![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is a variant on the rules of the card game Who Would Win as played at that one Thanksgiving party.
3+ players (same 3 not necessary), comprising 2 barristers & a judge, plus witnesses.
Barristers are issued one character card each; judge reveals the event card after the character cards have been read.
Barristers take roughly 20 second turns debating why their character would prevail. Depending on the barristers, judge, and party, interrupting may be allowable. Several turns back and forth countering each other's arguments may ensue, with other players being called in as witnesses to testify why they think the character would win (or straight-up volunteering their testimony). At some point (after either a certain number of exchanges have passed, a certain time limit, if all viable arguments have been exhausted, or everyone appears to be getting sick of it) the judge calls for closing arguments; the closing arguments may stick to a stricter timing rule.
Judges may be called to witness, but must temporarily cede judge position to another player while witnessing.
The judge's decision is final, but debate may in fact continue after the judge's decision if the barristers and/or witnesses feel they still have points to make.
Play should proceed in a pattern to allow all players to oppose each other as barristers.
Play continues until the judge, or the actual police with a noise complaint, shuts the whole thing down.
3+ players (same 3 not necessary), comprising 2 barristers & a judge, plus witnesses.
Barristers are issued one character card each; judge reveals the event card after the character cards have been read.
Barristers take roughly 20 second turns debating why their character would prevail. Depending on the barristers, judge, and party, interrupting may be allowable. Several turns back and forth countering each other's arguments may ensue, with other players being called in as witnesses to testify why they think the character would win (or straight-up volunteering their testimony). At some point (after either a certain number of exchanges have passed, a certain time limit, if all viable arguments have been exhausted, or everyone appears to be getting sick of it) the judge calls for closing arguments; the closing arguments may stick to a stricter timing rule.
Judges may be called to witness, but must temporarily cede judge position to another player while witnessing.
The judge's decision is final, but debate may in fact continue after the judge's decision if the barristers and/or witnesses feel they still have points to make.
Play should proceed in a pattern to allow all players to oppose each other as barristers.
Play continues until the judge, or the actual police with a noise complaint, shuts the whole thing down.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif){kind=small}
