Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[The Resistance] Test Game 1

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.
Grmbl... So I have 3 votes by PM, one in public that really needed to be bolded, one vote only in public and not in PM and then we have the Leader whom we shall assume Approves the Team. Two hours past deadline.

Deep, deep sigh. Very sloppy people. I know things unraveled a bit there but still.

I'll take these votes, which results in

REJECT: reis91, Kingepyon
APPROVE: esemesas, Cymsdale, Xarkan, Cliges

Mission Team of esemesas, Cymsdale and Cliges is GO!

It's also a SUCCESS since there's nothing but Resistance on that Team.

Which scores their third Mission and wins them the game.


RESISTANCE WIN
esemesas
Cymsdale
Xarkan
Cliges


Spies lose
reis91
Kingepyon


Much discussion shall obviously ensue before the next game.
 
I think things would go a lot smoother if missions orders were done simultaneously with votes. If a spy gave no mission orders, default to sabotage. If they didn't want to do that, their fault for not reading the rules.

I'm still torn on how the communication thing should be handled (or not handled). The current form of the game seems like it will involve too much PMing.

Not allowing PMs would have made Reis's obnoxious, gameslowing strategy unnecessary and ineffectual.
 
Actually, no PMs would not have changed much about the situation.

Reis wanted the 24 hours, not to delay the game, but because he knew full well that we're not all sitting at the same table at the same time and so he wanted to ensure that his partner had read his message and would react to it.

This is not unreasonable. It's important to make sure everybody's on the same page before the GM moves everyone forward.

But creating such a system isn't simple, especially not if you want the game to keep a certain dynamism.
 
See, Cliges, this is why a team of you, me and Kingepyon was a bad idea.
 
Cliges said:
That's why I solicited advice.

I thought Xarkan was the 2nd spy.
Click to expand...

I though Cymsdale was. I wanted to not get the second spy in the group when I was doing my team. Turns out I did choose the spy.

/sigh. On my thoughts about not knowing who the spy was: if I knew that reis was the other spy at the start of the game, we would have won no problem. But since I had no idea who the spy was (and really I couldn't trust him even after he outed himself) it made it harder.

Ah well, that was fun. Another! :D
 
Cymsdale said:
I think things would go a lot smoother if missions orders were done simultaneously with votes. If a spy gave no mission orders, default to sabotage. If they didn't want to do that, their fault for not reading the rules.
Click to expand...

Yep.
We could do things the way werewolf is run in this department, and we'd be doing it like that for much the same reasons.
So you'd have a day vote (public team vote) and nightly orders (mission vote, plot cards, what have you), and both happen more or less simultaneously.


Falc said:
Actually, no PMs would not have changed much about the situation.

Reis wanted the 24 hours, not to delay the game, but because he knew full well that we're not all sitting at the same table at the same time and so he wanted to ensure that his partner had read his message and would react to it.

This is not unreasonable. It's important to make sure everybody's on the same page before the GM moves everyone forward.

But creating such a system isn't simple, especially not if you want the game to keep a certain dynamism.
Click to expand...

Of course it's simple. Allow players to explicitly request a full 24 vote cycle, either publically or privately.
( I wouldn't say "use full length 24 hour vote cycles by default" because honestly, we don't need those in BSG either. But having some upper limit paired with people being capable of requesting extensions would be good, I reckon)

Kingepyon said:
I though Cymsdale was. I wanted to not get the second spy in the group when I was doing my team. Turns out I did choose the spy.

/sigh. On my thoughts about not knowing who the spy was: if I knew that reis was the other spy at the start of the game, we would have won no problem. But since I had no idea who the spy was (and really I couldn't trust him even after he outed himself) it made it harder.

Ah well, that was fun. Another! :D
Click to expand...

Personally I believe the spies should know each other. Not allowing them that is silly and hamstrings them for no good reason.
No PM's is something people want in werewolf lite to do something about the power of Justice Leagues. This game has very little of that nonsense, so we should not need it here.
 
I think it's important for spies to know each other, but private communication gives them a lot more power than they would get in a live game. You would essentially never get a situation where you have more than one player committing sabotage on a mission, no matter how many spies are on it at any time. The number of sabotage orders is very important for resistance analysis, so this would be a severe handicap to the good guys.
 
I'm mulling things over and will have some more to say later tonight.

But two points:

1) Unless you allow full PMs for the Spies, you can't force people to combine their Team and Mission votes, because reis' idea of outing himself to ensure only one sabotage should be a valid play. Heck, if a Resistance member had done it, it would've been brilliant, luring the spies into not sabotaging...

2) When I saw we only had 6 players and thus 2 Spies, I seriously reconsidered informing them of one another's identity since it wouldn't be as big a deal. I'm also not certain that the Plot Cards did enough. I've only now noticed that, with 5 or 6 players, none of the 'reveal role' cards are in...

This sort of meshes with something that was written in the rules I downloaded: the fact that Spies tend to win the game especially with more players.

