The Resistance isn’t really Mafia, but it shares many similarities. Here are the rules for playing The Resistance (shamelessly retro-fitted from Iso’s Avalon Mafia with inspiration from elsewhere):
There are 7 players divided into 2 factions. 4 Rebels and 3 Spies.
The Rebels know nothing; The Spies know the identities of their teammates, but do not have a private chat.
(1) There are no Day/Night phases. There is also no lynch or night kill. Instead, there are 5 Mission Phases.
(2) At the beginning of a Mission Phase, a player will be selected to be the Mission Leader. Whenever a Mission Phase is completed, or a Mission Team (see Paragraph 3) is rejected, the player in the player list directly after the previous Mission Leader will become the new Mission Leader. The first Mission Leader of the game will be the player at the top of the player list (player list will be shuffled before the game begins in the interest of fairness).
(3) After discussion, the Mission Leader will propose a Mission Team by making a post that contains "Proposal (Mission number).(Proposal number): Player 1, Player 2, etc." on its own, separate line. Bright colors are preferred but not required. The Mission Leader is permitted to put themselves on the Mission Team.
(3.1) The number of players on the Mission Team depends on the mission number. Mission 1 requires 2 players, Missions 2 and 3 require 3 players, and Missions 4 and 5 require 4 players.
(4) Each player votes on the proposed team via PM to the game host only. Votes for or against a Mission Team may be changed any number of times simply by PMing the host again until the deadline; at the deadline, all votes will be revealed simultaneously and the team will be confirmed or denied. Revealed information includes the name of each player and whether they voted to accept the team or reject it. Failure to vote will result in reduced majority requirements for that vote (and also an inactivity prod regardless of prior posting).
(5) If the team earns a majority of assenting votes, that team is confirmed and attempts the mission; otherwise, that team is rejected and the next player sequentially becomes the new Mission Leader (see Paragraph 2). The fifth Mission Team proposed for each mission will be automatically confirmed.
(6) When a Mission Team becomes confirmed, each member of the Mission Team will submit "Pass" or "Fail" to the game host via PM only. If all of the submissions are "Pass", the Mission will succeed. If 1 or more of the submissions is "Fail", the Mission will fail except for Mission 4, which will require two "Fails" to actually fail. In other words, the Fails required to fail will be 1/1/1/2/1. Failure to submit a "Pass" or "Fail" will be counted as a "Pass." At the end of each mission, the number of pass and fail votes is revealed but the names attached to those votes are not.
(7) The Rebels win if 3 Missions pass; the Spies win if 3 Missions fail.
Phase timers are currently set to 96 hours for discussion (4 days), 48 hours for team voting (2 days), and 24 hours for mission votes to be submitted. The discussion phase for the next mission leader will start 24 hours early with a 24 hour extension if a mission team is rejected (this way each proposal lasts exactly 1 week).
Because there is no lynch and no night kill, players should expect to participate for the full length of the game. It could be over in less than one month if a team sweeps and no mission teams are rejected, but the maximum length of time is around six months if every mission team is rejected and a winner is not determined until the fifth mission.
I'm open to somewhat faster phases since this is a micro and stands to be a rather lengthy one, but it would have to be something on the order of 72/24/24 instead of 96/48/24 with 24 hours inactivity prods. This makes the quickest victory 15 days rather than 21 and the slowest around 4.5 months. When you /in, please let me know if you'd prefer the faster or slower phases.
Also, advance warning, phase timers may be significantly affected from July 8th to July 15th because I'll be out of town. If you're interested in comodding let me know, the set up is really easy and you don't even need to take vote counts.
And of course, if the game rules aren't quite clear, feel free to PM me here, message me on discord, or ask in this thread.
On the phase length could we make it a hybrid one? The proposed shorter phase lengths for the first and last missions and the longer ones for the middle 3? I don't have my heart set on this just thinking the middle 3 will probably be the most crucial part of the game.
I had given some consideration to using the extended length for only the first proposal, or doing 96 hours for missions 1 and 2, 72 hours for 3 and 4, then 48 for mission 5, but ultimately there will be the same number of players alive during mission 5 as there are on mission 1 so I'm not sure having a scaling deadline makes sense. Usually a scaling deadline is used because the fewer players alive leads to less content and discussion, and having extended phases just leads to lots of empty space.
