I noticed the xkcd forums have defaults of approve if you're on the team, reject if you're not.
Cliges, I'd be up for that PM thing you mentioned.
Or just, you know, reveal the Spies? I really don't get the point of keeping the mystery going...
-
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.
I noticed the xkcd forums have defaults of approve if you're on the team, reject if you're not.
Cliges, I'd be up for that PM thing you mentioned.
Or just, you know, reveal the Spies? I really don't get the point of keeping the mystery going...
I think that after Marty's stunt last game, anyone using Strong Leader without good reason would have been branded a Spy for the rest of the game.
Hey Cliges, did you know that when you put something in a spoiler in PM, the whole text actually shows up in the pre-filled Reply box underneath? Kinda useless 
Yeah, gliomarto and esemesas were fairly certain. I thought Cymsdale maybe more so than citizen, and almost Xarkan was on it.
This will not go down as one of the more exciting games of Resistance we've ever had. The resistance did get a good start, but still we handled it well. I may not have done anything of important, but I did what I had to do and am reasonably pleased with my performance. The rest of the resistance done great.
The spies, well...
You had a really tough hand to play with guys. But when your back is against the wall you have to do SOMETHING, and as far as I could see no-one was willing to risk suspicion and try and change the outcome of the game. Instead you hoped the resistance would reject good teams, which in the end we didn't.
This will not go down as one of the more exciting games of Resistance we've ever had. The resistance did get a good start, but still we handled it well. I may not have done anything of important, but I did what I had to do and am reasonably pleased with my performance. The rest of the resistance done great.
The spies, well...
You had a really tough hand to play with guys. But when your back is against the wall you have to do SOMETHING, and as far as I could see no-one was willing to risk suspicion and try and change the outcome of the game. Instead you hoped the resistance would reject good teams, which in the end we didn't.
It keeps a bit more intrigue I guess. Not so much in this game, but in closer ones it's interesting to try and analyse who everyone is with partial hindsight.
Citizen should maybe have used Open Up on a fellow Spy. Then again, jpr's idea of me not actually choosing who got my role was pretty good and a Spy might have had a hard time wriggling out from under that. Also, if he was going to pick a Resistance, maybe someone further down the order? The fact that I got to hand out the cards for round 2, having already been quite cleared, helped us a lot.
Of course, all 4 spies ended up rejecting that first team when it was clear it would be a close vote. Probably not too smart, that...
Of course, all 4 spies ended up rejecting that first team when it was clear it would be a close vote. Probably not too smart, that...
My post before the game, that the resistance did not need boosters:
I'm not saying it doesn't favour the spies, though. Basically, I just think this shows that we need to play many, many more games before we can hazard a guess as to how balanced the set-up(s) is/are.
Just because the spies won two or three games in a row, cards were added with the idea of favouring the resistance. And the resistance ends up destroying the spies.
I'm not saying it doesn't favour the spies, though. Basically, I just think this shows that we need to play many, many more games before we can hazard a guess as to how balanced the set-up(s) is/are.
An extra Keeping a Close Eye was added. None got drawn. Effect on the game: nil.
An extra Take Responsability was added. One got drawn. Actual effect on the game: small in that it allowed tamius to take away glio's Strong Leader.
So on the one hand the cards had quite an impact on this game, but not the changes we made to them.
I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that the added cards had an effect on the game. In fact it supports my point that the card wasn't drawn. My point is that adding cards with the intention of bolstering the resistance wasn't necessary.
For the tags, I thought one would have enough time to avert his eyes from that text.
I think having an absolute majority is a good idea, but I really dislike having to make rule decisions as things are in progress.
I'd even run a third consecutive game, if there is no one else willing and people have enough confidence in me.
If nothing else,this one has shown that some rules still need to be written. If I take on yet another, that particular area will probably be resolved by having a requirement for an absolute majority for APPROVAL, and defaulting yes on a team if the player is on it, and no if he isn't.
I think having an absolute majority is a good idea, but I really dislike having to make rule decisions as things are in progress.
It would have probably been best to wait for votes. At least for the Mission 2 vote.
I'd even run a third consecutive game, if there is no one else willing and people have enough confidence in me.
If nothing else,this one has shown that some rules still need to be written. If I take on yet another, that particular area will probably be resolved by having a requirement for an absolute majority for APPROVAL, and defaulting yes on a team if the player is on it, and no if he isn't.
Cliges, even though I disagree with the NV handling, I do appreciate you running the game. GMing isn't always easy, and is a thankless job that lets other people have fun. So I don't point it out to say "The GM did something wrong and should feel bad", I just want to avoid a bad precedent getting set for the future.
Still disagreeing with me, I see.
I will repeat that such a way to handle it would allow deadline abuse of a type I won't stand for.
That being said, I think you are partially right in the sense that I think we shouldn't have non-voters *at all*.
My mind was too out of the game. Sent in the Approve as a standing order because I forgot who the spies were. Forgot about the game later
Uhm, why not just ask Cliges to repeat who your team mates were again?
Are you kidding? Did you pay *any* attention to how Marty handled that game?
The spies won not just because of luck - they also won because they had an awesome spokesperson.
heh, between the way you, glio and ese played .. I think it's safe to say this particular loss isn't entirely attributable to lucky draws by the resistance ;-)
+1
Also - they basically outed themselves anyway
.. and I think that just sometimes, a spy will just have to accept that outing himself in order to win is a necessity.
This isn't werewolf, folks.
It's marginally better than waiting forever, I guess.
But I still think there should be a sub list, and a strict rule about missing deadlines without notice.
So shall we make it "If you are on the team a NV counts as accepting and if not it counts as rejecting"? It still seems like it's possible for spies to reject the team without giving reasons, but I suppose it's a fair compromise? I still think 2 missed votes should mean you get subbed, assuming there was one available.
@randy(like hell I'm gonna quote that post)
I save all my PMs, I was intending to go back and check :blush:
I save all my PMs, I was intending to go back and check :blush:
It's ok. It's certainly within bounds to criticize and I understand that no one is expressing disapproval merely to be difficult. I'm curious to see how long and what changes it will require until this game is adapted more or less satisfactorily to a forum setting à la WW.
I can run one, and give you a break from GMing. If you'd like me to.
If you want to try it, go ahead. It's always good to have a pool of people who have some experience with running a certain game.
I might not actually have time to play in one, though.