Jump to content

Araris Valerian

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4721

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Araris Valerian

  1. Araris Valerian
    Obligatory RBM to Coffee switch. Have to say this sounds really hedgy. You approve of the exe, but are suspicious of it. You don't think RBM is elim, but are willing to kill him anyway. C'mon, we can do better than that. And could you specify what you mean by "RBM dying today will give us a lot of information"? Either RBM is elim or village. What sort of info, in your opinion, do we stand to gain in either of these circumstances?
  2. Araris Valerian
    Thanks for posting; RBM. Not too sure what the gimmicks might be, but I don't know how much that matters in RBM's case, since there is no way around him being a golem. I'm also a bit worried that some weird distro stuff could be going on, but the lack of a third death/kill attempt suggests that there is no elim Librarian, which 3 village golems would point me toward.
  3. Araris Valerian
    This… doesn’t add up. You say I’m likely lying, but don’t give any evidence. In particular, is it impossible that there are 2 village golems and one elim one? I’ll note that the fact you’re making the argument makes me lean village on you, since if I’m telling the truth, my role gets proven and yours comes into doubt (on the premise that 3 golems doesn’t make sense). Of course, if I get exed then I can stop with having to change my vote all the time, since the extra life will be gone already. Gonna revote RBM with my next post.
  4. Araris Valerian
    As a golem myself, I find it rather suspicious that you claim your role gives gray area with your alignment. Your GM PM states your alignment and the respective win condition, no two ways about that. RBM. Also, my gut tells me that there won’t be two village golems, and that Moist is likely a villager, since 8 players is rather low for an elim with vote manip.
  5. Araris Valerian
    Coffee. In your PM with TUO, say something like: “Cycle 1: Open a PM with Araris”. Of course, if you have another action you could take, you’ll have to decide what to do. I would say that I would bus my teammate so fast that that they wouldn’t realize I’d gotten them killed, but yeah. Uh, one problem with a tie (especially between more than 2 people) is that the folks involved can always break it. My vote didn’t change that; Experience could have voted on Lego originally.
  6. Araris Valerian
    Coffee. I suppose this makes a 4-way tie, but in principle I'm pretty against ties in games with vote manip. Or ties in general. They give the elims too much power. The vote is the village kill, so we need to put more thought into it than random ties. Aside from my compulsion to vote, I'm voting for you because you proposed something that is essentially promoting anti-solving.
  7. Araris Valerian
    Ashbringer. Also, just to put it out in the open, I'm a golem that has to change or retract my vote every post, so don't bother killing me and don't worry if my votes seem erratic.
  8. Araris Valerian
    Hey everyone! It's been long enough that I'm feeling rusty, but let's kill Ashbringer. He looks out of place.
  9. Araris Valerian
    I’ll sign up as Reg Shoe, a zombie in the Watch that isn’t particularly concerned with becoming a corpse.
  10. Araris Valerian
    I'm going to leave my mod hat on for a moment and address a couple of things. First off, I think the last cycle of this game demonstrates one of the purposes of the IM; they are available to act as a mediator between the GM and the thread. It can be a hard line to walk as a GM to decide when interfering is appropriate, and part of my job is to help with that. I want to see everyone having fun just as much as the GM does. Moving forward, GMs should always consult with their IM before having significant interactions with the thread (basically anything beyond writeups, clarifications, and good-natured trolling). All that being said, I think the stakes were fairly low in this case, so it mostly serves as an object lesson for the future. Lastly, we have a couple of people taking on new roles; @CadCom has volunteered to be a moderator, and @The Unknown Order has joined the rules committee. I definitely welcome the additional help, and hope to be able to play some more games myself in the near future. *Mod hat off* I enjoyed watching this game quite a bit (and wish I could have played myself). Well-played Xino (well, almost) and elims. This is usually the first thing I do after I get access to a new doc .
  11. Araris Valerian
    Further discussion of Kas’s post should be withheld until after the game has ended (I have my own thoughts which I’ll share at that time as well). If you have anything pressing to say, shoot me a PM (or a DM on discord). It’s always rough when the mechanics/playercount of a game lead to situations where some folks can’t realistically win, so please be patient with each other in the meantime. And now, back to your regularly-scheduled murder party.
