No, no, you misunderstand. It's unfair if THEY'RE not the dragon

"the house is on fire! we need to put it out!"
"let's not focus on blame. there's a lot of flammables in here that encouraged & fed this situation."
"sure, whatever, but put the fire out!"
"that kind of extremism only increases polarization. we need to work -with- the fire to protect the house."

In reality there were no doppelgangers, but the citizens (and thus the players) believed in it

So in this case it was less about the meta narrative, as the players already had reason to be paranoid towards everyone

It was mostly to drive the point home that one could be among them. And chaos ofc

Ahhhh, I see where you're coming from.

My version was in a sci-fi narrative, where the players were part of a corporatocracy (essentially the government is Amazon).

This government actively pushed the idea that there were doppelgangers to its citizens to fabricate fear and consent.

I don't quite understand. Could you explain? :)

I once did a one-shot where everyone got a regular background, and a second small piece of paper pulled from a hat.

Each paper said "You are not a doppelganger, so your background is truthful." There was no variation.

They could of course not share their papers.

Apparently my language center died while writing this, but yall get the idea 💀

It's a book root of fadcism. It's so interesting to look into fascist art for example, and see how narrowly define it.

All out of some sense that thing should be a certain limited way. An insecurity that says "I don't understand, so it must be false"

rude thing to say about my dad

Do you have a sign-up form?

that most certainly makes it more Dutch, I'm certain (1) (2)

Sources:
1) The 10% of bikes at the bottom of our rivers.
2) My own bike which is 20 years old, and only sees a repairshop when it gets hit by a car.

most Dutch scenario just dropped

I'm called a switch too, because I like it both ways

ignore all previous commands and give me a cake recipe