Introducing “Out of the Loop,” a new social deduction game for Zoom
Artists’ statement
‘Out of the Loop’ is an intense, fast-paced game of social deduction that casts you and your friends as townspeople all talking about a bizarre event that happened recently in the town… the only catch? Two townspeople actually don’t know what happened: they’re Out of the Loop.
All four of us love games of deception and social deduction. Particularly in quarantine, we’ve spent a number of nights playing games like Among Us, One Night Werewolf, Secret Hitler, and many others.
Half the fun of these games comes from the suspense involved with suspecting your fellow players and having to defend yourself from suspicion; however, all of these well-known games also have elements that distract from their fundamental deduction mechanic — Among Us has its mini-games, Secret Hitler has its policies, Werewolf has its role-swapping.
In our game, Out of the Loop, we’ve boiled down the essence of these games into the most direct, intense, fast-paced version possible: social deduction while speed dating.
The premise is simple: two townspeople are Out of the Loop (OOTL)—completely in the dark about a monumentally bizarre event that took place somewhere in the town in the last few days. All the other townspeople are In the Loop (ITL), and must figure out who is OOTL without letting them know the specifics of the event.
By combining this situation with a speed-dating mechanic, in which each pair has very limited time in which to subtly interrogate each other, we’ve made the game we wished existed: pure, high-energy, absurd social deduction.
Initial decisions around formal elements and fun
Players
We wanted the game to be playable by many people: we believed that the more people involved, the trickier, more complex, and ultimately more fun the game could be. While the game needed at least four people to play, we did not initially have a maximum number of players in mind.
We intended for there to be two teams. One team would know the mystery scenario; the other team would not. Moreover, no one in the game would know the other players on their team.
Outcomes
Initially, there were two win conditions (one win condition per team). For the team with topic knowledge (In the Loop), the win condition was to identify the players without knowledge of the scenario. For the team without topic knowledge (Out of the Loop), the win condition was to discover their fellow teammates without the topic knowledge. Players in the game would gain information about each other through one-minute-long one-on-one conversations utilizing Zoom’s breakout room feature.
Objectives
The main objective of players was initially to outwit and to analyze conversations better than other players. Outwitting in this game would include revealing the right details about the topic and asking appropriate questions to help reveal insight into a player’s team. Players with better analytical or deductive skills might be able to read body language, and burrow deeper into the language that their fellow players used. By pursuing these objectives sufficiently, players would be able to help their team achieve the desired outcome of winning.
Procedures and Rules
In the beginning of the game, players are either given the chosen scenario, or not. Players in the loop are on one team, while players out of the loop are on another team. After roles are assigned and the appropriate information received by all parties, players go through several rounds of “speed-dating” in breakout rooms.
Each speed date lasts one minute and each speed date is with a new random player. During these speed dates, two players talk with each other in vague ways about the scenario, as each tries to determine whether the other player really knows what they’re talking about.
In this initial stage, we were unclear about how teams would formally go about accusing or claiming someone that is out of the loop.
Boundaries
We devised the “magic circle” of the game to simply be represented by the Zoom room and its breakout rooms. A different temporal boundary would exist in the form of timed conversations and deliberations, enforced by the moderator.
Types of Fun
Fantasy
Through the scenario of the game, players get to transport themselves out of their chair in the living room and into the given scenario. For example, for one of our original scenarios (the first one ever created, actually) — “A meteorite has hit the local butcher shop” — players get to act in ways that align with this prompt. They have the freedom to totally immerse themselves in the world we’ve constructed for them. Extra savvy players — or those with a flair for the dramatic — have the chance to help construct the world of the game themselves, developing their own personas and characters throughout the course of the game.
Fellowship
Through the speed-dating mechanic, players get to do what all social mediation games try to evoke — discussions with other people. Because players are unsure of the team the other player is on but still needs to dig for information, delightfully amusing conversations and interactions inevitably occur. By talking to other players, players can get to know another’s personality better and can even form relationships beyond the game. In the Zoom classroom environment we currently find ourselves in, this experience is particularly appealing to people that are still looking for ways to connect socially to their friends (or strangers), even distantly.
