Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Keep it as is

3 (12%)

Change it to a full Jester, with game-end on win

1 (4%)

Change it to a full Jester, but without game-end on win

5 (20%)

Change it to a full Jester, with game-end on win AFTER day 3

3 (12%)

Change it to a Jester with the loss of the Next Day phase

4 (16%)

Remove it entirely

9 (36%)

Other (explain)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 25

[JoshuaFH]

I can certainly understand the reason for these changes Meph, but I'm saying there's no grounds for it.

I know you want to avoid the supposed linear lines of thinking in the game, but you have to realize that there wasn't anything inherently wrong with the game the way it was originally set up, what' happening right now is a product of luck, planning, and bad decisions on the dopps' part.

Also, I feel it isn't in the GM's best interest to inexplicably change the rules to guard the "feel" of the game, for the same reason that Toady tries to avoid flexing his administrative powers, to prevent animosity from forming.

It was good the way it was, after all, the dopps HAD their chance to win. Had they killed off Nuke earlier, this entire scenario wouldn't be possible, because then they could just kill Umiman, and there'd be no way to see who attacked who. It was the lack of foresight on there part that dug there grave, not from me gaming the system. The way I see it, it feels as though you're just giving them a break at the cost of everyone else, even though they had their opportunity to win and blew it.

[Mephansteras]

True, and you've gotten things to the point where everyone is sitting around saying "Ok, Mr.Person or R1ck has to be the dopps". You've narrowed things down to a choice between two people, and that's cool.

All I'm saying is that the ability to win by saying "Well, let's just kill them both!" seems kind of cheap. You've gotten it down to a choice of A or B. I think you should actually have to make that choice.

And from a story perspective, think of it this way. You have a gun, and two people you want to shoot. One of these people is a normal human, the other is a super-fast, super-strong, super-tough doppelganger. You shoot the dopp first, and you're find. He's dead. But if you shoot the human first, the dopp gets to attack you before you can shoot him. Shooting both isn't much of an option in that scenario, unless you're wrong and neither is a dopp.

[ToonyMan]

Two guns?

[JoshuaFH]

All I'm saying is that the ability to win by saying "Well, let's just kill them both!" seems kind of cheap. You've gotten it down to a choice of A or B. I think you should actually have to make that choice.

This is the part that I think is the "Jerk move" on your part that I was describing earlier. I had trouble putting it into words then, but this is basically what it's like:

You: Alright, the rule is you can lynch two people at lylo.
Me: Alright, let's lynch two people at lylo.
You: Wait! No! I changed my mind. Let's not.
Me: But why? You're the person that made the rule.
You: Because it's cheap and stuff!
Me: Cheap? You're the person that made it, and I'm the person that's been building my strategy around it. You should have thought about that before.
You: Well too bad!

I don't mean to paint you as the bad guy, but I'm saying it's unfair to the players to just change the rules, and it's not your job to change them at a moments notice on a whim. I think, as GM, it's just your job to make sure all the rules are enforced. Any gaps in the rules can be fixed later.

[Rysith]

As for the changes for this game, I can see why you're upset. I also imagine that the dopps are equally upset at being forced into a no-win situation. So I tried to change things to give us a nice tense either-side-can-win situation. If the surviving players hate it and all want to be able to double-lynch and end the game that way I'll allow it. But personally I think it's more of a game if you have the uncertainty of trying to figure out who the remaining dopp is and taking a chance with your victory. It's not like I'm handing the dopps an automatic victory, I'm just trying to give them a chance to win so there is an interesting game to play.

The problem with the Ghost last round was that it basically took the game away from everyone. I'm trying to avoid those situations where everyone is sitting around going 'well, gee, obviously we do X and we win.'

I just don't think that's as fun all around, but I'm willing to hear everyone's opinions and I'll change things if that's what everyone really wants.

