Appreciate that Tom didn't get on with it, and it's far from a perfect game. But it's not trying too hard to be a role-playing game. It IS a roleplaying game. You're supposed to act different, whether you're a robot or not. If you just play the human role as straight as possible to win, this game definitely isn't for you. And it rewards repeat plays. As the investigator knows more of the 'ticks', the more paranoid they get whenever you unintentionally cough or make a reference. And, maybe I need to read the manual again, but I seem to recall it had a very dry, tongue-in-cheek tone. If you don't find it funny, fair enough, but I never felt like it was taking itself seriously.

10:45 - "They're trying too hard to turn this into some sort of roleplaying game, and it's not." Can someone explain this to me? If you choose to roleplay it, is it not a roleplaying game? It seems like there's plenty of opportunity for that here.

I actually see it more like a micro LARP than a boardgame. I have fun making up things and doing so while constrained by some rules and limitations, apart from the fun of the social deduction per se.

I think this just requires the right fit. I love the game as a small roleplaying experience. In my little playgroup, we get suuuper into the background cards you are given. That way, through the act of trying to act as much like the second-richest person in the world as possible, you will have little verbal cues and mannerisms that throw off the investigator and make their job harder. I guess as a straight-up by-the-rules game it isn't great, but if you go into it expecting a more roleplaying experience, it is a tense little situation you find yourself in.

It is a roleplaying game. It's only, like, tangentially also a board game. Roleplay is its heart. You're getting thrown off just because it has lots of physical components. The reason the human x human games are fun is that you have to create a character in 30 seconds, improvise their name and demeanor and everything about them, and immediately start pretending to be them as they get intimately questioned about things they'd probably rather not talk about. The profession cards are there for a reason - they're your writing prompt. This also affects how easy it is to pass the test as a human - if you were just playing as yourself, it would be easy. But when you're playing correctly, you have to avoid being suspicious while also never betraying your character - if they're a family man, and you start asking things like "have you ever cheated on your wife", your character would, and should, get very upset about that, which could be mistaken as guilt, but you need to do it to live your character's truth. This game has exactly one problem, and it's that unless both players are in character, it falls apart instantly. But it's a roleplaying game. You're never supposed to leave character anyway. So many games that are 99% RPGs but they come with a lot of physical components, like this, Ghost Court, Dear Leader, etc etc, get torn apart by joyless people playing them wrong. You're a very literal minded person, so I expected you to miss the point on this one, but the fact that you missed it so hard that you even said "it's trying to be some sort of roleplaying game"... oof.

I wondered why Tom had a red dot on his hand in the Baker Street review. Now I know.

The cards have to be this big: This are original sized (sorry, only know the German Name - Perhaps "Puch Card") "Lochkarten", which were used to save computercode on back in the days.

I hard disagree with this review. My friends and I love this game. For us it is a role playing game, and that's how I teach it. I tell people to go in there play your character have fun. It's almost more fun to watch people playing the game.

While I have not played this game, I feel like Tom is off the mark here. First off, an unskilled or moderately-skilled human who is *honest* (not accidentally cheating by not catching that they broke their special rule) is far more likely to screw up their special rule. The penalty is there because thematically the special rule represents that the suspect (even a human suspect) is a dysfunctional person and likely to panic by doing something odd that the investigator knows is a quirk of the suspect. This would come out naturally during gameplay. An expert human is indistinguishable from a master robot, but the expert human only has an easy time with an inexperienced investigator. Even if an inexperienced human is told the "cheat" that Tom describes, that meta then works against them because an experienced robot can use that meta against the investigator by acting like that meta applies. An experienced investigator should be constantly considering the potential special rules that might be in play, and formulate questions which probe at that special rule, seeing whether you can force them to break that special rule. This is basically "2-player Spyfall with more rules", which is much safer to play during covid times.

So much failed potential. The suspect should have tasks to complete no matter what, then it becomes a game of “sneaking past the interrogator”.

Other Tom's review really makes this sound much funner, and even after watching this Tom struggle, I really want to try it, over Discord at least.

In the various designer playthroughs of the game found on youtube you will find the designers talking about how they designed and selected the penalties. I suspect this is falling victim to the problem of too many games coming through the dice tower for review without enough time to research them before making judgments about the investment of the designers or the intent of the gameplay. Seemed like a surprisingly harsh review (even when it came to the compoents being too nice)

I've always had a good time playing this game. Really, it just comes down to whether players will participate in the actual role playing part. Much like Sheriff of Nottingham, the game is only fun if people play in character.

