Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[Resistance] Game 2 - Down with Werewolf!

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 said:
The disadvantage is that the GM more or less decrees what the deadline is in the not-enforced-deadline case, which could influence the game. A little.
Click to expand...

A little?
A LITTLE???


It changed the ENTIRE outcome of game 1.

Imagine I give Kingepyon enough time to undo his Sabotage. We end up with a Failed mission and an outed reis.

Then there's a 3-man mission. Most likely, the way things were going, it'd have been esemesas, Kingepyon and Xarkan going. Kingepyon sabotages.

Final mission, you need to send 4 people. It's a crapshoot and the Resistance has 66% chance of losing the game.

What happened now? The two sabotages mean Cliges and Cymsdale are 100% cleared, so for the 3-man mission they just need to pick one Resistance out of ese/King/Xar. 66% chance of winning then and there.

Plus, if they fail, they exclude that person on the last mission. Guaranteed win.


So, sorry, but I'm not going to GM a game where I call those sorts of shots.

If we go down to the absolute basics, each player should, during a vote cycle, make his vote (private or public depending) AND publically give the green light for the game to move on. Separating those things seems to me the only way to guarantee a fair and equitable game for everyone involved.

Assumptions and the lot are nice to make things flow smoother and I am all for that, but if I'm going to end up deciding who wins, well then I might as well do it now and save us all some trouble.


- Leaders have 24 hours to handle Plot Cards and propose a Team. If they don't, Leader passes to the next person to keep the game going while we try to find a sub.
- During a Team Building vote cycle, you must publically Vote AND publically declare Green Light within 24 hours of the proposal. You cannot declare Green Light without Voting first. If you Voted but did not declare Green Light before the 24 hours are up, Green will be assumed and play will continue. If you did not Vote before the deadline, Approval and Green will be assumed to keep the game going while we look for a sub. You may Vote and Green Light in the same post. You may declare a Red Light which resets the deadline to 24 hours from your post. You may change your Vote and your Light at will. The vote cycle ends the very moment the last player declares (or is assumed to have declared) Green Light.
- During a Mission Result vote cycle, the same rules apply except that only the players on the mission must act, that Votes for the Mission Result must be done in private (while the Lights remain public) and that a Success Vote will be assumed for Resistance if they don't Vote while Sabotage will be assumed for the Spies.
- Preloads, conditional actions and the rest are allowed but must be posted in the same place as what they refer to: in public for everything except Mission Result Votes.
- Abuse of Red lights is harmful to everyone's enjoyment of the game. Don't do it.
 
Falc,
Last game you basically ignored Reis's request for more time until deadline. That was, to put it bluntly, GM error.

The only time that the GM basically decides when the deadline is in those proposed rules is when all votes have been cast and *nobody objected* to having the deadline at that point.
At which point it's their own problem, not the GM's. Update can hit at any time, if you want to talk more, ask for an extension. It's that simple.

edit: I do start to see the point of fixed 24 hour deadlines more and more, though :p
 
Cymsdale said:
I just don't want to sit through filibusters.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't believe the game has enough meat to it to keep everyone's attention if we used fixed 24-hour deadlines. Imagine, 24 hours to wait before a Team proposal, followed by 24 hours of voting that ends in a rejection, another 48-hour cycle for another rejection, 48 hours later we have a team and another 24 hours later the mission ends. One whole week for one mission.

And yet the fundamental problem with a liquid deadline remains: everyone should have a fair chance to respond to everything that gets said. Even if it got said 10 minutes after you went to sleep so you won't even read it for another 8 hours. And since the GM is not a player, it really shouldn't matter if it was said 10 minutes before I went to sleep, or 10 minutes after.

You know what? I'll quote myself from my third post here: "I made the mistake of giving power to the GM. See, the RL game doesn't even have a GM, so why on Earth should he have anything to say about the game in this version?"

