Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Message Board Game Room

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jul-15-2017 20:38

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

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.

Jul-15-2017 23:20

Sal's refusal to reveal to the rest of us what he learned n The Announcer's PM about Shell's vote only confirms my belief that he is a spy. IMHO if you are resistance you're going to give your fellow resistance compatriots as much information as you possibly can to enable them to pinpoint the spies - whether you think you will be believed or not.

Of course, Sal will take issue with that opinion, I'm sure. ;)

I think this is a clean team. We'll if that turns out to be the case.

Jul-15-2017 23:22

I think you missed something, Sindy. From Sal's post at Jul-15-2017 04:40: "Oh, as far as shell's vote was concerned, she voted SUCCEED."

Jul-16-2017 01:24

@ miss snopes - thanks for clarifying that matter for Sal : )

Jul-16-2017 04:32

I'm baaack, and I'll go through everything from the last week properly later. Voting NO to shell's proposed team.

Jul-16-2017 08:04

My apologies to Sal and Ty. And thanks Sal for that information.