Should games be based around idiot players messing up, or good players seeing the use in a trait in a particular game? Should we plan or base our games around the lowest or highest denominator of player?
-
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.
What's an 'assassin' trait? (I haven't played many Bigs in recent years) Do you mean hunter? I imagine I'll be keeping it, either way. I've thought it always adds more to a game than it takes away.
I think it goes by either name, and I tend to agree, but I just thought it lead to no consequences in Wagon's game. No one's name was revealed, blessed wouldn't stop it, brutal or vengeance wouldn't trigger (I don't think), so it just lead to this feeling that if you were targeted by an assassin, there wasn't anything you could do, and if you were an assassin, and decent at your job, you could murder with impunity with very little risk.
Though, now that you mention that you are using the alternative name for it, I see that it does reveal the hunter's name should they choose to use it, which I think leads to a fairer balance in the game and a good source of risk before pulling the trigger.
Keep in mind the reason the trait exists is to give the goodies someway to kill players other than the lynch. So, defenses are bad idea. And I think not revealing the name makes it weaker, because when it is posted that can be used to set-up a JL.
This has always been the way in my games anyway. Although there are potential benefits to the assassin anonymity as well, but they'd need to be balanced out with something else, too, and I'm just keeping this game relatively basic so far.
Hunter has been a trait for almost a decade I think. It used to be used to set up JLs wayy back in the early days but that was long ago stopped by changing it from a role to a trait.
Which can be balanced if they are a lot OEO and other protections the wolves need to get around. And even if not an extra kill isn't that valuable to the baddies.
Yeah way back in the day it was role. And since it was the only role/trait which could shoot someone and it also had OEO, often times Hunters would take a blind shot early on to form a JL because they could prove they were a goodie. But even as a trait I think it can be useful to form a JL when the name is revealed since the default assumption is baddies wouldn't take a shot unless they had to.
Hunter is OEO until he fires his gun; an assassin isn't. That is the difference.
Also OEO does protect against assassin in the way that it might kill the assassin. And some people have the protectors protect against assassin too.
True. But that just adds a bit more strategy as I see it. Is a goodie hunter going to shoot a randomer, risk being lynched if he gets it wrong (and you neglect to mention that this often happens) in order to try set up a JL? Is a baddie cultist hunter thinking about trying to pre-empt this by taking a shot of his own and maybe causing some havoc with an IJL?
In my time here, it has not been used that much to set up JLs anyway. There has been no GM who takes more precautions than me to prevent ironclad JLs forming and I don't think it's too much of a danger here, all things considered.
Not from my first game. We split up Hunter into Hunter and the new-fangled 'One Eye Open' trait around 2012 or so, I thought. It's that way in my rules now. Although I was considering changing it back for some nostalgia value.
I joined mainly to preempt any PMs from you trying to use emotional manipulation to get me to participate.
Marty is very persuasive. Or persistent. Or even simply prone to psychological blackmail.
But it works.
Excellent!
Maybe not any more. Used to happen quite a bit back in the day. Now, knowing it happens less often, a baddie might just use that as an excuse to hunt a powerful goodie in plain sight. I think it tends to equilibrate over time.
