DeTess she/her Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 So, I've taken a long hard look at the rules, roles and other useful things, and I've reached several conclusions. This game will be absolutely bonkers. The Worldsmiths are effectively an eliminator faction. All the faction-less are effectively one-man eliminator factions. 1 and 2 are fine, but might I suggest that the rules we submit this cycle will be geared towards changing the third point? Maybe splitting the faction-less up into a number of new factions with unique win-conditions, or something like that.
AliasSheep Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 The Knife item does not give you a kill action
Steeldancer he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) *awesome narrator voice on* In the beginning, there was nothing. And then, there was Speed. Lightning. Energy. As the universe began, a storm of speed lightning formed. Unstoppable. Awesome. But dangerous to all those who opposed it's purpose. *awesome narrator voice off* Edited August 30, 2017 by Flash
Steeldancer he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, winter devotion said: Feel free to propose to me, as long are you're a girl or enby. It's just a role but, well, I'm not marrying a guy even in a game. No offense I'm a storm. I'm undefined by gender Darn I wish I were an elementalist. My personal magic system is just that. I can explain ridiculous things that someone could do with elements. Edited August 30, 2017 by Flash
DeTess she/her Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 This wasn't how it was supposed to go. Nope, not at all. There was supposed to be some kind of grand clash between opposing ideals. War between good and evil, or between Chaos and Law! Or between cat-people and dog-people, for all Kel could care. Not this...this... this... free for all! There was no drama in this, no story, no resolution! No, this wouldn't stand at all. Kel hadn't gone through all that trouble to secure the 'story and history' domain for it all to fall apart like this now. There was a good basis to work with though. The WorldSmith's where great antagonists. they had an ostensibly noble goal, yet their methods where brutal. Now, all that was needed to get a proper story going was a protagonist to oppose them. Kel would have to go and create some friends. Not necessarily his friends, but as long as they where eachothers friends, had an interesting mix of quirky personalities and where intent on opposing the WorldSmiths, it ought to work. ...Or was that too cliche. The universe had only just been created, but Kel was pretty sure that was already a cliche. 'Hmmm, yeah, that idea definitely needs some more work.' He mumbled to himself as he moved through the halls of Creation. 1
Sparkrunner he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Ah- I agree with rand. This is gonna be insane. OK- Somehow this got worked into the rules. Just so ya all know, I'm factionless, but I am fine with eliminating the agents of Chaos, because chaos is not good. All of the agents of chaos will become hungered, they can only gain pancakes once. By cycle seven, they will all be revealed. Then they can be gotten rid of. SO- Vote for a rule that speeds up pancake eating for agents of chaos, then we can move on to the worldSmiths, in which case we make a rule that items may be sacrificed for pancakes, and one that people can trade in spheres for items. Thus everyone trades in spheres for items and then gets more spheres to get more items, so everyone else has more items than the worldsmiths. Please tell me what is wrong with this, I am kind of just burbling here. Roadwalker, so I don't get boring.
Steeldancer he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, Roadwalker said: Ah- I agree with rand. This is gonna be insane. OK- Somehow this got worked into the rules. Just so ya all know, I'm factionless, but I am fine with eliminating the agents of Chaos, because chaos is not good. All of the agents of chaos will become hungered, they can only gain pancakes once. By cycle seven, they will all be revealed. Then they can be gotten rid of. SO- Vote for a rule that speeds up pancake eating for agents of chaos, then we can move on to the worldSmiths, in which case we make a rule that items may be sacrificed for pancakes, and one that people can trade in spheres for items. Thus everyone trades in spheres for items and then gets more spheres to get more items, so everyone else has more items than the worldsmiths. Please tell me what is wrong with this, I am kind of just burbling here. Roadwalker, so I don't get boring. Dude now you're going to die. I just read the rules. You roleclaim, you die.
Sparkrunner he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) ROLEclaim. Not faction claim. This is the way the rules are worded, so I am going to hope. Edited August 30, 2017 by Roadwalker
Magestar he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 ... I would love to be married by a WorldSmith. That would be great. 50 minutes ago, randuir said: So, I've taken a long hard look at the rules, roles and other useful things, and I've reached several conclusions. This game will be absolutely bonkers. The Worldsmiths are effectively an eliminator faction. All the faction-less are effectively one-man eliminator factions. 1 and 2 are fine, but might I suggest that the rules we submit this cycle will be geared towards changing the third point? Maybe splitting the faction-less up into a number of new factions with unique win-conditions, or something like that. Ah... I originally didn't intend that faction to be an eliminator faction... They can in fact by the rules of the game win without killing anyone, simply by surviving till the end with items collected from getting them given, or by one of them being the Gunsmith, or something, I think. But that would be sort of boring, and I hope they don't, as the whole item generation thing is super cool. Probably one of my favorite parts of LG(26?) was the Ghostblood faction and all the items that existed in that game. Items are great. There should be more item related games in SE. I like items, can you tell? The Worldsmiths aren't really evil by the way I designed there flavor, but killing to make items is a cool concept... I think it sort of got mashed in there. They're not evil OK? I also am in favor of more factions being part of the proposed rules this cycle. Factions are great. Also maybe more item related rules.
