agaricus5 wrote:
What if no-one on this forum likes me? Or in fact, what if everyone does?
Wesley, to some extent I am willing to treat the contest as an experiment and allow it to go horribly wrong. Of course, it would be better to have a really fun game for everyone to play, and that's what we'll aim for. I ask that everyone resolve themselves to unfairness, since it may be necessary for our game to work. I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any other games like
Truthbringers. (You can contradict me after I post the rules.) We're trying something new here.
As some clues are going to be redundant, it might be the case that any one person might not be required by someone who has enough clues. So, for an extreme example, I could send a PM to all contestants (but one) saying not to do any deals with a person in order to stop him or her even participating (since the chances are that the puzzle can still be solved if that clue was eliminated).
It would take a large amount of information-gathering and coordination. If you can pull off something like that, then you are also creating a dramatic situation inside of the game, and potentially that's good. If you find this kind of maneuver is possible, I encourage you to try it.
If, by some chance, no-one particularly wants this person to succeed either, that person won't stand a chance, and to make it worse, he or she won't know that the entire contest population has turned against him, and that he cannot possibly succeed, until after the contest (which would not be pleasant to find out, even though it is a contest).
This will be a political game, and in that context, people are allowed to do despicable things to each other that should not be held against them when the game ends. There is the possibility that some players may take it personally. There is also the possibility that reputations and relationships formed previous to the game will give an unfair advantage. Again I ask for players to resolve themselves to a certain amount of unfairness, and also brace themselves for bad in-game behavior from people that are normally well-mannered.
I could also decide to ask people to lie to each other too. Since you can't tell what is a lie and what isn't on the internet (unless you have enough information), how could I trust anyone else not to lie to me, even if I ask him or her not to?
Lieing will be allowed within the game. Credibility can also be lost by lieing, so each player will need to decide how to conduct himself. Information you receive from other players may be incorrect, and you can judge for yourself if you think they're lieing. In my example dinner puzzle, an ambiguity (like a lie) could be resolved by looking at other redundant clues.
Also, what if I know some people in the contest in real life, and we collaborate together? Wouldn't that give me an advantage over people restricted to the forum, since I could include more complex politics into the contest, maybe even creating an agreement that would allow the group to help each other alternately to win contests (Of course, this has always been possible, but this would encourage it)?
It can happen and give an unfair advantage. However, I think we will find that the best information-gatherers will need to talk to many people they don't know, and relying too strongly on established alliances can be detrimental.
In some ways, this would be a very interesting exercise in politics, but it may very well disrupt the forum community in several unpleasant ways, especially as we're all supposed to be (reasonably) equal, and this could very well unbalance that (or at least make it obvious what some of the inequalities are).
I'm optimistic that it will be okay. If I'm wrong, then at least we'll learn something interesting.
-Erik
____________________________
The Godkiller - Chapter 1 available now on Steam. It's a DROD-like puzzle adventure game.
dev journals |
twitch stream |
youtube archive (NSFW)
-
/dy