I could start it at 96 hours and adjust after each mission based on the amount of content from the last one but that introduces a bit of bias.
Yeah normally you want to have extra time early but in this setup I wasn't as sure. I'm definitely fine with what was proposed.
48 hours feels too long for voting but it might not be in practice was really my main concern.
Well, the thread stays open during all phases. We could do a 96/24/24 hybrid or just take the full five days before voting, pass/reject teams on Saturday then pass/fail missions on Sunday.
The main reason I have the 48 hour voting rule is so that I can keep 48 hour prods while ensuring everyone posts at least once each "phase" but 48 might actually be too long for this format anyway.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
The problem is that this site usually measures day phases in weeks and it's possible someone who only has time to post every other day could /in. I really wouldn't be comfortable going below 72 hours for discussion, at least not until players are more comfortable with the format of the game and how to play it.
edit: oh, are you /in? You didn't say specifically.
The problem is that this site usually measures day phases in weeks and it's possible someone who only has time to post every other day could /in. I really wouldn't be comfortable going below 72 hours for discussion, at least not until players are more comfortable with the format of the game and how to play it.
edit: oh, are you /in? You didn't say specifically.
While that's true, the posts don't need to be too long. This wouldn't be regular mafia.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Well, no, it's not "regular" mafia, and the players control the actual deadline to some extent since you can get an "extension" by voting against a mission team, but that doesn't mean there's no behavioral analysis, vote analysis, or wolf hunting.
Votes are private, right? We won't know who voted for what mission. I guess we can analyze who people say they voted for.
I expect there to be more mission analysis than attempts at vote analysis.
And standard wolf tells probably don't apply either. Wolves can't distance if they want to win. They need to put their buddies on teams. You could analyze that, but it would be difficult.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Ah, that might not be explicit from the rules: yes, you will learn which players voted for and against the mission team at the end of the voting period. You won't know who changed their minds or how many times they did, but it isn't a simple reveal of "team accepted" or "team rejected."
Standard wolf tells should be broadly applicable but this might be something of an opinion and might be better discussed during the game amongst yourselves I suppose.
Avalon was a chore to play, but something something playerlist and second chances.
/in
If it makes you feel better, I killed the power roles during pregame and the phases are a bit different (hopefully, better, I largely stole the phase structure from a dedicated board game site that plays forum Resistance/Avalon fairly regularly).
Edit: small rules update to clarify that votes to accept/reject mission teams are fully revealed and the number (only the number) of submitted passes and fails are revealed at the end of each mission.
It literally can't take longer than five weeks per mission and I'm fully prepared to run the game for six months, lol.
I'm considering going down to 72/24 but I need to hear from everyone else first -- I don't think anyone actually said explicitly.
Could just run a poll when I send out the role PMs I suppose. Expect those tomorrow at some point?
Edit: like, this player list will probably be fairly active, but I think you're underestimating how much participation we get from some players who can only post once a day or once every other day.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
The Resistance isn’t really Mafia, but it shares many similarities. Here are the rules for playing The Resistance (shamelessly retro-fitted from Iso’s Avalon Mafia with inspiration from elsewhere):
There are 7 players divided into 2 factions. 4 Rebels and 3 Spies.
The Rebels know nothing; The Spies know the identities of their teammates, but do not have a private chat.
(1) There are no Day/Night phases. There is also no lynch or night kill. Instead, there are 5 Mission Phases.
(2) At the beginning of a Mission Phase, a player will be selected to be the Mission Leader. Whenever a Mission Phase is completed, or a Mission Team (see Paragraph 3) is rejected, the player in the player list directly after the previous Mission Leader will become the new Mission Leader. The first Mission Leader of the game will be the player at the top of the player list (player list will be shuffled before the game begins in the interest of fairness).
(3) After discussion, the Mission Leader will propose a Mission Team by making a post that contains "Proposal (Mission number).(Proposal number): Player 1, Player 2, etc." on its own, separate line. Bright colors are preferred but not required. The Mission Leader is permitted to put themselves on the Mission Team.
(3.1) The number of players on the Mission Team depends on the mission number. Mission 1 requires 2 players, Missions 2 and 3 require 3 players, and Missions 4 and 5 require 4 players.
(4) Each player votes on the proposed team via PM to the game host only. Votes for or against a Mission Team may be changed any number of times simply by PMing the host again until the deadline; at the deadline, all votes will be revealed simultaneously and the team will be confirmed or denied. Revealed information includes the name of each player and whether they voted to accept the team or reject it. Failure to vote will result in reduced majority requirements for that vote (and also an inactivity prod regardless of prior posting).
(5) If the team earns a majority of assenting votes, that team is confirmed and attempts the mission; otherwise, that team is rejected and the next player sequentially becomes the new Mission Leader (see Paragraph 2). The fifth Mission Team proposed for each mission will be automatically confirmed.
(6) When a Mission Team becomes confirmed, each member of the Mission Team will submit "Pass" or "Fail" to the game host via PM only. If all of the submissions are "Pass", the Mission will succeed. If 1 or more of the submissions is "Fail", the Mission will fail except for Mission 4, which will require two "Fails" to actually fail. In other words, the Fails required to fail will be 1/1/1/2/1. Failure to submit a "Pass" or "Fail" will be counted as a "Pass." At the end of each mission, the number of pass and fail votes is revealed but the names attached to those votes are not.
(7) The Rebels win if 3 Missions pass; the Spies win if 3 Missions fail.
Phase timers are currently set to 96 hours for discussion (4 days), 48 hours for team voting (2 days), and 24 hours for mission votes to be submitted. The discussion phase for the next mission leader will start 24 hours early with a 24 hour extension if a mission team is rejected (this way each proposal lasts exactly 1 week).
Because there is no lynch and no night kill, players should expect to participate for the full length of the game. It could be over in less than one month if a team sweeps and no mission teams are rejected, but the maximum length of time is around six months if every mission team is rejected and a winner is not determined until the fifth mission.
I'm open to somewhat faster phases since this is a micro and stands to be a rather lengthy one, but it would have to be something on the order of 72/24/24 instead of 96/48/24 with 24 hours inactivity prods. This makes the quickest victory 15 days rather than 21 and the slowest around 4.5 months. When you /in, please let me know if you'd prefer the faster or slower phases.
Also, advance warning, phase timers may be significantly affected from July 8th to July 15th because I'll be out of town. If you're interested in comodding let me know, the set up is really easy and you don't even need to take vote counts.
And of course, if the game rules aren't quite clear, feel free to PM me here, message me on discord, or ask in this thread.
Resisting the Empire [/in]
1. Grapefruit21
2. Osieorb18
3. vezokpiraka
4. Wuffles_II
5. Killjoy
6. Vaimes
7. Emcee_Mikey
Waiting in the Wings [/replace]
.
Thinks This is a Game [/spectate]
.
I could start it at 96 hours and adjust after each mission based on the amount of content from the last one but that introduces a bit of bias.
48 hours feels too long for voting but it might not be in practice was really my main concern.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
The main reason I have the 48 hour voting rule is so that I can keep 48 hour prods while ensuring everyone posts at least once each "phase" but 48 might actually be too long for this format anyway.
EDIT: I mean like, 96 hours is a LONG time to discuss something as trivial as the first day mission.
EDIT AGAIN: Oh, I totally misread how you're breaking down the phases. Ignore me, but that first phase is still obnoxiously long imo.
edit: oh, are you /in? You didn't say specifically.
I expect there to be more mission analysis than attempts at vote analysis.
And standard wolf tells probably don't apply either. Wolves can't distance if they want to win. They need to put their buddies on teams. You could analyze that, but it would be difficult.
Standard wolf tells should be broadly applicable but this might be something of an opinion and might be better discussed during the game amongst yourselves I suppose.
/in
I mean....uh, this game sucks, no one join for a week and a half so I can get that last spot.
Edit: small rules update to clarify that votes to accept/reject mission teams are fully revealed and the number (only the number) of submitted passes and fails are revealed at the end of each mission.
I'm considering going down to 72/24 but I need to hear from everyone else first -- I don't think anyone actually said explicitly.
Could just run a poll when I send out the role PMs I suppose. Expect those tomorrow at some point?
Edit: like, this player list will probably be fairly active, but I think you're underestimating how much participation we get from some players who can only post once a day or once every other day.
Checkmate, Vaimes!
Also I am an amorphous blob, and as such have no bones.