My only issue with this policy is that it helps town a lot more than scum or independent players. They have no reason to contribute in that way a lot of times, and if town plays too badly to get a lynch through, why should there be repercussions for a random player? Why does town need your encouragement to do well? If they can't be bothered to get a lynch on, they don't deserve to win. Tough luck.VectorZero wrote:There was some concern over my heavyhandedness re the insisting on votes/consensus or face a random kill. I stand by this. The game was dying at that point; there had been practically no actual analysis for several ingame days and people were relying heavily on role powers to guide the lynch. Even though some roles may have benefited from ongoing disorder, I would prefer to see the game continue in a reasonable timeframe than peter out to a disinterested draw.
(I dislike the policy mostly for meta-reasons - I was technically independent in this game but I think I've been fairly pro-town. The you-must-lynch thing wasn't really in my disadvantage, but it still irks me that town gets 'help' when they mess up.)
I think it would be doable if there was at least a doctor-power among the protectors or something. It doesn't have to be easy, but a doctor or a limited cop (BG can cop someone every night to find out if they are the KH) would make this a lot more interesting.VectorZero wrote:In retrospect, I wouldn't use the BG/Corrino win conditions again. Keeping someone alive when you don't know their identity sucks.
It made sense to me. I think the A vs B & C vs D was cool, though it might've been nice if it would be more difficult to form two factions (Atreides & Fremen vs Harkonnen & Spice Addicts). That might not be doable with this flavour, but in another game with a similar set-up I would like to see roles that are A & C as well as A & D (and BC / BD). It would make for very paranoid mason/scum/whatever chat, though.VectorZero wrote:Was it truly that difficult to comprehend how the factions were oriented?