The Resistance: Avalon (Game Over)

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:02 pm

I refuse to vote for a Grund party!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:02 pm

bb2112 wrote:Can anyone explain why this was rejected? I thought Stess was pushing for a whole new party? And Scoop, why did you reject your own party? I must have missed something for 5 people to say no to a party we know nothing about.

I'm wondering that too.

I notice that El Guapo, stessier, and RMC--all tainted by suspicion--rejected this fresh party. What gives?

Could we have had THREE evils on quest #2?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:05 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:I refuse to vote for a Grund party!

That was last game.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:16 pm

Holman wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:I refuse to vote for a Grund party!
That was last game.

Oh crap. To not be a dick I still have no idea what the strategy is so I thought I'd throw a reject down to see what happened.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:52 am

bb2112 wrote:Can anyone explain why this was rejected? I thought Stess was pushing for a whole new party? And Scoop, why did you reject your own party? I must have missed something for 5 people to say no to a party we know nothing about.

I rejected it because The way it was constructed and the scan. More tomorrow. Holiday and family stuff today.

RMC · Post by **RMC** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:53 am

I wasn't sure why we didn't include Chaos in the grouping when 'supposedly' he is good. Just struck a wrong cord with me. <shrug>

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:42 am

I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:42 am

Just being careful, obviously.

bb2112 · Post by **bb2112** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:27 pm

Holman wrote:I rejected Chaosraven because his goodness depended on trusting El Guapo, who was in the tainted first and second quest party. I just went down the list to the next four players, none of whom had been in the first quests.

In other words, I set up the most untainted party possible.

I thought that was obvious and a good job by you.

I just don't get how 5 people voted it down when we had absolutely no information on those 4 whatsoever. Correction, the good guys had absolutely no information on those 4 whatsoever. The bad guys on the other hand...

As Scoop would say, I'm starting to build my dead list. That is unless someone can explain something to me that makes some sense.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:40 pm

PARTY ONE
stessier, El Guapo, Holman
All ACCEPT
(S)(S)(S) - SUCCESS

PARTY TWO
RMC, stessier, El Guapo, Holman
All ACCEPT
(S)(S)(F)(F) - FAILURE
(means at least One of PARTY ONE is EVIL)
(means at least Two of PARTY TWO are EVIL)

EL GUAPO - LoLake scans Chaosraven - reports GOOD

PARTY THREE
(Holman chooses): Isgrimnur, Moliere, Scoop20906, bb2112
Split
stessier REJECT
RMC REJECT
Holman ACCEPT
Chaosraven ACCEPT
Isgrimnur ACCEPT
Moliere ACCEPT
Scoop20906 REJECT
bb2112 ACCEPT
Remus West REJECT
El Guapo REJECT

REJECT: 5
ACCEPT: 5
No quest.

(Scoop rejects his own Party)

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:41 pm

LoLake only scans after a QUEST happens, yes?

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:42 pm

I'm not seeing on the first page what we actually ended up with G/E rolewise, or do we not know?

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:45 pm

Chaosraven wrote:LoLake only scans after a QUEST happens, yes?

Yes

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:46 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote: For example, this might be an interesting mix:

Good: Merlin, Percival, Loyal Servant, Loyal Servant, Loyal Servant, Loyal Servant

Evil: Mordrassin, Morgana, Minion, Minion
Any strong objections to this arrangement? If so, speak. If not, I'll send out roles.

Let your will be known!

This is, in fact, the actual set of roles.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:28 pm

Ok doke, thanx

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:39 pm

I'm not a good candidate for any quest. I'm not evil just don't understand this game. If I'm on a quest I won't do anything which I assume is good.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:13 pm

I propose

Isgrimnur
Moliere
bb2112
Remus West

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:38 pm

Chaos of the Lakeraven has nominated Isgrimnur, Moliere, bb2112, and Remus West as a party for Quest #3. Please send me your vote, whether you ACCEPT or REJECT.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 11:03 pm

stessier, RMC, Remus West

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 8:30 am

Rejected. Chaos and El Guapo should be part of the next team.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:01 am

Remus West

bb2112 · Post by **bb2112** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:22 am

stessier wrote:Rejected. Chaos and El Guapo should be part of the next team.

