Verification

Mechanism · VIII – Cooperation & Agreement immediate · irreversible · concealed / asymmetric / dynamic · competitive / asymmetric

Verification tests whether claims, promises or states are true: a checking procedure confirms or refutes a claim and lets agents challenge and expose one another.

Design question – How does your game test whether claims are true – and how do agents challenge one another?

Reference example – Coup: whoever claims a role can be challenged – then the card must be shown. Perudo: “Dudo!” – all cups are lifted and the bid is checked. Football: the video review checks a disputed incident – offside or not? Coup (Bluffing) · Secret Hitler (Social Deduction) · Perudo (Challenge Mechanic)

Structural pattern

Input -> transformation -> output: a claim or state becomes a confirmation or refutation (truth revealed) via a checking procedure (challenge).

Regulated in permitting mode (what can be checked and who may initiate a check), constraining mode (number of challenges allowed; a false accusation has a cost) and conditioning mode (confirmed or refuted, each has its consequence). The verification process is a procedure; in a game, number and costs become specifications.

Design parameters

• Trigger – voluntary ↔ forced/random
• Cost – free ↔ risky (penalty for a false suspicion)
• Evidence – reveal ↔ check by Ludic Regulation
• Confirmed consequence – the exposed party is penalized ↔ the exposed party loses
• Refuted consequence – the accuser is penalized ↔ the accuser loses
• Frequency – rare (dramatic moment) ↔ frequent (core mechanism)

Related Mechanisms

• Communication (MEC-16) – Frequently combined: make a claim.
• Deduction (MEC-17) – Frequently combined: substantiate a suspicion.
• Revelation (MEC-18) – Frequently combined: reveal the evidence.
• Voting (MEC-28) – Frequently combined: collective verification.

Ludic Organisational Structures

Alliance System · Democracy / Voting System (dynamic)