Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin
- Certainly it's important for the GM to explain what is going to happen. I think that's reasonable.
- If people are willing to change their night actions based on chatter that happens during the night cycle, I think that is an unfair advantage. It also doesn't happen very often.
- I don't know of any game where a gm has refused to take a conditional order. For example, the "seer" might send three names, and say the player with the least amount of votes at the end of the day is his target. There is no limit to how creative people could get with these. Bodyguard: "I wish to protect myself, unless a) I am one of the top two vote-getters or b) somebody reveals as the seer. If a) then protect player x, if b) protect player z."
|
Good points. However, in the second case I wasn't really thinking about night chatter as much as I was thinking about what Alan did in this game -- struggle with a decision for a long time, then decide to change his mind in the morning. Although that is a downside of the night chatter, as you say.
The problem with conditional orders though is that the order giver has to know which conditions are going to come up, though. WW games are so dynamic that it's really hard to anticipate all the possibilities. A main element also involves reading people to try to evaluate them based on their actions. There really isn't a way to code, "Guard Alan if he makes a post that says <
> because that indicates he might be the seer." I think elements like that are often more important than easy to quantify and condition things like vote counts.