Octopus Overlords

Discussion also provides cover for Merlin to let us know stuff. I'm not sure how he'd do that without giving himself away, but at least there is the opportunity.

I'm kind of struggling with what methodology to use here. It seems like the length of the game is insufficient to apply most systematic alignment identification methods. Though maybe the answer is that determining alignment isn't the village objective, it's to get quests passed.

stessier wrote:Discussion also provides cover for Merlin to let us know stuff. I'm not sure how he'd do that without giving himself away, but at least there is the opportunity.

erlinMay ouyay ancay ommunicatecay ithway emay singuay histay odecay.

stessier wrote:Would it break anything if we required Team Evil to give you their Quest Outcome when they give you their Quest Vote? It's not like they can openly discuss whether or not o ank, so predeciding the Outcome would not seem to be detrimental to their cause while letting us speed things up.

People are welcome to pre-load questing choices while voting, as long as they cover all contingencies.

RMC wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Maybe there's more information to be gleaned by just asking RMC to form a team and then debating afterwards? Just thinking about this from RMC's perspective - if he's a wolf he would presumably want to include one (and probably only one) wolf, and would presumably want to articulate some reason for including the particular members (though at this point a shrug and a vague reason would probably suffice).

In other words, who RMC proposes and why seems like potentially helpful information.

I am not a wolf, but I can do the shrug and vague reason. Also, Remus is almost always evil, so I will not include him.

Everyone else is fair game.

That's horrible planning. If true regarding me then you would want to include me early (like it currently is) to get a feel for where I stand while a failure costs us little. We need to identify all the evils and if you leave me as a guessing game that only hampers team good.

Remus West wrote:These images do not open at work for me. I assume they show a success or you'd be asking Guapo for his scan choice? Also, do they show the break down succeed/fail?

The first is a SUCCESS image. Since the quest was a success on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th quest, there's no need to show a choice count; those quests fail unless everyone chooses SUCCESS. If the quest had failed, I'd have shown you how many SUCCESS and how many FAILURE choices were made.

The second image shows the quest placard, this time with a shiny blue token on the first quest to indicate success in that venture. The placard shows that 4 members are required for the second quest.

The Lady of the Lake's scan has nothing to do with Success or Failure; it occurs absolutely after the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quests, regardless of other factors.

El Guapo wrote:But to confirm, there's no restriction on serving in multiple quests in succession, right (unlike in Secret Hitler elections)?

Team however you wish. This ain't Nazi Germany!

Also, not that I see any reason to reject an RMC organized team, but if a proposed team is rejected, does the initial team leader propose a new team, or does the next person in leader order organize the team?

Each Leader, in rotation, proposes a team. Failure moves the cursor to the next Leader.

If it's the former, that would mean that only the first five players would be team leaders in the game, right?

That's why it's the latter. Johnny gets to play.

Are there any other rule restrictions on team? Or can the quest organizer always pick whomever he wants?

If there are, I'm not aware of them. I'll re-skim the rules, just in case; but proceed as if there are none, which is, I think, the truth.

stessier wrote:Here appear to be the official rules - it looks like Grund copied everything. So no limits on who can be chosen for the quests.

Yes, that are the exact rulity that I using.

Holman wrote:Oh, and there's the Lady, too. Why does she only get to scan after the second quest?

Too busy admiring her purest shimmering samite in the mirror.

El Guapo wrote:One thing I'm confused about as a practical matter in getting a handle on the team building thing - why would the villagers ever reject five teams in the same phase, thus triggering an evil victory?

They wouldn't. So the mechanism is equivalent to mandatory team approval after 4-- similar (but not identical

) to the mandatory policy flip in Secret Hitler.

Maybe that's just there to make sure that the village doesn't get stuck in a Cruzian cycle of eternal deadlock.

Right. There's always, eventually, a trump card.

Or I suppose to make it more likely that Team Evil gets a chance at organizing quest(s), rather than letting the village keep cycling back around to the same team leader.

Spreads the love around. Johnny gets to play!

Well in all reality, I think I am just going to go for old team + me. They did it last time, and I know I am good, so let's see if we can win this thing for the gipper.

