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.