Perhaps I'm wrong, because I'm not CJ/Nuke/whoever else was in on this plan, nor am I in on the dopp conversations, but my perception was that this wasn't something that was making things less fun for people, this was the reveal that iocane powder was in both cups. True, with double lynching available the dopps have essentially lost. But to me, that's fine: there was plenty of tension, drama, uncertainty, backstabbing, etc. up to this point. It was not a dull game by any means, nor was the outcome terribly certain until the last few people. It's reasonably common for the last scum or two to be known, anyway: The most common method of failure for the scum is having their members exposed through process of elimination or association. In other words, people should not be punished for managing to manipulate the game into a situation where they can say "obviously we do X and we win", as long as the journey there was difficult and fun. Look at the end of Paranormal 4: The last day was obvious, but (I assume) people had fun with it anyway.

This is the end of a well-executed and tense plan, not a situation where one person was able to take over the entire game and make things unfun for everyone. True, Nuke has been calling the shots for the last few nights. But once you have a confirmed, knowledgeable townie it's fairly foolish not to let them, in any game. I think that the sudden rule change discourages the kind of planning and strategy that Josh (and, from the other sides, web/alex/pandarsenic) were using, which I think is bad for the game in general.

I'd go along with the changes if they were implemented at the beginning of the game (as CJ said), and fully support patching holes in the rules that are causing problems. But I also agree that changing rules in the middle of a game specifically to invalidate a plan is bad.

[Mephansteras]

Fair enough.

Thoughts from anyone else?

[Kashyyk]

Let the rules as they are for now. plug the holes when the game is over.

I essence I agree with them.

[JanusTwoface]

Long story short, let the rules stand.

I realize that this will most likely result in a dopp loss, but I'm not terribly opposed to that.  It was still a fun game for what I was here of it and, for me, that's the whole point.  If it so happens that everything goes as planned, the townies win, but they had to knowingly lynch at least one human being to do it, which does appeal somewhat to my dopp sensibility.

On the other hand, it's still possible that there is some way out of this.  I haven't thought of exactly how yet, and I won't be any help if I did, because I can't post that here, but oh well.  (Side note: Can I still use dopp chat?)

In any case, I think that the double lynching rules should be revised in some manner for the next game.  I almost got myself lynched earlier with them.

Finally, just curious... (To chaoticjosh in particular) How/when would killing off Nuke have helped?  Best bet would be to reply by PM to avoid messing with the game, but I am curious.  I just really don't see it.

[Mephansteras]

To answer Janus's question, no, dead dopps can't post in dopp chat anymore. You can only talk to the Medium or in Dead Chat.

In any case, it sounds like people want the rules left alone for this game and adjusted for future games. So that's what we'll do.

[JoshuaFH]

Maybe to make things more 'fair', in future games we can have a dopp medium, or something along those lines. Seeing as how dopps go to regular dead chat instead of a special dead dopp chat, they're just sorta hanging around, who's only purpose is to bother the regular dead townies. I think it'd add another layer of suspense, akin to what a 'watcher' would do.

and sure Janus, I'll PM you.

[Mephansteras]

Yeah, we've gotten a few votes for mediums being doppable, so I'll probably add in that change.

Ok, back to pestering people for vote sheets for what roles you want in the game and which you don't. If you had questions that have been answered, go and update your sheets. If you still have questions, let me know so I can get you answers.

If you haven't voted, please do so.

[Kashyyk]

Dopp medium... heh.

That would mean that the regular medium would know who the dopp medium is, and vice versa. Unless we use those handles again.

[JanusTwoface]

Dopp medium... heh.

That would mean that the regular medium would know who the dopp medium is, and vice versa. Unless we use those handles again.

Sounds like great fun to me.  (And I have no problems with fun :-D).

I'm in favor of anything that adds a degree of suspicion to the game without to much randomness.

[JoshuaFH]

Dopp medium... heh.

That would mean that the regular medium would know who the dopp medium is, and vice versa. Unless we use those handles again.

Hmm, wouldn't he only be revealed if he actually, ya know, posted? Or are the identities of the mediums announced in the dead chat?

Some form of handle use would be good too.

[Mephansteras]

Nope. I announce that there IS a medium so that the dead know if they can be heard. But I leave it up to the medium to say things otherwise. So, yeah, that'd make things interesting. You wouldn't know if there was a medium working for the other side or not unless they revealed themselves. More paranoia is always good. >

That'll probably reduce the medium's power a bit, which is fine.