WW 19 Lurkers: The Corner of Statler and Waldorf [SPOILERS]

[BRickAstley]

Cause making fun of the players is the only reason i run these games.

[NobleHelium]

That was an impressive opening post and it looks like a very interesting setup. Kudos.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, very well done Brick. Also, awesome reference on the thread title.

[NobleHelium]

Although it's weird that the Night Kill is before the rest of the actions. Generally non-killing actions are done before the killing actions.

Also, is it intended that two players can pass the same item back and forth? Edit: I guess that's fine since you don't know for sure who passed it to you.

[BRickAstley]

Yeah, very well done Brick. Also, awesome reference on the thread title.

Thanks. I thought S&W apt for how the non-players in the thread tend to talk.

Although it's weird that the Night Kill is before the rest of the actions. Generally non-killing actions are done before the killing actions.

Also, is it intended that two players can pass the same item back and forth? Edit: I guess that's fine since you don't know for sure who passed it to you.

None of the after night kill actions are influenced by it i think, except the watcher item, which i moved up.

Yeah, only scum will know for sure, hence the rule to keep scum from putting items in an infinite loop.

[NobleHelium]

Well I could be trying to steal an item from someone who's dead, and that would fail I assume. So that is affected. Not sure which behavior you'd prefer.

The rule preventing scum from looping items is poorly worded I think. You could argue that if I give item A to Mardoc while I know that Mardoc will give item B to me, I would not be knowingly causing Mardoc to have two items, because I know that Mardoc will give his item to me and thus end up with only one item.

[NobleHelium]

Oh I guess you're saying that that case would be acceptable (based upon the example given in the rules)? Well that's still an infinite loop...

[BRickAstley]

Good points. Sleep now, I'll reassess and decide out anything needs to be changed come morning.

[BRickAstley]

Well I could be trying to steal an item from someone who's dead, and that would fail I assume. So that is affected. Not sure which behavior you'd prefer.

Yeah, that is true. I think I'm about to make another change that addresses this anyways though.

The rule preventing scum from looping items is poorly worded I think. You could argue that if I give item A to Mardoc while I know that Mardoc will give item B to me, I would not be knowingly causing Mardoc to have two items, because I know that Mardoc will give his item to me and thus end up with only one item.

I don't think that this will be a problem. If there are X scum, then the maximum amount of items they can juggle like this is X (since they can't cause one of their own to have more than one). This would be the same as each of them keeping their item to themselves, with the disadvantage of not being able to use any items. The main goal with that rule was to keep scum from keeping a larger amount of items tied up than there are scum, so this doesn't "break" what I wanted.

[BRickAstley]

That was an impressive opening post and it looks like a very interesting setup. Kudos.

Yeah, very well done Brick.

I also wanted to say, distribute some of the thanks to Commodore, thestick, and Mardoc as well, they've all helped in some way with putting this together or making me refine rules so it isn't broken easily.