Friday, January 25, 2019

Proposal: Accusations

Self-killed. Failed by pokes.

Adminned at 26 Jan 2019 13:43:58 UTC

Create a new rule, “Accusation” with the text:

The number of allowed Accusations is 1.

If a Detective has done so fewer times in this dynasty than the number of allowed Accusations, they may publish an Accusation, which is a blog post that describes a Possibility for each of the four Qualities of the Murder. Within 48 hours, the Chief shall comment on that post stating how many of the Qualities the Detective got correct. If a Detective has submitted an Accusation and all four Qualities are correct, they have achieved victory.

If no player can publish an Accusation, the Chief can amend this rule to increment the number of allowed Accusations by 1.

When a player joins or deidles, for the purposes of this rule, they are considered to have published a number of Accusations equal to the number of allowed Accusations, minus 1.

This seems like a natural way to discover the victor, but if you all want to make it something else to avoid copying the board game Clue in its entirety, that’s fine.

posted by Trigon at 25 Jan 2019 00:57:00 UTC Comments (8)

Comments

Allo:

25-01-2019 02:21:26 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2019 08:54:39 UTC

Always important to focus the pedantry lens when a victory condition is up for voting, and “a blog post that describes a Possibility for each of the four Qualities of the Murder” looks a little vague. Would “the Murderer’s name contains a vowel” or “the Method is either Candlestick or Rope” be accepted as a correct description of a possibility?

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2019 11:25:08 UTC

against on those grounds. Would also clarify that the final paragraph doesn’t apply to detectives who idle and unidle within the dynasty.

More broadly, should accusations be public? Is it fun or frustrating if a player (who knows nothing except that Colonel Mustard is 100% the murderer) can piggyback off of another’s failed accusation by swapping out one fact?

Trigon:

25-01-2019 15:56:11 UTC

[Kevan] I agree that the first two are problems that should be ironed out before this goes anywhere. However, I do feel the need to explain making them public. It’s supposed to serve the purpose of raising the stakes so that people would have to be absolutely certain they knew everything before admitting they knew anything. If you jump the gun a little bit, you might just give someone the little bit of extra information they need to beat you.

Trigon:

25-01-2019 15:58:28 UTC

This also gives alliances another advantage: they have multiple guesses as a collective. So they are allowed to have minor errors. To could just have someone submit one thing and have another person submit another thing.

derrick: he/him

25-01-2019 17:04:16 UTC

against

for reasons of pedantry.

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2019 18:52:35 UTC

[Trigon] “Absolutely certain” is harder to get to now that 10% of clues are red herrings, and there’s currently no easy way to double-check a Method or Motive. I can see an endgame where someone is 95% certain due to red herrings, and can’t risk a guess as it would give so much information away.

But there’s plenty of Nomic left.

Trigon:

25-01-2019 19:09:40 UTC

[Kevan] Hmmm, that is a very good point that I hadn’t thought of before.

Gonna s/k this. against I was planning on doing it already since this is broken and I need to think how to fix it.