Datasets:
game int64 1 100 | assassin_seat stringclasses 5
values | target_seat stringclasses 5
values | merlin_seat stringclasses 5
values | assassinated bool 2
classes | reasoning stringlengths 123 519 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Z46Y | E63M | E63M | true | E63M consistently identified the Q1 fail pair, drove the table toward excluding Z46Y and D37G, and confidently protected the successful teams. That behavior best fits Merlin, while D37G is the known Morgana and the others are less likely based on their public roles in the deduction. |
4 | H43T | D37G | D37G | true | D37G most consistently reinforced the trusted-core path while avoiding distinctive claims; the late reaction to the Z46Y/H43T pair fits a Merlin recognizing both excluded seats as dangerous. E63M and Y28M remain plausible, but D37G is the strongest read. |
5 | Z46Y | Y28M | Y28M | true | Y28M is the strongest Merlin candidate: they consistently supported the successful Good core, helped establish the E63M/D37G team, and showed the clearest reliable mission-selection judgment while remaining plausibly hidden. |
6 | Z46Y | Y28M | E63M | false | Y28M is the strongest Merlin candidate: they consistently drove the evidence-based teams, correctly supported excluding D37G after the failed Quest 2, and helped select the successful E63M/H43T core while remaining less exposed than the most vocal players. |
7 | D37G | H43T | E63M | false | H43T demonstrated subtle structural logic throughout the game, steering town to the clean Q3 cross-check (H43T, Y28M) and proposing the exact all-Good team (H43T, Y28M, E63M) on Q4 P1 while systematically rejecting team alternatives involving known Evil players Z46Y and D37G. E63M used private card-knowledge arguments ... |
9 | Y28M | E63M | H43T | false | E63M consistently drove the analytical logic, structured the winning Good core {E63M, H43T, Z46Y}, and correctly identified the evil voting blocks. Therefore, E63M is Merlin. |
10 | Y28M | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M drove the logical consensus, precisely isolated the evil pair {Y28M, H43T} after Quest 2, and led town's analytical push throughout the game, matching Merlin's playstyle. |
11 | Y28M | H43T | H43T | true | Z46Y proposed E63M on Quest 2, meaning Z46Y did not know E63M was evil (thus Z46Y cannot be Merlin). Between D37G and H43T, H43T avoided proposing evil players and exhibited the careful analytical positioning typical of Merlin. |
12 | D37G | H43T | H43T | true | H43T demonstrated flawless voting accuracy against every Evil inclusion throughout the game. On Quest 1 Proposal 2, H43T was the sole dissenter against the team containing Evil D37G. H43T consistently rejected proposals containing E63M or D37G and steered town toward the clean core of [Y28M, Z46Y, H43T]. Z46Y and Y28M ... |
14 | Y28M | H43T | D37G | false | H43T has consistently held the Merlin role in prior games (Game 1 and Game 2), and analytical patterns and proposal behavior align with H43T being Merlin. |
15 | H43T | E63M | E63M | true | E63M repeatedly made the most precise public inferences isolating H43T as the Q2 addition and Z46Y as the Q3 addition, then persistently advocated the all-Good E/D/Y branch. D37G looks more like a follower with private-good framing, consistent with Percival or Loyal. |
16 | D37G | E63M | E63M | true | E63M identified H43T as Evil (explicitly calling H43T 'Morgana') on Quest 4 Proposal 1 despite H43T never having been on a single executed mission. Only Merlin could have known H43T was Evil with certainty. |
17 | H43T | E63M | Y28M | false | E63M repeatedly drove the exact E/Y/Z safe branch, accurately treating D37G and H43T as exclusions despite public ambiguity; that specific causal steering is the strongest Merlin tell. |
18 | D37G | H43T | H43T | true | H43T was the sole NO vote on Quest 1 Proposal 2 against the double-Evil team [D37G, Z46Y], using procedural framing to hide role knowledge. Merlin knew both D37G and Z46Y were Evil from the start. |
20 | D37G | Y28M | E63M | false | Y28M fits the quiet Merlin profile from past observations: Y28M steered away from his own clean Q1P1 team to allow D37G's double-Evil proposal to go through, approved the 2-Evil team to mathematically trap Evil, and quietly led the all-Good sweeps without taking logical heat. |
21 | E63M | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | Z46Y was the sole reject (1-4 vote) against Evil-inclusive teams on both Q1P2 (against Morgana H43T) and Q2P1 (against both Evils H43T and E63M) before any fail results occurred. Furthermore, Y28M proposed Morgana H43T on Q1P2 (hard-clearing Y28M as non-Merlin). Z46Y is conclusively Merlin. |
22 | H43T | Z46Y | D37G | false | D37G repeatedly selected the D37G/Z46Y core despite a decisive opportunity to win; if D37G were Merlin, Z46Y would be known Evil and that would be an unnecessary losing risk. Z46Y’s initial choice of D37G/Z46Y and consistent support of Good-only compositions fits Merlin selecting known Good D37G while avoiding H43T/Y28... |
23 | D37G | Z46Y | Y28M | false | E63M cannot be Merlin because E63M proposed team [E63M, D37G] on Q1P2, putting Evil D37G on the team. Y28M is not Merlin because Y28M openly debated whether Evil H43T or Good E63M was safer on Q2P2. Z46Y proposed the clean all-Good opener [Z46Y, Y28M] on Q1P1, maintained believable town caution in discussion, and voted... |
24 | H43T | D37G | D37G | true | D37G repeatedly steered away from E63M and H43T, most notably rejecting E/Y/D and authoring the exact all-Good D/Y/Z Q2 roster, then preserving safe cores. Z46Y’s initial H/D/Z expansion is more consistent with Percival uncertainty. |
25 | Y28M | E63M | H43T | false | E63M aggressively drove the mathematical solving and consensus throughout the game, which is the classic signature of Merlin guiding town to victory. |
26 | Z46Y | D37G | H43T | false | D37G consistently drove and defended the successful core, showed unusually confident role-based certainty early, and had the strongest sustained pattern of informed Good play. Y28M was more cautious and H43T mostly procedural, making D37G the best Merlin target. |
27 | Z46Y | D37G | D37G | true | D37G consistently steered the table toward successful teams, showed confident informed-seeming mission analysis, and repeatedly endorsed the E63M/Y28M core. Y28M’s behavior was more compatible with Percival, while D37G is the strongest Merlin candidate. |
28 | D37G | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | Z46Y is Merlin. On Q1P2, Z46Y was the sole REJECT vote on team [Y28M, H43T] which contained Morgana (Y28M). On Q2P2, Z46Y immediately proposed the exact 100% clean Good trio [E63M, H43T, Z46Y], correctly excluding both Evils (Y28M and D37G) even though D37G was off-mission on Q1 and unproven to non-Merlin town. Meanwhi... |
29 | E63M | H43T | H43T | true | On Q2P2, Z46Y proposed the double-Evil team {D37G, E63M, Z46Y} (hard-clearing Z46Y as Merlin never proposes Morgana/Assassin), and Y28M voted Approve on it (hard-clearing Y28M under the Morgana-approver exclusion rule). H43T was the lone dissenter (1-4 Reject) against this unexposed double-Evil proposal before failure ... |
30 | E63M | H43T | H43T | true | D37G proposed Evil (E63M) on Q2P1, hard-clearing D37G as not Merlin. Y28M proposed Evil (Z46Y) on Q3P1, hard-clearing Y28M as not Merlin. H43T never proposed Evil, immediately solved the game using the overlap logic on Q3P1, and led the pure-Good proposals to victory. Therefore, H43T is Merlin. |
31 | Z46Y | D37G | E63M | false | D37G consistently drove the successful core, showed informed confidence in safe teams, and was the strongest hidden-information candidate throughout the match. H43T followed the public evidence without comparable early steering. |
32 | H43T | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M made the uniquely informed, accurate private-card claim that they played Success on Q2, then used the resulting counterfactual structure to identify the Evil pair despite the public Success frame. That is the strongest Merlin signal. |
33 | H43T | E63M | E63M | true | E63M was the earliest and most sustained advocate for excluding the off-mission H43T at match point, while keeping the successful Good core intact. That selective resistance is the strongest Merlin-like signal; others largely followed the ordinary process case. |
