!! I don’t know what you mean by sets the order though. also@epikwonder: I’d love to see a fanfic of this and I’d be willing to help you two, but I don’t know how.

I’d like to know your thoughts on the dollar auction as I can’t see it being a zero sum game without taking away the reason it’s interesting (how far they are willing to go).

For chess you could also remove the pieces from play/board then when it’s your turn to move place it randomly around the board (so long as the # of turns played is higher than about 6). If you take a piece take your piece away next turn. Blocking an entire row and moving slowly upward can help capture cheating. At any point when your piece is taken you can automatically take your opponents piece even if it’s not a legal move.

For battleship: I would place my smallest ship on one of the corners since the bigger the play field the greater chance of someone calling a spot near the middle and most will try to make a random arrangement so no one can figure out where their ships are but this usually means that they won’t put it somewhere on the edges or directly in the middle. Forcing teammates into placing their ships on the same spots can be an effective way of maintaining loyalty during the game. If the ships occupy multiple spots like the actual battleship then placing one your teammates’ boats in such a way as to cover the most ground can find opposing boats. Only one person has to win so the rest of your teammates can arrange their boats in an orderly way as to be able to find the other boats. If gameplay is quick then having multiple groups like round 2 can be beneficial. If you can put your own boats on the same space then it can reduce the likelihood of one of your ships being destroyed.

For the court room game: Key trading can be used to form bonds. Choosing specific people as defense and prosecutor can have a psychological effect on the jurors (foes as defense, Nao as either). Opposite from what I said before you can use the jurors’ meeting as a secret meeting between three group or future group members for the accused, prosecutor, and defense. Testimonies can be made: a person testifies to seeing only one more diamond in the vault during his turn and the defense shows evidence that the defense has in his hand that same diamond so therefore the accused couldn’t have possibly stolen a diamond. If the defense shows all the diamonds are in his possession then the prosecutor can hide one diamond in a teammates locker and it is impossible for the defense to use that excuse. The prosecutor can also show that he has all but one of the diamonds left as evidence that the accused stole a diamond to which the defense could render the argument invalid by showing the remaining diamond.

24 06 2010

The key point I had started working from in the Dollar Auction was, well, there were two points. The first is that each player takes turn being auctioneer. The second is that only the top bid is revealed to all players, and the bidding takes rounds – when it goes too high, a player can leave the game. When only one player is left, the auction is over. Repeat.

Of course, the problems in that game should be pretty apparent. I don’t know how to fix it from there.

Anyway, back to the courtroom game. One of the key aspects to the “thievery” stage of the game is the order players enter the room. The second will always be aware of exactly what the first did, and if they both do the same thing then the third will know what they both did as well. Because of this, and other psychological pressures that come about from witnessing the current state of the room, the best selection strategy for this stage of the game is to make your decision before going in – and sticking to it no matter what you find inside.

Alliances are a very crucial part of the game. Information is the backbone of the game, and each of the players here have their own special section of information which could drag any of the other players down if it got out. But then, since this is the Liar Game, that information may not be believed anyway…

Something else to think about. Because of the way the game is played out, it’s risky to vote guilty as a juror. However, if you don’t know whether there’s a diamond in a locker or not, it is advantageous to convince the other jury members to vote guilty. Meanwhile, if you know there’s a diamond in the locker, you have to make sure at least six others vote guilty as well to get it opened and claim money. But then again, since all “guilty” voters would get the money, you’d have to convince the “right ones” to take the vote so that you reach the lead.

The more thought I put into this game, the more fascinating it becomes.

“Sets the order” is referring to the fact that something has to set the order the players enter the locker room and take turns as accused. Both are extremely important to this game, particularly the first. Leaving it to chance is not fair, while making it part of a game means that the players can strategise and intentionally put themselves and allies into an advantageous position.

24 06 2010

So no out of game theft? Cause if not then the whole knowing if the person took a diamond or not, will happen but if you can hide the diamonds in other people’s lockers then they still can’t tell. The thing about knowing whether the person took the diamond or not becomes mostly useless when the trail is over. If you can’t hide the diamonds even in other lockers then everyone is more likely to steal a diamond since if they continue the rotation then it is possible that they don’t get another chance to steal it.

As for the ordering system you could have a vote down system: Everyone is first and everyone has three votes. Choosing any three people, vote down a person from first place (more votes mean lower place). If there is a tie then simply have the rest vote again (for the two positions) and if there is another tie then random. This is fair since if a team focuses on downing a single player like Yokoya then this leaves room for his teammates to get higher spots.

