I started taking up commissions to help pay for my cat's dental bill.
Boys and I did some drawings of monsters today. Apparently the more green the monster the more of a bad guy it is. I took this as an opportunity to tell Oliver that the color of one's skin does not dictate if they are good or not. Lessons everywhere, I guess.
The top-left one was our collaboration effort. Oliver did the blue, Jasper did the purple, and I drew the tiny faces on this monkey monster.
...and then all the questions, hardships, excusals, etc. happen during that last phase.
If you're lucky (or unlucky) enough, the computer will put you at the end of the list. They're very unlikely going to be getting to potential juror #30 in this case. If you're #1, outside of anything they don't like, you're probably going to serve.
I've been thinking about how to do a deduction game without it being Clue. I also wanted to see if I could make it a solitaire experience, which are easier for me to test.
The original intent was that some cards would have multiple clues on it and you may draw a clue that you already have. I couldn't figure out how to include logic and problem solving as an advantage in this scenario. Because the goal would be chosen at the beginning and from the same deck of cards, pulling cards from the same deck would not reduce the choices available if multiples existed.
It's a somewhat difficult thing to figure out and I'm still thinking about it.
I did come up with some rules for a multiplayer version where players negotiate with each other, in any ways, clue exchange. "I'll trade you 2 of these Location cards for 1 of your People cards," as an example. If you follow each other's progress, you may notice that they have more ideas about which People/Weapon/Location cards the goal aren't, so card trading requests aren't always measured 1:1 (i.e. if I know 4 People, then finding out the final 1 is worth a lot more than if I only knew 1 People).