Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:45 am**

Assuming the Stess, El G, Holman party is voted as a go. The three of them vote for success or failure of the quest, then the results we get back in the main thread is the quest either Passed or Failed. We don't know exactly how the individual quest members voted or even in total how many voted to pass vs how many voted to fail. Only that it passed or failed. Is this correct?

Based on the highlighted passages from El G, that is how I read it, but just want to make sure.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:52 am**

bb2112 wrote:Assuming the Stess, El G, Holman party is voted as a go. The three of them vote for success or failure of the quest, then the results we get back in the main thread is the quest either Passed or Failed. We don't know exactly how the individual quest members voted or even in total how many voted to pass vs how many voted to fail. Only that it passed or failed. Is this correct?

Based on the highlighted passages from El G, that is how I read it, but just want to make sure.

Almost, but not quite. Grund will announce how many voted to pass vs. how many voted to fail:

B.2. After a designated time has passed, the Moderator will announce how many SUCCESS votes and how many FAILURE votes occurred.

This has to be the case, incidentally, as requiring the wolves to out themselves in order to stop a quest would make their job essentially impossible. Not that it's going to be easy for the villagers to identify the wolves either. Kind of seems like a game of Mastermind - we get different combinations of players and see the results and try to use that to deduce alignment (aided by scans). Or something like that anyway.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:52 am**

The phrase "if a quest fails" is ambiguous between

A: If the organization of a quest fails
AND
B: If the execution of a quest fails

I answered A by saying that voters and their votes will be revealed by person.
Now I'll answer B: quest execution votes will not be revealed by person, since that would expose alignments and eliminate the point of the game.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:56 am**

bb2112 wrote:...then the results we get back in the main thread is the quest either Passed or Failed. We don't know exactly how the individual quest members voted or even in total how many voted to pass vs how many voted to fail. Only that it passed or failed. Is this correct?

No, it is not correct.

Everyone will see the votes, but the votes will not be mapped to voters.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:03 am**

Okay - now that we have that straight....

stessier, El Guapo, Holman

Let us sally forth and slay that which must be slayed, loot that which must be looted, and puzzle out that which must be puzzled! Or something.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:04 am**

Grundbegriff wrote:
bb2112 wrote:...then the results we get back in the main thread is the quest either Passed or Failed. We don't know exactly how the individual quest members voted or even in total how many voted to pass vs how many voted to fail. Only that it passed or failed. Is this correct?
No, it is not correct.

Everyone will see the votes, but the votes will not be mapped to voters.

So if the party of Stess, El G, and Holman go on the quest, we see how many of the three voted Yes and how many voted No for the quest to succeed. As El G said, to make it more of a game of mastermind.

I think I understand now. Sorry for causing the confusion, but this wasn't clear to me.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:16 am**

No worries. You know the old classroom maxim: if you had the question, then it's likely someone else was also unsure.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:18 am**

stessier wrote:Okay - now that we have that straight....

stessier, El Guapo, Holman

Everyone: Please PM me your vote, whether to ACCEPT or REJECT this proposed questing party!

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:43 pm**

Chaosraven, RMC

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:58 pm**

Grundbegriff wrote:Chaosraven, RMC

They decided not to go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:59 pm**

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:00 pm**

T.H. White wrote:"Nice day," said Sir Grummore.

"Yes, it is nice, isn't it, what?"

"Been questin' today?"

"Oh, yes, thank you. Always am questing, you know. After the Questing Beast."

"Interestin' job, that, very."

"Yes, it is interesting. Would you like to see some fewmets?"

"By Jove, yes. Like to see some fewmets."

"I have some better ones at home, but these are quite good, really."

"Bless my soul. So these are her fewmets."

"Yes, these are her fewmets."

"Interestin' fewmets."

"Yes, they are interesting, aren't they? Only you get tired of them," added King Pellinore.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:15 pm**

So... 24 hours for party votes, too? Or automatic REJECT after a shorter time? Or automatic NO VOTE? Or?

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:28 pm**

Maybe an automatic ABSTAIN after 24 hours if it won't affect the vote outcome (with an understanding that good play means not exploiting this rule to avoid commitment).

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:48 pm**

We're Knights of the Round Table! We game whene'er we're able....

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:56 pm**

Grundbegriff wrote:We're Knights of the Round Table! We game whene'er we're able....

Sorry, been a long day. Vote is in.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:10 pm**

Huzzah!

Everyone voted ACCEPT. I guess we're all Loyal Servants of Arthur!

The 1st questing party consists of stessier, El Guapo, and Holman. Now... the wait begins....

If you are stessier, El Guapo, or Holman, and you are Good, do nothing. Your vote is automatic.

If you are stessier, El Guapo, or Holman, and you are Evil, you must decide whether the quest will SUCCEED or FAIL, and you must PM me your choice within 24 hours of this moment, no matter what that choice is! If you fail to PM me, your vote will default to FAIL.