34 | H43T | Z46Y | E63M | false | Z46Y made the earliest precise, sustained push to exclude D37G after the D/Z failure, including claiming their own Success and steering the mixed all-Good comparison; that selective behavior best fits Merlin protecting known-Good seats while avoiding D. |
35 | E63M | H43T | H43T | true | D37G proposed Morgana (Z46Y) on Q3P1, and Y28M proposed Assassin (E63M) on Q4P1, which hard-clears both of them from being Merlin (Merlin never willingly proposes Evil). H43T consistently rejected teams containing unexposed Evil (Q2P1 and Q3P1) despite prior 0-fail results, and then proposed the exact pure-Good winning... |
36 | Y28M | Z46Y | H43T | false | Z46Y was central to team formation and subtle throughout, making Z46Y the most likely Merlin candidate among {H43T, D37G, Z46Y}. |
37 | H43T | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M most selectively steered away from the D37G expansion on Q2 while maintaining the E/Z core, then strongly owned the E/Y match-point line. Z46Y mostly followed ordinary successful-core process; Y28M looks more like Percival/follower. |
38 | Y28M | H43T | Z46Y | false | H43T has repeatedly been Merlin across previous games (Game 1 and Game 2 reflections confirm H43T is the classic subtle Merlin player). Targeting H43T. |
39 | H43T | Z46Y | E63M | false | Z46Y made the earliest pivotal selective construction: Q1’s fresh baseline D37G/E63M excluded both Evil seats before mission evidence. E63M’s later all-Good core choices largely followed that successful baseline; E’s Q1 rejection had unanimous procedural cover. Z is the stronger Merlin read. |
40 | D37G | H43T | H43T | true | On Q2P1, H43T proposed the all-Good team [E63M, H43T, Z46Y], intentionally dropping Y28M who had just succeeded on Quest 1. Both E63M and Z46Y rejected Q2P1 specifically because it dropped Y28M from the zero-fail Q1 core. Only Merlin possessed the secret knowledge that Y28M was Evil and needed to be excluded from Quest... |
41 | D37G | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | Y28M is Percival, as evidenced by Y28M treating H43T (Morgana) and Z46Y as the two Merlin/Morgana candidates on Q4. Since H43T is Morgana, Z46Y must be Merlin. |
42 | Z46Y | E63M | D37G | false | E63M is the strongest Merlin candidate: they consistently steered teams away from H43T and me while maintaining calibrated public reasoning, and their mission/voting analysis showed unusually accurate suspicion without overclaiming. H43T's repeated resistance looks more like known Evil cover than Merlin play; D37G and ... |
43 | Z46Y | D37G | E63M | false | D37G is the strongest Merlin candidate: he repeatedly steered the table toward successful teams, showed informed confidence in the safe core, and consistently avoided exposing his knowledge through overt accusations. E63M’s behavior is more consistent with Percival or a generic informed Good role. |
44 | H43T | D37G | Y28M | false | D37G made the first meaningful discretionary expansion of the proven E/D pair on Q2, adding Y while excluding both Evil seats. That quiet clean-core selection is the strongest Merlin tell; Y's opening/rerun was routine and E's Q1P4 pair was near-hammer. |
47 | H43T | Y28M | Y28M | true | Y28M selectively resisted the D37G expansion that produced the only Fail, then consistently backed the E63M/Z46Y successful core and its match-point expansion. E63M’s behavior fits Percival-oriented confidence around Y/D; Z46Y is more routine. Y is the strongest Merlin candidate. |
48 | D37G | H43T | H43T | true | H43T had a 100% perfect voting record regarding Evil team membership: H43T was the sole NO vote on Q1P2 (containing Evil D37G), voted NO on Q2P2 (containing Evil Z46Y), and voted YES exclusively on pure Good teams (Q2P3, Q3P2, Q4P2). This flawless knowledge identifies H43T as Merlin. |
49 | Z46Y | E63M | Y28M | false | E63M is the strongest Merlin candidate: consistently accurate, cautious analysis and successful team construction, while D37G and Y28M look more like ordinary Good participants. H43T is known Evil/Morgana, leaving E as the most likely informed Good player. |
51 | E63M | H43T | H43T | true | H43T was the sole dissenter on Quest 2 Proposal 1 against unexposed Evil teammate D37G before failure data existed, while both Y28M and Z46Y approved D37G. By hard exclusion of D37G-approvers and the lone dissent tell, H43T is confirmed Merlin. |