 Stessier, RMC, Holman, and El Guapo 
 

Let's do this

Remus West wrote:

RMC wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Maybe there's more information to be gleaned by just asking RMC to form a team and then debating afterwards? Just thinking about this from RMC's perspective - if he's a wolf he would presumably want to include one (and probably only one) wolf, and would presumably want to articulate some reason for including the particular members (though at this point a shrug and a vague reason would probably suffice).

In other words, who RMC proposes and why seems like potentially helpful information.

I am not a wolf, but I can do the shrug and vague reason. Also, Remus is almost always evil, so I will not include him.

Everyone else is fair game.

That's horrible planning. If true regarding me then you would want to include me early (like it currently is) to get a feel for where I stand while a failure costs us little. We need to identify all the evils and if you leave me as a guessing game that only hampers team good.

True, every game has a chance where you will be equal parts good or evil. You are just somehow weighted by the world as drawing evil somehow. <shrug> Side's, why mix up what might be a winning group.

RMC wrote:Well in all reality, I think I am just going to go for old team + me. They did it last time, and I know I am good, so let's see if we can win this thing for the gipper.

 Stessier, RMC, Holman, and El Guapo 
 

Let's do this

Well, that was quick!

Quest #2
You have a duty and you must discharge her! Bring Guinevere's cook a larger charger!

RMC proposes stessier, RMC, Holman, and El Guapo!
Everyone: Please PM me your vote, whether to ACCEPT or REJECT this proposed questing party!

Grundbegriff wrote:

stessier wrote:Would it break anything if we required Team Evil to give you their Quest Outcome when they give you their Quest Vote? It's not like they can openly discuss whether or not o ank, so predeciding the Outcome would not seem to be detrimental to their cause while letting us speed things up.

People are welcome to pre-load questing choices while voting, as long as they cover all contingencies.

It seems to me that the choice is rather simple. If the Quest goes forward, Evil either wants to spike it or not. What contingencies are there beyond that?

So they could vote -

• Yes for Quest and No for Quest Outcome
• Yes for Quest and Yes for Quest Outcome
• No for Quest and Yes for Quest Outcome
• No for Quest and No for Quest Outcome

I don't see any choices that branch more than that. But I guess this is just the first play through.

RMC wrote:Well in all reality, I think I am just going to go for old team + me. They did it last time, and I know I am good, so let's see if we can win this thing for the gipper.

 Stessier, RMC, Holman, and El Guapo 
 

Let's do this

I guess we're diving right in.

I brought the coconuts this time - let's do this!

stessier wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote: People are welcome to pre-load questing choices while voting, as long as they cover all contingencies.

It seems to me that the choice is rather simple. If the Quest goes forward, Evil either wants to spike it or not. What contingencies are there beyond that?

None in this game. But I was reiterating a general fact about my game moderation style; that fact governs, but is not limited by, this game; and other related games do have branching.

You would've caught the nuance if you hadn't been so preoccupied with trying (unsuccessfully) to show how much more logical you are.

stessier wrote:It seems to me that the choice is rather simple. If the Quest goes forward, Evil either wants to spike it or not. What contingencies are there beyond that?

• Yes for Quest and No for Quest Outcome
• Yes for Quest and Yes for Quest Outcome
• No for Quest and Yes for Quest Outcome
• No for Quest and No for Quest Outcome

Vote AFFIRM if the party includes these people, and then FAIL the quest, but vote AFFIRM and then let it succeed if the team consists of these folks or includes that person. If both of them are proposed, vote REJECT, but if only one, vote SUCCESS....

Let's see... 10 players groupable in batches of 3, 4, and 5... across the ACCEPT/REJECT node and the SUCCEED/FAIL node.

Hey stess! Why don't you make a spreadsheet!

Grundbegriff wrote:

stessier wrote:It seems to me that the choice is rather simple. If the Quest goes forward, Evil either wants to spike it or not. What contingencies are there beyond that?