Hemalurgic Headshot he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 I'm just waiting for when all of the rules switch. Then the world will spontaneously combust.
Arinian Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Roadwalker said: Ah- I agree with rand. This is gonna be insane. OK- Somehow this got worked into the rules. Just so ya all know, I'm factionless, but I am fine with eliminating the agents of Chaos, because chaos is not good. All of the agents of chaos will become hungered, they can only gain pancakes once. By cycle seven, they will all be revealed. Then they can be gotten rid of. SO- Vote for a rule that speeds up pancake eating for agents of chaos, then we can move on to the worldSmiths, in which case we make a rule that items may be sacrificed for pancakes, and one that people can trade in spheres for items. Thus everyone trades in spheres for items and then gets more spheres to get more items, so everyone else has more items than the worldsmiths. Please tell me what is wrong with this, I am kind of just burbling here. Roadwalker, so I don't get boring. First, I don't think that GMs done that Agents of Chaos can gain pancakes only once, that would be stupid. Second, idea with trading spheres... no thx, spheres is your actions, without spheres you just will be defenseless, and how you gonna get more spheres... okay, I just don't understand what you meant.
Sparkrunner he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, Arinian said: First, I don't think that GMs done that Agents of Chaos can gain pancakes only once, that would be stupid. Oh? Do you see a clause in the rules that allows them to put in actions for the pancakes more than once? I believe the GM's were allowing for rule changes.
Arinian Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, Roadwalker said: Oh? Do you see a clause in the rules that allows them to put in actions for the pancakes more than once? I believe the GM's were allowing for rule changes. I guess they have standart actions as everyone else in this game, they even can have other roles(? probably) or factions, so I understand that rule as they just have acces to extra abilities from other roles. But *shrug* who knows, maybe GMs don't like Chaos
Lemonelon Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 1 hour ago, winter devotion said: Feel free to propose to me, as long are you're a girl or enby. It's just a role but, well, I'm not marrying a guy even in a game. No offense Would you like to marry a female Lemon??
Jondesu he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 I would be very against using rules to change the odds for any faction and make it easier to eliminate them. That would not be fun for me were I part of a team that lost because the majority of players decided to change the rules and take away some advantage or give us a disadvantage. Any rules we submit should benefit the game, not particular factions. Speaking of which, perhaps we can add a faction or two? As noted, there’s probably a number of factionless players, so forming a new faction via a rule would be very feasible. Also, since we should have a lynch (though I think no one will die during the day turn, since we all have two lives), I’ll vote to roleblock Searanatha theranson threson the 45th and a half simply because that’s entirely too long of a name to deal with, and lynch HH, since he seems to be hoping for a lot of chaos, and is likely an Agent of Chaos.
Lemonelon Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, winter devotion said: EDIT: Lem, are you a girl? Cause it applies to the person, not the character. I am. Probably classed as woman now- definitely of marriageable age
Straw he/him Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Some GM questions @AliasSheep: 1. If your spouse dies, can you remarry? 2. If your spouse dies, can you adopt someone?
Lemonelon Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, winter devotion said: Huh. For some reason I thought you were a guy. You propose to me and I'll accept. Why thank you kind sir (you are a guy right?) Who says guys need to do the proposing these days!! So, Hoid and The Lemon vs the world... we should probably get a PM going to talk offspring. Can we do that this cycle?
AliasSheep Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, Straw said: 1. If your spouse dies, can you remarry? No 10 minutes ago, Straw said: 2. If your spouse dies, can you adopt someone? Yes
Lemonelon Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 The Lemon was rolling her way to the pancakes when she spotted a shadow moving in the corner. She stopped, trembling. It was Hoid. Oh dear, honest Hoid. He was the sweet to her sour, the light of her life. He picked her up gently, careful not to squeeze too hard. "Oh, Hoid. Will you marry me?" @winter devotion romantic enough?
Lemonelon Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Hoid/Cleo set The Lemon gently next to the pancakes. He hadn't said yes. She began to weep. Her sour juices spilling across the pancakes. What could she do? She was just a bitter Lemon. And this sweet man wanted romance. She went to fridge, and withdrew a bottle of wine and placed it on the blanket in front of the fire. Hoid/Cleo followed her with the pancakes. Perhaps now his romance fixation would be sated? For she was at her wits end.
Lemonelon Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Lemon, eyes wet, looked at the beautiful ring upon her finger. She looked deep into Cleo's eyes. "I am yours until my last breath"
Recommended Posts