I would be fascinated to see a Behind The Scenes / Director's commentary on this. Questions I have include: how was playtesting done? What went differently between this and playtesting games? How were the games tuned during playtesting (rules, prize amounts, etc)? How were the scripts tuned during playtesting (explanation of rules, what information was given, etc)? Did you always have the "walk away; you don't have to face them" option, or did you discover you had to add that? Did you always tell them how much money they missed out on, or was that added later? What surprised you as you were developing it? Was there anything you had to enormously change from your original conception?,(reply>), I'd very much like to see a statistically significant number of real games, which is (sadly) prohibitively expensive,(reply>), Great questions,(reply>), Playtesting was an absolute blast and we have never talked so much post-playtest about what happened!,(reply>), @Michael Gillman true. Not to mention the effects of the whole thing being televised / public. Human credibility, or at least the appearance of it, is what is most valuable in the end. Trust. The more open and accountable the more honest we act.,(reply>), The thing is, I don't think this can be accurately play tested unless each set of testers is also playing for the same sort of money (which has to be unlikely). Just like playing poker without money, the game doesn't work without it.<br><br>I mean without money, the medals are the only thing that has value, which would skew how people play.