Prague (Planning)

[El Guapo]

The concept is intriguing, but my reservations are: (1) it might give me PTSD from the logic games section of the LSAT; (2) I am concerned that playing this well would become too much like work.

[Grundbegriff]

The concept is intriguing, but my reservations are: (1) it might give me PTSD from the logic games section of the LSAT; (2) I am concerned that playing this well would become too much like work.

(a) The puzzle's not that hard. It's like the ones you might find in one of those puzzle magazines.
(b) The fun, if such there be, is in (b1) solving the puzzle, and (b2) gathering enough clues to solve the puzzle, and (b3) figuring out whether the clues you think you've gathered are spurious.

It's not necessary for everyone to like the idea. But I hope some of the folks who do like puzzles of this sort will join the fray. If you're one such person, I think you'd be good at it.

[stessier]

I'm afraid this will take more time commitment than I can give. I'm really not sure how busy work will get over the next few weeks. I don't want to ruin the game.

On the other hand, I love logic puzzles. How about I'm in unless someone else wants the slot?

[Grundbegriff]

I'm afraid this will take more time commitment than I can give. I'm really not sure how busy work will get over the next few weeks. I don't want to ruin the game.

That's weird. I've tried to design it to be simpler and less demanding than a themed werewolf game.

Where am I missing that boat?

[Scoop20906]

In please. I think the time of year has a lot to do with me right now. At my job they love to cram the completion of releases into the last month of the year. I tell them everyone will be busy or on vacation but ...

I'd be happy to play and participate. However remember logic is elusive to me.

[bb2112]

This should be easier than a regular WW game. Think about it, there shouldn't be that much wrangling. Everyone will say what facts they want to contribute and hold back the ones they don't. Then it is a matter of scanning to out the facts people are hiding or discovering misinformation. This will be less a discussion based game, and more of a scan and logic puzzle game. Turns should move fairly quickly since the information you are willing to give will be done within a couple of basic posts. Lynches should go fairly quickly since they are relatively harmless.

Grund, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is basically how I see it working.

[coopasonic]

I'm afraid this will take more time commitment than I can give. I'm really not sure how busy work will get over the next few weeks. I don't want to ruin the game.

That's weird. I've tried to design it to be simpler and less demanding than a themed werewolf game.

Where am I missing that boat?

It's different. Different is intimidating all by itself. I love logic puzzles, but am no good at social interaction so that component makes me hesitant. The mechanics of the puzzle itself should be playing to my strengths but trying to figure out what information is good vs bad is not. That and the holidays (and SWTOR) are going to interfere again.

[Lagom Lite]

I finally got around to reading this.

[Grundbegriff]

Grund, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is basically how I see it working.

That's pretty much the size of it. Gameplay consists of (a) collecting statements, (b) drawing inferences from your set of statements, (c) weeding out bad or misleading statements, and (d) deceiving your opponents about what you know, so they can't solve the puzzle before your team does.

(a) is achieved by sneakily acquiring some privately and by brutally or diplomatically requiring the exposure of some in public.
(c) is achieved by reapplication of the same methods mentioned used for (a).

[Scoop20906]

I don't think I will do well in this game but I enjoy a challenge. Just pray I'm not on your team.

[Grundbegriff]

Here is a list of questions I posed earlier in this thread. I'm putting them together here for the convenience of anyone who wants to offer thoughts on any of them:

1. Does the game need some randomness/indeterminacy on the clue front? Such as a few spurious clues or a random failure rate with interrogations?

2. Should the two KIM agents remain unknown to one another until, say, the Nth turn? If so, what should the value of N be?

3. This is a moot point since not enough people are signing up to pull it off, BUT if we had more players, would the game be improved or harmed by introducing an agent for team who doesn't know his partners and who is unknown by his handler?

4. Should I allow all players, not just Handlers, to scan either for alignment or for a clue, as described here?

[bb2112]

Just pray I'm not on your team.

I always do.

[bb2112]

Here is a list of questions I posed earlier in this thread. I'm putting them together here for the convenience of anyone who wants to offer thoughts on any of them:

1. Does the game need some randomness/indeterminacy on the clue front? Such as a few spurious clues or a random failure rate with interrogations?

2. Should the two KIM agents remain unknown to one another until, say, the Nth turn? If so, what should the value of N be?

3. This is a moot point since not enough people are signing up to pull it off, BUT if we had more players, would the game be improved or harmed by introducing an agent for team who doesn't know his partners and who is unknown by his handler?

4. Should I allow all players, not just Handlers, to scan either for alignment or for a clue, as described here?

1. No, at least not this first one. If things work well, then maybe add some complexity next time. I think with the interrogation should only reveal one clue and not both, IMHO.

2. Sure, why not. 6th? Not sure. Guess we will have to find out.

3. ? Too many unknowns at this point.

4. I think for the first time around keep it vanilla. I like the idea of everyone getting a scan, but then it should be every person for himself instead of teams. Just a thought.

[Grundbegriff]

Where's Chaosraven? I thought he indicated an interest in this when I first brought it up.

[El Guapo]

eh, what the hell. I've always wanted to visit Prague anyways. I'm in.

[Remus West]

Where's Chaosraven? I thought he indicated an interest in this when I first brought it up.

I'll see him tomorrow so I'll mention it if he hasn't poked his head in here before then.

[Grundbegriff]

On the other hand, I love logic puzzles. How about I'm in unless someone else wants the slot?

Just noticed this. I shall pencil you in with semi-permanent graphite.

1. Qantaga
2. Newcastle
3. b2112
4. Remus West
5. RMC
6. stessier
7. Scoop20906
8. Lagom Lite
9. El Guapo
10. ...

[triggercut]

In?

[Lagom Lite]

Grund - when I design my games, I sometimes make the mistake of adding unnecessary complexity, thinking it will add depth or fun. I think this game, while not as complex as some of your other creations, you need to think about core gameplay. How is it played? What do the individual players, and groups do? How are they motivated and what are their goals, and what's the "standard" way to play?

My 2c.

[stessier]

Here is a list of questions I posed earlier in this thread. I'm putting them together here for the convenience of anyone who wants to offer thoughts on any of them:

1. Does the game need some randomness/indeterminacy on the clue front? Such as a few spurious clues or a random failure rate with interrogations?

2. Should the two KIM agents remain unknown to one another until, say, the Nth turn? If so, what should the value of N be?

3. This is a moot point since not enough people are signing up to pull it off, BUT if we had more players, would the game be improved or harmed by introducing an agent for team who doesn't know his partners and who is unknown by his handler?

4. Should I allow all players, not just Handlers, to scan either for alignment or for a clue, as described here?

Hey, look - I finally read the full rules. Now I feel I can comment on the above.

1. Yes, I think interrogation needs some tweaking. What about an interrogation reveals only 1 clue and that is determined by random.org. So we'd need to interrogate the same player at least twice to get the full set of facts. The Hardened Vet would still get to choose every time what is actually revealed.

2. Interesting. I'd be willing to play either way. If you decided on N-th turn, I think somewhere in the 4-6 range would be good.

3. With more players, yes. Someone who has access to none of the forums. What about someone even the Station Chief doesn't know - someone who is coming to make contact for the first time with crucial info?

4. I think I'd prefer to play without this for the first iteration.

Also

A. I think there needs to be a penalty for wrong guesses. Perhaps a random fact from the team is exposed.

B. I had suggested pseudonyms for the forum and you had said we would just use code words dropped in the game to figure it out. I agree that we would eventually, but with the double agents, would we do it to start with? Since the Station Chief knows who we all are anyway, I think there would be some use in keeping my hotel buddy in the dark about my true identity for a while as my Chief is piecing things together. And starting that way doesn't really hurt the game as - in the limit where we do use the code words - it just collapses to the game as currently set up.

[Chaosraven]

I'm here, been busy with the kids for a few days, and watching House while they were in school. If you need a player, I am defINitely INterested.

[Grundbegriff]

Grund - when I design my games, I sometimes make the mistake of adding unnecessary complexity, thinking it will add depth or fun. I think this game, while not as complex as some of your other creations, you need to think about core gameplay. How is it played? What do the individual players, and groups do? How are they motivated and what are their goals, and what's the "standard" way to play?

Thanks for these remarks. Yes, I'm interested in keeping it fairly simple. If it calls for more complexity after a play-through, we can always fold in some complexity. In prior games, I've started with too much complexity and it has either (a) felt more like work than play, or (b) collapsed upon itself due to some unforeseen or emergent game-wrecking mid-game eventuality.

Here, I think standard gameplay and motivations should be clear and simple: help your team solve the puzzle; hinder the other teams from solving the puzzle; get there first.

[Grundbegriff]

1. Qantaga
2. Newcastle
3. b2112
4. Remus West
5. RMC
6. stessier
7. Scoop20906
8. Lagom Lite
9. El Guapo
10. triggercut
11. Chaosraven

Good to see you, triggercut. I remember that you were into the spy theme in previous games, including one of mine that started out great and then tied itself in a knot!

This one may end up being too easy, but at least there won't be any risk of impasse. It is deterministically certain that someone will win.

OK, so now we have an embarrassment of riches: 11 players for 10 slots. I don't think the latecomers should be penalized for timing; I think people who really want to play should play. I just don't know which ones you are!

[stessier]

A. I think there needs to be a penalty for wrong guesses. Perhaps a random fact from the team is exposed.

I thought about this a bit more.

What if a wrong guess by Team Alpha exposes a true fact of Team Alpha to all members of Team Beta - including the double agent. This would put some strategy into submitting guesses rather than just submitting them every night.

For Team Double Cross, I see two possibilities -
1) A true fact goes to all members of both Team Alpha and Team Beta. This would have the effect of exposing the Double Agent to his infiltrated Team if the fact revealed is already known to come from the Double Agent.

or if that is too harsh (although I kind of think it is cool)

2) A true fact goes to the opposing team of the agent who guessed. So if Double Cross (Team Alpha) makes the guess, the Team Beta gets one of his true facts. It prevents conclusive exposure but also gives them a penalty.

I was also thinking people should have some idea of how they are doing, otherwise it is just going to be frustrating (imo). I think a failed guess should be returned with a "you have x of y correct". So if there are 10 pieces of the puzzle, you should be told you have 5 of 10 right.

The opposing team should also be told this info. I think it would add some excitement to learn a Team as 7 of 10 right just as you get one of their clues for their incorrect guess.

I don't think the opposing teams should be told who the data is coming from (either the penalty or the "X of Y" statement). They should just be told their Central Intelligence has been tracking things and an opposing faction has 7 of 10 and we learned "blah blah blah" is true.

I thought there was something else I wanted to mention, but screaming kids have caused me to lose my train of thought. I'm going to be a great agent, aren't I?

[Grundbegriff]

1. Does the game need some randomness/indeterminacy on the clue front? Such as a few spurious clues or a random failure rate with interrogations?
2. Should the two KIM agents remain unknown to one another until, say, the Nth turn? If so, what should the value of N be?
3. This is a moot point since not enough people are signing up to pull it off, BUT if we had more players, would the game be improved or harmed by introducing an agent for team who doesn't know his partners and who is unknown by his handler?
4. Should I allow all players, not just Handlers, to scan either for alignment or for a clue, as described here?

1. Yes, I think interrogation needs some tweaking. What about an interrogation reveals only 1 clue and that is determined by random.org. So we'd need to interrogate the same player at least twice to get the full set of facts. The Hardened Vet would still get to choose every time what is actually revealed.

I like the idea that interrogation only squeezes out one clue. At the outset, here's the clue count per team:
Goldman Saxon: 2 x 4 agents = 8. +2 known by the Handler/StationChief = 10.
Blusterberg Group: 2 x 4 agents = 8. +2 known by the Handler/StationChief = 10.
KIM: 2 x 2 agents = 4. (Plus whatever is exposed to them by others in the course of private forum chat.)
Since only 18 clues are needed to deduce the solution, a Station Chief really only needs to secure 8 more clues from the opposition, and possibly extract corrections from the double agent on his team, in order to solve the puzzle.

Given that math, is allowing two clues per interrogation on a turn too generous? Assuming that the teams end up alternating, that'll be 8 days. Days move quickly in this game, though.