Care to explain your reasoning?

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:59 am

I would imagine that allows for either 2 S votes (both good), 1/1 split (good/evil, leaving El G as evil), or 2 F votes (El G and CR Evil companions)
However it requires 2 known G for surety.

I went for None of the Previous (leaving Scoop the Crazed out), though I understand the "test" for Myself.
Without a reveal (which would defeat the purpose of the game) on the Quest S/F votes it really is a game of Mastermind.

We know the PARTY TWO contained at least 2 of the 4 evil players.
If we can hit a combination that also has 2 more, we could get the remaining players not in those Parties confirmed GOOD.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:23 am

bb2112 wrote:Can anyone explain why this was rejected? I thought Stess was pushing for a whole new party? And Scoop, why did you reject your own party? I must have missed something for 5 people to say no to a party we know nothing about.

We don't know anything about Holman's proposed party, but we do know something (albeit not a ton) about Holman. I voted to reject primarily because: (1) there is a high chance that Holman is evil (since two of my quest 2 companions were evil); and (2) Chaosraven was next and I have the benefit of knowing that he's good, so why screw around with Holman.

I did consider voting to accept Holman's party, on the grounds that there is a reasonable chance that he's good, and because an evil Holman who expected his party to be rejected might nominate an actually all-good party. But it seems like we have a thin margin for error in this game (and I think ultimately an evil Holman would be very likely to sneak in at least one evil party member), so I couldn't see much of a reason to take a chance on his party.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:24 am

Scoop20906 wrote:I'm not a good candidate for any quest. I'm not evil just don't understand this game. If I'm on a quest I won't do anything which I assume is good.

If you are good you literally do nothing when on the quest and automatically help the village.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:29 am

Chaosraven wrote:I would imagine that allows for either 2 S votes (both good), 1/1 split (good/evil, leaving El G as evil), or 2 F votes (El G and CR Evil companions)
However it requires 2 known G for surety.

I went for None of the Previous (leaving Scoop the Crazed out), though I understand the "test" for Myself.
Without a reveal (which would defeat the purpose of the game) on the Quest S/F votes it really is a game of Mastermind.

We know the PARTY TWO contained at least 2 of the 4 evil players.
If we can hit a combination that also has 2 more, we could get the remaining players not in those Parties confirmed GOOD.

I gather this is why you didn't include yourself in the party? I was assuming that you would do that in order to lower the risk of failing quest #3.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:35 am

El Guapo wrote:
Chaosraven wrote:I would imagine that allows for either 2 S votes (both good), 1/1 split (good/evil, leaving El G as evil), or 2 F votes (El G and CR Evil companions)
However it requires 2 known G for surety.

I went for None of the Previous (leaving Scoop the Crazed out), though I understand the "test" for Myself.
Without a reveal (which would defeat the purpose of the game) on the Quest S/F votes it really is a game of Mastermind.

We know the PARTY TWO contained at least 2 of the 4 evil players.
If we can hit a combination that also has 2 more, we could get the remaining players not in those Parties confirmed GOOD.
I gather this is why you didn't include yourself in the party? I was assuming that you would do that in order to lower the risk of failing quest #3.

I don't want to be "tainted" in a Party that fails. If we can find some confirmed GOOD thru process of elimination/finding the other 2 EVIL, by including them and myself and YOU we can see if you are EVIL with a single F vote on that Quest.

But we need the other 2. At least 2 were in your Grouping.
You identify me as GOOD.
If we find more EVIL and have enough left over for "cannotcontainevil", we can have them, me, and you. If that Quest fails on one vote, you would be confirmed EVIL. Sadly a SUCCESS wouldn't confirm you as GOOD, but I would happily take that SUCCESS

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:15 am

I voted to reject. Why are we holding discussions about party construction AFTER it has been submitted rather than before? We are going to have very little to work with and the less discussion we have the less information we will have.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:17 am

Also, Chaosraven (and due to him El Guapo) have entered the "must be evil" land in my eyes. If you folks actually wait until I have time to elaborate I'll share my thinking on it.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:26 am

bb2112 ACCEPT
Chaosraven ACCEPT
El Guapo ACCEPT
Holman ACCEPT
Isgrimnur ACCEPT
Moliere ACCEPT
Remus West REJECT
RMC ACCEPT
Scoop20906 ACCEPT
stessier REJECT

ACCEPT: 8
REJECT: 2

The party is approved! Quest #3 is underway!

