The Resistance [Game On]

Day 1 is up. Your next deadline is 7am on Wednesday, 22 Jan PST, or 11pm on the same day my time.

Good luck, guys!

Here! And for the first time in a LONG time of ROMS, I am wondering, "now what?" But that's sort of refreshing!

Here. I guess the first selection will be a bit of a shot in the dark.

I spend too much time on the internet, but this is immediately what I thought when I saw that post.

Also, Hi guys!

I've never let that stop me.

Well I'll stoke the fire and just volunteer to go on a mission. Can we do that? I mean, feel free to be like NO, FIREBOLT.

Interesting question. I feel like when someone's the GM, they're not going to pick someone they think is a bad guy (or not pick the bad guys they want to pick), regardless of whether other people had nominated the individual. But since we all want our proposed missions to pass, it's useful to know who others won't vote for to be on a team. However, my guess is that that can be gleaned from the thread if people are clear about their thoughts.
Also, I think that leaving it to the GM to pick the team is one of more important sources of information, and we don't want to give people any excuses to dodge responsibility for their picks.

Re: editing I dunno. I do tend to make more formatting mistakes on these forums since I'm less used to them, so if we all just agreed not to edit content I wouldn't really mind letting that slide. But I can also just check my posts more carefully for tags and such.

I maybe think it's better to say if you think the GM shouldn't include Person A than it is to say someone SHOULD be included.

If Riku is a spy, and if he knows that Leif or AL are spies, we're in troubles regardless of what we do. If a mission fails, it's possible that the GM is a spy as well as people on the mission team.

Now, it's obviously not fair to just assume that the GM is a spy and I think in most cases standard practice would be to include oneself on the team. However, exactly half of us have ulterior motives to that of the resistance. As far as I can tell, the double agent has the same motives as us but can't be as explicit in how they use their information because if it's too obvious, the spies win the game.

Even at the end of the game, the spies could win by random guessing.

ANYWAY. I walked away from this post half an hour ago so I forget where I was going with this.

Well, I changed the default avatar to something less creepy.

Just as a note, you can now quote people without "Quoting" (and linking to) the post:



The BB Code for this is [.quote author="@name"]Quote[./quote] (Remove the dots, and replace "name" with the person you're quoting, and it's done.)

Yeah, I kind of get that's what he meant now, but when I read it initially that's not what I thought. I wouldn't have been surprised if someone had been confused about the rules, given we haven't played this before.

I'm not sure it really matters, though; a mission failing tells us there was a Spy in the mission party, but it tells us nothing about the alignment of the Game Master if they didn't go. A GM who sends a mission that fails could be guilty of nothing more than choosing unwisely. It might help to keep things simple if GMs always choose to send themselves, I would suggest, for clarity of information.

Totally forgot about this yesterday. 23 posts already!

I didn't get to see the creepy blank avatar, but now Sets and Fire have the same icon, which is very confusing. Would one of you mind changing? I will say otherwise I really like the upgrade - feels fancier!

My gut instinct is the same as Joly's - that it's more useful for non-GMs in a given round to indicate who they DON'T want to send on a mission, or at least in addition to suggesting people, be sure to state who you definitely don't want to see sent. "If you send Searmin on this mission, I'm auto-rejecting it" is good information for the GM. Basically an 'auto-reject' list is like a High FOS.

Sets - 'standard practice to includes oneself on the team' - I think that unless there's an outcry from the 'town' (are we calling ourselves as a whole the town?) it would yes, always make sense to include yourself. Furare, I don't think we can say 'always sends themselves' because if by the time we get to a particular GM, we're pretty sure he/she is a spy, we don't want them going on the mission.

I think it might make sense for Riku to send himself and the next two GMs on the mission (so, Leif and AL) in order to give us the best idea of whether we'll be able to trust the next two GMs. Obviously it only helps so much, but it's the best I can think of for Round 1. Sets, is that what you were getting at when you mentioned Leif and AL? The "If Riku is a spy and if he knows that Leif or AL are spies" comment you made didn't quite make sense to me - the spies are like the rogues - they know each others identities for certain.

Ok, adjusting to shiny forum upgrade. Can somebody tell me how to regular reply (in lieu of quick replying)? Is it the thumb? Sorry, I'm bad with change, and I'm afraid to randomly push buttons to see what happens. LOL

Since I'm quick replying and can't preview, apologies in advance if this quote is broken:



But if we are pretty sure a particular GM is a spy, we can always vote to reject the mission. Which means, I suppose, that I'm in the "GM should send him/herself on the mission" camp.

Well this is going to take a bit of getting used to. The limes threw me off too, Aeth. Lemme see if I can find a suitable replacement.

I keep forgetting that there's no real 'consequences' of figuring out if someone is a spy. Grumble.