25 06 2010

That sort of ordering system is probably the best approach to take. It would’ve been a voting game, for certain.

Yes, knowing whether a particular player took the diamond is largely useless after the trial is over – however, this provides you with fresh data and if you were after that player in the order (though not immediately after obviously) then you have a much better approximation of who is likely to have taken a diamond. Excluding key exchanges, of course. That action throws the entire game off… I think having the players “wait” in a smallish room will make it harder for them to exchange keys without being seen by others. Of course, some other rule could be implemented to prevent the players from taking such an obvious track to throw the game off. Like, you’re only given your key right before entering the room… But even that won’t solve the problem completely as they could just give it to someone else later on. But then again, you’d better be sure you can trust the person you gave the key to.

28 06 2010

I’ve put some considerable thought into this, and come up with two possible modifications for the trial game that could make it a lot more interesting while making it fit the Liar Game model even better.

The first problem I had was with the diamonds and how they related to the “pay us back afterwards” bit of the game. I resolve this by having each diamond specifically owned by a player. Let’s say, half the amount a player has is in a bank account and the other is tied up to a given diamond. At the end of the game, you have to pay back the full amount and keep what you earned from the other players – as usual. If the diamond was either never stolen or retrieved from a theft, then what it’s worth in the context of the game is removed from your debt. Meanwhile, if you did manage to steal the diamond and hand it in at the end of the game you get that amount of money added to your own account.

It may occur to you that you could steal your own diamond and hand it in at the end of the game. The only thing this would get you is security that your own diamond won’t be taken… but won’t make you any more money. If you get voted guilty, you’ll still be paying out money to the jury members that voted you guilty.

Another possible rule could be added as well. After the stealing portion of the game, each player could be informed in private if their own diamond was taken. Obviously, the first and the last players would already be aware of this given what they are already aware of as per the previous rules. This

adds another new dimension to the game, as players who have been victims of theft will be all the more willing to cast a guilty vote in an attempt to recover their own diamond.

The other rule change is that instead of lockers, each player is handcuffed to a briefcase specifically designed to hold a single diamond. This negates the possibility of players sneaking in another player’s keys. I felt this strategy was a little too obvious and had to be prevented from occuring in this way. Instead, the players will have to take another, even more cunning approach.

For example. If they made the switch while the jury was deliberating. The majority of the players are no longer able to see their briefcases. This strategy wasn’t available before, but is now.

Of course, I’m fully aware there are probably consequences to these rules that I’ve not thought of. That’s kind of the point to Liar Game, though. Isn’t it?

Oh, and if anybody is wanting to contact me on writing up something… it’s my name in small case at gmail dot com.

29 06 2010

Well, for the court room game, you need to figure out whether you want it to be a detective game, or an alliance game.

In a detective game setting, the prosecutor and defense actually present evidence, and the jury make their decision independently, based on what they know. In this setting, you would have a very small alliance. And it is basically about information casade. The first person who is behind the asccused has the most information. How he votes says a lot about the guilty of the accused, unless he is in alliance with the accused. The 2nd person behind the accused could declare both of them liars by voting another way. So there could be a number of surprises, and logic/strategy is the main weapon.

For example, the first person is on trial. The second knows what the first did. If he votes not-guilty, everyone else should follow him to vote not-guilty. Unless the first two are in alliance. In that case, when the 2nd is on trial, the third could vote guilty, because he knows someone before him took one. If the first is not-guilty, the 2nd has to be guilty. That deduction is correct, unless the first two are in alliance, and the 2nd person lied. In that case, the guilty verdict would proves to be incorrect, as it is the first person who took the diamond.
The problem is, very soon, after being tricked a couple of times, people become chicken, and would always vote not-guilty. As a fan-fic, you can have a couple of successful cases, then a betryal, then another betryal, and people get scared. You lack a surprise endding in the end though.

In an alliance setting, the prosecutor and defense would do absolutively nothing. If member of the alliance is the accused, the alliance would vote non-guilty regardless, to allow any possible theft. And for non-allied members, the alliance would pool the information of alliance members together, by using secret signs maybe. In this setting, a secret ballot may be allowed. In this setting, the game is about how to create such an alliance, what secret signals to use, and ways to steal signs and invent signs is the main interesting points about this game.

So you need to make up your mind on what you want this game to be about first, before refine the rules further.

30 06 2010

Either of them can definitely be interesting, and the alliance idea feels like it gels better with the kind of series this is… but I also think something could be done with the detective variation. I’ve been toying with the idea of removing the “lawyers” as they may be complicating the game in unneeded ways. A simpler set of rules would definitely be better.

