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

AspenK
AspenK
Battered Shoe

Jul-15-2017 04:04

You didn't put yourself on the team you chose. I find that very interesting. If you are resistance it would be a given you would want to be on the team. That would remove at least one variable. Hmm. My spidey sense is tingling.

Zara Bande
Zara Bande
Bounty Hunter

Jul-15-2017 04:12

Yes, I was initially surprised by shell's choice not to be on the team. But then I realised it could be the most appropriate decision since Sal hasn't yet posted back the result of his KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON YOU card - which he was using on shell. Because of that - and whether he says that shell is a SPY or RESISTANCE (and we could easily doubt either way, couldn't we?) - it might be seen as a wise decision for the Team Leader just to stay out of the team altogether.

Sal Iva
Sal Iva
Little Monster

Jul-15-2017 04:40

Good morning all.

First, I suggest everyone go back and read the conditions of KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON YOU. There is NO obligation for me to reveal anything. It's fairly obvious I won't be believed anyway.

I LOVE the logic(?) of this remark by Zara, quoting miss snopes.. I do notice that Zara has edited miss snopes remark here too, probably to support her position.

I have to agree with miss snopes that "Bela was Resistance in the last game and she played very differently than how she has played this time which makes me further suspect Aspen."

I have to agree with miss snopes that "Bela was Resistance in the last game and she played very differently than how she has played this time which makes me further suspect Aspen."

Let me see if I have this gem correct. Both agree that Bela has played differently than the last game when she was resistance. And this makes you NOT suspect Bela, but AspenK? I don't even begin to enter into this discussion other than to point out the flaws in the logic.
Bela IS acting differently, you both seem to agree on that. And it leads you NOT to suspect BELA? There's already a half inch hole in my head from scratching, trying to understand that.

Oh, as far as shell's vote was concerned, she voted SUCCEED. Let's see, everything I have done has been supportive of the Resistance, as I have told the truth here too. Have at it.


Zara Bande
Zara Bande
Bounty Hunter

Jul-15-2017 05:27

Sal, you're correct on one point - I for one totally forgot that a player does not have to disclose the information given by KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON YOU. My error.

However, in regard to your remark that I "edited" the comment made by miss snopes, this is incorrect. I copied and pasted that sentence exactly as it appears in her post. You have also copied and pasted it exactly as it appears in her post. Do you mean that because I didn't copy and paste the whole post this qualifies as editing? An odd interpretation. Anyone can go back and read it.

Anyhow you seem to be confused by that post and my quotation from it. I hope I can clarify. It has been noted by two players that Bela played very differently in this game compared to the last game (when she was RESISTANCE). That (along with other factors) leads to some suspicion of her being a spy. In addition, because of Bela's supportive remarks for Aspen - and her strange exclusion of Aspen from a mission team afterwards - this also casts doubt on Aspen as a potential spy. Thus we suspect both Bela AND Aspen at the present moment.

I also feel that shell's analysis of your own voting pattern explains why there is currently some doubt in regard to your allegiance, Sal.




Tyranomaster3
Tyranomaster3
Bloodhound

Jul-15-2017 07:46

I am sorry to interrupt your discuss. I have to remind you guys about voting for this team. We have 24 hours from the time shell proposed the team.

So please remember voting. This game is going very slowly :(

Sal Iva
Sal Iva
Little Monster

Jul-15-2017 15:23

Give me a few minutes and I will go back and point out the difference in the two posts. I inadvertently copied the same part of each, but there is a significant difference.

Also any analysis of my voting is much more easily explained by no/yes/no/yes/no alternating votes and if no mention had been made the next would have been YES. I would have started with a YES vote, but as I said before, I got so much flack on the first team that I voted against it.

Sal Iva
Sal Iva
Little Monster

Jul-15-2017 15:38

miss snopes remarked,

In Aspen's last post (Jul-14-2017 22:08) she states "Bela played the same way last game" which is NOT true. Bela was Resistance in the last game and she played very differently than how she has played this time which makes me further suspect Aspen.

Zara copied that

I have to agree with miss snopes that "Bela was Resistance in the last game and she played very differently than how she has played this time which makes me further suspect Aspen."

Which omits the first part of that though. I don't know that Bela is playing any differently than the last game. miss snopes may believe it and so may Zara but I see no proof of that. But if I did, I would say that suspicion must point to Bela. Nor to Aspen for not noticing a difference, that the two of you seem to think is a given, verified fact. And if you do believe it then how is it that you're not suspicious of Bela? This makes no sense to me.

miss snopes
miss snopes
The Tome Ranger

Jul-15-2017 17:37

Sal, I absolutely suspect Bela. When I made the comment I made, I was commenting on something Sindy said earlier. In that particular comment Sindy was talking about being suspicious of Aspen because of a few comments Aspen and Bela have made about each other. So my responding comment was made with the mindset that it is a given I suspect Bela. Zara, correct me if I'm wrong here but I think Zara was doing the same.

AKVega
AKVega
Old Shoe

Jul-15-2017 20:38

Well if the team is voted to go on the mission we shall see how it turns out.

Sal Iva
Sal Iva
Little Monster

Jul-15-2017 20:50

I suppose that would go a ways toward clearing things up because otherwise it seems like a supposed crime of omission is given more weight than a supposed crime of commission, which on it's face would be illogical. Thank you for the added details. In my reading, I did not make the third party connection.

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

[ You must login to reply ]