Haven't played it yet. But in theory, the combination of move + token economy seems really well-implemented!
A bit unclear on how failed rolls are resolved. Let's use the Hot Pocket scenario.
* Do the players agree beforehand that the Hot Pocket was found missing from the refrigerator on Y date at X time?
* Or is that a component of the first accusing player's Query (and therefore X time and Y date can be contradicted by a future Query)?
Now let's say that player A spends the first Query token to target player B. Player B has already declared that:
(i) they work as a freelance coder
(ii) they are vegetarian
(iii) they have a romantic partner "D" , who isn't a roommate
After spending the Query token, A claims B invited D over on Y-day at X o'clock, and let D eat the Hot Pocket.
As an Alibi, B claims they had an anniversary dinner with D (+1) at Meat Is Murder on that day, so they wouldn't have the means or opportunity. And besides, D is vegan, so neither of them would have motive to eat a Bacon and Cheddar Hot Pocket anyway.
* Is there another +1 for the vegetarian trait?
Let's say B then rolls a natural 2, so they take a Suspicion token.
That means at least one of these statements must be a lie:
- B&D's anniversary
- the dinner at Meat Is Murder
- the timing of the dinner
- D being a vegan
* Can player A (and C?) insist that *all* those claims are false?
* Can player A (and C?) now make counter-statements, which are marked on the character sheet for future rounds? For example:
- B posted a photo with D on Instagram, taken inside the apartment, and time-stamped at X o'clock on Y-day.
- The Hot Pockets were actually vegan-friendly.
- Player A was at Meat Is Murder during that time, and did not see B&D. (If so, can this be marked on A's character sheet to use as a +1 if A mentions it in an Alibi?)
Curious about the criteria for what may be treated as factual precedent during succeeding rounds.