Discussion Forums > Forum/Thread Games
Tiffany's Murdergame - Round Five: Vampires, Rapists, Revivals, oh my.
harpy:
^^ well I got a bit different impression from the hint, but eh, its just me, I never get things right...I was kind of dead for a few days after all...
so I will just go with the ex-popular vote - Soulreaper77, as shabutie was the one talking about revenging my death...even if he was the one who killed me :D
I wonder why the murder/rape victims do not get any kind of hints of to who their murderer could be, well hints in case they are resurrected not hints they can tell if they are not resurrected. Then all that resurrection stuff would make a bit more sense and slim down the chance of bad guys winning again....but then again, the bad guys would have almost no chance of winning so I guess not having any additional hints is good and makes playing more fun...thou I never get all that hint stuff anyhow :D
SeventyX7:
Eh?
The brainwashed know who the succubus is.
Anyways, the bad guys aren't going to win this round. The deck looks like it's stacked pretty hard in favor of the protectors.
The protectors and vigilante are harder to take down than any of the bad guys and they don't need to eliminate a dozen and a half people to win.
Honestly, if the Grand Inquisitor, Inquisitor, and Vigilante just came out and revealed their identities, it would be an instant-win for the innocents. The odds are heavily against the killers winning the rolls required against these 3.
Tiffanys:
--- Quote ---Tiffany is it legal to pm you from the torrent tracker instead of the forums?
--- End quote ---
This is a forum game, not a tracker game. I didn't even know there were tracker pm's, well alone check them... I never look at the tracker.
Also, I didn't reassign any roles. But, I have had to automate a few moves thus far.
--- Quote ---Honestly, if the Grand Inquisitor, Inquisitor, and Vigilante just came out and revealed their identities, it would be an instant-win for the innocents. The odds are heavily against the killers winning the rolls required against these 3.
--- End quote ---
If they choose to, they can. They can't provide any proof of it, they can just blindly claim it. People can't ask them to prove it by making certain actions and they can't claim prove it by doing certain actions. To be clear, you couldn't for instance say "I'm the Grand Inquisitor, I'll question so-and-so tonight so you know for sure I'm telling the truth." That'd fall under breaching that rule and that player would be disqualified. It's just not fair and ruins the spirit of the game. But hey, if people want to argue over saying they're the roles or not and let people decide for themselves to believe it or not and try to just bs their way with some kinda explanation for their past choices, then it's fair game. Of course, if the other person claiming to be the GI for instance got questioned... it's pretty much game over for that person. So, it could be pretty risky. Though I guess something like Vigilante or Tertiary Adjunct or even Lt. Adjunct would be less risky to claim to be, were one to claim something.
In other words, anyone, even someone that isn't really a protector or vigilante could claim to be one.
Anywho, I think your count is wrong Borror0. Here's the count I have...
Soulreaper77: 6 (saidin1015, 1000mAh, Klocknov, Meomix, TightMuffin, harpy)
vuzedome: 1 (flyawave)
Meomix: 1 (Arc Da Rat)
shabutie: 5 (suhaib, Borror0, SeventyX7, vuzedome, Kyrdua)
2 hours left.
Borror0:
--- Quote from: Tiffanys on February 14, 2011, 02:32:42 AM ---Anywho, I think your count is wrong Borror0. Here's the count I have...
--- End quote ---
saidin1015 edited his post over six hours later to add his vote - an hour after my latest count - instead of posting again.
That's why he's missing from my count.
saidin1015:
--- Quote from: Tiffanys on February 14, 2011, 02:32:42 AM ---Also, I didn't reassign any roles. But, I have had to automate a few moves thus far.
--- End quote ---
I get the feeling that all players that are even slightly inactive or were inactive at the beginning are about to get systematically boxed by voting.
--- Quote from: Borror0 on February 14, 2011, 02:36:54 AM ---
--- Quote from: Tiffanys on February 14, 2011, 02:32:42 AM ---Anywho, I think your count is wrong Borror0. Here's the count I have...
--- End quote ---
saidin1015 edited his post over six hours later to add his vote - an hour after my latest count - instead of posting again.
That's why he's missing from my count.
--- End quote ---
I really should have made a new post for that. Sorry for my bad judgement.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version