On a sem-whim, I bought Dupery (“A game of Solo Deduction”) from Steam. It’s a puzzle game in the style of Werewolf, but this time it’s Noir and Mafia. You have a grid (initially 3×3, but later bigger) of roles. Some innocent, some evil and quite a few are meddlers (innocent, but not necessarily helpful or truthful). You have to untangle the facts and arrest the evil. Arrest too many innocent people before you finish the case (a series of 5-7 puzzles) and you lose.

So far I’ve played 5 hours … the TaoLing has also played.

The good:

• Simple but nice graphics, good theming
• The puzzles are hard (in fact, for the first several hours I didn’t solve a non-tutorial case) and get harder. Once you’ve solved a few cases at “The Office” then new locations with additional rules are added. (In the Casino you gain and lose chips with each action, which provides clues but also … if you run out of chips you fail. The Docks has hidden people ‘out at sea’ and you have to drive your boat to them to interrogate them, and also watch your fuel). I haven’t unlocked them all

The bad:

• The puzzles are dealt out randomly (I think) which means you can get a situation where you know either A or B is lying and just have to bite the bullet and accuse one of them. Given the structure of the game where you need multiple false accusations to fail, this is reasonable. But for some puzzle fans that’s a deal breaker.
• There’s only one audio track of a wailing sax. Cool for 10 seconds, annoying after that.

I mean, it’s $10. I’ll probably get another 5-10 hours out of it at least. Reasonable enough.

Rating — Suggest.

Last month Bridge Base Online (BBO) announced that it was limiting players to 6 hands a day (unless they subscribed). End of an era … I remember logging onto BBO (and perhaps one or two other online bridge sites) back in ’93, and I still have a semi-regular team practice match weekly. I did actually pay to play a few games during Covid, but I do not particularly care to play online tournaments, or online against random people. I understand that BBO needs to make money, but it seems to me that they’ve made a windfall during- and post-Covid, often at the expense of physical clubs, and this seems like a short-sighted money grab.

Anyway, we decided to move to IntoBridge and it seems quite reasonable. One nice feature is a Daily Challenge (similar to BBOs weekly free robot tournament). Play five hands with robots in the other three seats, and see how you did against a celebrity (who played the hands with robots and recorded a video on youtube). I don’t often watch the videos, but it’s amusing. The Robots generally bid much better than BBOs, as well.

Anyway, FYI.

I was reading The Zvi’s discussion of the METR report on Hugging Face when another gamer sent me the 3quarks daily article where an AI summarizes the same report. For this discussion, the only thing you need to know is that there were many agents of a few two different “breeds,”¹ who started up a message board and communicated to (jointly) work towards a common goal.

Which reminded me of my bridge game yesterday (and earlier this week).

Bridge partners are jointly working together to get the best score possible² and there are a variety of “breeds” (in terms of levels of understanding). Each agent/player has different information, but the partnership shares the same goals …

Even though most of the AI agents were the same breed (HIPM), they did not all necessarily agree on the best course of action. Partially that’s because they each had their own subtask goal, but they’d all learned new/different information in the process of working towards it, which affected them.

And there is limited bandwidth.

Like bridge players. Same goal, but tacit (shared training) information, different real world information, and limited bandwidth.

Which come up in two games this week, with two partners.

My partner yesterday is an expert (better than me, but not ridiculously better). But she has a few unusual preferences in convention card and bidding (which affects us)³ but I trust her baseline and can (mostly) mentally figure out the differences myself. For example, in one of our earliest games together we had the following auction:

1H-1NT*; (*Semi-forcing 1NT — Opener is only allowed to pass with a 5332 hand with a minimum or subminimum)

2C-2S*; (*Undiscussed)

I made the 2 Spades bid in complete confidence that my partner would recognize it as an Impossible 2 Spades. (I had already denied spades, since I had bypassed 1 Spade in favor of 1 NoTrump). This is not merely because she’s an expert … there are several players of my calibre that might be flummoxed by this bid … because they learned bidding by rote and the person who taught them never mentioned it. ⁴

And in fact she did recognize it, although not as confidently as I’d hoped. (“We’d never discussed that auction…. so I hoped you knew what it should mean.”)

(It should mean — “I have the one of the best possible hands in support of your newly bid minor.”)⁵

With that as the background, before the game I brought up an issue I wanted to clarify. “I seem to recall that you mentioned Equal Level Conversion in our last game. Do we play it?” “Yes.”

Now armed with the knowledge that my partner plays ELC, a few hands later we get the following auction:

(1H)-Double-(P)-3 Clubs;(P)-3 Diamonds

Is 3 Diamonds an Equal Level Conversion? Yes. But should the ELC convention apply at the 3 level, after a jump? I’m sure that partnerships who have discussed everything (and I’ve been in one or two of those) might have an answer (you can never discuss everything).

It may be that there’s a theoretical discussion that answers it, but all the discussions I’ve read of ELC (including the one I linked before) are silent on the issue.

