Inhuman Conditions
“Commit to the Bit” is a theater (improv?) trope that I’ve heard kicked around before. It’s related to “Yes, and…” if someone in the scene claims their a space-alien-slash-feng-shui-interior-decorator, you don’ say “that’s stupid, be something else.” You roll with it, extend on it. Maybe your character mocks their lifestyle choices, but you keep moving forward.
Inhuman Conditions commits to the bit. “The bit” being (in this case) the Voight-Kampff test from Bladerunner. Two players — Interrogator and Suspect — have a 5-10 minute game where the Interrogator will deem the suspect Human or Robot; or a violent Robot will kill the Interrogator.
The rules credibly recreate the scene:
- Robots have “tells” ( which I sometimes call “twitches”). In one game, it might be pointing. In another game, it might be alliteration, or only saying negative things about people. In every game, answering a question without including a reference to your background (occupation) is a tell. That’s because ….
- The interrogator is given a list of questions that are designed to provoke a “tell.” The interrogators cards are matched with a set of cards for suspects (some of which are human, some are peaceful robots, etc).
- There is a calibration phase where the two players can discuss/agree what constitutes a “tell.” Is gesturing with a full hand “pointing?” Because the rules are self inforced, this is important.
There are more rules, but you get the idea. The rules alone work pretty well to provide a two-player experience similar to the movie. Both players win if the interrogator labels a human suspect as human; both lose if they label him a robot. If the suspect is a robot, there is only one winner, depending on whether the robot is caught or not.
So far, so clever. But where Inhuman Conditions really commits to the bit is in the details. The interrogator doesn’t just use cards, he fills out a form for the interrogation, and it ends when he uses an actual ink stamp to mark the suspect “Human” or “Robot.” And if he mistakenly marks a human as a robot? Well, the human is sent to the “Invasive Confirmation Center” and the Interrogator is encouraged to use the rest of the form to “compose a letter of apology to the suspect’s family.”
Absolutely un-necessary, but also spectacular.
I had previously tried to read the rules. One downside of committing to the bit is that the rules are “in character” and hard to figure out from the pamphlet, so I learned by watching a game (and getting the rules). The game was further improved when one of the players is a young actor/improv artist who fully committed to his character in both games (as suspect and interrogator), leading to two fascinating outcomes.
Honestly, this would make a hell of a gameshow. (Probably a Korean Reality TV show ala Devil’s Plan).1 As it was, it was probably the best hour I spent at the Gathering, even though I only played the game once. (In fact, watching the game is probably more fun than playing it, which is surprisingly stressful).
(I think I did OK as a suspect with a background in ‘conspiracy theory’ but the actor who was ‘Dean of a Clown College’ pulled out some hysterical deadpan answers to the questions lobbed at him).
Is this for everyone? Oh, lord no! But this is a great every-now-and-then event and a real surprise.
And “Does this game ‘Commit to the Bit?'” is of real use in reviewing.
It really helps me explain why I’m against point salad games. “Why does collecting X earn you 3 VP per item, but collecting Y earns a triangular number? What does that mean?”
Answer — “It doesn’t mean a damn thing.” I’m not saying that every game has to commit. Sometimes you really have a fantastic mechanism and want to explore it. But in general, for me — games that commit are much better than games that don’t. Even if I don’t particularly like the genre (like 2-player deduction/RPG mashups).
- Many of the rules are necessary because the robot, in particular, has to call fouls on himself and play fairly, which would not be a problem for a TV show.
︎