Are You A Hitman? 2 - DAY 6 | GAME OVER - Hitmen Win

Thanks so much for running this, Rula great storytelling, as always.

I think a combination of not being able to PM, not being familiar with the rules, and unfamiliar (to me) anonymous names, left me struggling a bit. I have to hold my hands up and say I simply didn't properly get into it, and that's totally on me, as I could undoubtedly have put more effort in.

All I knew was that I had to ensure the death of the evil C.Ingram .

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Thanks so much for running this, Rula great storytelling, as always.

I think a combination of not being able to PM, not being familiar with the rules, and unfamiliar (to me) anonymous names, left me struggling a bit. I have to hold my hands up and say I simply didn't properly get into it, and that's totally on me, as I could undoubtedly have put more effort in.

All I knew was that I had to ensure the death of the evil C.Ingram .

For the first time in I don't know how many games it wasn't actually your fault I died.

Herdanos wrote:...and big thanks to DR for running the game!

Thanks!

Herdanos wrote:Regardless of balancing, Rula remains an impeccable narrator and a good gamerunner. I would propose that for his next game he reboot AYAW in its "classic" GR form. Make the rules and numbers public in the OP and stick to the original ruleset (PMs allowed, PM spying allowed, daily mayors with immunity, seers and witch doctors and all the rest) and I reckon you'd get 30+ players - old heads excited to play an old game, and all the "new" members we've gotten since then who've never played the "classic" version (and who roll their eyes when we refer to it as such ). I think it would play out really interestingly!

And thanks for this as well! The classic formula would be an interesting thing to see return. Whether through me or someone else. I'll be holding off until Spring-Summer for my next game, so I'll see what other games transpire before then and then maybe, a GR classic will return.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Thanks so much for running this, Rula great storytelling, as always.

I think a combination of not being able to PM, not being familiar with the rules, and unfamiliar (to me) anonymous names, left me struggling a bit. I have to hold my hands up and say I simply didn't properly get into it, and that's totally on me, as I could undoubtedly have put more effort in.

Thanks, Ob Bob!

Yeah, the experimental ruleset was likely to throw people off. It being named a AYA..? game, I had hoped people would analyse it like one. As I said before, though, it was fun to see people testing tactics around that experimental ruleset.

I think maybe next time we shouldn't have multiple lynchings each day, it meant the game ended a lot quicker than perhaps it should have so maybe that aspect could be tweaked?

Vermilion wrote:I think maybe next time we shouldn't have multiple lynchings each day, it meant the game ended a lot quicker than perhaps it should have so maybe that aspect could be tweaked?

I think without the multiple lynchings there's no way the citizens could ever win unless there was only a day between the phases.

Qikz wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Thanks so much for running this, Rula great storytelling, as always.

I think a combination of not being able to PM, not being familiar with the rules, and unfamiliar (to me) anonymous names, left me struggling a bit. I have to hold my hands up and say I simply didn't properly get into it, and that's totally on me, as I could undoubtedly have put more effort in.

All I knew was that I had to ensure the death of the evil C.Ingram .

For the first time in I don't know how many games it wasn't actually your fault I died.

Next time, Gadget. Next time... .

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Qikz wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Thanks so much for running this, Rula great storytelling, as always.

I think a combination of not being able to PM, not being familiar with the rules, and unfamiliar (to me) anonymous names, left me struggling a bit. I have to hold my hands up and say I simply didn't properly get into it, and that's totally on me, as I could undoubtedly have put more effort in.

All I knew was that I had to ensure the death of the evil C.Ingram .

For the first time in I don't know how many games it wasn't actually your fault I died.

Next time, Gadget. Next time... .

How did you know from the very start it was me in order to want to get me killed? Is my posting style that obvious?

Vermilion wrote:I think maybe next time we shouldn't have multiple lynchings each day, it meant the game ended a lot quicker than perhaps it should have so maybe that aspect could be tweaked?

There weren't multiple lynches each day, though. It was multiple lynches at the end of the cycle, which is just the same as if one lynch and one wolf kill occurred each day. 1>1>3 rather than 2>2>2. As you can see, because of the higher concentration of kills on the third day, the hitmen were never allowed a third kill in the cycle. So, really, it was slightly slower than a lynch and kill each day.