(And since I play Raptor⁶ in many partnerships, I’ve never had to explore ELC in depth, because Raptor covers all the hands that would want to use ELC).

So my partnership was in the same place as the AI agents. We had similar background and goals, we’d made an agreement, but a very shorthanded one “We play ELC (No Further Discussion/Definition).”

Were we trained on the same data? After a brief internal argument as to whether it should be ELC (or forcing) which left me undecided. I fell back onto the “Assuming I am wrong, which mistake would be less devastating?” … at matchpoints either one could be a zero, so I fell back again onto “The ELC hands are weaker and (therefore) it is more probable that she has that hand” and treated it as ELC and passed.

Wrong.

Partner (being a well-aligned agent) admitted after the hand that she’d made the bid before realizing it might fall into a gray area⁷. (And ethical enough to not give any hint of a signal when I was thinking).

Earlier this week my college partner (whom I’ve played with for almost four decades, but most of his partnerships are in the DC area) had a technical argument about what a bid should mean. I’d never heard of his interpretation, it is one of those “East Coast vs West Coast⁸” things.

I gave yesterday’s partner the auction (without naming either of our interpretations of what it should mean) and she said “(West Coast Meaning/The One Tao Thought), what else could it possibly be?” So with one partner

I have no grand point.

I just thought it was interesting that AI agents sometimes suffered the same indignities as Bridge Players.

1. Mostly an unknown agent labelled “HIPM,” but a few GPT-Sol 5.6 ︎
2. See S.J. Simon’s “Why you lose at Bridge” for a discussion of “Best Score Possible” vs “Best Possible Score” and the realities that make the two different … he calls this the “Half a loaf” theory. ︎
3. Just as an example, she prefers to open 5Spade+5Club hands with 1 Club, which I know Danny Kleinman recommends but I’ve never seen anyone else play it, as expert standard has gone to MAFIA. “Majors Are First In All (instances)” ︎
4. I have been burned several times by assuming that all bridge players have read as many theory books as I have, and while I don’t think I’ve ever had a partner miss this, they’ve missed other things I consider equally obscure. ︎
5. With a few rare exceptions, such as a splinter. So it is stronger than a direct raise to 3 of a minor. ︎
6. Man, I wrote that a decade ago? ︎
7. Of course, I might never know if she meant that or was just being polite. ︎
8. We played together in Baltimore … and there is a system/dialect called “Washington Standard.” It mostly know where it does not agree with local standard, which is more West Coast. ︎

Mr. President is now out on Steam. I played the demo and I’m tempted to get it.

Consider this an open thread for what computer/solo games you are interested in right now and/or if you’re getting it.

I tried the demo for this somewhat cozy game a few days ago, and decided to buy it.

This is a deck builder where each card has 1 or more glyphs, and possibly a special ability. You are basically a god/explorer founding villages. When you pick a location it contains two regions (plains, swamps, buildings, etc) that determine what combination of glyphs are worth things, and you then draw a hand, use the abilities/glyphs to fill the puzzle, then get a second hand and that’s it.

(The puzzles are basically decision trees. You can unlock A or B or C, and A may have A1 or A2, etc. Taking A precludes B/C).

There’s just enough choice to be interesting … since you can use each card for one glyph (possibly of 2 or more) OR its special ability, and you don’t know all the cards you are going to draw (since you get one redraw, but must discard unused). Since starting one path precludes others, it’s a risk/reward.

But “cozy” … no time pressure, very low key.

Honestly, I didn’t really buy it for the gameplay, although its fine. The game also has classical Japanese Art (and descriptions, history lessons on the art, hi-res versions, etc) and some Japanese Language Practice (which is optional and probably not even very helpful compared to real lessons, but I liked that and I hate taking real lessons). Because of that, I figured I could pay $10 which — let’s be frank — isn’t much.

If I were paying attention I’d learn that “Oh, this terrain gives the same decision tree every time and my deck is good for that,” but I don’t really care enough to put that much effort into it. I’m just exploring it for the aesthetics, mostly.

Rating — A fine cozy game, but honestly indifferent. I suppose if I approached it as a real strategy game I’d probably move my rating one way or the other. I’ll likely play 10 hours, maybe more, but probably not 25+.

During a Sumo stream, the streamer I watch mentioned he was playing “Manage your stable” game in his browser, so I checked it out.

Uchi No Heya (“Inside the stable”) is … OK. I mean, I played for several hours. The game is still in Beta, with several issues (including seeing several “NaN”s where numbers should be), but the idea is sound. You recruit and coach young rikishi (sumo wrestlers) and guide their training; the matches are auto-battlers¹. You can watch it play out or just hit “Quick” to see the days results.

Most decisions occur during the 8 weeks between tournaments. Random events, assign stat points, manage money.

