Annotated games: 7 players

This game was played during testing. The player decisions were either derived through reasoning (based on what players should know about the cards) or randomization (if no option seemed better than another). The following formats and abbreviations have been used:

1. Bold: Chairman
2. Underline: Player knows the freedom
3. Plain: Player doesn't know the freedom

Turn 1

The first turn is usually careful since not enough comrades will be able to see the dissident card and this game is no exception. Both the dissident and the informer are called to vote but obviously none of them draw suspicions by voting for freedom. (Perhaps the vote phase should be skipped in the first turn but it's a learning turn and is thematically good to see how the game moves from unanimous party votes to freedom votes.)

With player 1 as the chairman, player 2 starts the interrogation and happens to interrogate the dissident (player 4). When the turn later comes to player 4, she decides to give the dissident card to player 2 rather than risking that player 2 gets the informer card with the knowledge of where the dissident card is.

The informer card starts with player 3, who gives it to player 5. Player 5 in her turn keeps the card rather than giving it on to a player with 0 cards. This gives her a risk-free chance to win an informer victory next turn, since the risk of a freedom victory (which would leave her out) is minimal so early in the game.

Turn 2

Player 2 is both dissident and chairman. She knows that only player 4 has seen the dissident card so far (since player 4 was the one who played it to her in the first turn) but excludes her from the vote anyway since there are still too few to vote for freedom. It's also a way to set a trap for the informer - if a player does vote for freedom, that may be the informer in disguise revealing herself.

The informer, player 5, is actually among the voters but also sets a trap by voting as an unknowing comrade, hoping to fool the dissident.

In the interrogation phase, player 3 avoids player 5 (she already know which card player 5 has - she gave him the informer card last turn) and interrogates player 6 instead. Player 4 on the contrary does interrogate a player whose card she already knows - the dissident player 2 - to protect her from getting the informer card. This leaves player 5 with few options since she knows that player 7 got her comrade card last turn and she interrogates the (innocent) player 1 instead. Player 1 chooses to keep the informer card for a better opportunity to give it away next turn.

The dissident card has now been shared with 3 comrades.

Turn 3

Once again, the dissident is also the chairman. Unfortunately, player 3 can only be sure of player 2's loyalty (since she is the one who gave her the dissident card). Of the other players called to vote, only player 4 has seen the dissident card, and what is worse, the informer (player 1) is also called. Nevertheless, with the unknowing player 6 voting for the party, there will be no committee and the dissident will remain secret.

In the interrogation, player 4 gives her card to player 7 and player 5 to player 3. This also means that player 5 now knows the dissident. This leaves only player 2 and player 6 with 1 card so the informer gives the informer card to one of them, player 6. The dissident card ends up with player 4, since player 3 didn't know that player 4 had already seen it.

4 players have now seen the dissident card and a freedom victory is getting closer.

Turn 4

Player 4 is both chairman and dissident so she can't participate in the vote, which leaves too few players to vote for freedom. Nevertheless, she calls player 3 (who gave her the dissident card and thus knows the word) and player 2 (whom she gave the dissident card in the first turn). Player 7 is excluded, since she was given a comrade card previous turn and player 4 rightfully suspects that the dissident card has never reached her. For the other voters, player 4 randomly selects player 1 and 5 instead, but although she skillfully avoids the informer, the vote fails.

Seeing the failed vote, player 5 fears that the dissident is among the other voters and play her card to one of them (player 1) as protection against the informer. However, the following player 6 is the informer and since she got the informer card from player 1, she rightfully concludes that she can't be the dissident (otherwise she would have had both the informer card and the dissident card at the same time and triggered an informer victory) and that she caused the failed vote because she hasn't seen the dissident card.

But since the other voters voted for freedom, the dissident is likely to be someone of the non-voting players, and this leaves only player 4 and player 7. Player 7 was given a 2nd card the previous turn while player 4 gave away her only card before receiving 1 card again. Player 6 makes another conclusion that player 7 wouldn't have kept the dissident card if she had had a chance to give it away and interrogates player 4 instead. She's absolutely right and wins!

Player 6 wins an informer victory by playing the informer card to the dissident player 4!

P&P (PDF, A4)	P&P (PDF, US Letter)

Annotated games

• 7 players

If you like those game mechanisms, I can also recommend: