Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Message Board Game Room


0 0
The Resistance: Lurker Edition
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

The Announcer
The Announcer

Jul-1-2017 09:19

Hello everyone. I’ll be hosting another game of Resistance, and I encourage all lurkers from the previous game(s) to come out and play! We’ll keep it simple with just gameplay and no story this time. And if you’ve never played before, feel free to jump right in, because we all need more imaginary problems to worry about. :)

The game takes place over a series of 5 "missions." The Resistance is trying to complete 3 missions successfully, while the spies are attempting to sabotage 3 missions. First one to 3 wins.

I will serve as game master. Once we get enough people to play (5-10 total), I will PM everyone their allegiance (either "Resistance" or "Spy"). If you are a "Spy," I will also PM you the names of your co-conspirators.

A "leader" will be chosen at random for the first mission. The leader has 2 important functions:
1) The leader will assign various "role" abilities to players. These are one-shot special powers a player can use to learn more information about someone.
2) The leader will assign players to the "team" for that mission.

Missions will have a varying number of players who are selected; the leader picks a team, then every player will vote on whether or not they approve the team by PMing me. Once all the votes are cast, I will post the voting results. If a majority approves the team, the mission starts. If not, the mission does not start, and the next player in line becomes the new "leader" for that round. This continues until either a mission is approved, or 5 consecutive mission teams are rejected (in which case the spies win automatically.)

Once a mission team is approved, those players will PM me their choice of action during that mission. Resistance players will ALWAYS choose to have the mission succeed by sending "Success," while spies have a choice: they can either elect to have the mission succeed (to throw off suspicion), or they can "Sabotage" the mission.

Replies

shell marple
shell marple
Con Artist

Jul-5-2017 19:10

Sorry Ty. Sultry is my second account. I forgot who I was logged in as. And yes as a moderator I could have deleted my own mistake, but I was being lazy.

Tyranomaster3
Tyranomaster3
Bloodhound

Jul-5-2017 19:29

Ah that makes your post after Sultry clear. :D

It's OK. I just wanna know who she is :D

Sal Iva
Sal Iva
Little Monster

Jul-5-2017 21:53

Conservatively, Bela? How about reactionary. Judging by your posting, you want to control all missions, teams, votes, game abilities (except perhaps - Opinion Maker), everything. Who wouldn't like that? I'm just wondering about what the rest of us are playing for. If I have missed something, please explain.

Sleuth Sindy
Sleuth Sindy
Pinball Wizard

Jul-5-2017 22:55

Nice post for someone with the title of "Con Artist," Sal. :p

Bela Talbot III
Bela Talbot III
Con Artist

Jul-6-2017 00:27

Yes, Sultry/shell and Sal, that's how I play; I'm crazy paranoid and I don't like taking chances until I absolutely have to. Obviously I'm not going to be able to control everything, but I'll be damned if I won't try anyway. It's pretty much impossible for anybody to really control the game right from the beginning with no allies (Resistance players don't know anything and will not just go with somebody else until they see something to start trusting somebody, and spies will probably want to hide their spy all-knowing-ness), so you can all calm down, it's not like I'm going to get what I want just because I've announced it. I don't trust anybody in the beginning, yes. But if I have to propose a team or distribute powers, I will not (and depending on how the Announcer wants to run it, cannot) concentrate all of it in a small group. I'll have to take a leap of faith with a team, and I'll keep a power and share the other.

And please shell, me having OPINION MAKER is (in my opinion :P) worse than not being on a team and not getting any powers. It's convenient in that I won't have to remember to send in my PM votes, but now this says that I "have a power" when it's perfectly useless to me.

Zara Bande
Zara Bande
Bounty Hunter

Jul-6-2017 02:17

Bela - I don't recall you playing in a 'crazy paranoid' way in the last game of Resistance (the only one I have played it should be said). I also don't understand he reasoning of "the only allegiance I can be sure of is my own' in regard to selecting mission teams.

If you intend to vote YES only for a mission team that has you on it then how does that help you make the mission a success considering the other members may be spies? Your strategy doesn't make sense if you are a Resistance member. It only makes sense if you are a Spy and need to be on the team in order to sabotage it.

