Critical Play: Inhuman Conditions
I had the opportunity to try a new game with my brother and sister, who are lucky enough to be stuck indoors with someone learning about games.
The game is Inhuman Conditions, originally designed by Tommy Maranges and Cory O’Brien with physical cards, but adapted for web browser by FTWinston.
The target audience seems to be quite wide — anyone who can hold (and would like to have) a conversation, though it may appeal more to young adults and less-young adults.
The basic idea of the game is that there is one Investigator and one Suspect, and the Investigator must figure out whether the Suspect is a Human or a Robot, and from the game website:
“Robots must answer the Investigator’s questions without arousing suspicion, but are hampered by some specific malfunction in their ability to converse. They must be clever, guiding the conversation in subtle ways without getting caught.”
Though at the base, it is a simple player vs. player game, the formal elements of the game that give it interest are its rules and boundaries.
Firstly, the rules placed on robot suspects force them to speak in a restricted way—for example, “you can only speak using the hypothetical ‘you’.” This makes it harder for the suspect and brings out creative ways to navigate a conversation.
Secondly, the boundaries. By imagining that you are in a world where robots and humans fight against each other, and furthermore by assuming a certain “suspect background,” you can really settle into another role and become someone that you’re not.
What kind of fun is the game creating? The game hopes to build intrigue around a simple conversation, which the game website describes as “conversational judo.” With a focus on the subtle variations in speech of the suspect player, for me the fun really came from the attempted misdirection by the suspect, and the constant thinking and careful perception that had to be going on. I think another main goal was to create imaginative and hilarious character personalities, which I also found to be entertaining. In all, I believe the game met its goals fairly well.
Moments of wow & fun:
- when my brother was trying very hard to discreetly say “darkness” in three different situations but I immediately smashed that “Suspect is a Robot” button and WON
- when I asked my sister “What does your family rely on you for?” and she said “uhh nothing” and I immediately smashed that “Suspect is a Robot” button and WE BOTH LOST and I found out what she thinks about our family
- when I got to pretend to be a social media influencer who was recently on “Love is Blind”
- finding clever ways around the penalties, like saying “OK, I …” for three letters in a row
Moments of eh:
- the rules are long and kind of confusing the first time you read through them
- the very beginning was kind of dry and stilted, since we were feeling very awkward about the whole make-believe situation (especially my brother who is old and a hardass)
- after we played a few times and found out that the Violent Robot requirements were the same the second time around, so it was easier for the investigator to find them out
How I would change it to make it better:
- make the Violent Robot requirements/restrictions more varied so that there’s hopefully something new each time
- have the Inspector prompts be specific to the “Suspect Role” chosen (reality TV show contestant, cannibal, professional villain, etc), which would make it easier for the Suspect to get comfortable in their role and get into the game
- have a walkthrough with the rules explained as two players go through for the first time (I like learning through playing much more than reading a guide and then trying to play)
Overall I think it was a fun game with an interesting concept, but I’m not starstruck about it. It relies heavily on the imagination and conversation skills of the players, which isn’t really my favorite thing ever because I kind of suck at it, but I could play it once or twice without getting bored.