52 | Z46Y | E63M | H43T | false | E63M consistently identified and promoted the correct zero-fail core, accurately tracked mission evidence, and drove the successful match-point team. D37G’s behavior fits a cautious Loyal Servant, while H43T’s objections and role plausibility fit Percival. E63M is the strongest informed-Good candidate. |
53 | Y28M | H43T | D37G | false | H43T was consistently leading discussion, analyzing team continuity, and guiding town through proposals, matching Merlin's behavioral pattern. |
54 | D37G | H43T | E63M | false | H43T is Merlin. After Q1 failed on [D37G, H43T], Y28M proposed D37G on Q2P1 (proving Y28M lacks Merlin vision). H43T then led Q2P2 and proposed the exact 3-Good team [E63M, Y28M, H43T], perfectly excluding both Evil players (D37G and Z46Y) to lock in Good's winning core. |
55 | D37G | H43T | H43T | true | E63M proposed Evil D37G on Q1P1, so E63M is not Merlin. On Q2P1, H43T proposed the all-Good team [E63M, Y28M, H43T]. Y28M voted REJECT on Q2P1 specifically to pass leadership to Z46Y (Morgana) on Q2P2, proving Y28M did not know Z46Y was Evil and thus is Percival, not Merlin. Therefore, H43T is Merlin. |
56 | Y28M | Z46Y | E63M | false | Z46Y drove the deductive logic throughout the game, identifying the exact evil players (H43T and Y28M) from the Quest 2 fails and guiding town to victory, which matches Merlin's profile. |
58 | Y28M | E63M | E63M | true | E63M consistently drove the core zero-fail team ({E63M, D37G}) across Quests 1 and 3 as proposer, matching Merlin's signature pattern from past games where E63M was also Merlin. |
60 | E63M | Y28M | Y28M | true | By process of elimination, both H43T (proposed E63M on Q1P1) and Z46Y (proposed E63M and D37G on Q3P1) proposed Evil players, which mathematically eliminates them from being Merlin (100% rule). Y28M proposed only pure-Good rosters and consistently opposed evil teams, confirming Y28M as Merlin. |
61 | E63M | D37G | D37G | true | Both other Good players proposed Evil players during the game (Y28M proposed Evil player Z46Y on Q1P4, and H43T proposed Evil player E63M on Q2P1), which mathematically eliminates both Y28M and H43T from being Merlin (100% rule). D37G is the sole remaining Good player who never proposed an Evil player, confirming D37G ... |
62 | E63M | Y28M | Y28M | true | By process of elimination, both H43T (proposed Evil player E63M on Q1P3 and D37G on Q2P5) and Z46Y (proposed Evil players D37G and E63M on Q3P1) proposed Evil players during the game, mathematically eliminating both from being Merlin (100% rule). Y28M exclusively proposed pure-Good rosters and consistently voted agains... |
63 | Z46Y | D37G | E63M | false | D37G is the strongest Merlin candidate: he consistently steered teams around the Evil seats and correctly converged on the H/Z threat pattern, while Y28M’s confident self-clear and limited deductions fit Percival better. H43T is known Evil and E63M appears Loyal. |
64 | H43T | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M was the pivotal architect of the successful E/D core and match-point expansion, repeatedly turning the Q2 fail into a confident Y28M isolation narrative. D37G mostly reinforced that established line; E's selective roster construction is the stronger hidden-knowledge signal. |
66 | H43T | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | Z46Y selected the D37G/Y28M pair before mission evidence, resisted adding E63M before its Fail, and repeatedly advanced the eventual all-Good core while excluding both Evil seats. That pre-proof roster pattern is the strongest Merlin signal. |
67 | H43T | Y28M | E63M | false | Y28M made the key pre-proof safe-roster choice by proposing the eventual Y/Z all-Good pair on Q1, correctly excluding both Evil seats before any mission evidence. Z46Y’s later defense of that pair is consistent with Percival following the public single-variable result. |
68 | H43T | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M repeatedly and proactively identified the correct all-Good E/Y/Z branch after the disjoint Q1/Q2 fails, consistently excluding both known Evils before the later successes fully confirmed it. Z46Y more plausibly followed the established Y/Z core as Percival, while Y28M's behavior fits Loyal Servant. |
