Yitzi2

I found confirmation: Eye of the World, p. 550 (in the hardcover), Rand says "Men found you in the last Age, in the Age of Legends". So clearly, the Age of Legends was the second, and this is the first, and stuff persisted amazingly well over 5 ages to become the legend of King Arthur.

I think it very likely that at least some of these ideas will turn out to be accurate.

What if they're opposing each others' goals? Then wouldn't some of them need to be antagonists if the others are protagonists? I would consider Ruin to be a "mini-boss" in the Cosmere story as a whole.

Which may be intentional; if every RAFO hid a secret, then that would essentially make it a confirmation to the question "is there a secret involved here", and often there's only one plausible secret.

Elhokar's different, because he did something that detrimentally affected Kaladin (protecting Dalinar may be a better example, and no prior relationship was required there)..and even in the case of Elhokar, it looked like his realization there resulted in a fundamental shift in his worldview, not just one exception.

I'm not so sure that Kaladin isn't autistic as well to some extent; that line about "I don't want to just make things better for myself, I want to make them better for people who are as I am now" (I forget the exact quote) reminds me a lot of certain aspects of my own autism.

Actually, Orlok's did come into play: Some of those last-cycle votes on Stink seem to have been from Orlok's manipulation. (Note, by the way, that having two riots per turn plus knowing who the Truthless was pretty much meant that unless Orlok was taken out first, Stink was guaranteed to take out a LOT of villagers in his death, as if there were few votes Orlok could remove them from Stink, and if there were too many to do that he could add even more.) Only up to a point, because we all knew about the danger of the Truthless. But with Orlok having 2 riots per turn, that essentially amounts to 4 extra kills (2 because we need two more to lynch you, and 2 because he can then riot two people to you). An elim jester is essentially already worth a number of kills equal to one more than the number of elims (so 3), and the 2 riots mean that Orlok would essentially win if he could get it down to 4 villagers plus himself...I'd say as a rough estimate that your role was worth 1 extra elim, Orlok's role was worth 1 extra elim, and the synergy between them was worth 2 extra elims. So the elim team was somewhat stronger than standard, though not ridiculously so. The nature of the game is a function not only of the known abilities, but how they interact. For instance, the normal expectation with a "vote on him and you die" role is that he can catch elims as well as villagers; a role without that effect is a functionally different role, even if the effect is the same. A Rioter who knows who the Truthless is is a functionally different role than one who doesn't, because he has a very different use for his Riot.

Because you get players who feel "this isn't what I signed up for". If it had played very differently and we'd known that when signing up, that would be one thing...but expecting a more normal game and then not getting it is the sort of thing that a lot of people don't enjoy. (That said, the "kills everybody who votes for them" was a very insightful way to make a known Jester into a very interesting mechanic that brings the entire game to the next level, and would likely have made this a game to remember even if the Truthless had been neutral and the elims had had a normal composition.)

It is indeed exactly the same; a highly unusual role distribution for the elims (among normal roles) that made the game play differently would have had the same trolly effect even if there had been a PAFO about elim role distribution. The basic idea is as follows: What matters isn't whether it's an effect of player number, activity, roles, unexpected rules, or any other wacky thing the GM comes up with. What determines the effect of this sort of unexpected situation on the players' fun is (a) whether the players feel that the GM planned for it, (b) whether there were hints in the OP that it might occur, and (c) how much it changes the way that the game plays. (How much they change the game's balance is also a factor, but a much more minor one.) In this one, (a) and (b) were done well, but it changed the character of the game so much that it still felt trollish. (Probably even more so than a neutral Truthless as a secret role would have, and that's classic bastard mod, to use mafiascum terminology.)

Secret roles in and of themselves aren't that bad. The problem arises when either the existence of secret roles is hidden (not the case here), or when the secret roles substantially change the fundamental nature of the game (as here, where they changed it from "normal number of elims" to "few elims with powerful roles that also synergize with each other)".

No thanks; the fun-to-time ratio is even worse as a spectator than as a player.

Looks like I'm probably getting lynched; if I turn out village and Sart turns out elim, you all probably want to take a good strong look at the people who drove the switch.

We have? I must have missed that. I don't suppose you remember where it was mentioned before?

I find it interesting that you assume there are 4 elims. And Lightweavers on the elim team are not an issue, since they protect from attacks, not from lynches. Elsecallers are, but by the same token the village may have more elsecallers as well, and in any case it's only one more cycle.

Why not?

Talking about being lynched next cycle, when the main case against you is assuming that you and Sart are both elims (so if he turns out village when lynched this cycle, you'd be highly unlikely to be lynched next cycle), and talking about how I and Sart are somehow buddies so if he's an elim I'm probably one too. (Why we're supposedly buddies isn't very clear, as my moving my vote from him was because you being an elim pocketing him was more likely than him being an elim and not you, so you were the more likely elim by a very slight amount.) EDIT: Also, Winter is extremely suspicious, and I'm 90% sure they're not village. Whether they're elim or Truthless, however...that's the big question.

Your precautions in case Sart turns out to be an elim seem a bit overmuch for someone who doesn't already know him to be an elim.

I might as well throw my vote on Sart as well, as it seems fairly clear to me at this point that he and Eternum are both elims.

Because your early defense of Sart looked a lot like a newbie elim trying to defend another elim, and your pivot afterward based on that looks a whole lot like you're just trying to evade the elim accusation from it. However, I'm open to switching to Sart instead, as my theory at this point is that you're both elims.

No, it really doesn't; cycle 1 it is entirely possible to have a villager lynched with no elim involvement. I still maintain that Eternum is the best choice for a lynch target.

You know what, I think I'll withdraw; as fun as it sounds, I don't really think I have the time for another game right now.

This is correct.

Now that I think of it...while Eternum defending Sart does seem very suspicious as far as Sart is concerned, it's even more suspicious as far as Eternum is concerned. Sart Eternum.

When it says "Jondesu was attacked, but didn’t die!", shouldn't that be " Jondesu was lynched, but didn’t die!"? Oh, and since Jon mentioned our roleclaim trade: My main reason for initiating it was that D1 he suggested that Ecth posted "squire" because that's what it said in his role PM, so if he'd claimed new recruit it'd be very suspicious (since then if he was village he should've known). I find Eternum's defense of Sart last cycle to be quite suspicious, and quite in line for a newbie elim trying to defend another elim. I probably should've voted for Sart last cycle, but I didn't get to it; let's give it another try. Sart.

Do we have information anywhere on what conditions result in what rank? Or is that one of the great secrets of this forum?