Long Game 28: The Awakening at the House on the Hill

[STINK]

Oh, I did not get confused on what is neutral and not this game

Back to sleep

[Arrae]

As people waited for the real estate agent to return, Dr. Artie got to work.

First, he pulled a piece of paper and a stick of charcoal. He scanned the room and began to sketch an architectural layout of the room. Here was the table, there was the bed, and these were the dimensions of the bedroom... Once Artie was done, he took out another piece of paper and sketched all of the furniture.

Having an initial layout was essential to keep visual track of the evidence. Once, Artie had had a case where a lady, convinced that she had seen figures in bizarre clothing emerge from a pond every Saturday. The pool in question had many footprints around it, which backed up her theory. Artie had been able to use his sketches to prove that all of those footprints were from her own shoes. When the lady stammered out that some of those figures had bounced on air without use of Awakening, Artie knew he had won.

The real estate agent still wasn't back. Where could he be? By the God King, even a 20-something shouldn't be this incompetent!

Time ticked on, and Artie's impatience grew. Where was the agent? He must be playing a joke. Maybe the kid was in on the hoax, or something -- Artie had seen it all. Well, Artie wouldn't let him get away with this prank.

He took a straw man out of his pack. "My breath to yours," he said. "Find things."

[Darkness Ascendant]

Ok, finally set here in Pakistan. Time to get down to some SE now (who cares about holidays amirite?)

--------------------------

"What did I miss?" asked Billy, waking up.

EDIT: How dis Kas die?

Edited November 19, 2016 by Darkness Ascendant

[polkinghornbd]

Everyone seems to be exploring tonight.  Seems like a good idea.

I agree on telling what you find, too.

[Young Bard]

I'll just quickly confirming that I've sent in actions to Explore tonight. I don't have much time to do much right now, so I'll have a more in depth look at the rules and see if I can come up with a strat this evening (about 8-9 hours from now.)

[Ecthelion III]

I'm curious about the different roles. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Young Bard]

33 minutes ago, Ecthelion III said:

I'm curious about the different roles. Can anyone enlighten me?

Explorer - Vanilla Role

Stink's Mysterious Neutral Role - No clue about what it's about.

That's all I know of at this point. I think nearly everybody starts out as an Explorer, and when they explore, its the Omens and the... other thingy that start changing your role to make it more interesting? Something like that.

[Paranoid King]

2 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

As I recall, the leaf up to the game included a fair amount of discussion on lynching inactives, and it appeared a consensus was beginning to emerge among some players.

I'd like to challenge that consensus, and argue that lynching inactive is actually a rather counterproductive idea. I would suggest that lynching inactive deprives us of potential future explorations, should they decide to return - and I believe that maintaining village explorations, and so equipping ourselves is absolutely critical should we wish to match the roles of the traitors. I would also argue that we gain very little information by killing an inactive, whilst aiding the traitors in their attempts to achieve a majority over the village.

I agree that exploring is a great idea*, but I would like to challenge your point on lynching inactives.

You say that it will deprive us of future explore abilities if they choose to come back. I say better them then an active player, because active people will likely explore. Inactive people won't.

In addition, omens don't always choose the player who activated them. By lynching inactives, we could stumble upon a traitor. Inactives aren't going to help the village anyway, so that would be fine.

You infer that it would be better to lynch nobody at all than to lynch an inactive. However, as I mentioned, they could be a traitor. In addition, the traitors will be eliminating active people. Once those are gone, the inactives will provide no resistance. Therefore, inactive players will not help the village. I move that inactives be lynched.

*(Everyone active will probably explore. If they're village and get cool stuff, good for them. If they turn traitor, good for them - they can still win, and some people think it's more fun to be a traitor.)

[Elenion]

18 minutes ago, Paranoid King said:

You say that it will deprive us of future explore abilities if they choose to come back. I say better them then an active player, because active people will likely explore. Inactive people won't.

19 minutes ago, Paranoid King said:

You infer that it would be better to lynch nobody at all than to lynch an inactive. However, as I mentioned, they could be a traitor. In addition, the traitors will be eliminating active people. Once those are gone, the inactives will provide no resistance. Therefore, inactive players will not help the village. I move that inactives be lynched.

This echoes my views: active players are more likely to help us than inactives, but inactives appear to be equally likely to be converted.

I think it's time that we got some votes down on the field. Therefore, I suggest dropping some poke-votes to see who's active and who's not. Hey Jefry, are you alive? @jefrywlfersn If you respond I'll remove my vote.

 

Just in case it helps anyone with their village/neutral projections, I'm a vanilla Explorer.

[Paranoid King]

1 minute ago, Elenion said:

I think it's time that we got some votes down on the field. Therefore, I suggest dropping some poke-votes to see who's active and who's not. Hey Jefry, are you alive?

This sounds like a wonderful thing to do during the day.

[Elenion]

1 minute ago, Paranoid King said:

This sounds like a wonderful thing to do during the day.

*facepalms myself* Jefry

Sorry, I'm used to starting during a day cycle.

[Paranoid King]

Just now, Elenion said:

*facepalms myself* Jefry

Sorry, I'm used to starting during a day cycle.

Well, you are inside a house. It's difficult to tell.

[Haelbarde]

Two questions: Are group PMs allowed? And the rules say no kills night 1, but this is night 0. Is that a mistake?

[Elbereth]

Kresla followed along on the tour eagerly, looking at everything that the tour guide had pointed out in fascination. The house was so big and beautiful. She’d never been inside somewhere so large and magnificent before. 

When Kathper left, she sat down to wait patiently. He’d be back eventually with the key, she knew. She didn’t need to be afraid. And until then, she would simply sit back and enjoy pretending she was a princess. 

---

Kresla’s going to be fun to play with, I can already tell.  If someone wants to take her under their wing and/or take advantage of her, I'd be open to that.  

In terms of game related talk, there’s obviously not much yet, but I’ll respond to a couple points. 

5 hours ago, Wonko the Sane said:

Oh, Harmony. Did anyone else's sports sink, just a little, upon reading this?

I, too, believe that everyone playing should explore tonight, though I disagree with Nyali's assessment as to why. I see no reason to believe that Wyrm has planned few enough rooms that we might exhaust his "room deck", nor a reason to assume that there is any practical limit on the number of Eliminators. However, the game cannot move forward until we find the Heart of the House. Every turn that we don't is a turn where someone dies. The extra Elims are worrying, especially since they're likey to gain powers they can use against us. But until we find the Heart, every turn is a wasted one.

I also want to point out that there's no guarantee that the Elims will be working together. In the board game, the win condition of the Traitor depends entirely on what kind of Haunt happened. We have no reason to assume that the Elim types Wyrm has in store do not have likewise unique objectives. Heck, I don't think the rules even state that they have a doc.

Sports?  

I would like to note that we cannot find the Heart until we have killed an eliminator.  So while yes, exploring is important because we need to have eliminators in order to kill them, it's not for finding the House. It's just for gathering roles and such, and getting our first eliminator. 

Well, the rules do say that the Traitors will have "access to the traitor doc" (LG28 Original Post, paragraph 12) (see, I cite sources! ), so I'd say there is one.  And their win con is stated as well. So I don't think we need to be that worried (or happy, I suppose) about elims having different win cons, although it'd be entirely possible for them to have secondary win conditions. 

4 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

As I recall, the leaf up to the game included a fair amount of discussion on lynching inactives, and it appeared a consensus was beginning to emerge among some players.

I'd like to challenge that consensus, and argue that lynching inactive is actually a rather counterproductive idea. I would suggest that lynching inactive deprives us of potential future explorations, should they decide to return - and I believe that maintaining village explorations, and so equipping ourselves is absolutely critical should we wish to match the roles of the traitors. I would also argue that we gain very little information by killing an inactive, whilst aiding the traitors in their attempts to achieve a majority over the village.

As can be inferred from above, I fully intend to explore tonight - I appear to have got rather lost in this revolutionary nonsense, and would very much appreciate any directions back to the sanity and stability of the Crown.

The leaf up?  

You seem to be arguing at once that lynching inactives is bad because it'll lead to a reduction of possible future explanations (which every lynch will do, so you're arguing for no lynch, essentially) and that we need to lynch traitors if possible. I agree on the second, but not so much on the first. Lynching inactives is fine if there's one or two Omens triggered, but more than that (which I suspect there will be, though I'm not certain) and I definitely agree that it should be treated as essentially a normal game (except that all the abilities are hidden and also we can't clear anyone...) where we go after elims as per usual. 

I shouldn't do this, but... Is the Crown that much more stable than America, really? Sure, it's lasted longer, but it hasn't continually been in existence much longer than America. And we've never beheaded our nation's leaders.  

2 hours ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Ok, finally set here in Pakistan. Time to get down to some SE now (who cares about holidays amirite?)

--------------------------

"What did I miss?" asked Billy, waking up.

EDIT: How dis Kas die?

Kas is co-GMing this game. Wyrm wanted someone to die. So Kas signed up, and then Wyrm killed him.  (Again.)

[Arrae]

El, I'm always mostly  sometimes available to RP. Would Kresla be interested in disproving the existance of ghosts?

[Mark IV]

Hello, my fellow prospectors, real estate agents, suicidal entities and thieves. 

 

Id like to open by saying im against lynching inactives, as of now, because i see no real reason to do so. (And, i mean true inactives. not sleeper agents or pseudo inactives)

 

My reasoning is that, firstly, our win con involves killing the house and all the traitors. I doubt wyrm would keep any small number of omens in store. But, IIRC, the omens stop when we kill the house. Som i feel that should be our first goal. 

Secondly, its not like inactives are going to do us much harm, unless they're secretly coming online and putting in kill orders. if they are, I'm fully for killing them. 

So, what I'm basically saying is that inactives shouldn't be much of a problem early game. Of course, late game, inactives need to be dealt with.

 

I also agree with nyali that we should first exhaust omens before clearing people. 

 

I thought I should mention this because I think some people have missed it- omens found on the previous night are announced in the thread. (Atleast i think so) I'm on mobile, so I wouldn't mind if someone else checked it for me. In the clarifications section, i think.

 

[Arrae]

Mark, how do you suggest that we distinguish between true inactives and psuedo-inactives, especially ones that are secretly sending in kill orders?

[Mark IV]

The truly inactive, imo, would not open PMs, would not come online (this one is not definite) and they would not look at the thread. 

On the other hand, lurkers would do all, if not most of those things. The only difference between a lurker and an active player at that point would be that actives would actually post, while lurkers would avoid posting to avoid excess attention. 

 

Atleast that's my take on it.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Mark IV
(Edited for grammar errors)

[JUQ]

Well, it's Hess here from da gr8st country in da wooooooooooorld. Hess is a retired god who likes spooking people with awakening. His most fun experience was visiting Idris, which he was cast out of after a week. It was a fun week, however.

[Wyrmhero]

Few clarifications:

 

1. Kas is indeed sub-GMing this and hence had to die before it began. Before the sign-ups were over, he asked if he could sign-up to throw everyone off, knowing what I had planned for the write-up and how it would have him vanish mysteriously.
2. There is no kill tonight. When I originally said 'No kill Night 1', I was starting the game on Night 1 rather than Night 0. It would be better to read it as 'No kill during the first Night'.
3. Omens will be noted in the write-up when found, which will hint towards the Eliminator role that is now in play.
4. Also, I'm going to leave the origami map in the writeup, it amuses me too much >>.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Wyrmhero

[STINK]

Well, I've woken up and like no-ones PM'd me, so this is kinda sad

I'll be exploring, even though no-one wants to care about what the mysterious neutral role is doing It's pretty weird, but I won't complain about it

Oh, and fun fact, it kinda makes me immune to being converted, so yeah, I'm just gonna chill.