2. Interesting. I'd be willing to play either way. If you decided on N-th turn, I think somewhere in the 4-6 range would be good.

I think the fourth day has a poetic ring to it. Three in dire straits before they can compare notes. In a perfect game, things are getting dicey after four days for the reason stated above.

3. With more players, yes. Someone who has access to none of the forums. What about someone even the Station Chief doesn't know - someone who is coming to make contact for the first time with crucial info?

That's what I said, I think. The Station Chiefs are the "handlers". But I'm glad the idea seems good!

A. I think there needs to be a penalty for wrong guesses. Perhaps a random fact from the team is exposed.

The idea has merit. What do others think? I'll be keeping track of how the information moves around, so it would definitely be possible to reveal something globally that was previously known only to team X. This would also allow a double-agent on team X to lie that "my other fact is the one that the moderator revealed in the forum". Kind of neat, as cover goes.

B. I had suggested pseudonyms for the forum and you had said we would just use code words dropped in the game to figure it out. I agree that we would eventually, but with the double agents, would we do it to start with? Since the Station Chief knows who we all are anyway, I think there would be some use in keeping my hotel buddy in the dark about my true identity for a while

Fair enough. If the Station Chief wants to force his partners into a test of identity, why not?

Everyone will sign into the forum under his code name.

[Grundbegriff]

A. I think there needs to be a penalty for wrong guesses. Perhaps a random fact from the team is exposed.

For Team Double Cross, I see two possibilities -
1) A true fact goes to all members of both Team Alpha and Team Beta. This would have the effect of exposing the Double Agent to his infiltrated Team if the fact revealed is already known to come from the Double Agent.

or if that is too harsh (although I kind of think it is cool)

2) A true fact goes to the opposing team of the agent who guessed. So if Double Cross (Team Alpha) makes the guess, the Team Beta gets one of his true facts. It prevents conclusive exposure but also gives them a penalty.

When a GS team guess is wrong, a GS fact is revealed to team BG and to KIM.
When a BG team guess is wrong, a BG fact is revealed to team GS and to KIM.
So, for symmetry, when a KIM guess is wrong, a KIM fact should be revealed to GS and BG.

One might argue that symmetry shouldn't be enforced since the teams are asymmetrical. Team KIM is so small after all, and they start with 4 clues instead of 10. On the other hand, the checks and balances give them potential access to the clues of both teams through forum observation; they learn more than everyone else since they have a vector beyond interrogation/scanning. I think of KIM as a high-risk, high-reward team, so I like the idea that they had better not guess unless they're willing to pay a price for being wrong.

I was also thinking people should have some idea of how they are doing, otherwise it is just going to be frustrating (imo). I think a failed guess should be returned with a "you have x of y correct". So if there are 10 pieces of the puzzle, you should be told you have 5 of 10 right.

Seems reasonable. Say how many factors are correct but not which ones.

The opposing team should also be told this info. I think it would add some excitement to learn a Team as 7 of 10 right just as you get one of their clues for their incorrect guess.

I think I'll just provide a daily update and give these stats if a guessing event prompts their calculation.

I don't think the opposing teams should be told who the data is coming from (either the penalty or the "X of Y" statement). They should just be told their Central Intelligence has been tracking things and an opposing faction has 7 of 10 and we learned "blah blah blah" is true.

Mod announcements will be delivered neutrally.

I thought there was something else I wanted to mention, but screaming kids have caused me to lose my train of thought. I'm going to be a great agent, aren't I?

I don't know about that, but you're being a great help to the game designer!

[stessier]

A. I think there needs to be a penalty for wrong guesses. Perhaps a random fact from the team is exposed.

The idea has merit. What do others think? I'll be keeping track of how the information moves around, so it would definitely be possible to reveal something globally that was previously known only to team X. This would also allow a double-agent on team X to lie that "my other fact is the one that the moderator revealed in the forum". Kind of neat, as cover goes.

That wasn't quite what I envisioned. I was thinking the fact would be randomly pulled from the Agents. It may have already been known globally, it may not. Being something that was previously completely unknown globally could really serve to shorten the game though. I could see both ways working.

I also remembered my other thought.