  12. Araris Valerian
    I'll check with the other mods and see what they think. Except TUO's game where I got balefired N1, I haven't played since the AG, so having an extra hand on deck would be greatly appreciated.
  13. Araris Valerian
    Ankh-Morpork sounds fun, and yeah, you would be in the clear to run that. Let's wait to hear from xino first.
  14. Araris Valerian
    1. @Ashbringer 2. @Kasimir 3. @xinoehp512 4. @The Unknown Ajah 5. @Elandera 6. @Stick. 7. @Aeoryi 8. @DrakeMarshall I think this is the MR list. The LG is close to wrapping up, so we should figure out who'd like to run the next game.
  15. Araris Valerian
    No rules have been (significantly) broken here, continue as planned.
  16. Araris Valerian
    Realistically, it looks like the LG will fall to Kas, TUO, or me, since the other two folks seem to be otherwise occupied. I've got rules that I'm ready to run whenever, but I'm also lowest priority.
  17. Araris Valerian
    I assume this is supposed to say July?
  18. Araris Valerian
    Alright, my thoughts on the rules: In general, things seemed to work the way I hoped. The original rules were balanced around 4-5 players per faction, so I removed PMs as an action to keep the action economy mostly the same. So in response to this, I'd probably revert the rules with 4+ player factions and have PMs only available through an action. The scan and vote manip were the two least used actions. I'm a little surprised about the vote manip. During C2, The Association could have used it to try and save Aeternum, who they'd spent a protect on the previous cycle. And during C2, the Inception folks could have tried using it as well. I think I'd probably leave the action as-is in a rerun, though I suspect it would find more use in a game with more or larger factions, where the vote ends up being closer more frequently. I mentioned in the spec doc, but I think in a rerun the scan would have 2 buffs. It would be immune to roleblocks and redirects, and it would target 3 people (the user, a faction-mate, and an opponent), instead of 2. The last couple of cycles showed how damaging the lack of information could be, and the ability to trade an offensive/defensive action for info seems like it would at minimum create interesting decisions for folks. Independent Epics seemed like they mostly worked. RBM only ever used the Mark action, while Mat used it only once on the turn he won/lost (in a rerun, I'd change so this counts as a win). Since there isn't any incentive for a faction to target an IE, there was instead an incentive for players to lie and claim IE. I'm curious why you think this. I wouldn't put more than 2 of them in a distro unless I had 19 players, so chances are it wouldn't impact anything. And I think it would make them less likely to try and buddy up with a faction, since the factions don't want to burn resources killing IEs. And that wraps up my thoughts. I was kinda hoping folks would RP their Epics a bit, but I think everyone was focused on their docs, which were plenty fun to read. I've signed up for another MR slot, so we can look forward to playing these rules again sometime. Thank you everyone for playing!
  19. Araris Valerian
    As for the next LG, here's the list: @Experience, @The Unknown Order, @Kasimir, @xinoehp512, @Fifth Scholar, and myself (Kas is on there 3 times, and TUO twice, though maybe that's not fully up to date). I'd also like to sign up for another MR slot, since folks enjoyed the rules I just ran.
  20. Araris Valerian
    Committee members are listed on the first post of the thread, and you also should include the mods, who are myself, Elandera, Elbereth, wilson, and Striker. Just shoot us a PM. Kas and I are generally the most active reviewers.
  21. Araris Valerian
    Honestly, the best part of this game was watching how confident people were in totally wrong assumptions .
  22. Araris Valerian
    Yeah, go ahead and send it to committee. Normally we’d run an LG next, but it will probably take a bit to sort that out, so we could try to do yours in the meantime.
  23. Araris Valerian
    I for one will be sad to see you go. Cadcom does have a QF he’s been wanting to run, so we might be able to set that up for you.
  24. Araris Valerian
    Docs are posted now.
  25. Araris Valerian
    Writeup to come later (or to be written by players, if they so desire) - The Inception Faction (Kas, Cadcom, Coffee) has been destroyed by the Reckoners! The Three MuskeTators (TUA, Ash, Kidpen) have won! RBM was an Independent Epic that failed to remove another faction (and was killed as a result). Thank you everyone for playing! I'd love to hear thoughts on the rules. I've put some into the spec doc (which is short and mostly my own ramblings), but I'll post more comprehensive thoughts here later. Vote Count: Cadcom(4): RBM, TUA, Kidpen, Ash RBM (3): Kas, Cadcom, Coffee Player List: Docs and Spreadsheets:
×
×
  • Create New...