-
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.
Don't do that! I panicked and thought I might actually have accidentally recorded you as a spy when you were in fact resistance...
It reminds me of the WW game (I think Eurovision)where esemesas was outed as a wolf and tried to insist to everyone that the GM had made a mistake when giving the seer the scan results (or else had made him a wolf but sent him a role PM saying that was a villager). Though falsely claiming GM error during the game as a tactic IMHO borders on being against the rules.
Last edited:
If it's the game I'm thinking of Ese didn't actually claim that. His problem was because I outed him as a wolf (being a seer) when he was actually a cultist. The priest was dead so he figured he could only have been scanned as a baddie through GM error when he had forgotten there were other scan roles in the game.
I might be confusing that one then with the one where I scanned him as a wolf as the seer.
All the games start to run together in memory after awhile.
All the games start to run together in memory after awhile.
Don't panic.
But really, at first I've intended to play the game without checking my role and my team-mates' names. Unfortunately, my willpower is not strong enough for that.
No I defaulted all orders. I got maybe 4 all game, 2 of which were from Falc and he was resistance
Thank you, I've been waiting for a GM to default orders.
I didn't really change my mind, I just got tired of trying to convince people who wouldn't listen.
I honestly would have voted for Cliges-tamius23-Xarkan-Falc-myself if it had been proposed by Cliges. But I didn't have enough faith in that team to stick with it over the Gliomarto version, so I can't really complain. And we only discussed the possibility of Gliomarto being a spy because of a fluky card draw.
It's an interesting game, but too much rests on the cards. I don't really get why spies would worry about having multiple members on a proposed team, when it would be easy to have a meta like "the spy with the alphabetically first name in the team is the one to sabotage". It would be a little vulnerable to cards, but only in very specific circumstances.
It's an interesting game, but too much rests on the cards. I don't really get why spies would worry about having multiple members on a proposed team, when it would be easy to have a meta like "the spy with the alphabetically first name in the team is the one to sabotage". It would be a little vulnerable to cards, but only in very specific circumstances.
There's a version that uses roles in lieu of cards. I've thought of trying it out if there's interest. Basically, most players will knowledge or a special ability of some sort.
Link one: a review of the game
Link 2: a forum playing the game-with some explanation of the roles, etc, at the start
I'd prefer to go with deadlines and pre-loading, but I'll see what happens if it comes to pass.
I'd have the unhappy task of writing a new set of rules, mutatis mutandis, for such a game.
I'm also playing with the idea of 48 or maybe even 36 hour cycles for deadlines if it gets going.
I'm also playing with the idea of 48 or maybe even 36 hour cycles for deadlines if it gets going.
Interesting, yes, I wouldn't mind to give it a try. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind another game with usual rules.
The management might be kind enough to permit both at once.
I'm undecided on the excalibur rule option in the first game, but I'd keep an open mind about it. I'm also curious how balanced it might be without the assassin role, which is the main problem the detractors have with the variant. Maybe it would be balanced to include Excalibur without having an assassin. It would give the baddies an edge if they chose to use it, and it would be a stumbling block for the goodies if they used it poorly.
I'm undecided on the excalibur rule option in the first game, but I'd keep an open mind about it. I'm also curious how balanced it might be without the assassin role, which is the main problem the detractors have with the variant. Maybe it would be balanced to include Excalibur without having an assassin. It would give the baddies an edge if they chose to use it, and it would be a stumbling block for the goodies if they used it poorly.
I don't think a role-based resistance needs to necessarily be Avalon. I think we could come up with some fun simple roles that add a lot of dynamics to the game. Many of them could be based off plot cards in some ways.
The fun part about the roles is no one will know who has what role and who is lying about it.
You could have a resistance player who has a secret KACEOY for every single mission.
You could have a Frenemies role that applies to both a single spy and resistance player, in which that resistance player starts the game with knowledge of that particular spy, and that spy *knows* that the resistance player knows bout him.
You could have a role that gives a player a one time "seer" scan.
The fun part about the roles is no one will know who has what role and who is lying about it.
You could have a resistance player who has a secret KACEOY for every single mission.
You could have a Frenemies role that applies to both a single spy and resistance player, in which that resistance player starts the game with knowledge of that particular spy, and that spy *knows* that the resistance player knows bout him.
You could have a role that gives a player a one time "seer" scan.
That's true, though it would make it so there is already a basic blueprint and at least some of the variables are worked out to a degree without having too many in the air. Of course, there's also something to be said about seeing the mechanics of that specific rule set in practice.
That's somewhat like one of the 3 Lancelot set-ups in Avalon, there's one which has both Good and Bad Lancelot starting off while knowing each other. Normally, they always have a chance (based on a card draw), starting in round three to switch sides, including a chance to switch back in a later round, but they don't always know their opposite depending on which of the rule sets is at use.
Those are some good ideas, except for the frenemy one. It would just mean we start the game off with two people immediately accusing the other of being a spy.
We need roles that can help the spies as well though. Maybe a once per game ability to make their sabotage appear as if it was done one of the other people on the mission.
We need roles that can help the spies as well though. Maybe a once per game ability to make their sabotage appear as if it was done one of the other people on the mission.
That might be a gamebreaker. Having false information, as opposed to merely ambiguous, would really skew analysis to such a point that it might almost be useless.
If people knew about the trait though, they would know it might be false. Clearly it would only help if it was used in conjunction with an ItS or KACEOY cards. A once per game scan for a spy can also be game breaking if it comes off.
Then again with lots of traits we are in danger of making all information ambiguous and leaving very little room for any certainty. I'm not sure whether that would be a good thing or not.
Then again with lots of traits we are in danger of making all information ambiguous and leaving very little room for any certainty. I'm not sure whether that would be a good thing or not.