I'm concerned that if we say NO to too many mission team proposals at this stage then we might be shooting ourselves in the foot (the Resistance, that is). We can only vote NO to a mission team four times. If we vote NO five times, then the spies automatically win. If we vote NO (yet again) on Mission 1, then we only have two more options to do so later. As we gather more information from completed missions we will have a better idea of who the spies are (we hope). THAT'S when we need to have the option of voting NO to team proposals - yet we might be unable to do so.

It's been the same voices here for a little while. It would be nice to hear what Aspen and miss snopes think : )

Bela Talbot III
Bela Talbot III
Con Artist

Jul-6-2017 03:57

Ookay...I seem to be in the process of getting crucified for WHATEVER happens next mission because I'm speaking my mind...let's see, now:

Obviously I won't push it to the fifth mission, but yeah, I'd be most comfortable on a team with myself on it. Why is everybody finding that so hard to believe? Zara, I mean that if I'm on a team, my allegiance is not a variable (I know, I know: to me) so if the mission were to be sabotaged, I could narrow down the pool of suspects. That helps me out. As for why you (or anybody else) would go for that, I can only say that I'd voice my thoughts and (most of) my suspicions - which is as much as you can expect from any player other than yourself. Even so much interaction is great for me. I know I'm officially the OPINION MAKER, but this is how I prefer to play, and I don't really have anybody to go after or convince right now so I'll state my opinion and leave it at that (as opposed to getting somebody to agree with me).

I disagree with your summary of how approving a team only if you're on it is a spy move and doesn't make sense if you're Resistance. Like you said, you need to send out a team to get more dependable info from a mission. Fine. I'm saying that I'd prefer it if I were on that team because that would make it easier to make whatever deductions (if the mission fails, I have 2 suspects, and if it passes, I can compound this with info from later missions to hopefully narrow down the spy pool). Generally, everybody would like to be on a team but not everybody can, so we have to discuss and compromise and settle on a team. I don't think I'm being all that hard to work with, I've expressed my interest but I will eventually go with a team too, before it's too late. I've been in games where I got onto a team only by the third/fourth mission, and I had nothing but everybody else's arguments to go on. It didn't do much for me. If you (any of you) are/is ready to approve a mission you're not on, fine. *I* wouldn't right away.

Tyranomaster3
Tyranomaster3
Bloodhound

Jul-6-2017 04:18

Actually I wanna keep it for myself until I get enough information. But I think I would say it now to for people to take it into account: This mission is very special. It requires 2 SABOTAGES to make it fail. Please think about it 2 sabotages/3 members. So if no sabotage is in the result, we have this mission pass. If one sabotage, the mission will pass and we can have a very important clue to figure out the spy. 2 sabotages: Right, we lose 1 mission but we figure out at least 2 spies. It's worth. That's why I said before: I really hope this mission going to fail although it's impossible. So what makes you keep delaying the mission? I cannot imagine any reason except this: the ONLY WAY for the spies to win this mission without any one revealed is 5 times disapproval.

You might say this, Bela: you will approve the mission when the team moves to you. But at that time, people who doubt you will not approve it (With some help from YOUR TEAM MEMBERS). I really doubt you, Bela.

Bela Talbot III
Bela Talbot III
Con Artist

Jul-6-2017 04:23

Ty, the only mission that requires two sabotage votes to fail is the fourth one; all the other missions need only one.

https://noir.playsleuth.com/map/cityhall/post.spy?id=37827&first_record=344212

Note the double stars on that post, they indicate the fourth mission. We would NEVER be given that easy a hand right away. XD

Bela Talbot III
Bela Talbot III
Con Artist

Jul-6-2017 04:27

Of course, people might not vote for my team because they're suspicious of me (or because they know I'm Resistance :D). I'll take that chance, but I'm ready to go on a mission so I'm campaignng for that now.

Also, if five consecutive proposals on a single mission are rejected, the spies don't just win that mission, they win the whole game.

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]