This might be controversial. *Sigh.* I think it requires a certain discipline to play this game, and sadly it seems like Tom and his group missed to get on with it, and that compromised their experience. In spite of their VAST experience with board games, I really don't think The Dice Tower is equipped to review roleplaying games or hybrids in a sufficiently informed way. They are great at reviewing zero-sum games, but there are other games that establish different priorities, and those tend to put-off some veteran board gamers. My opinion. To quote Christopher Chinn: "Roleplaying games are games where imaginary fiction is the focus of play and influences choices and outcomes of play." This IS a roleplaying game with victory conditions. It's very innovative in that regard, and it requires a lot of buy in from the players, but once you get that the game is incredibly fun. It's likely that part of the reason why Tom doesn't like playing as a human, is because (like someone else mentioned) they seem to be playing the human role as straight as possible in order to win. This game really shines when you supersede that impulse and actually attempt to convincingly (for both yourself and your audience) act as if you were your background character. I've found something that really helps explain this concept to non-roleplayers, is to say that part of the fun as a human is for you to self-impose a challenge in the form of acting a believable character. Not doing this is like bowling with the bumpers up. You need to try to win in spite of your own "HUMAN CONDITIONS", and part of the game is for you to try to figure out what those mean for yourself. Ex-Convict? Feel free to act rudely and a little aggressive. Scientist? Use highly sophisticated and specific language. The most satisfactory victories we've had as humans, are those in which we clearly were acting and roleplaying our role, (dying inside because clearly acting weirdly) but actually showing variety and authenticity in our responses. The entire protocol for the game, the "taking it too seriously", is a conscious choice to facilitate this kind of play. Winning as a human is less about 'winning' and more about 'winning with style'. I hope this becomes readily apparent when seeing how sports like basketball and others can be played with both high and low stakes, and that's just a matter of style. While I agree that the designers could've done a better job explaining this concept (it seems like most roleplayers would instinctively understand this, so why bother), I also feel that this review misses a key ingredient which is that this is not a zero-sum game.

1.Actually each set includes 3 human cards and 6 robots cards so (with rounding up) it's almost 70 percent of the time player has to do smth. during interrogation 2. Even if you're Human you still need to be on watch to not violate "punishment" that can lead investigator to incorrect conclusion - it can still generate some tension 3. Role playing / Acting - is self rewarding here enough here I think the game is still good however Tom nicely pointed out main flaws.... that could be filled in ... idk. maybe like some special objective for humans... idk I'm not a designer 💀

I wish more content creators would not try to review everything they possibly can and instead review fewer things proper. "They are trying to turn this into a roleplaying game". You almost got it. Maybe you can get it if you didn't force yourself to play as many games as you can weekly.

Now I know where that stamp in Tom's hand came from after watching the Sherlock Holmes review

Wow, I actually managed to get a board game before Tom Vasel! I feel so accomplished.

It's actually more like Turing Test the board game

it's over produced because it's a free print and play game that was on kickstarter. it also helps set the mood it is an rpg just a 5 minute one. the tension when you're both humans is you don't know the robot restrictions so anything weird will stand out. it can also be quite easy to do the penalty by accident. why soo mad at the extra quirky flavour stuff. it would be interesting if the personalities also had restrictions on them so people not wanting to role-play don't optimize the fun out of the game

I feel like your group really need to play with the Perma-Penalty advanced rule; it's designed to deal with the exact criticisms that you brought up. 1) Perma-penalty forces you to interact with your background. It reinforces the idea that it's a roleplaying game. 2) It adds additional gameplay to humans. The point of human gameplay is that you are trying to avoid the penalty, because any time you invoke the penalty, you become more suspicious to the investigator that you might be a robot. The second penalty adds to that, and the second penalty is one that is common enough that you have to at least think about, by tying it to roleplaying. Yeah, the second penalty isn't technically difficult enough to really make playing humans more *tense* per say, but it makes it a lot more lively and fun to mess around with.

You very clearly don't understand the purpose of this game

I have learned about this game from Adam Koebel

Tom- There is a great game two player social deduction game on Tabletopsimulator ( I dont think they released a PnP) called Are you breathing. steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1932368006 It seems to fix most the stuff you have grips with.

Calls a roleplaying game not a roleplaying game, when all you do in the game is roleplay and the game tries everything to set the scene for you. What a disappointing review

I agree with Tom. The description sounds really interesting, but the actual gameplay itself, not so much.

Takes itself too seriously? Very funny to see someone trying too hard to turn this into some sort of critical takedown when the answer is just "I don't want to roleplay". Weirdly overproduced review! This whole thing could have been much shorter and I'm not sure this guy's comedy is hitting the mark. (other than the hat and Bugs Bunny tie, those are some p. good bits of satire)

This needs a fix to make it interesting when the person is actually human

Tom comes out anti-immersion.

This reminds me of Murder City for some reason...

Seems like a game for people who want to be actors.

Surely it can't be worse than Andrew Looney’s ARE YOU A ROBOT? which has the same premise but nothing beyond the initial role selection? Seems likely that a truly satisfying Voight Kampff experience will not exist until one has a party of actual robots that pass as humans to play it with.

Did the Dice Tower already review this game or one thats very similar? I'm having a case of bad game deja vu.

This seems interesting, but definitely as more of a roleplaying experience. Regardless, I might still pick it up if I can find it for cheaper.

Such a pity...it had seemed such a great idea when i first came across this game’s description a year or two ago..

This is an objectively horrible review. Full stop. Tom clearly doesn't like it or "get it" so had a smarky attitude through the entire video. Very unprofessional.

I was excited when I backed this game, but as they added more stuff and delays dragged on (for Something so simple) I just lost interest. Then when I finally got the game it took longer to read the instruction manual than play. Its too open ended and needs more prompts.

Dude. It IS a role playing game.

I think this is more of a collection piece than something to play like it looks neet. Probably best to use a display piece in a case or shadow box.

I agree with pretty much everything Tom said here! I would say the game is good when you have a robot and pretty boring if your not. We made a house rule and took out all but one of the human cards and made the investigator have to figure out if the robot is patient or not. This made the game a lot more fun but maybe not as balanced but who cares if its fun. As he stated it is a quick 2 player social deduction game which is really cool.

Tom, you are just not the core player category, it is a hipster game, if something like this term exists :D

This is all 100% true and I 100% regret backing it on KS