• Yes for Quest and No for Quest Outcome
• Yes for Quest and Yes for Quest Outcome
• No for Quest and Yes for Quest Outcome
• No for Quest and No for Quest Outcome

Vote AFFIRM if the party includes these people, and then FAIL the quest, but vote AFFIRM and then let it succeed if the team consists of these folks or includes that person. If both of them are proposed, vote REJECT, but if only one, vote SUCCESS....

Let's see... 10 players groupable in batches of 3, 4, and 5... across the ACCEPT/REJECT node and the SUCCEED/FAIL node.

Hey stess! Why don't you make a spreadsheet!

I wasn't trying to speed up the game that much!

I was just looking to decrease the 24 hour wait after a Quest Party is accepted. If we require the Evil team to submit Yes/No to the party as well as Yes/No to the outcome, that would work, no?

Does anyone else think it's odd that stessier is asking how to vote down our quests?

Holman wrote:Does anyone else think it's odd that stessier is asking how to vote down our quests?

I also thought it odd that he wanted to get a totally different party after this one voted for success. It is not about rooting out the bad guys, it is about getting successful quests.

stessier wrote: Trying to choose new teams is going to be terribly hard. I don't think just adding on is the best plan. Talk about options though - this one is giving me a headache.

stessier wrote:From the Tips section at that link, it looks like a strategy is to reject a few quest teams to get a feel for whom people are willing to vote. Then you put a team together and see if they end up bad or not which lets you triangulate who's Evil and who's good.

I really don't have a better idea.

After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Chaosraven, El Guapo, Scoop20906

Pm in

bb2112 wrote:After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Because this is a way different game. Eventually you're going to have to know at least 4 (if not 5) of the 6 Good Guys and do it in only 5 guesses.

Have you ever played the bead game where there is a five color sequence and after each guess they tell you how many are right and how many are wrong, but not which is which? One way to play is as you suggest, change one at a time. The faster way to a solution is to change multiple at a time and then examine the results to see the intersections that point to the solution.

We don't have a lot of time and it's crazy to think the Good Guys are all lined up for us to walk though.

Grundbegriff wrote: RMC proposes stessier, RMC, Holman, and El Guapo

Unanimous acceptance! This game is easy!

The Quest is underway! PM me if you're Evil.

stessier wrote:

bb2112 wrote:After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Because this is a way different game. Eventually you're going to have to know at least 4 (if not 5) of the 6 Good Guys and do it in only 5 guesses.

Have you ever played the bead game where there is a five color sequence and after each guess they tell you how many are right and how many are wrong, but not which is which? One way to play is as you suggest, change one at a time. The faster way to a solution is to change multiple at a time and then examine the results to see the intersections that point to the solution.

We don't have a lot of time and it's crazy to think the Good Guys are all lined up for us to walk though.

Except that we do not need to guess the pattern only complete three quests. Right now we only need 2 quests.

As it stands I'd say we lean the original three are good or that two or more of them are evil and voted success expecting one of their compatriots to vote fail. Things could change based upon the outcome of this quest. Can evil really be content to hide for very long in a race to three when they are already one step behind?

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:

bb2112 wrote:After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Because this is a way different game. Eventually you're going to have to know at least 4 (if not 5) of the 6 Good Guys and do it in only 5 guesses.

Have you ever played the bead game where there is a five color sequence and after each guess they tell you how many are right and how many are wrong, but not which is which? One way to play is as you suggest, change one at a time. The faster way to a solution is to change multiple at a time and then examine the results to see the intersections that point to the solution.

We don't have a lot of time and it's crazy to think the Good Guys are all lined up for us to walk though.

Except that we do not need to guess the pattern only complete three quests. Right now we only need 2 quests.

Of course we do. Unless you think the Bad Guys will happily vote with us for the third quest?

stessier wrote:

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:

bb2112 wrote:After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Because this is a way different game. Eventually you're going to have to know at least 4 (if not 5) of the 6 Good Guys and do it in only 5 guesses.

Have you ever played the bead game where there is a five color sequence and after each guess they tell you how many are right and how many are wrong, but not which is which? One way to play is as you suggest, change one at a time. The faster way to a solution is to change multiple at a time and then examine the results to see the intersections that point to the solution.

We don't have a lot of time and it's crazy to think the Good Guys are all lined up for us to walk though.

