Tomous wrote:Not sure if this was asked, but was it your own idea?
The game is one I've played IRL but I made some changes to make it a forum game - the real game involves one person acting as a 'runner' and a group of people participating. A circle of targets is drawn up in the same way. However, in the IRL version of the game, a kill takes place by the killer saying the words "I Love You, But You're Dead" to the target, when no-one else is around to hear or see the kill. If someone else hears or witnesses the kill, it doesn't count. We played it as a staff when I worked at a summer camp (a place where you're actively encouraged
not to be in a one-on-one situation with someone, for obvious reasons) so this led to some staff members spending their entire off time hiding in their own cabins (which were designated as a safe zone).
Mocky and I were having a conversation about games to be played (you can still see most of it but I asked him to remove mention of Assassin's Creed from a post - and did the same myself in one of my own posts - so as to not give anything away, although I'm sure a few people saw the posts anyway) and he mentioned AC and the one point that stood out was, as Mocky himself has posted:
Mockmaster wrote:It was a bit similar to this in that you had to assassinate other players by posting after them within a certain time, although in that version it was a free for all rather than you having a specific target.
The whole 'posting after other users' to kill them made me think of I Love You, But You're Dead. I thought subject lines would make the game unobtrusive to the rest of the forum as a whole. The rest of the rules were from me thinking of various scenarios where people would try and use the forum architecture to help them make kills, and then coming up with rules to stop them from doing so, thus encouraging only 'proper' kills.
I'll be honest: I was wary of Mocky being the winner after it was his and my conversation that started all this, I knew that it would look suspicious
Fortunately, I think everyone would agree that there was evidently no funny business going on - he was just very, very good at the game, both in terms of killing and surviving. Which is why this:
Mockmaster wrote:Now I can finally go back to my normal sleep patterns and do some actual work.
was not surprising to read.
I also (like many others, I suspect) enjoyed this:
SpaceJebus wrote:I find it funny that Denster can't make it through a couple days in a AYAW game without being bumped off for no reason but made it to the final two in a game where people were actually supposed to be trying to kill him.
PaperMacheMario wrote:Would be interesting to see how the game could be tinkered with.
Yes - please fire away, everyone!
aayl1 wrote:This game looked good but I would suggest not starting it over a weekend next time.
Luck of the draw I suppose - there'll be those who wouldn't be able to play if it wasn't over the weekend. It's hard to get a date that would suit
everybody, especially as the game is so punitive to those who are unable to play for a day.
Qikz wrote:Tomous wrote:Also, how could you possibly keep the players being dead a secret?! The kill posts are there for all to see.
That may be the case but Dan didn't have to announce everyone who died each night so it'd be much harder to keep track of who was dead unless you actively tried to do it. Either way it worked how it was, it's just slightly different to how i'd imagined.
I didn't really
announce who had died, so much as I updated the OP. But if I'd not kept the OP updated, then this would have been
much harder for me to run! Also it would have been very easy to lose track of kills - if a couple of people in the same chain didn't PM me that they'd killed or been killed, and then someone way down the chain contacted me to say their current victim wasn't playing ball and handing over the name of their target, then how would I have been able to inform that person and keep the game going? Personally, I thought the idea of killings being in the public domain helped make it more of a spectator experience, as everything being cloak-and-dagger would have only made it interesting for those still alive.
Herbi wrote:For next time how about introducing some kind of 'Danger Post' rule? People complained that 15 posts a day was too many but what you could do is offer people the opportunity to reduce that by 5 if they post in a nominated busy thread on any one day. For example if someone was unable to post 15 times on a Saturday you could maybe offer everyone the chance to reduce that to 7/8 if they post once in the Football thread between 3pm - 6pm.
To encourage people to post in a more risky fashion you could also implement a saves per day rule or something.
My problem with this would be how do you pick the busy threads? You'd essentially be picking a thread that some people would have no interest in and thus have more difficulty in making themselves inconspicuous. No doubt favouritism accusations could be thrown about. As for a saves rule, I don't think a per day rule would work - unless the posts per day requirement was upped dramatically, as if people had one or two lives
daily then I'm not sure anyone would ever get killed!