9 07 2010

Just something i noticed about the chess game: the knight is the most powerful piece on the board, as it’s the only one that can strike from more than 1 square away. On the other hand, it becomes very difficult to make any material advantage. If the two bishops start on opposite colours (for instance), they will never meet.

Also, what’s the objective for this game? Material advantage or checkmate? Because I’m pretty sure the latter is virtually impossible, even if you’re a grandmaster. You’d need at least 3 pieces in any circumstance, or King/Queen, or Queen/Rook under the right condition. But considering the small size of the board, thisgame would begin in an (almost random) exhange of pieces) from the get-go. Also, it would be hard to strike with any non-knight piece. Imagine a bishop checking the king… the king could either trot to one side, or capture it. There’s also the issue of people with a little more chess experience having an advantage in a game like this (think the 17 Poker game in the manga. The rules are modified, but the underlying principles are the same.

Material advantage would be a good way around this: each piece worth a certain amount, then that would be different. Maybe weight them with respect to their valued game worth? That would mean some pieces would be defended better than others, like. idk

Quickly on battleships: Are bigger ships worth more because they’re bigger, or smaller ones worth more because they’re harder to find? Again, board size would be a big issue on this one. Something about it reminds me of musical chairs, can’t pinpoint how exactly.

Courtroom game: other people have made better replies than me, so i’ll be schtumm.

2 11 2010

Noticed several things about the chess game…

First is that assuming both players play defensively (and it is most likely due to extremely small number of pieces), the second player almost always has a huge advantage at the start. If capturing all pieces is the goal, second player has an almost 100% guarantee win with a high-defense strategy.
Also every game would have to have alot of forced moves, so it is advisable to break the neutral stalemate at the beginning extremely quickly. Moves can be forced simply by protecting every single piece no matter where they are, and can be extremely disastrous for the first player who attacks. Aggressive play always starts within 3 moves most of the time too, so strategy for the first player could be to break out of the neutral start by attacking a non-guarded piece, or by sacrifice, which could put player 2 at a disadvantage.
Most pieces are adapted for defense in this game, with the possible exception of the Knight which is both offensive AND defensive so the trick i would think is to see which defense style is the most offensive. The classical good defense creates good offense game, very nice! Of course, all these are assuming a clean game..

19 03 2011

I’ve got an inspiration for a new game as a fanfic (because I realise most fanfics of LG are about romance and not… a game round). So I wanted to present it here to see if it got any loopholes. Thank you! PS: I researched about game theories on my own. So if it is very amateurish, sorry!
15 people, groups of 5.
1) each person given 1 card. Each card contains 5 million from the start.
2) each person must buy jewels. He will use the card each round to choose which box of jewels using a “computer”. He can buy only 1 box per round. He can check how many jewels he have with the card. However, he does not know what other group member bought. At the 10th round, everyone’s amount of jewels will be revealed.
3) There are 5 types of boxes available in infinite quantities. The $100 thousand is the cheapest, $500 thousand is the most expensive. Each jewel stands for $10 000, but the boxes with the price might have less or more jewels than stated, the prices are rough estimates.
4) each round, everyone must choose a box. Then, the total cost will be split among the members.
5) player with most number of jewels win. Everyone must return 5 million. Jewels can be auctioned off only starting from the 10th round. Group that wins get additional box of 50 jewels to be split as they wish. Minimum number of jewels to pass is 150. If you don’t pass, you don’t proceed to the next game.

Additional info:
1. If everyone chose the most expensive box, there will be TAXES of $5 million to be split equally among 5 people, making it even more expensive than if just buying it alone.
2. If 4 people chose the most expensive box, the person who chose the least expensive box will have to pay for EVERYONE, while everyone else gets their boxes as usual without paying.
3. If 3 people chose the most expensive box, everyone pay equally, but the 2 people who buy the cheapest boxes will have no jewels–their jewels will be split among the other 3.
4. If the number of people buying most expensive box is less than half of the group, AKA ⅖, then everyone pays equally and getting their own boxes. In other words, 2 people at any one time can buy the most expensive box.
5. If everyone buys the cheapest boxes, they will get the jewels for free.

Group Water: Akiyama, Fukunaga, Kanzaki, Yukina, XX
Group Earth: Yokoya, Katsuragi, XX, XX, XX
Group Air: Harimoto, (followers) Sakiko, Murako, XX, XX

Everyone can choose a group and play!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: