Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Resistance - Game IV

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.
@ randakar, my apologies if I misunderstood you.

I hope that allowing an extra day to handle immediate use cards would resolve the issue. That's seems workable to me, though if for whatever reason a player doesn't use the card by the deadline of the special session period, I'm not wiling to stay in such a session indefinitely.
 
Couple questions on these deadlines then...

If Ranger plays the card and it's resolved before the deadline do we immediately move onto Citizen picking a team with a new 24h deadline?

And what would we do if Ranger were to miss the deadline?
 
When the card is resolved, citizen1oo1 can propose a team. The deadline for that will be Monday. Immediate use cards now get a special 24 hour period all to their own before proceeding to a 24 hour period for team proposal and mission orders. Just to clarify, if more than one immediate use card is in play at the same time, they will share that period. If the card/cards is/are resolved in advance of the deadline for the special session, that will just be all the more time for discussion about the leader's team proposal.

If the card is not played by the end of the special session, the leader ought to propose a team anyhow and the deadline continues as normal so that the game continues. The holder of the card still should play it as soon as possible.

I'm willing to wait an extra day to resolve cards that need immediate use, but it would be too difficult to continually have the game delayed because someone missed the deadline for a special session. I'm not saying that I think this will happen, but in the event that it did, that seems the best course of action.
 
Thank you, Cliges. That would be certainly better.

For now, any proposals as to whom shall Ranger open up to? I suppose we shall for the starters distribute "power" and knowledge, that is, he shall open up not to one of those who got other plot cards (gliomarto and Bentley). Though from a personal viewpoint I wouldn't mind to check his role myself.
 
marty99 said:
And this is why we shouldn't have deadlines.
Click to expand...

Look, for voting a deadline is good. Otherwise there is no real good predictable way
to end it that doesn't prejudice someone.

For the rest of the phases, the deadline only really exists to deal with absentee players.
Speaking of which - cliges, that rule can be abused. Missing the deadline on purpose to avoid the open up card, for instance.
If the deadline is missed, just resolve it by choosing for him.

edit: god I hate posting from phones sometimes.
 
Last edited:
marty99 said:
And this is why we shouldn't have deadlines.
Click to expand...

I'm undecided whether or not it's best to have them.

If nothing else, this will be a test of such deadlines. The biggest problems are, I think:

1. Dealing with a situation where the game waits for a player to undertake a necessary action. This also occurs in a game without a deadline, but the additional problem is that with a deadline, if said deadline occurs, the game has to proceed without giving an opportunity for the action to take place.

2. Deadlines have the potential to speed things if we resolve team votes and the mission at the same time, but in theory, a game could last almost an entire month. For a counter example, the last game (Game 3) didn't even require 2 full weeks. The actions in themselves don't require much time to play out; deadlines will mean a lot of downtime, which is both uninteresting and will at times lengthen the game more than necessitated by game mechanics.

3. As a corollary to 2, people might be reluctant to commit to a game of such length and needless delays. I'm not sure that I would be prepared to commit for such a length in the future if an average game lasts for much more than about 2 weeks. A game without a deadline could actually move quite quickly if all players and the GM check on the thread several times each day and take care of those actions which are needed at a given time. Indeed, one might not be able to be involved due to such sheer length compared to previous games or a typical game of werewolf. In other words, one might be available for the first 15-20 days or so, but decide that he cannot participate because he is not willing, or not able to guarantee for such a sizable time commitment past that point.

I believe that Falc has voiced some concerns about 3 at some point in the past by mentioning that The Resistance could go at a faster pace than Werewolf, as all that needs to be done for the game to proceed is for players to do their proper actions, but if approached in certain ways, the game could take even longer and go at an even slower pace.
 
Last edited:
randakar said:
Look, for voting a deadline is good. Otherwise there is no real good predictable way
to end it that doesn't prejudice someone.
For the rest.of the phases, the deadline only really exists.to deal.with absentee.players.
Speaking of which - cliges, that rule can be abised. Missing the deadline on purpose to
avoid the open up card, for instance.
If.the deadline is missed, just resolve it by choosing for him.
Click to expand...

I am against choosing for him. That allows a spy to hide information.

