Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[The Resistance] Test Game 1

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Cymsdale said:
Rule questions: What's the difference between one time use plots and use immediately? Can that take responsibility card by used in later rounds by anyone, or only the active leader?
Click to expand...

It seems there's a small error in my text (and the text of the downloadable rules PDF): Take Responsability is Use Immediately. The text also clearly indicates this. So esemesas may choose someone, who may then take a Plot Card from someone else, but no-one has any Plot Cards...

So this one has been fully resolved and discarded, it just didn't do anything.

Also, a reminder: while you are free to sham-vote in public, I will need your actual votes in PM. Who has cast what vote will be revealed by me.

(Come to think of it, I'm not 100% sure this is necessary, but the original game made this choice so I'm assuming there's a reason.)
 
Well, that went smooth.

We have 6 votes in favor of esemesas and Kingepyon going on the first Mission. So the Mission is ON!

So now I need a vote (in PM) from both these players whether they Support or Sabotage the success of the Mission.
 
If I may suggest, next turn, have people send in by PM not just their votes, but also what they intend to do if send away on a mission.

Also, I like seeing this game tested. ( Even though I'm not sure I agree 100% on the implementation. But I'm not quite sure why, so carry on. )
 
The problem there is that I can imagine Spies changing their intended behavior on a mission depending on who they're sent with.


Anyway, update time.

Both players on the mission have helped the mission Succeed! Score one for the Resistance!

The new Leader is reis91 whose first task is to assign the Plot Card:
Keeping a close eye on you – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to learn whether a player SUPPORTED or SABOTAGED a Mission. If this card is in play, the GM will ask the player whether he wishes to use it after the GM has received all the Mission PMs. If two players have this card, they may use it in the same Mission phase but they may not use it on the same player.

So reis, please select a player who will receive this card. Once you're done with that, you can also make a Mission Team proposal, this time we need 3 people.
 
Falc said:
The problem there is that I can imagine Spies changing their intended behavior on a mission depending on who they're sent with.
Click to expand...

Of course, but the leader proposes just one team normally, and *that* is what is voted on. And if you vote on a team, you can also tell the GM what you wish to do with the mission when you're on that team .. yes?
(I haven't read the first page of this thing entirely, so am I wrong here?)

Besides, there is nothing wrong with sending in standing orders, conditional orders (if on a team with X, do A, otherwise do B - but let's not let those become overly complex ..) or even default orders (having all non-spy resistance members automatically vote "Succeed" as per the standard rules.)

Falc said:
Anyway, update time.

Both players on the mission have helped the mission Succeed! Score one for the Resistance!

The new Leader is reis91 whose first task is to assign the Plot Card:
Keeping a close eye on you – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to learn whether a player SUPPORTED or SABOTAGED a Mission. If this card is in play, the GM will ask the player whether he wishes to use it after the GM has received all the Mission PMs. If two players have this card, they may use it in the same Mission phase but they may not use it on the same player.

So reis, please select a player who will receive this card. Once you're done with that, you can also make a Mission Team proposal, this time we need 3 people.
Click to expand...


Ah, plot cards. No idea how those work. I've only played the base game ..
(If I had started such a game I'd have gone for a basic game just to get those details hammered out first)
 
randakar said:
(If I had started such a game I'd have gone for a basic game just to get those details hammered out first)
Click to expand...

I thought about that for a long while, but vanilla gets stuck between allowing PMs for the Spies (which is a bit overpowered) (though perhaps not if there's only 2 Spies...) and forbidding any and all contact between players outside of the game which is impossible to enforce and feels a bit... restrictive? oppressive?

Anyway, the middle road is to allow PMs but to not have the Spies know one another. Once I had that and had read the effects on the Plot Cards, it felt natural to include them so that each side had some interesting opportunities to get guaranteed info on the identity of other players.
 
I see.

