webdiplomacy.net

damo666 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:20 pm

Durga wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:14 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:46 pm

Good to see some of the old crew signing up.

I'm surprised none of you have questions about the setup yet, but that's fine.

You're assuming we've bothered reading the set up

Is it a requirement?

It is entirely up to you whether you read the setup or not. Reading your role PMs, when they come out, is expected of you.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:37 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:20 pm

Durga wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:14 pm

You're assuming we've bothered reading the set up

Is it a requirement?

It is entirely up to you whether you read the setup or not. Reading your role PMs, when they come out, is expected of you.

Ha

1. summit_fever
2. Hellenic Riot
3. MoscowFleet
4. Durga
5. bozo
6. Yoyo
7. damo666
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. worcej
15.
16.
17. bo
18.
19.
20.
21.

Subs:

I. HB
II.
III. Chaqa

1. summit_fever
2. Hellenic Riot
3. MoscowFleet
4. Durga
5. bozo
6. Yoyo
7. damo666
8. Rdrivera2005
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. worcej
15.
16.
17. bo
18.
19.
20.
21.

Subs:

I. HB
II.
III. Chaqa

1. summit_fever
2. Hellenic Riot
3. MoscowFleet
4. Durga
5. bozo
6. Yoyo
7. damo666
8. Rdrivera2005
9. Vecna
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. worcej
15.
16.
17. bo
18.
19.
20.
21.

Subs:

I. HB
II.
III. Chaqa

10 spots left.

Confident we'll be good for a Sunday start.

Jamiet, for the actual game thread, I hope you can sort the roles by flavor & faction, instead of alphabetical

1. summit_fever
2. Hellenic Riot
3. MoscowFleet
4. Durga
5. bozo
6. Yoyo
7. damo666
8. Rdrivera2005
9. Vecna
10. BunnyGone
11.
12.
13.
14. worcej
15.
16.
17. bo
18.
19.
20.
21.

Subs:

I. HB
II.
III. Chaqa

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:23 pm

Two final notes:

Yes EMC is allowed to sign up if he wants.

This setup has been fully reviewed and Council-approved. However I am sure you will have questions so feel free to put them here too.

In the partially open description when someone has 0-1 listed multiple times, can that player have multiple powers? For example can Sara Lowes be a Virginal Innocent Child?

BunnyGo wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:23 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:23 pm

Two final notes:

Yes EMC is allowed to sign up if he wants.

This setup has been fully reviewed and Council-approved. However I am sure you will have questions so feel free to put them here too.

In the partially open description when someone has 0-1 listed multiple times, can that player have multiple powers? For example can Sara Lowes be a Virginal Innocent Child?

No, bunny... But wouldn't that be wild!

The description demonstrates that the position will be ONE of the grouped roles. I.e. there will be either a virgin OR an inno child.

Strongman description?

'recieved' ?

Can MH and JL both be lie detectors?

What are the limits of research on the Lie Detector's question?

If I am scum and I have claimed VT and I say "I would never claim VT as scum," does that return false, since it's demonstrably false in this game? If I am town and make that claim, I don't assume you're going to go verify that through numerous other games, so what will the response be?

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:54 pm

Strongman description?

Oh sorry, that's missing as it's a very standard role. But I should have included it.

I intend to use the standard Strongman with no tweaks. That is, when they use their action, the Mafia kill that night cannot be stopped by either Roleblock or any kind of Docsave or docsave-like power.

The Witch, if present, could still redirect the Strongman, which would have the effect of directing the unblockable Mafia kill onto a different target.

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:54 pm

'recieved' ?

You are DAMO666 the Spelling Cop!

That should probably be speeled "received".

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:03 pm

Can MH and JL both be lie detectors?

Yes, it is theoretically possible for Town and Mafia both to have a Lie Detector in this game.

Foxcastle wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:10 pm

What are the limits of research on the Lie Detector's question?

If I am scum and I have claimed VT and I say "I would never claim VT as scum," does that return false, since it's demonstrably false in this game? If I am town and make that claim, I don't assume you're going to go verify that through numerous other games, so what will the response be?

The phrase "I would never claim VT as scum" is not likely to produce a useful result, since it presumes future actions which cannot be verified. That is, saying "I would never do X" does not simply imply that you have not done X before, but also implies that you will not do X in the future, which it is not possible for the GM to verify as fact or fiction.

In general, claims related to a player's meta, or their motivations in previous games, are unlikely to yield satisfying results for a Lie Detector.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:28 pm

Foxcastle wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:10 pm

What are the limits of research on the Lie Detector's question?

If I am scum and I have claimed VT and I say "I would never claim VT as scum," does that return false, since it's demonstrably false in this game? If I am town and make that claim, I don't assume you're going to go verify that through numerous other games, so what will the response be?

The phrase "I would never claim VT as scum" is not likely to produce a useful result, since it presumes future actions which cannot be verified. That is, saying "I would never do X" does not simply imply that you have not done X before, but also implies that you will not do X in the future, which it is not possible for the GM to verify as fact or fiction.

In general, claims related to a player's meta, or their motivations in previous games, are unlikely to yield satisfying results for a Lie Detector.

I understand that generally, but can you clarify for cases where general statements about meta/etc that are directly and clearly contradicted by actions/facts in this game?

So in my example, the player has made a statement that is clearly false, regardless of anything they have done before or will do in the future, or their meta or any other factor. For the sake of simple logic, it should return "FALSE."

A similar example would be if mafia said "I have never rolled scum." That's also a meta question that includes their entire game history—which you should not have to go look up as GM, obviously—but it's clearly disprovable in the current game.

However, the counter example of "I always claim VT as scum" would be indeterminate for the sake of the GM not having to look up old games.

If your answer is that questions regarding a players behavior, self-assessment, statements about themselves, or whatever are always going to be indeterminate (even if they can be clearly proved on way or the other by the facts at hand in this game), that's fine, it just needs to be clear so that when someone tries something clever, Town doesn't run off a cliff because they didn't realize the question was out of bounds.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:22 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:54 pm

Strongman description?

Oh sorry, that's missing as it's a very standard role. But I should have included it.

I intend to use the standard Strongman with no tweaks. That is, when they use their action, the Mafia kill that night cannot be stopped by either Roleblock or any kind of Docsave or docsave-like power.

The Witch, if present, could still redirect the Strongman, which would have the effect of directing the unblockable Mafia kill onto a different target.

Can bodyguard stop it (redirect it)?