Meaning I'm seriously considering splitting it into a Lite ruleset (5 or 6 players, no Plot cards, Spies know each other, PMs maybe or maybe not) and a bigger one (7+ players, Plot cards, no initial contact, maybe use my idea of telling Spies how many Spies are on a mission but not who).
 
Cymsdale said:
I think it's important for spies to know each other, but private communication gives them a lot more power than they would get in a live game. You would essentially never get a situation where you have more than one player committing sabotage on a mission, no matter how many spies are on it at any time. The number of sabotage orders is very important for resistance analysis, so this would be a severe handicap to the good guys.
Click to expand...

Myeah. You do have a point there.


Falc said:
I'm mulling things over and will have some more to say later tonight.

But two points:

1) Unless you allow full PMs for the Spies, you can't force people to combine their Team and Mission votes, because reis' idea of outing himself to ensure only one sabotage should be a valid play. Heck, if a Resistance member had done it, it would've been brilliant, luring the spies into not sabotaging...
Click to expand...

That action would have made no sense at all in a real life game where spies know each other though.
I think it makes more sense to disallow PM's between spies than to not tell them who the other spies are. Really.

Falc said:
When I saw we only had 6 players and thus 2 Spies, I seriously reconsidered informing them of one another's identity since it wouldn't be as big a deal. I'm also not certain that the Plot Cards did enough. I've only now noticed that, with 5 or 6 players, none of the 'reveal role' cards are in...

This sort of meshes with something that was written in the rules I downloaded: the fact that Spies tend to win the game especially with more players.

Meaning I'm seriously considering splitting it into a Lite ruleset (5 or 6 players, no Plot cards, Spies know each other, PMs maybe or maybe not) and a bigger one (7+ players, Plot cards, no initial contact, maybe use my idea of telling Spies how many Spies are on a mission but not who).
Click to expand...

That makes signups a bit of a pain though, since you can't necessarily tell in advance how much interest there will be in such a game.
That may not be entirely unmanageable, mind ..
 
randakar said:
That action would have made no sense at all in a real life game where spies know each other though.
I think it makes more sense to disallow PM's between spies than to not tell them who the other spies are. Really.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it would have. The reason the Spies lost this game is because they both Sabotaged the third mission. You could argue that Kingepyon might not have proposed a team composed of him and Reis, but let's put that aside for now.

Once they are both on the mission, one of them has to Sabotage but if both do it, they ruin their chances. In real life, what other option is there but to speak out as a Spy? Trying to use body language to convey your intention to your partner, hoping he understands and that no-one else notices? My partner winked at me, does that mean he'll Sabotage or does it mean I should go ahead and Sabotage?

I'm getting ready to set up the next test game with a few changes. I'm probably going to go much closer to the RL game, so there will be no PMs allowed. Let's hope we get some more players, because I also believe the game changes quite a bit with more people.
 
Actually, in one of the real life games I played as a spy, the spy sitting next to me just convinced me with a nudge and a wink not to sabotage a round that we were both on. He wanted to play some more mind games. :rofl:. ;-)
So while that is not exactly the same thing as a PM, the fact that nobody noticed it might as well have made it one.
(We were one round away from winning - 2 failed missions, one success with an all-spy team *rofl*. So it was basically over. But still. :p)

I'm looking forward to the next round in any case.
 
randakar said:
Actually, in one of the real life games I played as a spy, the spy sitting next to me just convinced me with a nudge and a wink not to sabotage a round that we were both on. He wanted to play some more mind games. :rofl:. ;-)
So while that is not exactly the same thing as a PM, the fact that nobody noticed it might as well have made it one.
(We were one round away from winning - 2 failed missions, one success with an all-spy team *rofl*. So it was basically over. But still. :p)

I'm looking forward to the next round in any case.
Click to expand...

I heartily await people writing a message and using the first letters of each sentence to communicate with the other spies :)
 
Falc said:
I disagree, it would have. The reason the Spies lost this game is because they both Sabotaged the third mission. You could argue that Kingepyon might not have proposed a team composed of him and Reis, but let's put that aside for now.
Click to expand...

I had the last spy down to Reis, Cymsdale, and Cliges when I made the team. After I had the discussion with Cliges, I figured out he wasn't a spy, so I had a brief time where I wanted to abandon my team, but after convincing cliges to vote with me, that would have looked seriously bad.

Also, having known that Reis was a spy, I would have never voted against his team in the second round. I would have kept the smaller rounds for the spies to figure out and the larger ones to the resistance.

The biggest issue with not knowing who the other spy is, is you have no idea if they're telling the truth or not. It's why I didn't PM Reis, and it's also why I didn't switch my sabotage to a support.
 
Is it possible to adapt the game to a larger number of players? If it were popular enough, there might be a lot of competition just to get a spot in a given game.

Also, I actually suspected during the team proposal for mission 2 that Cymsdale might have been a spy.

I voted Kingepyon's team because I figured it would pass the vote anyhow and feared voting against might somehow decrease my credibility. I DID vote against mission 3 just to shake things up.
 
I think I'd like to see a 10-player game before we go thinking of ways to make it even more complicated :p

But yeah, give new game. I might actually join .. ;-)
 
New game up here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back