|
Post by Pleonast on Nov 30, 2011 16:09:31 GMT -5
We'll start once the current game ends. If you're interested in playing this one, please read the rules and then express your interest here.
We need 25 players.
01. Sister Coyote 02. peekercpa 03. Idle Thoughts 04. Merestil Haye 05. JustBeingGinger 06. Drain Bead 07. Mr Special Ed 08. BillMc 09. deon 10. gnarlycharlie 11. Pollux Oil 12. Nanook 13. Inner Stickler 14. colby11 15. Suburban Plankton 16. texcat 17. Hoopy Frood 18. scathach 19. septimus 20. Boozahol Squid 21. guiri 22. Silver Jan 23. hirkatbawa 24. mahaloth 25. CatInASuit
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Nov 30, 2011 22:06:05 GMT -5
i have no interest but do have a passing fancy, does that count?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Nov 30, 2011 22:15:01 GMT -5
in, in case it was not clear.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 1, 2011 0:52:33 GMT -5
in, in case it was not clear. Never assume I understand what you're saying, peeker.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 1, 2011 4:44:37 GMT -5
Well, I've played in all your conspiracy games so far...got a perfect run going, why stop now (not to mention, they're more fun, I think).
I'm in.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Dec 1, 2011 5:29:01 GMT -5
I also enjoy Conspiracy games.
/in.
I've been in all four.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Dec 1, 2011 7:15:37 GMT -5
I am in
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 1, 2011 11:49:54 GMT -5
Oh, I am SO in.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 1, 2011 12:55:01 GMT -5
I'm in too. I really really really don't want to be a werewolf.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Dec 1, 2011 12:56:08 GMT -5
most excellent. our rb has showed up.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Dec 1, 2011 12:56:45 GMT -5
I'm in too. I really really really don't want to be a werewolf. if meeko signs up you are gassed.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Dec 1, 2011 13:22:08 GMT -5
Back and in
|
|
|
Post by deon on Dec 1, 2011 13:51:13 GMT -5
I want in too :-)
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Dec 2, 2011 1:07:47 GMT -5
heard so much good stuff about the first four so i definitely want /in.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Dec 2, 2011 15:46:23 GMT -5
Well, now that I'm dead in the other game, I feel fine enough for signing up!
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 3, 2011 14:21:52 GMT -5
I would be willing to come out of my exile for this, but first I have a question. Are you going to lie to us like you did last time, with the fake Scotsman thing?
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 3, 2011 19:06:59 GMT -5
Yeah, even I thought that was pretty bad and I was the fake Scotsman, heh. I said from the beginning (once I knew we had that power) that people wouldn't like it when they found out. I love Conspiracy and generally thing they're great...but that might have been potentially game breaking.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 4, 2011 0:03:00 GMT -5
The secret powers are secret so I can't answer directly, but yes they may have the potential to affect things. Just like before: Upon death, only a player's name will be revealed by the moderator. After one Day-Night or Night-Day cycle, the player's faction will be revealed. After another cycle, the player's role will be revealed. This information will always be completely correct; information gained via other sources may be affected by other players' powers. This means precisely what it says--if the source of information is not the moderator’s public reveal of a dead player, it may be compromised by a power.The underlined sentence is new to this game for extra emphasis. I feel bad that some players thought this was unexpected last game despite the explicit warning, but these Conspiracy games are balanced with uncertainty in mind. It counteracts the otherwise certain knowledge of the factions and roles. And these games are finely tuned. Although Town has won all four so far, the other factions have had more or less fair shots at winning, too. Bottom line is I design Conspiracy to be fair, not easy.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Dec 4, 2011 12:21:57 GMT -5
I still disagree with your assessment, but whatever, I'll play anyways. I feel bad for anyone that gets stuck with the Scotsman role though, since it's functionally useless now.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Dec 4, 2011 14:48:48 GMT -5
My general feeling is that there is a distinction between "balanced," "fair," and "well-designed."
The moderator lie opens the door for future moderator lies. While the game itself might have been "balanced" and possibly even "fair." I don't think it was "well-designed" because it creates future headaches. As Nanook points out, the Scotsman role is totally useless now. Furthermore, pretty much anything and everything will be called into question. I just see games grinding to a halt if every detail needs to be nitpicked and analyzed for truth and debated as to whether there is enough wiggle room for the moderator to be deceptive.
"I'm a Detective and I found out that X killed Y... but that could be a deception." "I'm a Vicar and Vampire Z attacked me last night... but that could be a deception." "Yay, I found out that J is a fellow mason! or his he?"
It just seems like a big headache to me.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 5, 2011 19:33:58 GMT -5
In.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Dec 6, 2011 11:26:21 GMT -5
My general feeling is that there is a distinction between "balanced," "fair," and "well-designed." The moderator lie opens the door for future moderator lies. While the game itself might have been "balanced" and possibly even "fair." I don't think it was "well-designed" because it creates future headaches. As Nanook points out, the Scotsman role is totally useless now. Furthermore, pretty much anything and everything will be called into question. I just see games grinding to a halt if every detail needs to be nitpicked and analyzed for truth and debated as to whether there is enough wiggle room for the moderator to be deceptive. "I'm a Detective and I found out that X killed Y... but that could be a deception." "I'm a Vicar and Vampire Z attacked me last night... but that could be a deception." "Yay, I found out that J is a fellow mason! or his he?" It just seems like a big headache to me. and while i totally respect sach as both a player and a game analyzer i kind of disagree. the game is what the game is. it's kind of like poker. not everyone starts out even. and while i dislike random stuff in a general sense there is more of a sense of accomplishment when you pull down a pot with 8 3 off as opposed to rockets. matter of fact, that's what gives me a chance against folks like sach. my two cents.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 6, 2011 16:31:38 GMT -5
In
This might be interesting, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 6, 2011 18:54:12 GMT -5
Count me in. I've heard enough about the previous games to know I shouldn't miss this one.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 6, 2011 18:57:46 GMT -5
Furthermore, pretty much anything and everything will be called into question. This is the intention of the design.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Dec 11, 2011 19:45:09 GMT -5
/in, please.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Dec 13, 2011 20:25:32 GMT -5
Furthermore, pretty much anything and everything will be called into question. This is the intention of the design. Please don't misunderstand. I enjoyed both times I played in Conspiracy very much. I also don't think that the power in question was bad in isolation. I view mafia, especially moderation of mafia, as a continuous thing. Introducing a falsehood undermines the structure of the game for the future. If literally everything can be a lie, then the game is compromised and players will treat every game as a bastard game. I'm against this. While intentionally making the game such that players need to think and deduce is a noble thing, achieving that goal by lying to the players is very different. I think you (especially you) are perfectly capable of creating a challenging game without resorting to lies.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 14, 2011 12:36:11 GMT -5
Appreciate your comments, sach. It's discussions like this that help me design future games, even though we disagree on this particular matter.
The heart of mafia is assessing other players' alignments. Hence, one of my rules of thumbs for mafia design is that the moderator should not be confirming living players. So the sure truth should only come once the player is out of the game.
And that principle really needs to extend to all powers. Everyone is accustomed to false alignment returns (Godfathers and Millers). And powers that are redirected, blocked, or otherwise screwed-up. I don't think it's a big step to say all powers could be affected.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 14, 2011 14:13:55 GMT -5
I don't consider it 'lying' as long as it's within the context of the game, and the possibility of misinformation is spelled out ahead of time. Personally, I find the game more enjoyable knowing that there is a possibility that information gathered might be inaccurate. I don't think it's that big a handicap to the Town to need additional confirmation before investigative results can be trusted.
It does require that the game be slightly rebalanced to take these things into consideration, but as long as that's done properly, I think it makes for a better game. For me, the more pieces that must be fitted together, the more satisfying the experience is once the puzzle has been completed.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Dec 15, 2011 21:06:24 GMT -5
Has anyone spread the word to the dope and elsewhere that a new conspiracy game is almost here?
|
|