Last year I started sketching out a game with a similar idea (A board game, not a computer game, but the idea stands). And in a total coincidence, I played shortly after I wrote up ,my 20th Century Project on PB(E)M games, where I talk about the Soccer Simulation League I ran for a season or two (CMU-EFL). So having this come out is up my alley.

I. Have. Opinions.

Some things Uchi no Heya gets right:

• There is morale and personalities, and sometimes personalities clash. This is a big deal. Baseball and Basketball games often have synergistic players … Sumo wrestlers live together. Imagine the impact of conflicting personalities. I could see making that practically the sole game (Like New Orleans Big Band) where your entire result is based on recruiting, and the tournaments are a minor part of the game. (Perhaps one die roll or card flip for everyone!). From what I’ve seen of Sumo, this is entirely reasonable.²
• I love the idea of “Who is the main cook during the tournament, and how much did you spend on ingredients?” The wrestler (effectively) brews Chanko potions, and can get better at it.
• When you scout recruits you have a rough idea of his maximum stat (via error bars).
• I don’t mind the graphics, but they are old school.

But Many things are frustrating:

• Most decisions seem minor. Given that its an autobattler, I’d like to “Quick resolve” the entire tournamen (with interruptions for “Should you pull a person who is battling through injury?” or “Who gets the potion?”
  • The personalities clash system? Seems relegated to some random events.
  • The Chanknabe potions affect a stat by a few percent for one match. (The fatigue and morale improving potions do carry across matches, etc).
  • Managing finances / when to grow the stable seem important, but planning isn’t a big deal. Random events can give or take away multiple months worth of expenses.
  • Some events are “Dispute between two wrestlers” where you have no basis for resolving, because it’s a “A said, B said” thing, or there is no information.
  • Some events have “Do it,” “Skip it,” “Raise the stakes” (with a bigger risk/reward), but the chances of winning for “Do it” vs “Do it all out” are the same.
• I’ve played through several years; none of my wrestlers have voluntarily retired. Just feels wrong. A bunch of people coming in for a few years and deciding they can’t cut it is a big part of the sport, and I’d like to see “Who do you encourage to stay, and who do you let go?”
• It seems odd to me that you can dump 4+ points into one stat (like Weight!) in a month, instead of slow progress.

Overall the game has lots of insignificant decisions. After a few hours I got the definite feeling of a grindy freemium game (which is what struck me after writing up the PBM article). “Numbers go up.” And …. that’s it.

What I’d have liked to see:

To fit the theme, you are assumed to help all your students, but with limited resources for “special help” and “resolving problems.” (For example, students should train their own points automatically instead of you assigning them, but you do get to do specials sessions to allocate bonus).

Grinding has been done (much better) in other games, why not try for an Ultima style Dilemmas? Or have a system like Blood Royale where you have to work with what you get (in terms of stats) or Divine Right where the personalities/quirks are revealed slowly³. So you get “Star Recruit” but it turns out he has anger issues, etc…

Anyway, I might still pick up the steam game when it releases (it has other modes of play, which might be better … for example many of the mechanisms might work well if you were focused on a single wrestler … and for a few bucks I’d like to see more Sumo games created, so sure ).

But I’m also thinking about how I’d do it again … and I might take another crack at it. OK, unless I get really inspired I doubt anything will come of it, but whatever. I’m thinking about it as a background task.

Rating — Indifferent (if you like Sumo, or are looking for a numbers go up kind of background game), avoid otherwise.

Update — The game is out on Steam and the designer has indicated that the bug I mentioned above was indeed fixed.

1. Wrestlers have 8 trainable stats, plus frame size, etc, and can learn techniques. ︎
2. Many larger stables have people in them for a decade or two, and it is clear they are never going to get anywhere near a .500 record, much less a pro level, but they are affable, good cooks, etc. ︎
3. I only played maybe half a game of Divine Right in my first semester of college, so I have nothing more than a vague memory of “the rulers had personalities, but they weren’t revealed up front.” ︎

They’ve just released 0.15 (up to 0.15.2 for some bugfixes). I’m sitting here waiting impatiently for it to download. Nuclear power, rebalanced combat, a ‘marathon’ mode (critical items take a lot more materials to build), and prebuilt settings for various styles of play….

It is a sign of good sportsmanship on my part that I didn’t skip gaming to download it yesterday (when it released), but that’s only because I’d promised that I’d teach High Frontier.

Update — It’s slower going (7 types of science instead of 4 — and purple science is no longer “stuff you get for free by killing natives”). I’ve got a horrible spaghetti maze because I haven’t been looking ahead. I should probably punt, but my goal is to use this base as a starting point for a big base, so its ok. But I do like many things:

• Flamethrowers are still good, but much more expensive. Bullets have been buffed, because they were terrible.
• Infinite science (even if some of it seems to be a bad deal, like mining productivity).
• Lots of quality of life fixes (showing oil patches underground, etc).

I need to get logistics bots for this factory. It’s not pretty. Gotta find a new copper patch, too. Have basically run out.