I'd be interested in that to give it a shot. The balance might need to be adjusted to keep in mind that TIEs would be a lot rarer.
-
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'd be interested in that to give it a shot. The balance might need to be adjusted to keep in mind that TIEs would be a lot rarer.
What about players who miss votes? Will they be subbed out? If not, it's possible some players will simply be forgotten to be playing. Also if no votecounts are given, it would be difficult to know if a mistake is made in the final count.
This. Overall it sounds like a bad idea. Plus it doesn't really take any skill to make good, precise counts. Just requires you to take the time to do it.
They shouldn't be subbed out. I think recognizing who is still playing and punishing non-voters should be a part of the skill set for this particular game. True about mistakes in the final count, but oh well, "The GM is always right" and whatnot. As Jeray says, probably another thing that has to be accounted for in balancing.
Do you think it would be a good idea to ban players from posting votecounts in the thread also? Might be very hard to decide what counts as a count, though.
To be clear, I'm not thinking of running such a game. I'd be interested in playing in one though, if the overall concensus isn't too negative and someone steps up to GM one.
That'd just make the baddies and JL much more powerful and remove play from the thread.
Would also make it much harder to punish non voters and would make analysis really hard in many ways, as that usually springs from analysing vote counts.
.png){kind=avatar}
I was toying with the idea of the GM not counting votes at all but just accepting the first count three people agreed on. You know so voting wouldn't matter at all.
do itTypical. Every time I have an idea for anything, Euro has had it first
only by idiots who want to out themselves. i guess in an endgame situation, but then the gm can just count herself
I mean, it's pretty easy to exploit, a lite with these rules would basically be this with smart wolves:
N0- hunt someone, bringing players down to 16
D1- Create a vote count that has 8 villagers in a tie, each with two votes to account for all 16 players, have all wolves agree on it immediately. 8 players are lynched, bringing players down to 8 with 4 wolves, reaching parity and winning the game.
K-59 just said three players had to agree on the vote count, not that it had to remotely match the voting of the day.
What if the players had to propose votecounts, and then they had to vote on the votecounts? If three players voted for a votecount, that votecount would be lynched, and then the next day they'd have to lynch another votecount. Meanwhile, the wolves would be hunting votecounts each night.
Just an idea.
If I wanted drunk ideas, I would've consulted marty. not bad, though
What happens at 9 players with 4 wolves? Noone gets lynched and the wolves auto-win?
Eventually I will if no one else does, but for the next game I think I want a normal game, without pickpoints or anything. If I do experiment with anything it will be Johho type zombie players, because I thought that was an idea with so much potential that has only been used in one game.
The only thing I'm really unsure of for this game is the theme. Council of Nicea? Warhammer? Diplomacy? I'm going to do all of these eventually, but I need one thing for now. I'm open to other suggestions also. Anyone who can come up with something while I'm writing the thread (right now), all ideas and opinions are welcome!