Well, the thing about spies not knowing each other is that a lot of analysis information actually goes right out the window. A spy team leader won't know who his mates are, so his proposals cannot be scrutinized in an attempt to find them. At least, not at first.
That being said - I'm not sure how to fix that without having the 'problem' that spies can coöperate perfectly with their proposals and votes .. so that you will never have "drat, all three of us sabotaged the mission" type events happen. ;-)

In any case, this is an area that we can have more experiments with. It shouldn't be such a big deal.

edit: I'm more interested to see what happens if you have the team vote and the mission vote update together. It should be possible to do so and speed up the game without losing terribly much, I think.
 
Cymsdale said:
I don't see why restricting PMs is so bad. Honor system? Are people here that untrustworthy?
Click to expand...

The real question is, do we really need to put in any restrictions in the first place?

I don't see this game as much different from Werewolf. And where, in werewolf, PM's ARE causing problems due to the way justice leagues work, in this game there really is no such thing as a justice league. At least, not in the base game.
So yeah, I'd like to see this game run with PM's AND with spies that know each other. Before we resort to artificial restrictions.
 
I'm not understanding how I'm supposed to analyze the actions of potential spies when they are all acting as lone wolves. My impression is that the intended challenge of the spies is to manage the level of antagonism they give without the benefit of being able to communicate with one another. Right now, their actions might as well be random, since they cannot make informed decisions. I don't know if this is an advantage of disadvantage in the long run to either side, but I think it makes the game seem less interesting to play.

That quarter-to-three group seems to get by having a no-PM policy. It also gives the advantage of any and all communication all being in the thread, and not all hidden away. If the bulk of the game takes place in PM form, it can make the game seem a lot less active than it is.

I don't mean to be Debbie Downer here; I'm certainly willing to see how this plays out, but I think this type of feedback is important.
 
I'm rejecting this team proposal because I think the success of the mission will be more likely with agents who have already been tested. If a spy was lurking between them, and they helped the mission in order to cover themselves, well I guess they'll just have to make that decision again.
 
Cymsdale said:
I'm not understanding how I'm supposed to analyze the actions of potential spies when they are all acting as lone wolves. My impression is that the intended challenge of the spies is to manage the level of antagonism they give without the benefit of being able to communicate with one another. Right now, their actions might as well be random, since they cannot make informed decisions. I don't know if this is an advantage of disadvantage in the long run to either side, but I think it makes the game seem less interesting to play.

That quarter-to-three group seems to get by having a no-PM policy. It also gives the advantage of any and all communication all being in the thread, and not all hidden away. If the bulk of the game takes place in PM form, it can make the game seem a lot less active than it is.

I don't mean to be Debbie Downer here; I'm certainly willing to see how this plays out, but I think this type of feedback is important.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think this game is a good start, but I think a 'spies know each other, but no PMs' would be better. The resistance will have a heck of a time trying to analyze the votes/missions of individually acting spies.
 
Cymsdale said:
I'm rejecting this team proposal because I think the success of the mission will be more likely with agents who have already been tested. If a spy was lurking between them, and they helped the mission in order to cover themselves, well I guess they'll just have to make that decision again.
Click to expand...

I agree, rejecting as well, because we should send the two that completed the mission before, plus one new unknown.
 
Cymsdale said:
I'm rejecting this team proposal because I think the success of the mission will be more likely with agents who have already been tested. If a spy was lurking between them, and they helped the mission in order to cover themselves, well I guess they'll just have to make that decision again.
Click to expand...

I thought about this, however, nothing guarantees that a Spy who did not commit with two people on the mission will do the same when there are more targets to divide suspicion. I came to the conclusion that we cannot conclude anything apart from the simple notion that, if the previous mission guys are Spies, they are not stupid enough to get themselves suspected so easily. :)

Plus, we should have information on all of us to make better decisions, because in the later missions we will have to include more people.

PS: I think votes are meant to be secret, also.
 
reis91 said:
PS: I think votes are meant to be secret, also.
Click to expand...

Mission votes (succeed / pass) are secret, but votes for team approval are most empathically meant to be entirely public.
 
That being said, in that context I do not really get the "Opinion Maker" plot card. The game as I played it (in real life) had everyone vote simultaneously but publicly on the mission team.
I really wonder how much that indygames site modified the card text. I highly doubt the original game card had that particular text on it ..

edit:
Found it!

img0679h.jpg


img0680os.jpg


:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back