Sometimes it's hard to stop making the same mistake, it's as if your brain has decided to go in one direction and you need a whole lot of effort to make it change course. Anyway, RL game to the rescue:

The LEADER should call Deadline, not the GM.

The GM shouldn't do anything in this game except those things that the players really cannot do themselves: assigning roles, assigning leader order, shuffling the Plot Card deck, anonymising Mission Actions.
 
Falc said:
I agree. I don't believe the game has enough meat to it to keep everyone's attention if we used fixed 24-hour deadlines. Imagine, 24 hours to wait before a Team proposal, followed by 24 hours of voting that ends in a rejection, another 48-hour cycle for another rejection, 48 hours later we have a team and another 24 hours later the mission ends. One whole week for one mission.

And yet the fundamental problem with a liquid deadline remains: everyone should have a fair chance to respond to everything that gets said. Even if it got said 10 minutes after you went to sleep so you won't even read it for another 8 hours. And since the GM is not a player, it really shouldn't matter if it was said 10 minutes before I went to sleep, or 10 minutes after.

You know what? I'll quote myself from my third post here: "I made the mistake of giving power to the GM. See, the RL game doesn't even have a GM, so why on Earth should he have anything to say about the game in this version?"

Sometimes it's hard to stop making the same mistake, it's as if your brain has decided to go in one direction and you need a whole lot of effort to make it change course. Anyway, RL game to the rescue:

The LEADER should call Deadline, not the GM.

The GM shouldn't do anything in this game except those things that the players really cannot do themselves: assigning roles, assigning leader order, shuffling the Plot Card deck, anonymising Mission Actions.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good idea. That way, we can get more data on the leader based on his deadline choices.
 
Uh ..

How do you then deal with:
- Leaders calling deadlines before everyone has voted
- Absentee players


As an evil leader example:

I propose the following team: Reis, Euro, esemesas.
Deadline for this proposal is in 1 minute.

I vote in favor.

.. 1 minute later ..

Motion passed! 1 vote in favor, everyone else was too late. Sorry!


edit:
I really believe we need a GM calling the shots and some simple clear rules to prevent abuse like that. I'm sorry.
 
randakar said:
Uh ..

How do you then deal with:
- Leaders calling deadlines before everyone has voted
- Absentee players


As an evil leader example:

I propose the following team: Reis, Euro, esemesas.
Deadline for this proposal is in 1 minute.

I vote in favor.

.. 1 minute later ..

Motion passed! 1 vote in favor, everyone else was too late. Sorry!


edit:
I really believe we need a GM calling the shots and some simple clear rules to prevent abuse like that. I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

I meant as in leader gets to decide if the deadline is 24 hours or when everyone has voted.
 
randakar said:
I really believe we need a GM calling the shots and some simple clear rules to prevent abuse like that. I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

Just like a GM, a Leader isn't allowed to call a Deadline until either all players have voted or until 24 hours have gone by.

Furthermore, just like in RL, if the Leader tries to move the game forward and you don't agree, speak up! Until the actual Mission is resolved, nothing has happened that cannot be undone. And since the Mission cannot be resolved without GM intervention, a good GM will spot the fact that there's a chance of contention and will hold the game until the issue can be resolved.


A better example:

Spy Leader proposes a team consisting of himself and at least one other Spy. Everyone votes and we know the team will be approved. Then, right before calling the Deadline, he also reveals he is a Spy and that he will Sabotage. Imagine that in RL he's doing while he's collecting everyone's vote cards and that he has some in his hands already but not all.

What would you do in RL? You'd call a halt to proceedings and you'd change your vote if you were Resistance. Why shouldn't you be able to do the same on the forum? There's nothing stopping you from raising a stink and demanding that people be given a fair chance to respond to this last-minute revelation.

Which is where the GM can step in to enforce fairness. If it was the GM who moved the game forward, what recourse would you have left? The mods?
 
If you do it with those limitations I'd be fine with it. As long as the rules are clear and not easily gamed.
 
Okay then, we seem to be mostly in agreement.