His Royal Highness wants a bedtime story. Go find him an autographed first edition of A Blaze of Glory!

(If you're an evil quester, PM me!)

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:29 am

Remus West wrote:I voted to reject. Why are we holding discussions about party construction AFTER it has been submitted rather than before? We are going to have very little to work with and the less discussion we have the less information we will have.

This is a good question / point.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:39 am

Wow.

So, 2 bad guys in a group of 4 players. 2 Bad guys remaining in a 6 player group. Let's choose 4 and see what happens. No chance there will be at least 1 Bad Guy in the group, right?

Geez, people, math!

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:48 am

stessier wrote:Wow.

So, 2 bad guys in a group of 4 players. 2 Bad guys remaining in a 6 player group. Let's choose 4 and see what happens. No chance there will be at least 1 Bad Guy in the group, right?

Geez, people, math!

Let's see, we either get 0 or 1 or 2.

If 2, AWESOME we found them all
If 0, unknown but hey a success!

And how do you know there were ONLY two in the early Parties?
Giving yourself away?

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:51 am

My guess: if 1 EVIL who votes F.
Remus West.

Take stessier from early larger party as EVIL and we know only 1 other based on his "slip"

So leaves 1 among others

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:54 am

Chaosraven wrote:
stessier wrote:Wow.

So, 2 bad guys in a group of 4 players. 2 Bad guys remaining in a 6 player group. Let's choose 4 and see what happens. No chance there will be at least 1 Bad Guy in the group, right?

Geez, people, math!
Let's see, we either get 0 or 1 or 2.

If 2, AWESOME we found them all
If 0, unknown but hey a success!

And how do you know there were ONLY two in the early Parties?
Giving yourself away?

Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:01 pm

stessier wrote:Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.

They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:04 pm

Moliere wrote:
stessier wrote:Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.
They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.

And how would they pick the one?

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:09 pm

stessier wrote:
Moliere wrote:
stessier wrote:Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.
They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.
And how would they pick the one?

They wouldn't pick the one. Again, logic would say that with 3 evils in a group at least one of them will vote to fail so a 3rd could hold back. In this case 2 people voted to fail. My point is that just because 2 voted to fail doesn't mean there wasn't a 3rd evil in the group.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:15 pm

Moliere wrote:
stessier wrote:
Moliere wrote:
stessier wrote:Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.
They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.
And how would they pick the one?
They wouldn't pick the one. Again, logic would say that with 3 evils in a group at least one of them will vote to fail so a 3rd could hold back. In this case 2 people voted to fail. My point is that just because 2 voted to fail doesn't mean there wasn't a 3rd evil in the group.

Logic in no way suggests that at all.

RMC · Post by **RMC** » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:17 pm

stessier wrote:
Moliere wrote:
stessier wrote:
Moliere wrote:
stessier wrote:Because Evil can't communicate. Because after Evil passed in Round 1, they had to spike Round 2 or risk being 1 Success from failure. So everyone Evil had to vote Fail lest everyone vote Success. Again, simple math.
They can't communicate, but they know who the others are. Logic seems to say that if there are 3 Evils in the group one can hold back assuming at least one of the two remaining will Fail the quest. In other words, we don't know how many evil are in that group.
And how would they pick the one?
They wouldn't pick the one. Again, logic would say that with 3 evils in a group at least one of them will vote to fail so a 3rd could hold back. In this case 2 people voted to fail. My point is that just because 2 voted to fail doesn't mean there wasn't a 3rd evil in the group.
Logic in no way suggests that at all.

Maybe not logic, but I can certainly see one of team evil sandbagging, and taking the chance that one of the other two would choose to fail the quest.

The goal is to make us think that you are on team good, while really on team evil so that we pick you to quest. Not sure how this works in this format. There are no 'tells' like when you play face to face.