Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith
I am not pretending to fully understand the rules, but I'm not clear on how this any different to deciding against having a lynching on the first day?
|
My point is, most of all, that it doesn't have to be even just for the first Day. That's why I suggested to discuss this. We could, theoretically, keep doing it indefinitely - or at least until the situation would shift dramatically (e.g. we'd start losing Gifteds and so on. Although I just realised that has its own problems, such as that we don't know the roles of the dead, right?). But see also below in my reply to
Zil...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
But don't the baddies still get their evil whispering in the meantime?
|
They would. But the point of this was to minimalise the damage. According to the rules, the innocents can win just by surviving (as
Sally now specified, five Days), providing there are more of them than Wolves and they have at least one of the Gifted still alive. Five Days, that's five Wolf-kills. If they don't kill the Gifteds (or at most one), and of course if nobody gets modfired (which could be the biggest concern), that leaves five people alive, out of which only two are Wolves. It is close, of course (and I guess that was the point so that the game remais balanced - btw good job,
Sally, in any case), but given that we also have effectively two "Rangers", there is quite some chance that it might work out.
Basically what I am offering for discussion is: is it more dangerous for us to start lynching people (given that in this game, we do
not have the traditional voting pattern to rely on and on top of everything, we do
not know what was the dead person's role!!) and therefore the win-condition for us practically would become that we have to bag a Wolf (or preferrably both) to win; or, to not lynch people on our own and just let the WWs do the process of thinning the numbers of villagers; but if they don't manage to kill both Gifteds, they are guaranteed to lose.
I simply think this would be an interesting point to discuss, if nothing else.
Otherwise: I suggest we really do cast votes for the person we want as Representative as well as some "unofficial" votes (for example just boldened) for who we would like to see lynched (and we can do it even if we later decide not to lynch anyone in the end. It will lose the point of course, but better to have it than not to have it, anyway. It is still something that tells something about people's thinking, even if they were lying).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
Ah, again I think not doing so would reflect poorly on the rep.
|
Unless we decided that they should do so (that was the question in that particular case).