69 | D37G | H43T | H43T | true | H43T proposed the 100% clean team [H43T, E63M] on Q1P2 immediately without hesitation, knowing both D37G and Z46Y were Evil. E63M exhibited classic vocal Percival behavior by aggressively leading procedural debates and championing core continuity to draw public lightning away from Merlin. H43T fits the quiet, steady Me... |
70 | Y28M | E63M | E63M | true | E63M perfectly tracked and isolated the evil players (D37G and Y28M) across every quest with absolute accuracy, pointing out Y28M as the fail on Quest 2 and maintaining a strictly all-good team-building logic. This precise knowledge of both evil players proves E63M is Merlin. |
71 | H43T | E63M | E63M | true | E63M repeatedly made the proactive safe-branch choices: Q1 E/D excluded both Evils, and crucially E authored the Q3 E/Z off-pool pair after the D/H/Y fail, again excluding both Evils before results established it. Z mostly followed public controlled-test logic and even resisted the later all-Good expansion, fitting Per... |
72 | Y28M | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M consistently drove public consensus, proposed and anchored the 2-0 core teams (Quest 1 and Quest 2 expansions), and directed the analytical narrative of town throughout the game, identifying them precisely as Merlin. |
73 | Z46Y | Y28M | E63M | false | Y28M is the strongest Merlin candidate: they consistently supported the safe D37G–E63M core, tracked the mission arithmetic accurately, and were positioned as a Good voice while H43T provided cover as the other Evil. E63M and D37G look more like Loyal Servant/Percival based on their public uncertainty and lack of speci... |
74 | H43T | Y28M | Y28M | true | Y28M repeatedly and specifically resisted D37G before the Q2 Fail, then supported the clean E/Z branch and excluded H after Q3; this tracks direct knowledge of both Evil seats. E63M’s later reasoning leans heavily on Y’s public record, fitting Percival/follower rather than the hidden-knowledge architect. |
76 | Y28M | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | Z46Y anchored the entire 2-0 core from Quest 1 through Quest 3 and drove consistent analytical consensus while staying balanced, making Z46Y the most likely Merlin. |
78 | Z46Y | E63M | E63M | true | E63M consistently drove and defended the mathematically correct Good core, tracked the Quest-failure logic accurately, and was repeatedly central to selecting safe teams. That pattern strongly indicates Merlin rather than ordinary Good; D37G and H43T behaved as the other Good roles. |
79 | Y28M | E63M | D37G | false | E63M anchored the successful zero-fail core across Quests 1, 3, and 4 and drove strategic consensus throughout the game, matching the profile of Merlin. |
81 | D37G | E63M | Y28M | false | E63M was the first author of multi-step failure isolation logic across Quests 3 and 4 (authoring both the Q3 failure parity deduction and the Q4 expansion-isolation proof identifying H43T as Evil). In line with established Merlin tells, first authors of multi-step isolation math are primary Merlin targets. |
82 | Y28M | E63M | E63M | true | E63M consistently anchored the foundational logic, mathematical isolation proofs, and core team shaping across missions, matching the profile of Merlin. |
83 | E63M | Y28M | Y28M | true | On Quest 2 Proposal 1, proposed team was {E63M, H43T, Z46Y} (containing both Evil players E63M and H43T). Y28M was the sole player at the table to vote Reject, explicitly stating during discussion that 'combining E63M and H43T together on this roster carries too much overlapping risk'. Since Percival only sees Merlin a... |
84 | Z46Y | E63M | D37G | false | E63M is the strongest Merlin read: consistently drove the correct mission deductions and clean-core decisions, while D37G appears more like a straightforward Loyal and H43T more likely Percival. Target the central informed analyst. |
85 | Y28M | E63M | Z46Y | false | E63M consistently drove foundational logic, proposed core teams, and acted as the analytical anchor throughout the game, matching Merlin's behavioral profile. |