Except that we do not need to guess the pattern only complete three quests. Right now we only need 2 quests.

Of course we do. Unless you think the Bad Guys will happily vote with us for the third quest?

We do not need the entire line up ever as we will always be able to omit people. We need 5 good people to lock it down. There are 6 of us. We need it mostly right but not completely. If I decide a player is Evil that happens to be Good I could still put together a winning team by getting the other Goods correct with me.

Something else we should keep in mind - the Leader doesn't need to go on a mission. I'm not sure how that might be useful but I'm sure it does some good or it wouldn't be an option. Actually, I do have a scenario - Player A is good and has identified his team but they all think him Evil. He is made leader. Rather than going on the quest he nominates the other Good players as the quest team earning a success. Not that I think about what to do when wrongly viewed as Evil or anything.

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:

bb2112 wrote:After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Because this is a way different game. Eventually you're going to have to know at least 4 (if not 5) of the 6 Good Guys and do it in only 5 guesses.

Have you ever played the bead game where there is a five color sequence and after each guess they tell you how many are right and how many are wrong, but not which is which? One way to play is as you suggest, change one at a time. The faster way to a solution is to change multiple at a time and then examine the results to see the intersections that point to the solution.

We don't have a lot of time and it's crazy to think the Good Guys are all lined up for us to walk though.

Except that we do not need to guess the pattern only complete three quests. Right now we only need 2 quests.

Of course we do. Unless you think the Bad Guys will happily vote with us for the third quest?

We do not need the entire line up ever as we will always be able to omit people. We need 5 good people to lock it down. There are 6 of us. We need it mostly right but not completely. If I decide a player is Evil that happens to be Good I could still put together a winning team by getting the other Goods correct with me.

Geez, try reading. I said we needed 4 or 5 out of 6. I never said we needed 6.

Remus West wrote:

stessier wrote:

bb2112 wrote:After having 1 successful quest we know only that either all three from the first quest are good, or that 1 or more of them and bad and voted Yes to hide their identities. Either way, why wouldn't we try to ride that wave again? Also, we have to go to 4 now, so that forces us to add someone else to the mix. RMC is as good a candidate as any. I think RMC made the right move with the party selection, but it really doesn't tell us much more than nothing at this point.

I just don't get why Stess is trying to steer us away from this path when in the Secret Hitler game this is exactly something he suggested and pushed for as a good guy.

Because this is a way different game. Eventually you're going to have to know at least 4 (if not 5) of the 6 Good Guys and do it in only 5 guesses.

Have you ever played the bead game where there is a five color sequence and after each guess they tell you how many are right and how many are wrong, but not which is which? One way to play is as you suggest, change one at a time. The faster way to a solution is to change multiple at a time and then examine the results to see the intersections that point to the solution.

We don't have a lot of time and it's crazy to think the Good Guys are all lined up for us to walk though.

Except that we do not need to guess the pattern only complete three quests. Right now we only need 2 quests.

If we had 1 wrong then I can see changing it up to try different combinations that work. We didn't. Changing it up when we had a good combination doesn't make sense.

Changing the party and then failing the quest would provide cover by spreading out the suspicion.

Cook's gonna hafta go without! Quest #2 is a FAILURE!




The members of Team Failure were: stessier, RMC, Holman, and El Guapo

The choice counts were:
FAILURE: 2
SUCCESS: 2

The Lady of the Lake will now select and scan a target by using the [accuse tag.

Feel free to trade me out with one of the suspected traitors.

Isgrimnur wrote:Feel free to trade me out with one of the suspected traitors.

Only if you promise to make Questing Great Again and build a wall between us and those evil folks to the south.

With my own two, tiny hands.

Do the quest members have anything to say? Really still unsure how to attack this game.

Scoop20906 wrote:Do the quest members have anything to say? Really still unsure how to attack this game.

Well, It wasn't me that caused us to fail.

TWO failure votes?

That means someone on the first quest team (or at least one someone) was a bad guy already.

The bads don't have a secret forum in this game, right? They can't coordinate?

Maybe now is the time to dump this team and start fresh.