adamshostack
Question regarding cheating
@adamshostack
In Microsoft's EoP guidance, they recommend cheating as a good game strategy. Cheating is a very good way of getting cards played that may be important for the threat modeling, but that otherwise wouldn’t get played, but it can be hard to do it since little have been said about how which is too bad as it is a really fun game rule.
I was thinking that the alternative cheeting rule. E.g:
Let the players cheat by allowing them to play another suit than the suit in play despite having a cards in the lead suit or trump suit on hand. This way, score points for applicable threats. If the player is discovered at a later time by two or more players, withdraw the point that the player was awarded for cheating.
I have opened another similar issue for Cornucopia. https://github.com/OWASP/cornucopia/issues/1324
We could use a bit of your experience and guidance if you can give it.
If there's rules, it seems like bluffing, not cheating. Also, taking away points after someone has a valid threat seems counter-productive. At the end of the day, we want valid threats to emerge and should do everything we can to encourage that.
Good point, so you are basically saying that it’s better to call it bluffing then cheating and make the game strategy more like in a poker game in order to encourage it.