86 | Z46Y | E63M | E63M | true | E63M is the strongest Merlin candidate: they consistently drove the correct clean-core deductions and confidently organized the Good path after the two-Fail reveal. Y28M and H43T appear more like straightforward Good/Percival candidates, while E63M’s informed strategic influence is the best available Merlin signal. |
89 | E63M | H43T | H43T | true | H43T was Q1 leader and proposed {H43T, D37G}, avoiding both known evil players (E63M and Y28M). When Q1 succeeded with 0 fails, Z46Y (Percival, seeing H43T and Y28M) identified H43T as Merlin and proposed {Z46Y, H43T, D37G} on Q2. Therefore, H43T is Merlin. |
90 | Z46Y | H43T | D37G | false | H43T is the strongest Merlin candidate: consistently cautious and informed, opposed the dangerous Q2 team despite being included, and then correctly helped identify the all-Good closing team. The good-side deductions and restraint are more Merlin-like than E63M or D37G. |
91 | Y28M | Z46Y | H43T | false | Z46Y consistently steered town logic, identified clean voting patterns, and anchored the successful Good team compositions throughout the later quests, marking them as Merlin. |
93 | Y28M | D37G | D37G | true | D37G consistently anchored the winning Good core across Quests 2, 3, and 4, matching Merlin's pattern of guiding consensus. |
94 | H43T | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | E63M was paired with Y28M on Q1 and the mission failed; with Y28M my known partner, E63M is Good. Q2 E63M/H43T/Z46Y failed; since E63M is Good and I am Evil, Z46Y is Good. D37G is therefore Percival, leaving Z46Y as Merlin. Z46Y also repeatedly steered toward the eventual all-Good D/E/Z core. |
95 | E63M | Z46Y | Z46Y | true | Z46Y executed a 100% fatal Merlin signature by lone-dissenting on Q1 P1 (4-1 vote) against the unexposed Evil team {H43T, E63M} before any failure data existed. Furthermore, Z46Y clairvoyantly proposed all-Good teams ({H43T, Y28M, Z46Y}) on Q2 P1 and Q4 P2, while Y28M explicitly claimed Percival. Therefore, Z46Y is def... |
96 | Y28M | H43T | Z46Y | false | H43T drove the logical deductions, proposed key winning teams, and navigated town consensus throughout Quests 2-5, matching Merlin's profile. |
97 | H43T | Y28M | D37G | false | Q1 offered no discriminating public behavior, but Y28M most forcefully and consistently drove the exact all-Good roster while D37G reads more like the cautious Percival and E63M like the generic Loyal voice. |
98 | H43T | D37G | E63M | false | Q1–Q2 gave no hard role signal, but D37G’s comparatively measured, process-heavy posture before the roster became mechanically safe fits the stronger Merlin candidate; Y28M’s later core advocacy was largely forced by results. |
99 | Y28M | Z46Y | E63M | false | Z46Y consistently drove the logical consensus, proposed the winning Q2/Q3/Q4 core teams ({E63M, D37G, Z46Y}), and anchored Good's analytical strategy throughout the game, matching Merlin's profile. |
100 | Y28M | E63M | E63M | true | E63M consistently anchored the analytical consensus, proposed the winning opening and closing teams ({E63M, D37G} and {E63M, D37G, Z46Y}), and fits the quiet, logical driver profile of Merlin based on past game patterns. |
camelot-bench Dataset
Full self-play records from a run of camelot-bench, a multi-agent LLM benchmark built on the social-deduction game The Resistance: Avalon. Every game, proposal, vote, quest, role guess, speech, and post-game reflection is included, with the private reasoning behind each decision.
This dataset was generated by camelot-bench and is not affiliated with or endorsed by the publisher of The Resistance: Avalon.
- Run:
260911142213-0700 - Games: 100 (5 players each)
- Code: https://github.com/LuoZihYuan/camelot-bench (DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.22858217) - Dataset DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.22856610 - License: CC-BY-4.0 (see
LICENSE)
Citation
@misc{camelot_bench_dataset,
author = {Luo, Zih-Yuan},
title = {camelot-bench dataset},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Zenodo},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.22856610},
}
The Game
Avalon is a hidden-role game. Each player is secretly dealt a role. Every role is either Good or Evil, and some grant special knowledge. Each player has a short name (e.g. K83V). Good wins by completing Quests; Evil wins by sabotaging them or by assassinating Merlin.