Deadlines are good for voting, but we should not have one for this type of thing.
 
Cymsdale said:
I am against choosing for him. That allows a spy to hide information.

Deadlines are good for voting, but we should not have one for this type of thing.
Click to expand...

If you don't have one and someone who has to make a decision drops off the net you really don't have any good choices.
The only other thing you could do here that doesn't mess with the game more than absolutely necessary is simply substitute anyone who misses the deadline - after applying some GM leeway built in for weekends and the like.
 
Citizen1oo1 said:
Since this mission contains 3 people it can get sabotaged quite well, and I think it is probable that any first round team will contain one spy, I want to share the responsibility of making this team with all of you. So we all get the blame when things go as they shouldn't. I want a team with people about whom we have as much information as possible. The only people who've done things are: me and the people I gave cards, and whoever open up is used on.
So I say a team of:
Me
Ranger900
whoever Ranger chooses to use open up on

Yes? Any input?
Click to expand...

Trying to shy away from responsibility, are we?
 
If ranger900 does not play the card by 14:00 GMT April 28, Falc will have the option of taking over for him in the interests of moving the game forward. We started about 2 days ago and have had essentially no progress.
 
Citizen1oo1 said:
Since this mission contains 3 people it can get sabotaged quite well, and I think it is probable that any first round team will contain one spy, I want to share the responsibility of making this team with all of you. So we all get the blame when things go as they shouldn't. I want a team with people about whom we have as much information as possible. The only people who've done things are: me and the people I gave cards, and whoever open up is used on.
So I say a team of:
Me
Ranger900
whoever Ranger chooses to use open up on

Yes? Any input?
Click to expand...
I disagree. While a successful mission would be nice, we need for now be gathering as much information as possible about as much players as possible. Possibility of taking 3 missions in a row is pretty low, which means we have to prepare for the future.
Thus the only team I could accept on the first offer is the one that doesn't include players we know something about, that is: Citizen, gliomarto, Bentley, Ranger, and whoever Ranger opens up to.

jpr123 said:
This game seems mighty unfair if we refuse to take spies on any teams... They could never win then...
Click to expand...
Indeed, poor spies.
 
Citizen1oo1 said:
So by now Falc is Ranger and he will play the card?
When happen?
Click to expand...

Yes. Though this is a little earlier that I said it would be, Falc is now taking over for Ranger900.

Falc can play the card whenever he is ready.

With the special time for the immediate use card out of the way, things might now pick up a faster pace.
 
Citizen1oo1 said:
Since this mission contains 3 people it can get sabotaged quite well, and I think it is probable that any first round team will contain one spy, I want to share the responsibility of making this team with all of you. So we all get the blame when things go as they shouldn't. I want a team with people about whom we have as much information as possible. The only people who've done things are: me and the people I gave cards, and whoever open up is used on.
So I say a team of:
Me
Ranger900
whoever Ranger chooses to use open up on

Yes? Any input?
Click to expand...
Citizen, if you propose this team I will reject it.

However, I do admire you for opening up your suggestion to criticism and discussion. But gliomarto expresses my concerns quite well:
gliomarto said:
I disagree. While a successful mission would be nice, we need for now be gathering as much information as possible about as much players as possible. Possibility of taking 3 missions in a row is pretty low, which means we have to prepare for the future.
Thus the only team I could accept on the first offer is the one that doesn't include players we know something about, that is: Citizen, gliomarto, Bentley, Ranger, and whoever Ranger opens up to.
Click to expand...
Everything he says I agree with.

However, as I know I'm resistance, and I'm talking to you assuming you're resistance citizen, then that means there is 4/8 chance of gliomarto being a spy. From any resistance members' perspectice, every other player has a 4/9 chance of being a Spy. Therefore I wouldn't completely follow gliomarto's sensible suggestion to the letter, because of the high chance that he is a spy. Therefore I would put one of him (gliomarto) or you (citizen) in the team, but not Bentley or Ranger.
Of course, you can't trust me either, but I'm not making my own suggestion, just a slight modification to gliomarto's.



Hypothetical for everyone: if you were a spy with the open-up card, would you always pass it to another spy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back