I liked the cultist rules, and would suggest that maybe there were too many brutals, even if it did benefit me.
I have no strong opinion either way on rivals.
I have no strong opinion either way on rivals.
That was not a criticism on how you did it. I think it wasn't worse than for instance my last game with seer+priest+sorc+infiltrator+one-time scans. It was more of a warning to not just pile spies on top of everything we already got. You took away infiltrator and one-time scans and added spies. That's fine.While that's a reasonable point, I have to say that I don't think it applied here. On the setup there were three scanners, plus one later, two spies, and two SA. That's not light for information gathering but I'd not say it's overdone either: compared with the norm it's 4 scanners instead of 3, 1 of whom starts late if at all, and then 2 spies that are of limited utility, and 2 SAs - a typical game has that many SAs if not more, plus witnesses, spies, infiltrators, x-ly powers, et cetera. I don't think on paper it was excessive, and it's something I was aware of during balancing.
I think you did it about right in the level of information. For most of the clues we had 2-3 role/traits it could be. aedan as a SA was for example one of three interpretations flying around, only we though defensive hunter was more likely.That is the risk with the spy. It's a trait that I was tentative about using it in CXXI because I could blow it totally by handing out too much information, but the CXXI experience was that properly constructed clues aren't that revealing, so I had no qualms using it in CLIV because it hadn't become a GM's folly in CXXI. I wouldn't recommend it to every GM by any means because it's easy to make a hash of it. If you give away too much it's awful: the spy is a trait, not a substitute seer-cum-priest with a dash of trait checker. But if you give away too little, such that players cannot draw any useful conclusions from it, it isn't worth including in the first place.
In this game I feared I'd gone with the too little information side: nobody got that sbr was a cursed leader, people were still arguing bandit or cultist, even after the correlation between the tonka weak-willed clue and sbr's weak-willed clue. I don't think the aedan777 clue for SA villager was worked out until aedan explained that he was an SA villager. The dud clue Steed got on you set up a contaminated PJL. It took two scans to nail down Gen. Skobelev as an urchin, and then the village lynched him based on misreading the clues anyway. The Wagonlitz clue was roulette: it could be taken as a red herring referring to RP or a genuine clue that he was a dangerous baddie - it was both. The clue for Falc was similar, and Steed duly concluded that Falc was a baddie. Falc outed himself, and Steed scanned again to confirm it wasn't a ruse, but got the roleblocker clue instead, so he'd have had to expend a third night to confirm Falc as the seer. So like I said, if anything I worried that post-mortem I'd hear that spy was a waste of time.
Totally agree on the last part.As I said though, it's my belief that players virtually always chose the SD aspect, except when put the JL set up a firing squad for the checkmate. The flip side to there being no penalty (well, unless you're walrus) for using the hunter trait is that players actually go ahead with it, as Daffius did to Chieron.
The defensive aspect (and again, SDs don't survive) needs something to make it more interesting, agreed entirely. It involves no action on the player's part, and I don't like traits of that nature.
Hm, no, you are right. A trait that is often pointless and sometimes fantastic is probably worse than a trait that is sort of meh always. I never thought about it that way.Eh, that's true, but given how hated the self-rescuing events are it's not a big concern for me. I'm not a huge fan of the leaderlynch, it can be great, as with Day 11 here where it was within 1 vote of sending this game to another knife-edge day, or in CLIII where it effectively overturned an evil victory. But so often it's just someone avoiding their death for one day - when a villager leaderlynches a villager to save themselves they usually get wagoned the next day just like a wolf. And when it is an outed wolf like aedan in CLIII people are disgusted. I too find it irksome even though I see how game changing it is: another day spent wagoning the wolf, so another hunt on top of the leaderlynched villager, and it's also a situation where the wolves have to evaluate the risk of sticking their neck out to facilitate the leaderlynch. It's a good trait when viewed that way - except it's a pain in the dick.
My issue with x-in-command isn't that it's weak, it's that it's roulette. Past 3rd in command the odds of having the trait fall into your hands when it could help are quite low - but then when it does it's a total game changer. It's a personal proclivity toward traits that are less likely to be a wet squib 24/25 times, then suddenly rattle the windows a mile away when the conditions are just right.
Again, I prefer less power but more predictability. I take it you prefer more chance of spectacular changes of fortune. This is a subjective thing, I think, either is an acceptable philosophy, and I might find I develop a taste for more unpredictable traits that can be thoroughly decisive.
I like this.It occurs to me now that certain traits could mutate if the urchin steals them - say he steals a brutal, it turns into an assassin for him, so he doesn't realize he got a baddie's calling card. Spies could be "blind" to brutality and just take a check against the role (or however else the GM wants to handle spies) so if they pass they pass, if they fail they fail, the brutal isn't an indirect role clue. But infiltrators definitely stuff it up.
You got me all wrong on this. I had no problem with your deadline. Me getting up early to see the deadline means I enjoyed the game and was excited about the update.Is it any consolation to know I that I was tormented by the massively delayed update, and doggedly updated at 1AM from someone else's wireless network while totally exhausted, just for you guys?
This rule 7B? I thought you couldn't forge a GM's PM. etc.. I didn't realise that posting would be rule breaking or I would have taken his name off..
Sorry if this has upset anyone, takes a while to remember all the small stuff.
I used to have in my rules that I as a GM could deny or confirm any GM PMs made public or I saw in a PM exchange - whether they were fake or real. IIRC noone ever gave me an opportunity to do it. So in a way that worked too...This seems to be one of those rules that varies from GM to GM. I personally never include it, anything goes in my games. But don't come whining if I'm forced to publically deny the verity of a fake PM.
I liked the cultist rules, and would suggest that maybe there were too many brutals, even if it did benefit me.
I have no strong opinion either way on rivals.
It was buried for years but has resurfaced recently. Some GMs like Vainglory like it.
pj is a brutal wolf, but opts not to target the JL mouthpiece, instead going for a random player
snoopdogg started the lynch against me, so I killed him in return![]()
You're now on my list.:ninja: