thinking about rigged bets again, perpetually.
I feel like an underrated way of rigging a game is creating a game with incredibly uneven consequences for losing, but that looks fair or even on the surface, and honestly could be if there wasn't a massive gap in the level of preparation between the two of you. A great example of this, to me, might be a coin flip where the loser has to do any one thing the winner says. You wouldn't even have to weigh the flip, really. Hell, it probably doesn't even matter if it wins a few, or you play a few rounds of mildly embarassing dares back and forth. It'd probably be better that way, especially because then its guard will be down, and it won't object when it gets told to let you hypnotize it. It even gives you fodder for humiliating things to make it do later! After the point where you've hypnotized it, though, I don't think it should realistically matter who wins or loses the flips, assuming you even decide to keep playing. It's not as if every subsequent flip won't end with the same result, with your new plaything begging for more, to be pulled deeper into your thrall.
Another benefit of this kind of game is, well, it doesn't matter whose idea it truly is or was, it won't change the outcome. It's instantloss where the game was over the moment it began, or possibly even earlier. Perhaps it was over the moment the idea formed in its head. Perhaps it was over the first time it was seeded in your brain, by something like a tumblr post. My personal opinion, though, is that it was probably over the moment it got the idea to make it your idea.