 

[Unodus]

"So, uh... Looks like we might be stuck here for a while time, eh? Ah, don't worry about it- big houses aren't so bad, I've been stuck in houses way bigger than this while there was even people living in them. See, the first part to stop being lost is to just pretend that you're not lost in the first place- sort've like gambling, yknow? That kind of schtick really freaks people out sometimes. There's probably a window somewhere we can get a rope off, right? No? Hey, Artie- right? Doctor Artie? You look like the kinda a guy who'd help a kingsman out, not that I am a kingsman, but I see you got a lot of sou--breaths to make those strawman things. Yknow, this one time I saw a guy do a trick where he used one of the breath thingys to make a straw key- you think you could do that with these door? What do you mean it wouldn't work? Ah, you're no fun- how do you know it's not going to work until you try, eh? Alright, alright- sorry, sheesh, just trying to broaden our options a little. Bloody soul magic, doesn't make a lick of sense... H-hey, where you other guys going? C'mon now, we gotta act like a team here- stick together, and all that schmuck. Ain't you guys ever been in an abandoned house before? Going alones a good way to get your leg snapped on a rotting plank- see, that's why I always bring my horse with me... Hey, where is my horse...? What do you mean you left her in the stable?! Do you have any idea how much she hates those? What do you mean you didn't know where else to put her?! Ok, ok, I guess I can let it slide once- but I don't want to give her any funny ideas, my horse ain't no kingsman and I don't want you spoiling her with your sugar cubes or some kingsman nonsense. Oh, speaking of food- you guys got any? Here, I'll raise you three duck dumplings for a waterskin over a game of Ducksteeth, eh? Tsh, suit yourselves- eat your own food, why don't you? Cmon, I thought teams were supposed to trust each other with this kind of stuff. Inarius would have a fit if he was here, ya'll are no fun... Hey, while we're here... I don't suppose anyones going to mind if a few odd things disappear, some of these old toys must be worth a fortune... Not that I'd, um... Ever steal, or anything. Yeah, I'll just put this under financial compensation for poor service..."

[Paranoid King]

8 hours ago, Mark IV said:

My reasoning is that, firstly, our win con involves killing the house and all the traitors. I doubt wyrm would keep any small number of omens in store. But, IIRC, the omens stop when we kill the house. Som i feel that should be our first goal.

Problem is, we can't kill the house unless we kill a traitor. If we don't have anyone who admits to being a traitor, killing inactives would help the village the most.

8 hours ago, Mark IV said:

Secondly, its not like inactives are going to do us much harm, unless they're secretly coming online and putting in kill orders. if they are, I'm fully for killing them. 

So, what I'm basically saying is that inactives shouldn't be much of a problem early game. Of course, late game, inactives need to be dealt with.

But the traitors will be killing actives, because active people are those most likely to find them and lynch them.

• If we also kill actives, the thread will get boring really fast
• If we don't kill anyone at all, we can't kill the house, and we'll be picked off one by one.
• If we kill inactives, we might hit a traitor without hurting the village at all. (BEST DEAL!)

[Orlok Tsubodai]

And yet, equally, we discourage those players who aren't as active as others from getting further involved in our community - I disagree that punitive action will change behaviour in future games. I would suggest that if we dislike inactivity as much as is apparent, we make the effort ourselves to reach out to players who are appearing in thread less frequently - either through talking to them in PMs, giving them updates as to what is going on to enable them to get involved again, or calling them into discussions in the thread to give notifications and involve them.

The benefit we derive from lynching inactives over not lynching at all is minimal at best, diverts our attention from the actually dangerous, active eliminators, and is counterproductive if we consider the community as a whole.

[Paranoid King]

9 minutes ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

The benefit we derive from lynching inactives over not lynching at all is minimal at best(1), diverts our attention from the actually dangerous, active eliminators(2), and is counterproductive if we consider the community as a whole(3).

Here's what I'm saying:

1. If you have no strong suspicions, go for an inactive over an active. It leads to more discussion late-game, and will be a huge help in finding traitors.
2. If you suspect someone of being a traitor, go for it. I don't condone lynching inactives over lynching traitors.
3. I have no idea where you got this from.

We always spare first-timers for a few cycles, don't we? So the people just joining SE aren't going to be lynched on day 1.

In addition, wouldn't lynching actives cause more offense? I mean, I can understand being lynched for inactivity. I can't understand why I would be lynched just because I was active. (Not because of the content of my posts, just because I was trying to contribute.)

Lynching actives is counterproductive when you consider the community as a whole, because it encourages the idea that if you're inactive, you're safe. And that makes games really boring. And boring games send people elsewhere, which hurts the community.