This is the point at which I want to say “surprise, you’re all minions/demons!”
But I wouldn’t do that. Really.
6 Likes
All minions, no real Imp. 
3 Likes
Two teams of evil pitted against each other? Brilliant!
1 Like
A festival themed village where people listen to loud music and everyone is a drunk.
1 Like
Have you met my friend* the Vortox?
* Not actually my friend. The mere fact that this might be in play during the Sects and Violets game on the old forum was the reason my brain felt like it might explode at any moment.
3 Likes
I hope at some point we play this set and I’m finally on the evil team.
1 Like
It’s interesting all the ways asynchronous play changes the game! Players able to cut the game off by nominating adds a new spin I didn’t anticipate.
1 Like
The butler role seems so incredibly awkward in discussion, and must be even worse in a live game to manage.
1 Like
I’m not a big fan of the Butler role. As a Outsider you don’t get any information or special power and the drawback constrains your ability to participate in the other part of the game - the voting.
In my opinion it is much less interesting than the Recluse, Drunk and Saint. Perhaps it is better in person, where voting is more chaotic and manipulatable?
2 Likes
Yeah, I have general concerns about the butler role that I’ll save until post game talk to avoid it influencing the game.
Doesn’t the second point disadvantage some players? As we’ve seen, a player can make their point, then at the end vote to prevent anyone else saying anything. That’s hugely powerful and goes against the rest of the game being relatively asynchronous. Some sort of formalised system would be beneficial, so you don’t feel you need to watch the thread constantly in case defence and votes hit in close succession.
And on the opposite side, it makes starting a vote another weird bit of information to base accusations upon that wouldn’t be in a real time game. If a players a threat to you, start votes before they can say anything.
It makes sense that either everyone should have a chance to speak between the defence and voting, or no one should. The latter makes a lot more sense in ensuring nominations and voting don’t take any longer than they already do. It’s also more interesting from a gameplay perspective IMO - preventing any argument except the defence from influencing votes stops hivemind cross-analysis of the defence that’s more in the spirit of the game. All arguments should be during the day, making players ‘isolated from communication’ during nominations and voting.
Not a complaint (I’ve posted this here so it doesn’t intrude on the current game), but I think it’s a point of discussion for future games. I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts? (Spectators and players alike)
My slight concern is that one could easily double the time taken to resolve a nomination: A nominates B, B defends themselves, wait for everyone to speak, voting starts, wait for everyone to vote.
The counterargument is that a vote in the face-to-face game is a fairly quick thing (which is the reason for no arguments during voting). Might it work better simply to allow talking during the vote?
But then you’ll run into the case where someone wants to change their vote.
So, possibly rule that that’s not an option. Or that it is. Or add more structure an go:
- Nomination
- Defence
- Discussion
- Call for Vote
- Vote
I feel like anyone who hasn’t said anything before the nomination should be able to say it during the vote, and the rest can shut up. That’s more or less what we’ve been doing; I wouldn’t recommend waiting for everyone to say something before anyone could vote, that would take forever.
Probably just discourage back and forth during the vote.
1 Like
If we have the model of the defence automatically starting the vote (removing your #3), should discussion be allowed between nomination and defence?
I think the closest to the face-to-face game might be:
- discussion
- nomination (stop all discussion, wait for defence)
- defence (still no discussion)
- vote
- result is announced, start discussion again
or one might say “discussion is allowed between nomination and result, but keep it to a minimum, and your vote is final once cast”?
1 Like
I think stopping all discussion from nomination to end of vote would best reflect the face-to-face game and also keep things from slowing down too much. Perhaps allow a line or two from each player along with their vote (“I don’t believe X, so I’m voting yes”, “I’m more suspicious of Y, so I’m voting no”, etc.)
I’m not sure if it’s a rule in the face-to-face game but I’d explicitly prohibit nominations during the first 24 (maybe 48?) hours after each night ends to make sure everyone has an opportunity to participate in the discussion. Declaring that you intend to nominate someone during the discussion I think should be okay.
1 Like
That makes a lot of sense.
- (dawn breaks)
- 24-hour non-nominating period (you can say anything you like)
- 24-hour window for nomination, discussion continues; if no nomination, go to end of day
- A nomination happens. Accused can defend themselves, then voting; minimal discussion
- Once result is in, go back to 3.
4 Likes
Now that you mention it… all of the most deceptive, unpleasant people I’ve ever encountered did have vowels in their name…
3 Likes
Y-aaaaa-sh-iiiii-m-aaaaaah
3 Likes
Indeed never trust anyone with 3 or more vowels…
Wait, Noooo!
3 Likes