Proposal for a Forum Game

[GhostWriter16]

So basically, it would be like a really simple Mafia game but without the "Roles."

Basically, on your turn, you could EITHER vote to eliminate a certain player, OR vote to protect a player. "Protecting" a player takes one vote away from them, and at the end of a 24 hour period, the player with the most votes against them dies. If there's a tie, all players involved in the tie die.

Only twist? You can't ever vote for yourself to be protected or eliminated, so you'll need to work with other players to succeed.

Then, the last five players to be eliminated could be judges at the end, when there's only three players remaining, those five players would vote to eliminate someone, then vote on a winner between the remaining 2.

Would there be interest in this?

Interested People:

Yoshiegg737

Skwink

Dhoomstriker

Zack? (Please confirm or deny)

Skwink

Dhoomstriker

Red Spy

Nuclear Kid

Gamezrule

Sonereal

EnglishCrusader

Ilduce349

SouthernKing? (If he isn't available when we start he'll just be a sitting duck for a bit I guess.)

 

[Zack]

I volunteer to win the game.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I volunteer to win the game.

Crap, you just made me lose "The game."

But, does anyone want to play in a game like this?

 

[Yoshiegg737]

Sure, why not

 

[Skwink]

Ok. I'l play.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Sounds interesting. Some questions for you, to help work out the details:
1. Can players join in later or will it just be whoever gets in on the first round?

2. Will you have the time to be able to update on a consistent schedule or at least be willing to give us a reasonably in-advance notification that can work for most timezones, such as: 16 hours from now, I will update?

3. Can I "protect" someone to the point that they are in the negatives in terms of votes against them?

4. Since there are no roles, there are no "good guys" or "bad guys," right? I mean, there is no value in "guessing" right or wrong... you just vote in a manner that will get whoever you WANT to get kicked off getting kicked off, right?

5. Near the end, with these 5 judges, do the surviving players themselves still get to vote?

5. b) Can the judges "protect" or just "attack" a player?

6. Is it possible for there to be no winner (i.e. everyone remaining gets eliminated in the same round as each other)?

7. Is there a maximum number of people that you will let sign up?

8. Is there a maximum number of people that can be eliminated in a single round?

9. If someone dies, can they still vote in future rounds, outside of that "become the judges at the end" bit?

10. Can lurkers vote?

 

[GhostWriter16]

1. Can players join in later or will it just be whoever gets in on the first round?

No, though in the light of one of your other questions, I MIGHT let people randomly drop in and vote though, even though they don't technically "Exist" in game. That said, the FINAL vote will be only the five judges, makes you have to play politics smart in game.

2. Will you have the time to be able to update on a consistent schedule or at least be willing to give us a reasonably in-advance notification that can work for most timezones, such as: 16 hours from now, I will update?

I'll do a minimum of 24 hours per update, and can probably give notification in advance. There may be an odd day where I don't update, but since updating this would be very easy, I should be able to update every day.

And if you don't get to vote every day, its not the end of the world in this setup.

3. Can I "protect" someone to the point that they are in the negatives in terms of votes against them?

Yes, because someone could vote for them in the future. Even if they didn't, I don't see a convincing reason why someone couldn't have "Negative" votes.

4. Since there are no roles, there are no "good guys" or "bad guys," right? I mean, there is no value in "guessing" right or wrong... you just vote in a manner that will get whoever you WANT to get kicked off getting kicked off, right?

Yes, whoever you want, however there is value in forming alliances and such, which is a big part of this idea.

5. Near the end, with these 5 judges, do the surviving players themselves still get to vote?

Not at the end no, as it would basically have no purpose other than voting for themselves, which they wouldn't want to do.

That said, I think I'll do 6 judges instead of 5, then let the third place player become the 7th judge for the final vote. I'll put the change in the game thread when I start it.

5. b) Can the judges "protect" or just "attack" a player?

Only "Attack." At that point the game ends and its a matter of who's most popular with the 4th-9th place players.

6. Is it possible for there to be no winner (i.e. everyone remaining gets eliminated in the same round as each other)?

If somehow more than 4 players get eliminated at once and leaves nobody for the judges to judge between, I don't know, I'll probably cross that bridge when I come to it since I don't see it as likely.

That said, 6 judges getting a three way tie is technically possible. In which case I think I'll just allow myself to vote (Probably at random by rolling a die or something) unless someone sees this as terribly unfair, in which case I could do something else perhaps.

7. Is there a maximum number of people that you will let sign up?

Not inherently, but I'll probably arbitrarily start the game at some point, I'd rather not do more than 25-30 players, and I'd like AT LEAST 15.

8. Is there a maximum number of people that can be eliminated in a single round?

Nope, if everyone ties, they'll all get eliminated.

That said, if we have ultra-insanity (Like 10+ players getting eliminated in one round, or everyone getting eliminated at the same time at the end) I may use a dice roll generator to allow some players to stay in.

9. If someone dies, can they still vote in future rounds, outside of that "become the judges at the end" bit?

Probably not. Part of the reason of killing someone is to prevent them from killing you. If you're dead, you're dead.

10. Can lurkers vote?

I think to make a compromise between all ideas, Lurkers (Not including Zombies of the dead, they're just dead) can vote to "Attack" but not "Protect" and their votes only count as one vote (I'll count actual player votes as 2 each, and a "Protect" will block 2 votes against the player.)

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Okay, I believe that you have come up with competent and reasonable answers, so I think that the game would be a "go" and would be fun to play.

 

[Red_Spy]

Sure.

 

[Nuka-sama]

I'd play

 

[Optical]

I'd play.

 

[Abaddon]

Isn't this just like the members elimination game?

 

[Dhoomstriker]

Isn't this just like the members elimination game?

In theory, maybe.

In practice, it will probably play out quite differently.

In particular, once you're dead, unless you become a judge, you can't "get revenge," as if often seen in the members elimination game.

Further, you will die instantly instead of slowly, so people can be more straight-forward in who they kill off. In the members elimination game, you often see people "tip-toeing" around others for fear of retribution. There will be some of that to an extent, but not nearly as ridiculously high a level of it as occurs in the members elimination games.

 

[GamezRule]

I'll try.

 

[Sonereal]

Sounds interesting. I'm in.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'll add everyone to the list ASAP.

 

[EnglishCrusader]

So it's just like one big arena game? Sure.

 

[ilduce349]

joining

 

[SouthernKing]

Sounds a bit like the Arena, but I would be interested.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Now that the elections are (Probably) over, I think I'll actually start worrying about this again.

I'm gonna give like a week for more people to join, if signups stop I'll start. Also, I'll update the OP.