What was your final call on how the Double Agents access the forums? I thought I read you had dropped their one way only trip to their second hotel, but I can't find it now. My concern is that there's really no way to say anything safely since you know your forum is always bugged. So as soon as you give up your clue, the Double knows it forever.

I really haven't thought this through (but this is the internet so I'm throwing it out there anyway! ) - and it probably adds a ton of work for the Mod - but what if each Night was it's own thread in our Hotel Forum. The Double Agent can have access to any two threads on any day. So he can be on his Team Alpha Home (his assigned partner) and monitor Team Alpha LakeHouse (the other half of his team), or he can be on Team Alpha Home and Hotel Double Cross. Permissions would have to be set for each thread so the Double Cross could never see LakeHouse on the day he was at Hotel Double Cross.

Again - a lot of work, perhaps a lot of complexity - but it would at least give the illusion that an Agent could talk to his Handler one day and what he says might never make it to Double Cross. And Double Cross gets access to two forums to prevent the game breaking "post once a day to prove you aren't Double Cross" check. In theory, he'll always keep his access to Team Alpha home so his partner doesn't get suspicious. On the other hand, nothing says he has to do that.

[Grundbegriff]

I also remembered my other thought.

What was your final call on how the Double Agents access the forums? I thought I read you had dropped their one way only trip to their second hotel, but I can't find it now. My concern is that there's really no way to say anything safely since you know your forum is always bugged. So as soon as you give up your clue, the Double knows it forever.

I admit I'm going back and forth on this one.

Method A: KIM agents are kept apart until they decide to converge. Once he moves to his KIM forum, an agent may never return to his starting forum. Naturally, this outs him to his Station Chief and to the agent with whom he was sharing a forum.

Advantages: Ensures that there will be a limit to the amount that a double agent observes. Ensures that non-turncoats will have a chance, in the endgame, to discuss their solution unobserved. Adds strategy to the KIM agents' play options.

Disadvantages: Reveals the KIM agents to their respective former teammates-- not necessarily a bad thing.

Method B: KIM agents are kept apart until an arbitrary time in the game. After moving to his KIM forum, a double agent may stay in his starting forum unless ejected by his Station Chief. If the Station Chief never pegs him, he continues to observe even while conspiring.

Advantages: Gives the KIM agents a leg up to offset their initial disadvantage. Gives the Station Chief a mini-puzzle: whack a mole.

Disadvantages: If the Station Chief fails, then everything his good agents discuss will also be known to the KIM team. Disinformation will be his only tool to thwart them, which means he'll have to retain some of what he knows until he thinks he can put the pieces together.

I really haven't thought this through (but this is the internet so I'm throwing it out there anyway! ) - and it probably adds a ton of work for the Mod - but what if each Night was it's own thread in our Hotel Forum. The Double Agent can have access to any two threads on any day.

You mean, toggle the forum permissions so that the double agent can see his sameteam otherforum by day but not by night?

Uhm... no. Too hard to coordinate.

Although it would be amusing to make space for those "Now that Johnny's gone, let me tell you what's really going on" conversations. But method A and method B, above, already create space for those. The former does it after turn 4, and the latter does it after the handler ejects his mole.

I want simplicity. Method A and Method B are simple.

[stessier]

The problem with Method B is why would an Agent share anything before Day 4 when they know the Double is expelled? It's not like a Team could have enough info from the opposition to make a legitimate guess before then anyway through normal interrogation techniques.

I like the thought of the Station Chief being able to expel the Double. But that guarantees the Double is gone by Day 4 as well, right? The Chief just moves through his agents (either using a scan for Double mechanism or the systematic trying to expel an agent method) until he whacks his mole (very nice by the way!).

Sorry I don't have a better idea, just pointing out issues I see at the moment.

In Method A, KIM would only be able to submit a guess once they were together, right? I mean, it stands to reason, but I just wanted to clarify.

[Grundbegriff]

In Method A, KIM would only be able to submit a guess once they were together, right? I mean, it stands to reason, but I just wanted to clarify.

Right.