If all relevant Evils (if any) PM me well before 24 hours have passed, I may choose to expedite the time and move the game forward, since nothing is actually pending. If I do this, I'll randomize the period so that no inferences may be drawn on the basis of forum participation, presence, or work schedules.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:42 pm**

FWIW, when teaching this game in person, I found using the term "Vote" only to describe the process for determining teams, and "Quest Outcome" for determining success/failure of the quests helps to better clarify gameplay for newer players. In my experience, using "vote" for both just muddies the waters and causes unnecessary confusion.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:03 pm**

Thanks

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:31 pm**

Anonymous Bosch wrote:FWIW, when teaching this game in person, I found using the term "Vote" only to describe the process for determining teams, and "Quest Outcome" for determining success/failure of the quests helps to better clarify gameplay for newer players. In my experience, using "vote" for both just muddies the waters and causes unnecessary confusion.

Thank you!

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:35 pm**

Danka

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:13 pm**

And....

The next Leader is RMC.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:40 pm**

BTW, that announcement happened fast because (a) all the conditions were satisfied, and (b) I do whatever the Random tells me.

Here's my Quest Announcement system in pseudo-code:

Code: Select all

    do {
        if (NoEvilOnTeam OR (LastEvilHasContactedMe)) {
            Roll a 24-sided die to determine how many hours from QuestStart to wait;
            break;
        }
    } while (now < QuestStart + 24Hours);

If we actually reach (now >= QuestStart + 24), I announce with defaults.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:49 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:34 am**

So who wants in on team rmc?

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:28 am**

RMC wrote:So who wants in on team rmc?

Now we need 4. Can't we just pick the same team + RMC?

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:14 am**

Grundbegriff wrote:And....

The next Leader is RMC.

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?

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:15 am**

Good start. Given the success I don't think that we have learned a lot about alignment, right? If there are any evil players on the team then they voted for success to better stay hidden, but I don't think we have any information yet on whether any one on the team did that.

So, having thought this through, I can tell you that stessier and Holman each may or may not be good. That's why they pay me the big bucks.

Though I guess the villagers here, even more than in Secret Hitler (where the villagers can win by identifying and executing Hitler), only have an interest in determining alignment as a means to an end (i.e. succeeding at quests). Whereas the wolves are both interested in failing quests and at identifying a role (Merlin) as an end in and of itself.

Quest 1 - stessier (leader), El Guapo, Holman - Success
Quest 2 - ??? - ???
Quest 3- ??? - ???
Quest 4- ??? - ???
Quest 5 - ??? - ???

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:16 am**

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?

They do show a success. However, the Lady of the Lake scan is not dependent quest outcome (unless I missed something) - it happens automatically after Quest 2 (and 3 and 4).

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:22 am**

bb2112 wrote:
RMC wrote:So who wants in on team rmc?
Now we need 4. Can't we just pick the same team + RMC?

As far as I can tell there aren't many rule limitations on team choice. But to confirm, there's no restriction on serving in multiple quests in succession, right (unlike in Secret Hitler elections)?

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

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

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:13 am**

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

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.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:24 am**

I'm still trying get my head around what we can do to identify the bad guys. There's Merlin, but he wants to stay hidden. There's the Mastermind process of elimination, but we don't have many rounds. What else is there?

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:26 am**

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

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:27 am**

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.

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.

That's helpful, thanks. One of my questions is answered there - if a team is rejected, the team organizer role passes to the next in line, and they propose a new team (so if for some reason we rejected RMC's team, then Holman would get to pick).

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? It's not like Secret Hitler where the good team can lose control of the vote through executions - the village will always have a majority vote. It seems like once you get to four failed votes, voting to reject a fifth time is voting for a certain loss. Maybe that's just there to make sure that the village doesn't get stuck in a Cruzian cycle of eternal deadlock. 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.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:27 am**

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

This lake is super comfortable, so I would rather not get out of it and go scan unless I really have to.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:30 am**

Holman wrote:I'm still trying get my head around what we can do to identify the bad guys. There's Merlin, but he wants to stay hidden. There's the Mastermind process of elimination, but we don't have many rounds. What else is there?

It seems like the main dynamic would likely be Merlin trying to communicate what he knows to the village without tipping off the bad guys, supplemented by limited quest result information.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:38 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:43 am**

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.

Yeah, I saw that too. Though for the most part I don't see much in the way of articulable reasons to oppose anyone right now, which seems to make the whole exercise artificial. If we reject a few slates just to get information, it seems like wolves could explain any vote later by saying "well, we were rejecting people to get information."

Seems like the main question is just whether we include most or all of the Quest 1 team (who may be slightly more likely to be good) or whether we swap in one or more other people (where we might get more information, but at the risk of swapping in a wolf for a villager). Right?

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:46 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:51 am**

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.

Octopus Overlords

The Resistance: Avalon (Game Over)

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon

Re: The Resistance: Avalon