What we got wrong about Pass and Play multiplayer in the first month
Three weeks after BIBL launched, a message came through from a church group leader in Bristol. 'Love the game,' she wrote. 'But when we pass the phone around the table, half the answers feel like cheating because everyone's seen them already.' She wasn't wrong. We'd missed something obvious.
The assumption that felt right at the time
Pass and Play multiplayer seemed straightforward when we built it. Local multiplayer. One device. Players take turns answering questions from the Genesis Pack. Score goes up. Winner is declared. It felt like the spiritual successor to passing a controller around a living room, except the controller was trivia.
The problem was our mental model. We were thinking 'party game mechanics' when what people actually wanted was something closer to 'hidden information.' Because in a pub quiz or a board game night, you don't know what your opponent knows. But in Pass and Play, if you're sitting next to someone, you've watched them answer. You've seen the questions. You know the patterns.
We didn't account for the human instinct to glance sideways. We didn't think about the moment when someone hands you the phone and you've already heard the answer to question three.
Feedback came faster than we expected
The first week we got maybe five or six comments about this. By week three, it was appearing in almost every review mentioning Pass and Play specifically. Not angry reviews. Just observations. 'Great game but feels a bit unfair in group settings.' 'We cheated without meaning to.' 'Our kids saw all the answers while waiting their turn.'
What struck us was that nobody was asking for a different feature. They were just describing the friction they felt. And friction, once you see it, is hard to ignore. It's the difference between a game that feels right and one that feels like it's fighting against how people actually play.
We looked at our telemetry. Pass and Play was being used. Not heavily, but used. People were launching it. The session times were decent. But retention on subsequent plays felt softer than we'd hoped. That gap between 'tried it once' and 'came back to it' was bigger than it should have been.
The design question we should have asked earlier
We ended up in a long Slack thread about what Pass and Play actually needed to be. One of the team suggested: 'What if players have to look away when it's someone else's turn?' Sounds silly when you write it down. But it's the core of it. The Genesis Pack questions are there. The score system works. The problem isn't the game itself. It's the information leakage around the game.
Some teams suggested technical fixes. Time pressure. Flipped cards. Different question selections per turn. Randomised difficulty. All of those could work. But they all added complexity to something that was meant to be simple: pick it up, play with whoever's in the room, hand it over.
We realised the real issue was expectation management. We'd launched Pass and Play as a feature without ever saying what it was meant for. Was it for five people playing casually in a kitchen? For a competitive two-player game? For a youth group where fair play matters? The feature was agnostic, which turned out to be a weakness, not a strength.
How we're thinking about it now
We're not yanking Pass and Play. It still has a place. But we're being more honest about what it is and what it isn't. It's brilliant for: a quick two-person game where you're not too precious about perfect fairness; a casual household moment; a fun way to introduce someone to the game without them needing an account first. It's not ideal for: a tournament among serious players; a game where hidden information matters; situations where you need absolute separation of knowledge.
For players who want something more structurally fair, we've got Lightning Duel at the Pro tier. That's live, head-to-head, both players seeing the same question at the same time. No asymmetry. No glancing. No accidental knowledge leakage.
And for Pass and Play itself, we're rethinking the experience. Not tearing it down. Adjusting it. Making sure the feature actually matches how people want to play, not how we assumed they would.
The lesson we'll carry into everything else
The bigger thing we took from this was simple: friction that feels 'optional' doesn't stay optional. If a feature can be played in a way that feels slightly wrong, people will feel it, even if they're not sure why. They might not complain. They might just play something else.
It's made us more careful about every feature we ship now. Not overthinking. But asking: 'What are the ways this could feel wrong? What information leaks? What assumptions are we baking in?' Before we launched, we thought Pass and Play was feature-complete. Turns out, complete meant understanding not just the mechanics, but the human moment around them.
The Bristol church group leader still uses BIBL. She messaged again last week. They've moved to Lightning Duel for their group trivia nights. Pass and Play is still there, still gets used, but in the moments where it actually fits. That feels right.
Have you ever loved a game mechanically but felt something slightly off about how it played? That's the gap we were living in. And it's the gap that teaches you most.
Ready to try BIBL by MRVL?
One tap to download. No sign-up wall.