The different voting structure definitely benefits the hitmen at the expense of the village, I think.

The same number of players are killed but fewer meaningful voting patterns are available for scrutiny afterwards.

Plus, because the goal is to lynch multiple people and each voter gets multiple votes, it makes our bloc vote extremely powerful. With Faba inactive we kind of knew we'd won by then, though we waited until as late as possible to bloc vote in case any villager had an All In card to play.

In the first vote, we chose not to bloc vote, but only because things were already going our way, and we were tracking the votes as they came in.

The rule preventing the three votes from being changed (once posted) also hindered the village, as it meant once someone had made a decision, we were relatively safe - even if our subsequent votes / responses seemed suspicious, those that had already voted couldn't change their minds.

Qikz wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Qikz wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Thanks so much for running this, Rula great storytelling, as always.

I think a combination of not being able to PM, not being familiar with the rules, and unfamiliar (to me) anonymous names, left me struggling a bit. I have to hold my hands up and say I simply didn't properly get into it, and that's totally on me, as I could undoubtedly have put more effort in.

All I knew was that I had to ensure the death of the evil C.Ingram .

For the first time in I don't know how many games it wasn't actually your fault I died.

Next time, Gadget. Next time... .

How did you know from the very start it was me in order to want to get me killed? Is my posting style that obvious?

I didn't. I went at both posters who accidentally quoted my vote incorrectly, then latched onto you in particular because you took the bait . I didn't realise it was you until a bit later on.

Herdanos wrote:The different voting structure definitely benefits the hitmen at the expense of the village, I think.

The same number of players are killed but fewer meaningful voting patterns are available for scrutiny afterwards.

Plus, because the goal is to lynch multiple people and each voter gets multiple votes, it makes our bloc vote extremely powerful. With Faba inactive we kind of knew we'd won by then, though we waited until as late as possible to bloc vote in case any villager had an All In card to play.

In the first vote, we chose not to bloc vote, but only because things were already going our way, and we were tracking the votes as they came in.

The rule preventing the three votes from being changed (once posted) also hindered the village, as it meant once someone had made a decision, we were relatively safe - even if our subsequent votes / responses seemed suspicious, those that had already voted couldn't change their minds.

Yeah, from being in the chat with you hitmen, I could see how a unified voice, the informed minority, were able to utilise that voting strategy. You were indeed right that All-In had been used on Day 6, so four votes from four people nullified the power of All-In. Had you just been three, things might have been different if you were unable to convince the others of the thread to vote with you. Though not by much. In terms of not being able to change votes once locked in, that definitely seemed to detract from discussion and tactical play.

I do think that with this game and the first AYA Hitman, I've injected a strong focus of analysis into things. Restricting powers, restricting kills to a smaller pool of players... But that focus can also be a weakness of the game, as it makes it so that analysis is the only means for the village to really win. Perhaps running a more classic GR game will help me get out of that analytical focus.

Herdanos wrote:I don't really think I called many of the villager identities correctly (beyond Qikz - sorry Qikz). I thought Mommy was Denster, Aaron was Sprouty, and Sprouty was Ob Bob. I don't know if any of you deliberately tried to copy the traits of others to conceal your own identity?

My sexy demeanor was inspired by Ob Bob. I definitely find myself taking on a character as I play these games. It's even more disappointing to have died first knowing that you thought I was somebody else.

Reminder for next time - be less sexy

Sprouty wrote:

Herdanos wrote:I don't really think I called many of the villager identities correctly (beyond Qikz - sorry Qikz). I thought Mommy was Denster, Aaron was Sprouty, and Sprouty was Ob Bob. I don't know if any of you deliberately tried to copy the traits of others to conceal your own identity?

My sexy demeanor was inspired by Ob Bob. I definitely find myself taking on a character as I play these games. It's even more disappointing to have died first knowing that you thought I was somebody else.

Reminder for next time - be less sexy

It seemed to come so naturally to you .