One issue seems to remain, but I don't think it should block us from moving forward.

You see, the core rule is of course that the game should not move forward unless all the players agree. Like I proposed earlier, I tend to prefer explicit indication of such greenlighting, while randakar's proposals have always used a more implicit declaration, where voting implied you were okay with moving on (with the option of explicitly declaring you weren't).

Explicit declaration will tend to take more time but limits the chances of moving on when someone isn't ready. Implicit declarations will run smoother but there is a higher risk that someone will end up feeling slighted if we assume too much about his frame of mind.

I would say that this is something you players should decided amongst yourselves, with a nice democratic vote.

In the meantime I'll start shuffling the cards and such.
 
You mean the Team Building vote? That'll be public, most people seem to prefer that.

Anyway, everyone should have received their role PM.

I've established the Leader order, first Leader is esemesas!

Since there's only 8 players and we don't need all 15 Plot Cards, I've simply left the 'Opinion Maker' cards out. First Plot Card is:
No Confidence – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to reject an approved Mission team (successful Vote). Using this card counts as a failed Vote.

The first mission will be: delivering a large supply of alcohol to j-L as a bribe!

Any volunteers? :cool:
 
Hm, last time I picked Kingepyon for the first team, he was a baddie. So this time I'm not going to pick him.

I give the card to Cliges

I propose team Abstinence with randakar, tamius and myself.
 
No Confidence is a dangerous card to be in the hand of a baddie. In fact, it's more worthwhile to them than it is to a goodie. Which is why it's unfortunate that it had to be handed out before we had any information.

I don't like the idea of a baddie-Cliges holding this card in his pocket until he has the opportunity to cause a lot of damage.

I propose that he proves his loyalty by taking the card off the table and using it immediately. If he refuses to do this, I will consider it a mark against him and be less inclined to vote any future mission teams on which he is a member.
 
Cymsdale said:
No Confidence is a dangerous card to be in the hand of a baddie. In fact, it's more worthwhile to them than it is to a goodie. Which is why it's unfortunate that it had to be handed out before we had any information.

I don't like the idea of a baddie-Cliges holding this card in his pocket until he has the opportunity to cause a lot of damage.

I propose that he proves his loyalty by taking the card off the table and using it immediately. If he refuses to do this, I will consider it a mark against him and be less inclined to vote any future mission teams on which he is a member.
Click to expand...

Well it's all random at this point, really.
 
Cymsdale said:
No Confidence is a dangerous card to be in the hand of a baddie. In fact, it's more worthwhile to them than it is to a goodie. Which is why it's unfortunate that it had to be handed out before we had any information.

I don't like the idea of a baddie-Cliges holding this card in his pocket until he has the opportunity to cause a lot of damage.

I propose that he proves his loyalty by taking the card off the table and using it immediately. If he refuses to do this, I will consider it a mark against him and be less inclined to vote any future mission teams on which he is a member.
Click to expand...


Of course, if you're a baddie having that card out of the hands of a goodie isn't so bad, is it? ;-)

That being said, I think it's safe to say that you're not both spies. Otherwise you saying this would be profoundly stupid.

I'm in doubt regarding this vote. I like being on the team, and esemesas proposing himself is only natural.
But it seems unwise to have the very first team approved immediately, considering the warnings in various guides.
Besides, I'd like to see at least one of the cliges / cymsdale pair on that team. I want more information on them.
 
randakar said:
But it seems unwise to have the very first team approved immediately, considering the warnings in various guides.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate, I never heard of this.

As for the card, any card in a goodie's hand is better than a baddie's, but that's mostly just from the benefit of it not falling in the baddie's hand. This card in particular is more useful when you have information you have at the time you use it. Since baddie's have much more information than goodies, it's more bad in a baddie's hand than it is good in a goodie's. Make sense?

In any case, I look forward to Clige's response.
 
Rejecting teams increases the amount of information available. In the first test game this wasn't true because the Spies did not know one another, now they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back