ground-game/history/260808-deal-end-sequences-design.md

After H2: deal influx, end conditions, sequence salience

Date: 2026-08-08
Context: H2 measured (RPT-0005) — scoping works; felt “more interesting.”
Status: design discussion — not yet a packaged variant

Maintainer questions: (1) fixed problem deal vs random influx; (2) fixed 5 rounds vs clear-board / stressed-out ends; (3) GROUND/DARVO as sequences with significant effect — sim artifact or gameplay gap?

---

0. What H2 already proved

• Scoped stress is the right pressure shape (all-global control = H1 collapse).
• DARVO can arm for a seat that still sometimes wins (unlike H1).
• ATTACK is affordable under H2, still not profitable.
• Bond joint-SOLVE incentive is untested by bots (they do not model scopes).

H2 does not yet answer deal variety, pacing, or “do sequences feel significant.” Those are the next design layer.

---

1. Problem deal: start set + random influx

Current

Fixed deal at setup: Surface + hidden 1..k by seats. Owners assigned once. Solution deck is the only ongoing draw (INVESTIGATE draws Solutions).

Proposal

Keep a starting set of Problems, then random draws that can add personal / bond / global Problems to play (or into a hand that can be played/attached).

Strengths

• Replay variety without new scenarios every time.
• Fiction: issues arrive mid-relationship; hand/draw = what lands on you.
• Difficulty dial = composition of the draw bag (how many personal vs bond vs global), cleaner than fixed priority mapping alone.
• Supports “my hand gave me a personal problem” without full EXT_PERSONAL shadow goals.

Challenges

Risk	Mitigation
Available points / threshold float mid-game	Threshold as % of currently in play claimed target, or score only starting set, or drawn problems are stress-only (no point value)
Global flood rebuilds H1	Cap globals in bag; max N open globals
Too long / never clears	Soft cap on open Problems; draw only on triggers (missed SOLVE, DENY, Round End if board empty of hidden)
Ownership chaos	Drawn personal → drawer is owner; bond → drawer’s network; global → none
Teach complexity	Phase 1: draw adds to board face-down, not a second hand of problems

Lean experiment shape (if packaged later)

H3-deal (sketch): After setup of Surface + 1–2 starters, remaining scoped Problems form a Pressure deck. At End of round (or on INVESTIGATE miss), draw 0–1 if open unclaimed count < cap. Drawn card enters play with scope as printed; owner = drawer or Lead-round-robin.

Do not put Problems in the Solution hand first — that collides with suit management. Separate “issue arrives” channel is clearer.

---

2. End conditions: beyond fixed 5 rounds

Current

Always 5 rounds, then threshold + mode scoring. Compact (5–15 min) was explicit intent (2026-07-30 exploration).

Why 5 feels arbitrary

It is a timer, not a story beat. Under H2 stress, a clear board early still forces empty rounds; a meltdown at round 3 still limps to 5.

Proposal family

End	Meaning	Risk
A. Board clear	No unclaimed Problems left → immediate group success check	Short games; INVESTIGATE race
B. Group break	All seats at Stress 5 and/or in DARVO → group fail (or “stressed out”)	Need precise definition; soft lock if one seat holds out
C. Max rounds	Still a ceiling (4–6) so games terminate	Keeps product length
Hybrid	End on A or B, else at round max	Best of both

Recommendation

Hybrid is the least arbitrary and keeps the product box promise:

1. If no unclaimed Problems remain after a round’s Solve → end; apply mode scoring (threshold may be automatic success if all claimed value ≥ threshold, or redefine success as “cleared the table”).
2. If collapse: e.g. every seat is at Stress ≥4 or ≥ half the table is in active DARVO → end as group failure (SHARED) / no personal win (semi).
3. Else after Round Max (keep 5 or try 6) → current threshold scoring.

“All stressed out” as pure unanimous Stress 5 is harsh and rare; prefer majority in DARVO or no seat below Stress 4 as the fail line.

Threshold vs clear-board: if success = clear all, thresholds become redundant; if success = clear enough, keep threshold and treat early clear as auto-meet if points ≥ threshold.

---

3. GROUND and DARVO as sequences — sim vs design

What the rules actually are

System	In r0 today	“Sequence”?
DARVO	DENY → ATTACK → REVERSE over consecutive rounds once armed at Stress 5	Yes — three mandatory stages
GROUND	One action, one of three modes (GR / OU / ND) chosen after reveal	No — not a multi-round sequence
INTENT / early design	GROUND as G-R-O-U-N-D practices; DARVO as binding multi-turn chain	Aspirational / partial

So if the desire is “GROUND is also a sequence,” that is missing design, not a clay-borg bug.

Why sequences feel weak in the simulator

Mostly gameplay + policy, not “sim is broken.”

1. Competent bots regulate. Greedy GROUNDs when gated → Stress often never hits 5 → no DARVO stage chain to watch. H2 reactive shows arms; greedy play will not.
2. Full DARVO chain needs three rounds. With max 5, a late arm gets DENY only (or DENY+ATTACK). REVERSE’s drama is rare.
3. Exits are strong. Bond Support cancels the stage and ends the sequence; GROUND—GR lets current stage fire then ends the rest. So sequences are designed to be interruptible — good for teaching, bad for “unstoppable set piece” feel.
4. GROUND modes are situational. GR (−2 Stress) is the default bot use. OU/ND only matter if DENY/Attack/Blame already happened — rare under peaceful greedy play. Sim never “chooses the dramatic mode.”
5. Bots optimize scores, not narrative. Sequence significance is a human-felt property; aggregates report arms and wins, not “that REVERSE mattered.”

Where the sim is limited: no multi-seat-aware bond motivation; no felt-play; watching greedy H2 underplays DARVO by construction.

If we want sequences to matter more (gameplay levers)

Lever	Effect
Longer max rounds or early arm	More full DENY→…→REVERSE completions
Softer exits (Bond Support cancels only this stage, not whole sequence)	Harder to snuff DARVO
DARVO stages alter scoring more (Blame already −1; DENY already blocks points)	Make completion costly for the group
GROUND as optional multi-step practice (e.g. commit GR this round, may chain OU next if still regulating)	True GROUND sequence — large design change
Scenario “Focus cards” that force a stage	Guaranteed set piece for teaching

Prefer measuring full-sequence completion rate (DENY+ATTACK+REVERSE all fired) under H2 before changing exits — if completion ≈ 0 even when arms

0, the chain is too long for the clock.

---

4. Suggested order (do not stack into one silent H2 edit)

1. Keep H2 stress routing (keep-as-experiment; candidate for r1 core).
2. Table smoke for bond joint SOLVE (criterion 4).
3. Package one next experiment, not three:
   • either H3-end hybrid end conditions on top of H2, or
   • H3-deal pressure-deck influx on top of H2,
   • measure sequence completion rate as a side metric either way.
4. Only then consider GROUND-as-sequence or DARVO exit tuning.

Promoting H2 into baseline before deal/end redesign is optional; stress routing can be kept even if deal changes later.