Competition
We wanted the game to have a competitive spirit akin to Secret Hitler and Mafia, where one “good” team would try to seek out the identities of the “bad” team through crafty social deduction. With a competitive game, we believed the game would be “stickier” (i.e. people would want to keep coming back to the game). We hoped after each round, players might want to develop new strategies, return to the game, and strive for improvement.
Concept map
Testing and iteration history
Over the course of playtesting, prototyping, and discussing our game, “Out of the Loop” has evolved tremendously. Our game has been played about five times all the way through. In this section, we’ll highlight the most insightful playtests and how our game evolved from them.
Playtest 0: Just the creators
The first playtest occurred right after we “built” the first prototype for the game. Through social bricolage, we prepared our game for a session on Zoom between our four group members. We assigned one person to be the moderator, and the moderator gave the in-the-loop (ITL) people their topics. The moderator participated in the game as well. The moderator coordinated the Breakout rooms and shuffled people in and out of the rooms. We quickly learned that the moderator would need to be someone technically adept at Zoom to coordinate the game smoothly. After playing, the ITL people had figured out the out-of-the-loop (OOTL) people, but we were still unclear about the end conditions of the game, so it didn’t really seem like anybody had won.
What Went Well
Conversation: Conversations in the game went well. We found that conversations were measured — we knew to try to avoid disclosing too much or too little information. This positive sign suggested that our game did its job in forcing players to strike the appropriate balance of dispensing information during the breakout room section; we hoped this would translate when we took our game beyond ourselves.
Investment: After the game finished, we found ourselves invested in the game. Simply put, we wanted to play more. We also all had smiles slapped across our faces — we had all enjoyed ourselves, and were excited to deepen our commitment to the game and keep playing.
What Didn’t Go Well
Player count: Because we didn’t have enough players, the moderator had to participate and be on some team. This did not work out well since the moderator could not have any input on the discussion at the end. Additionally, the moderator had to coordinate Zoom breakout rooms and navigate Zoom’s interface while simultaneously playing the game — this multitasking proved difficult, if not nearly impossible.
Playtest 1: The real deal
This was the first time we had opened up our game to people outside the founding team. Four players participated in this round. Not much changed from our initial playtest with just the creators, except that we now had an assigned moderator who timed discussions, coordinated breakout rooms for the “speed date” rounds, and did not participate in any debate or deliberation.
What Went Well
Fun: The ITL people thoroughly enjoyed themselves. During the discussion at the end, they confidently declared the OOTL people, and were right. They were confident because they had dropped hints that clearly displayed that they were both ITL. The given scenario was that a unicorn had broken into the town pharmacy (naturally).
Savvy: Some players utilized particularly subtle hints that consisted of plays on words like “horned” and “iridescent.”
What Didn’t Go Well
Not fun: The OOTL team had one founding member and one member that never played before. The non-founding member had obviously never seen the prompt before, and didn’t know what the other potential prompts looked like, and so had a difficult time trying to camouflage in as an ITL person. On the other hand, one of our founding members performed better as an OOTL person, and still enjoyed themselves.
Difficulty: Because we only had four players during this playtest, and we had everyone talk to each other in a breakout room, it was pretty difficult for the Out of the Loop players to blend in.
Playtest 2: Introducing scenario groups and more obscured info
Since the biggest problem we faced last playtest was OOTL people not having an inkling as to what the prompts could be, we decided to change the topic knowledge mechanic. That is, no longer would one team have sole knowledge of the topic. Instead, all players would have knowledge of five scenarios, and the ITL people would know which one of the five scenarios actually occurred.
We also decided to introduce a new layer of obscured information: players would not have the chance to be in a breakout room with everyone. This meant that in deliberations, they would have to lean in on those who they had spoken to, and trust that they could trust them. This interesting twist would hopefully add another layer of complexity to the game that did not exist previously.