I wouldn't want to give the Station Chief an additional "Scan for Double" power. He'd just have to try to figure it out, or simply brute-force his way through his stack of four. He would be allowed to start guessing on the second night, to ensure that the double agent had at least one turn with his colleagues. Then the Station Chief would submit a name to the Mod: "I think the KIM mole is Bubba". This "Eject if Double" power would take the place of some other action the Station Chief might've performed, so pushing through all four to eliminate the mole would come with a cost.

[stessier]

I wouldn't want to give the Station Chief an additional "Scan for Double" power. He'd just have to try to figure it out, or simply brute-force his way through his stack of four. He would be allowed to start guessing on the second night, to ensure that the double agent had at least one turn with his colleagues. Then the Station Chief would submit a name to the Mod: "I think the KIM mole is Bubba". This "Eject if Double" power would take the place of some other action the Station Chief might've performed, so pushing through all four to eliminate the mole would come with a cost.

The two options, then, would be "Eject Bubba" and "Scan George for facts"?

Then for Method B, at Day 4 (or whatever), KIM forms up and still has access to all forums until Whacked?

I could see that working. I think that would probably works better than Method A because I'm guessing once KIM is found, they will be interrogated within an inch of their lives.

Due to a perhaps very early outing, should they perhaps have 3 clues - 2 real, one contradictory? Just a thought. Might not be necessary.

[Grundbegriff]

The two options, then, would be "Eject Bubba" and "Scan George for facts"?
Then for Method B, at Day 4 (or whatever), KIM forms up and still has access to all forums until Whacked?
I could see that working.

That's the idea. I think it gives people more to do, and more to take into account, without introducing undue complexity.

Due to a perhaps very early outing, should they perhaps have 3 clues - 2 real, one contradictory? Just a thought. Might not be necessary.

How about this: each KIM agent gets to make up a fakefact. He may do this exactly once on his own timing. Think if this disinformation as part of his cover.

Once he does this, the disinformation (i.e., fakefact) will be counted, for purposes of interrogation, as if it were one of his original facts (i.e, as if he had started with 3). Someone interrogating him has about a 33% chance of pulling the disinfo on the first interrogation. If he's interrogated again and the fakefact wasn't exposed last time, it'll stand a 50% chance of being exposed this time. If they interrogate him a third time (to check his facts), and this fakefact is still unrevealed, he'll have the option to reveal it (and himself as KIM) or to delete it (whereupon one of the first two facts, previously exposed in interrogation, will be confirmed).

If he has not made up and filed a fakefact before he's interrogated, too bad for him. But since he gets to make it up, on his own timing and in light of what he learns, it could be a serious stumbling block for his opponents once they learn it and think it might be real/true.

On rereading the rules as they now stand, I see that all of this is redundant. It can all be retrieved simply by saying that both KIM agents are "hardened veterans" in behalf of team KIM. So there are four hardened veterans: the two double agents, one normal agent from Blusterberg, and one normal agent from Goldman.

[Grundbegriff]

It's different. Different is intimidating all by itself. I love logic puzzles, but am no good at social interaction so that component makes me hesitant. The mechanics of the puzzle itself should be playing to my strengths but trying to figure out what information is good vs bad is not. That and the holidays (and SWTOR) are going to interfere again.

If the game is a success and I host a second round, I hope you'll consider participating then.

[Grundbegriff]

I have made three changes to the rules in the other thread:

1. I've made both KIM agents hardened veterans.
2. I've specified that the Handler in charge of each big team may choose a night power: he may (a) do nothing, or (b) scan someone, or (c) try to whack a mole.
3. I've specified a penalty for submitting an incorrect solution: one of your team's facts, randomly selected, will be exposed.
4. I've instituted a public update of team standing driven by submitted solutions. This leader board will be displayed at the top of every day, and it will be fresh through any submissions made the previous day.
5. I've specified that everyone should sign into his cell forum using his cover name, as given in the Intelligence Briefing.

I think with these five changes, we have a game that's worth trying.

If you agree, let's kick things off. If you disagree, please share your thinking!

We also need to whittle the participants' list down from 11 to 10. And if you want to play but do not want to be a Special (i.e., a Handler responsible for one of the two big teams), I need you to PM me that info before I allocate the roles.

