Arcthurus wrote:You're assuming they're gonna fight. What if they don't?
Arcthurus wrote:My point with that is suddenly if you're not involved in the group where double betray happened, it becomes less of a problem and imperative to enforce this 'rule' of never betraying. It becomes an issue between those people to really solve amongst themselves, while the group keeps mind of it and uses that information for the rest of the game influencing how they view that person and hence how they vote. Which is arguably a completely valid thing because if you betray, you do accept that people will view you with some level of suspicion at the very least.
Another thought experiment is, what do you do if neither of two people admit to be the betrayer? Are you gonna kill both anyways to ensure the 'rule' is followed through? Are you killing one innocent person just to nullify a risk? Assume you can't tell who is more trustworthy, they're both well-mannered, etc.
Arcthurus wrote:And would you accept being hypothetically killed as a casualty if your partner betrayed simply because you were their partner and can't prove your vote? And in IRL, would you accept having your own chances of escape jeopardized, potentially betrayed, for the same reasons?
Hawkwing425 wrote:One way I've tried to stop myself from playing the same characters over and over is to wait for my role to pick a character. Hal, as my first character, was an exception because he's one of my "main" characters, and I wanted to playtest his personality. Despite not living for more than an hour in-game, I did get a few things out of that game for me to look into that I had overlooked before, such as how Hal acts when genuinely angry and how willing to kill he really is. Villik was chosen for the Vision role because, funny enough, they're my only seer out of all hundred-or-so characters. I actually had absolutely no personality for them and based it off of the stats and abilities I got, as well as the little blurb at the top of the initial role card. They were definitely a cooperative type if only because they started as a massive pushover and then entered their Good Route.
Also, what's the Renaissance?
Nellyfox wrote:So the first thing I want to point out is Chubby is wrong; people aren't attacking betrayers anymore because no one is really betraying anymore. He's also incorrect when he said Munch got attacked twice for betraying; this isn't the case, as in UaS Munch attacked me for betraying him and so I attacked him in return in self-defense. Watch your step!
Cyantic wrote:tenmyoldy betrays really frequently as does most of the cast of VLR - and he has really strong, solid reasons to do so which i feel is probably a good example of what the AB game should be. he knows the world is ruined, he knows that he brought his kid into this, and he wants to get his kid out no matter what to return to his life. sure the world's ruined, and he knows this knowledge will probably get out to people who don't know this, and who knows how they'll react. probably pretty poorly! THAT is good, strong reasons to betray which makes him betraying not actually an evil act - he's by all rights one of the good characters in the game. it's just that his reasons make it complicated and difficult which make it fun.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests