Quote:
Originally Posted by Abe Sargent
I agree, but I don;t think the events are as anti this as you might think. For example, take the On the Steps event.
I could have just done this:
Day Action, Sympathizers:
On the Steps of the Courthouse: Once, during the game, you may take a Day Action to kill any ally.
Same thing. Mechanically, both are abilities to kill an ally once. For storyline reasons, I wanted the event to occur after Sid was an ally, because that is when it happened irl. But I wanted the Sympathizers to have a choice, so that was given to them, instead of just killing Sid off automatically.
The kill events were meant to supplement the low number of kills the Symapthizers had and to keep the game going, not as punishment. They were just a different way to keep the game from getting stale.
|
Actually you're only proving my point. You could have given the Sympathizers the choice of which ally to kill. But you didn't. You made the choice for them. You wanted it to be a certain way and so it was a certain way. Perhaps, they would have felt more threatened by Mother Jones and would want to see her offed. That seems like a legitimate gameplay decision on the sympathizers part. But they didn't have to make that choice. Their choice was going to be made for them down the road. Giving the sympathizers that ability is not at all the same as having it happen automatically. You wanted the game to reflect history. It did. The union had a just cause, but never really stood a chance, things looked good for them only because of some dumb luck (what are the odds that Pass is both a wolf AND that I'm the duke? AND that Poli protects the right person?), while the system was structured to give the sympathizers a huge leg up.