Maybe the way to identify the 10 is to ask everyone to check in Right Here, to signify that you're ready to start. Today is Saturday, so people are probably tied up until the start of the week. So in theory, if everyone checks in by late Sunday night, I could distribute roles for a start on Monday morning, with the first deadline being on Wednesday.

[stessier]

On rereading the rules as they now stand, I see that all of this is redundant. It can all be retrieved simply by saying that both KIM agents are "hardened veterans" in behalf of team KIM. So there are four hardened veterans: the two double agents, one normal agent from Blusterberg, and one normal agent from Goldman.

Yep, that will work.

This is what you have for the text though.

To exercise this power, the hardened veteran must PM the Moderator with one or two fake clues to substitute for his crucial facts. The fake clues may be false, but need not be. If the veteran submits only one fake clue, he may specify which of his genuine crucial facts to replace. In this way, the hardened veteran may keep secret one or both of his genuine crucial facts the first time he is interrogated. This power may only be exercised during a first interrogation; during a second interrogation, the veteran's genuine crucial facts will be revealed and the ruse exposed.

I think you need to change the highlighted part in light of only 1 fact being revealed at a time. The ruse won't really be known unless a Hardened Vet is interrogated 3x.

How does the Station Chief nightly scan factor in to the Hardened Vet's clues? Does it count as an interrogation (I think not)? Is it on a completely separate schedule (I think it should be)? That could be fun - get scanned before turning in fake facts, then generate them...hilarity ensues.

We also need to whittle the participants' list down from 11 to 10. And if you want to play but do not want to be a Special (i.e., a Handler responsible for one of the two big teams), I need you to PM me that info before I allocate the roles.

Don't know how I missed this. As stated, I'll be content to watch this one play out. If everyone checks in, bump me. If you need me, I have no qualms about being Special...my mother always said it was everyone else who had the problem.

[stessier]

Maybe the way to identify the 10 is to ask everyone to check in Right Here, to signify that you're ready to start. Today is Saturday, so people are probably tied up until the start of the week. So in theory, if everyone checks in by late Sunday night, I could distribute roles for a start on Monday morning, with the first deadline being on Wednesday.

I was also thinking - should the first day be double long? I know there isn't much to talk about once a strategy is agreed to, but that first day you're going to have 10 people working their way through things and I suspect 48 hours is going to seem really, really fast. Of course there doesn't have to be an interrogation. And going to Night quickly really just gives the Station Chiefs a bit of info. So maybe it doesn't matter after all.

[Grundbegriff]

To exercise this power, the hardened veteran must PM the Moderator with one or two fake clues to substitute for his crucial facts. The fake clues may be false, but need not be. If the veteran submits only one fake clue, he may specify which of his genuine crucial facts to replace. In this way, the hardened veteran may keep secret one or both of his genuine crucial facts the first time he is interrogated. This power may only be exercised during a first interrogation; during a second interrogation, the veteran's genuine crucial facts will be revealed and the ruse exposed.

I think you need to change the highlighted part in light of only 1 fact being revealed at a time. The ruse won't really be known unless a Hardened Vet is interrogated 3x.

I hope this doesn't mean that we need fifty rounds of scanning.

How does the Station Chief nightly scan factor in to the Hardened Vet's clues? Does it count as an interrogation (I think not)?

No, it's totally separate. So if the Chief wants to do so, he can spend a night scan to validate the Hardened Vet's info. The difference is that the truth won't be revealed in public.

Is it on a completely separate schedule (I think it should be)? That could be fun

Yes. They're independent, and Scans always reveal truth, though in pieces as noted.

Don't know how I missed this. As stated, I'll be content to watch this one play out. If everyone checks in, bump me. If you need me, I have no qualms about being Special...my mother always said it was everyone else who had the problem.

Heh.

I still think it's a good idea for all committed players to express that commitment by checking in before I declare a start.

[Grundbegriff]

I was also thinking - should the first day be double long?

I don't want to introduce a bunch of exceptions: "Things always work this way except on day one or when the moon is full or when everyone has had supper."

Edit: Rules updated and, I think, finalized. Unless y'all spot something.

[Chaosraven]

Checking in. Unemployed. I'll be here

[bb2112]

Checking IN