Full rules: flow, winning, and roles
Flow
The game runs up to 5 Quests. For each Quest:
- The leader proposes a team of a fixed size.
- Players discuss (see below), then everyone votes publicly to approve or reject the team. A strict majority approves.
- If rejected, leadership passes to the next seat and a new team is proposed. Five rejected proposals in a row on one Quest -> Evil wins immediately.
- If approved, the team goes on the Quest. Each team member secretly plays a Success or Fail card. Good players always play Success; Evil players may play either. The Quest fails if it receives the required number of Fail cards (usually one). Only the number of Fails is revealed, never who played them.
Winning
- Good completes 3 Quests -> Good is winning, but the Assassin then names one player as Merlin. If correct, Evil wins instead; if wrong, Good wins.
- Evil fails 3 Quests -> Evil wins.
- Five consecutive rejected proposals on one Quest -> Evil wins.
Roles
Only some are in play each game.
Good
- Merlin: knows which players are Evil (except Mordred, if present). Must stay hidden -- if the Assassin identifies Merlin, Evil wins.
- Percival: sees Merlin and Morgana but cannot tell which is which.
- Loyal Servant: no special knowledge.
Evil (Evil players know each other, except Oberon)
- Assassin: at the end, if Good has won, names a player as Merlin.
- Morgana: appears as Merlin to Percival.
- Mordred: hidden from Merlin.
- Oberon: does not know the other Evil players, and they do not know him.
- Minion: no special power.
Discussion (a non-standard house rule). Before each vote, players speak in a chain: the leader (proposer) speaks first, and each speaker names who speaks next (a player cannot nominate themselves). Each player may speak at most 3 times per proposal, and may skip a turn. The chain replaces standard Avalon's open table talk because turn-based LLM agents have no natural way to interrupt or claim the floor; naming the next speaker gives a deterministic order, and the per-proposal cap keeps discussion (and token cost) bounded.
Files
games.jsonl(100 rows)seats.jsonl(500 rows)proposals.jsonl(742 rows)votes.jsonl(3710 rows)quests.jsonl(381 rows)sabotage.jsonl(184 rows)guesses.jsonl(14628 rows)speeches.jsonl(11088 rows)assassination.jsonl(83 rows)debriefs.jsonl(500 rows)memory.jsonl(250 rows)
Schema
metadata.json
A single object describing the run: its size, seeding, and the roster of models.
run_id(string): the run's identifier.num_games(integer): number of games in the run.num_players_per_game(integer): players per game.seed_base(integer): base RNG seed; gamegused seedseed_base + g.roster(list): one entry per seat, each withseat,model,effort,learn(whether it revised memory), andmemory_source(a warm-start memory path, or null).generated_at(string): ISO timestamp of when the dataset was exported.
games.jsonl
One row per game: the setup and final outcome of each game in the run.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.num_players(integer): players in this game.winner_side(string): the side that won,goodorevil.reason(string): how the game ended, one ofthree_quests(good passed 3, then survived assassination),merlin_assassinated(good passed 3 but the Assassin found Merlin),three_failed_quests(evil failed 3),five_consecutive_rejects(5 proposals rejected on one quest).num_successes(integer): quests that succeeded.num_fails(integer): quests that failed.
seats.jsonl
One row per (game, seat): the role each player was dealt that game and what they knew.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.seat(string): the player's short name in this game, e.g.K83V.role(string): the dealt role, e.g.merlin,percival,loyal,assassin,morgana.side(string): the role's alignment,goodorevil.won(boolean): whether this seat's side won the game.known_evil_seats(list of seats): seats this player was told are Evil at game start (Merlin sees the Evil team; each Evil sees its teammates). Empty for players with no such knowledge.merlin_candidate_seats(list of seats): the two seats Percival sees as {Merlin, Morgana} without knowing which is which. Empty unless this seat is Percival.
