Re: ESPIONAGE: A brand new simple forum game! (Central Rules & Information Topic)
Posted: March 4th, 2014, 10:50 pm
Prior to proceeding to Round 4, we have to decide if we're in for the following:
1) Whether or not to go with the earlier proposal that the Detective is always on your list, somewhere. This opens up some potentially undesirable avenues, but it may be the solution to everything. Pros: Lists are easily shareable and it preserves the end-game domination of the Spy, because the Spy/Informants being on the list is in no way discernible. Cons: Knowing that a list of players is definitely not the Detective may in some way impact the flow of the game.
2) Lists are fully shareable at any time. However, since the lists only concern the Detective, it's incredibly inadvisable to share them. Once the Detective dies, there's no issue with sharing the lists because the Spy being included is inconsequential and random.
3) We decide one way or the other whether votes should be visible or not. Pros: Civilians voting for people reveals who is on their list, thus potentially giving some info to the Spy as to who may or may not be the Detective. Cons: The Spy and Informants can easily arrest anyone they want, secretly, in the early phases since they'll be the most coordinated. My opinion: Leave them visible and see how it goes.
4) Assassinate is in for Informants. This is a one-time-use ability that can be used once per game by one Informant. If one Informant uses the ability successfully, it cannot be used by a different Informant later.
5) Exactly which solution to go with in order to change Investigate. Current version would have it that the Detective chooses 3 players. The GM then returns ONE "non-spy" result at random from those three, but will never specifically say that someone is the Spy. A further recommendation is that once someone has been deemed a non-spy, they cannot be sent in again for an Investigate. If they are included again, that person will always be sent back as the non-spy result, yet again. This resolves the need for limits, I believe.
1) Whether or not to go with the earlier proposal that the Detective is always on your list, somewhere. This opens up some potentially undesirable avenues, but it may be the solution to everything. Pros: Lists are easily shareable and it preserves the end-game domination of the Spy, because the Spy/Informants being on the list is in no way discernible. Cons: Knowing that a list of players is definitely not the Detective may in some way impact the flow of the game.
2) Lists are fully shareable at any time. However, since the lists only concern the Detective, it's incredibly inadvisable to share them. Once the Detective dies, there's no issue with sharing the lists because the Spy being included is inconsequential and random.
3) We decide one way or the other whether votes should be visible or not. Pros: Civilians voting for people reveals who is on their list, thus potentially giving some info to the Spy as to who may or may not be the Detective. Cons: The Spy and Informants can easily arrest anyone they want, secretly, in the early phases since they'll be the most coordinated. My opinion: Leave them visible and see how it goes.
4) Assassinate is in for Informants. This is a one-time-use ability that can be used once per game by one Informant. If one Informant uses the ability successfully, it cannot be used by a different Informant later.
5) Exactly which solution to go with in order to change Investigate. Current version would have it that the Detective chooses 3 players. The GM then returns ONE "non-spy" result at random from those three, but will never specifically say that someone is the Spy. A further recommendation is that once someone has been deemed a non-spy, they cannot be sent in again for an Investigate. If they are included again, that person will always be sent back as the non-spy result, yet again. This resolves the need for limits, I believe.