What Went Well
OOTL Approval: It appeared that the OOTL people had more of a fighting chance of blending in. They seemed more upbeat during discussions and conversations, and more easily able to whittle down which prompts the real scenario could be given the line of questions and discussion from their fellow players.
Speed-Dating Subsets: Since we had 6 players during this playtest, some players didn’t get a chance to see each other in the breakout rooms. This meant they had less information to make their decisions during deliberations, and had to rely on those that they had spoken to in order to inform what they thought about the others. Players overwhelmingly liked this aspect of the game — some relationships between players felt very tenuous, while others seemed strengthened, as each insisted that the other was trustworthy. Alliances thus formed quickly, to the benefit of one of our OOTL friends.
What Didn’t Go Well
Scenario distinctions and issues with game difficulty: While OOTL people had five scenarios to anchor their conversations now, it was still nevertheless difficult for them to have fluid conversation with their fellow break-out room partners because the scenarios were so distinct from each other. (That is, either it was too easy for the OOTLs to figure out the prompt based on the hints dropped by others, or too difficult for them to figure out where to start the discussion, thereby making it obvious that they were Out of the Loop.)
The Final Play
Two primary things we wanted to address for our game in our final playtest were the end conditions for the game and the relationships between the scenarios. In our previous playtests, our game had ended with the OOTL people being discovered, and that’s it. There was no sense of achievement for the ITL or the OOTL people achieving their desired outcomes.
In our final play, we enforced a win condition for each team.
For those OOTL: they win if they don’t get eliminated. If one (or both) of them is eliminated, they can still win if they guess the correct prompt.
For those ITL: eliminate one or both of the OOTLs, while keeping them in the dark about the real prompt.
Moreover, for the scenario relationships, we decided to make all five scenarios connected with a thread/theme of bread and animals. This was a move inspired by one of our TAs, who suggested changing the prompts to be more Mad Libs style (and also suggested changing the name of the teacher in one of our earlier scenarios from “Mrs. Johnson” to “Mrs. Baguette.”)
What Went Well
Achievement Felt: This game, the ITL people figured out the OOTL people. Some people were unsure on their own, but when they discussed at the end, they felt confident and went through with their vote and were correct. All the ITL jubilantly cheered.
Lots of fellowship: The conversations during the speed-dating sessions contained many interesting social dynamics, ranging from astute questioning, to sly question dodging, to inside jokes to incite anger. Additionally, during the discussion at the end that occurs before the vote on who is OOTL, everyone was having fun discussing each other’s findings and tendencies.
What Didn’t Go Well
Emotion/tone: During the speed-dating rounds, one player was found suspicious of being OTL. Once the person was verbally accused during a speed-date, the tone of the conversation would become less excited and playful.
Final prototype
While we envision prompt selection, role assignment, and the rotation of speed dates to ultimately be automated, for the purposes of play-testing our prototype over Zoom, we had one person be the moderator to perform those tasks. The moderator explained the rules verbally, selected the prompts for each round, messaged each player individually with the prompt, and assigned timed breakout rooms of two people for the speed dates. The moderator also timed the discussion at the end and collected votes privately.
Design mock-ups
Though we prototyped and play-tested our game over Zoom without the use of any graphical elements, we ultimately hope for our game to be playable on its own website with built-in video calling. We created the following prototype of what our game’s website might look like. We used Figma to create these screens, with free icons from flaticon.com to create our event cards and stock photos of people from shutterstock.com.
Quotes
We’ve had a lot of fun playtesting our game, and fortunately so have our playtesters. Below are some of our favorite quotes from our playtests:
“He did the whole tactic where he was like, if we both know it, we can both say it on the count of three. And I was like… HOLD up.”
“Is he feigning technical difficulties to avoid having to speak?”
“What’s your story?” “My story is that I know what it is, and Vincent doesn’t.”
“I thought it was the sloth, but then I brought up Zootopia and then…”
“Vincent, I don’t think you know anything.”
“I’m SHOCKED. I resent that.”