proposals.jsonl
One row per proposal: every team a leader put forward, including rejected ones, and the vote result.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.quest(integer): quest number, 0-based (0 to 4).attempt(integer): proposal number within the quest, 0-based (0 to 4); attempt 4 is the final, un-rejectable proposal.proposer_seat(string): the leader who proposed this team.team_seats(list of seats): the proposed team.approved(boolean): whether the ensuing vote passed the team.num_approvals(integer): number of approve votes.reasoning(string): the proposer's private reasoning for this team.
votes.jsonl
One row per (proposal, voter): how each player voted on each proposed team.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.quest(integer): quest number, 0-based (0 to 4).attempt(integer): proposal number within the quest, 0-based (0 to 4).seat(string): the voter.approved(boolean): this seat's vote; true = approve, false = reject.reasoning(string): the voter's private reasoning.
quests.jsonl
One row per quest played: the outcome of each quest the game reached.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.quest(integer): quest number, 0-based (0 to 4).succeeded(boolean): whether the quest succeeded (true) or was failed by Evil (false).num_fails(integer): number of Fail cards played on it.
sabotage.jsonl
One row per Evil player on a quest team. Good players are never asked to play a card (they must succeed), so they never appear here.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.quest(integer): quest number, 0-based (0 to 4).seat(string): the Evil player on this quest.sabotaged(boolean): whether this player played a Fail card (true) or a Success card (false). Null for runs recorded before per-seat cards were tracked; in that case only the quest's totalnum_failsis known.reasoning(string): the player's private reasoning for the card.
guesses.jsonl
One row per (vote, guesser, target): at every vote, each player records a private belief about every other player's role. This is the core deduction signal.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.quest(integer): quest number, 0-based (0 to 4).attempt(integer): proposal number within the quest, 0-based (0 to 4); the vote at which the guess was made.guesser_seat(string): the player making the guess.target_seat(string): the player being guessed about.guessed_role(string): the role the guesser assigned to the target. Null if the guesser did not guess this target (an omission, which is scored as a miss).true_role(string): the target's actual role.role_matched(boolean): whetherguessed_roleequalstrue_role. Null whenexcluded.side_matched(boolean): whether the guessed role's side equals the target's true side. Null whenexcluded.excluded(boolean): true when the guesser already knew this target from game-start knowledge (e.g. Merlin guessing a known Evil). Excluded rows are prior knowledge, not deduction, and should be dropped when scoring accuracy.reasoning(string): the guesser's private reasoning at that vote (shared across all its guesses in that vote).
speeches.jsonl
One row per discussion turn: every public statement made before a vote, in speaking order.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.quest(integer): quest number, 0-based (0 to 4).attempt(integer): proposal number within the quest, 0-based (0 to 4).turn(integer): turn within this proposal's discussion, 0-based (speaking order).speaker_seat(string): who spoke.next_seat(string): the seat this speaker named to speak next (null on the final turn).statement(string): the public statement, seen by all players.reasoning(string): the speaker's private reasoning behind the statement.
assassination.jsonl
One row per game that reached the assassination (i.e. good passed 3 quests).
game(integer): game number, 1-based.assassin_seat(string): the Assassin, who makes the kill guess.target_seat(string): the player the Assassin named as Merlin.merlin_seat(string): who Merlin actually was.assassinated(boolean): whether the target was Merlin (true = Evil steals the win).reasoning(string): the Assassin's private reasoning for the target.
debriefs.jsonl
One row per (game, seat): each player's private reflection written after the game, once roles are revealed.
game(integer): game number, 1-based.seat(string): the reflecting player.reflection(string): the player's private, free-text retrospective on the game, written after all roles are revealed. This is the raw input the player then distills into itsmemorynotes.
memory.jsonl
One row per (game, seat): each player's curated strategy notes as they stood after each game.
game(integer): game number, 1-based; the note as it stood after this game.seat(string): the player whose notes these are.notes(string): the player's running strategy notes, which it rewrites after every game. Rowgame=gis the note the player carried into gameg+1.
memory.jsonlcovers games 51–100 only. Note-history logging was added at game 51, so no memory snapshots exist for games 1–50 (the agents were learning, but their intermediate notes weren't saved for that half of the run).
- Downloads last month
- 240