I am near completion of my first game and love it! But I do think the game would benefit by having players be anonymous. By this I am not referring to their true identies but rather their screen names being used within games. The issue is that with the same screen name being used in multiple games players become known to each other. It inhibits a player from trying different diplomatic styles across different games and also lends itself to players colluding with each other outside any one specific game.

I would suggest that players are assigned random names (or just colors) within each game so that nobody knows who the actual players are. I would also impose a rule forbidding players from disclosing their screen names during a game. Upon game conclusion disclosing screen names could be optional.

Lastly, I think the games could benefit by having some kind of optional after-action-review commentary that players could make. It would be interesting to reflect on the game after it has concluded and share observations.

My two cents...

agreed on all points, but we don't want to make the default anonymous because we do want some accountability via reputation. after launch we would like to add a play mode that includes anonymity.

Personally, I find it very useful to always know which player E_McNeil is...

rkduke wrote:Lastly, I think the games could benefit by having some kind of optional after-action-review commentary that players could make. It would be interesting to reflect on the game after it has concluded and share observations.

I was actually going to make a post suggesting exactly this! Even in just the one game I'm currently in with you, there's been so many lucky, funny and sneaky moments that it would be a shame not to be able to share them with everybody else in the game afterwards.

How True!

Ron,
I don't know whether by making anonymity optional you mean in terms of a game creator establishing for all players in a game or for a player-by-player basis within a game. But I would like to elaborate on the benefits of anonymity.

I am an avid online Diplomacy player which has obvious similarities to Subterfuge. In every online Diplomacy site I'e seen, player anonymity is valued highly and there are strict rules forbidding outside-the-game communications, cross-game agreements, etc. The reason is to preserve the uncertainty within the game as to other players' true intentions, trustworthiness, and future actions.

The most interesting thing about Diplomacy is the uncertainty as to whether one can truly trust his ally and how the endgame might unfold. Will an alliance hold together or will one member backstab the other in an attempt to gain a solo win?

In my view, if Subterfuge lacks player anonymity it will lack this valuable aspect of player/player interactions. Over time, groups of players will develop high levels of trust greatly diminishing the possibility of backstabs and enabling them to allocate 100% of their drillers against the foes. This, I believe, will affect game balance and diminish the enjoyment of the game.

Ron, I encourage you to take a close look (if you haven't already) at online Diplomacy sites and talk to the creators of such sites to help guide your thinking on this. To me, the most interesting and exciting aspect of Diplomacy (and hopefully Subterfuge) is the uncertain of what other players will do!

rkduke, you make a strong case for anonymity, and i agree with you that it should be part of the game in some way (and we plan to make it so).

i think advanced players would value and benefit from anonymity. i think newer players will enjoy not being anonymous, developing trust with strangers, playing with friends, and knowing who is who.

there's room for both in this game.

Excellent. Glad to hear it!

I'm against anonymity in the game, but understand that others might like it as an option. I would be reluctant to join a game where previous players who have lied to me are not remembered.

FateCreatr wrote:where previous players who have lied to me are not remembered.

This here is the key. If somebody is going to backstab me in a game I want them to know that they will not be trusted in any further games that we play together. In the same way, if I meet FateCreatr in a game I know that if he agrees to something that he is almost certain to stick to it because we have built up history of keeping our word.

And I'm a little puzzled to why the games of Diplomacy you play involve such an important level of anonymity. Surely that is removing a layer of complexity when you start to analyse the meta-game of the other players?