Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Something Different
The game is The Resistance. Normally this is played in person with cards, and there is no specific person running it. However, since we're not playing in person with cards, we need somebody to run the game.
That's me! I'll be modifying the theme to make it more appropriate for the Defcon forum. Ordinarily it's about a group of resistance, good guys, doing missions against the tyrannical government, who have been infiltrated by spies working for that government, attempting to sabotage those missions. Instead, the players make up the UN Security Council, attempting to thwart the plans of a terrorist organization who have stolen nuclear weapons. It is believed that three of the governments that make up the council are traitors, helping the terrorists, though of course if they are caught doing so the other members of the Security Council will immediately retaliate with their combined forces.
The terrorist cell that is carrying out the attacks is comprised of five members, scattered throughout the world in preparation for the strike. Time is short, and intelligence on each cell member is sketchy, though it is believed that only three will be needed to successfully carry out their attacks. Each cell member must be targeted one by one through a variety of mission profiles, and each mission will require the combined efforts of several Security Council members to succeed.
Each mission will be taken in turn by five subcommittees of the Security Council. On a rotating basis, individual Security Council members will put forward motions to form the next needed subcommittee. The entire Security Council will vote to approve or reject the proposed subcommittee membership, requiring five votes to succeed. If for a single mission, five subcommittee membership motions are rejected, it will be clear that the Security Council is deadlocked by infighting, and the terrorists will immediately win, carrying out their attacks while the Security Council endlessly debates.
Assuming a subcommittee membership motion is approved, the subcommittee members will review the gathered intelligence and carry out their mission and take down one of the known terrorists. Each subcommittee member will then have a choice to either help the mission succeed, or cause it to fail. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the intelligence, if one subcommittee member leaks the details of the attack to the targeted terrorist, he or she will escape justice. The only exception is the fourth mission, where it will require two leaks to cause the mission to fail.
The result of each mission will be announced to the full Security Council before the next subcommittee membership is decided upon. While a failed mission is a sure sign that one or more of the mission subcommittee members is helping the terrorists (unless the good guys choose to be stupid and fail the mission themselves), a successful mission is no guarantee that all subcommittee members are good guys. After all, the traitors don't have to leak any information to the terrorists and cause the mission to fail, if doing so would call unnecessarily attention to themselves. While the three traitors must cause three failed missions to win the game, it is up to them to decide which three missions to fail. The good guys outnumber the bad, and if they can determine which three Security Council members are traitors early enough, they can vote to keep those traitors out of any future mission subcommittees. Obviously, the traitors will want to get at least one traitor in at least three of the five missions, but if they are able to get in more missions than that, they can pick and choose their sabotage carefully so as not to be detected. Traitors are aware of who each other are, and may choose to communicate. While after each mission I will reveal how many bits of information were leaked to fail a mission (should a mission fail), a single leak does not necessarily mean a single traitor was on a mission subcommittee.
The game sounds complicated, but it's really not. There are five rounds, each consisting of two phases.
The first round, the first name on the player list starts as "leader", the person putting forth names in a motion to form a subcommittee. Players may, at any time, discuss amongst themselves publicly or privately strategies about any aspect of the game. After some (or no) discussion, the "leader" will post a set of three names, which may or may not include themselves. Once this list is posted, players may then discuss the list, but everyone will PM me either a yes or no vote on that list of names. Once I receive all eight votes, I will post the list of votes, including who voted which way, and whether or not the vote passed. Let's say the first vote does not pass, with four people voting against it. In this case, the second person on the player list will be responsible for putting forth a list of names, presumably a different set of three than the one just voted on. There will be more discussion, and another secret vote which I will reveal simultaneously in a single post. Nobody knows who voted yes or no until everyone has voted. Let's say this time, the vote passes, and the subcommittee is formed.
If any traitors are among the subcommittee, they may choose to discuss strategy amongst themselves in private, but in any case, all three players on the subcommittee will send me a PM indicating whether they wish the mission to succeed for fail. When all three PMs are in, I will announce the number of succeed and fail votes. A single fail vote will fail the first mission.
The second mission will then be put on the table, and the third person on the player list will choose a list of names, this time four players to make up the subcommittee for mission two. Let's say the first list of names is rejected, so it's up to the fourth person on the player list to put forth names. Let's say that list is rejected as well. The fifth person on the player list will put forth four names, and let's say it's approved. Now it is time for the four chosen players to PM me, indicating their wishes to succeed or fail.
The third mission is much the same as the second. Four players must be chosen to go on the mission, and once their selection is approved by a majority of five or more Security Council members, they send me PMs.
For the fourth mission, the number of subcommittee members increases to five. Additionally, two requests to fail the mission must be made in order for the mission to fail.
For the fifth and final mission, the subcommittee will have five members, but only a single vote to fail it is required for the mission to fail. Note that there are five good guys in the game. If the game goes to the final round without one side winning three rounds, the last subcommittee must contain every good player or the terrorists win.
If you have any questions, do let me know. I'll repeat the numbers here, for easy reference.
8 Player Game: 5 Innocents 3 Traitors
Mission #1 3 Players, 1 to fail
Mission #2 4 Players, 1 to fail
Mission #3 4 Players, 1 to fail
Mission #4 5 Players, 2 to fail
Mission #5 5 Players, 1 to fail
These numbers are not true for every size game. If we play this game again and get a different number of players playing, I'm happy to post the numbers for that size. The game is supposedly balanced for 5-10 players.
We have 8 players, and they will take turns putting forth motions to form subcommittees in the following order: Crow T. Robot retep998 mud212 croc SoItBegins JacaByte Mackilroy prophile
The order was randomized for optimal fairness.
Crow T. Robot, you may now submit three names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the first mission. Should your motion fail, retep998 will have opportunity to submit three different names for consideration, and so on, until a motion passes. Should five motions fail in a row, the Security Council will be deadlocked, and the terrorists will detonate nuclear bombs in several world capitals.
Mission Profile #1 Jimmy Kines Little is known of the terrorist with the street moniker "The Kid", only that he is an expert at security penetration and computer hacking. He's now graduated from politically motivated cyberwarfare to terrorism with WMDs. Kines is believed to be waiting for final orders in a safe house in a small port city, from which he will help launch the imminent attack. His expertise will serve the terrorists well in evading military and police forces while bringing a nuclear warheads to targets in several Security Council member nations. His death or capture is a top priority, and should he escape us now, the terrorists will be one step closer to bringing about destruction on a massive scale. Members of the mission subcommittee will be given access to classified intelligence pooled from each of the Security Council members. They will then plan and carry out a mission to neutralize the threat.
Once Crow T. Robot puts forth three names, Security Council members should begin sending me votes to approve or reject the proposed subcommittee, via personal message. As always, public or private discussion at any time is welcome between members. You may publicly offer support or condemnation for the proposed subcommittee (either truthful or not), but only your private vote will be counted when all votes are in. You may PM me a second time (or more) to change your official vote. Once I receive 8 votes, I will announce the results. If I do not receive all 8 votes in a timely manner, I may choose to end the vote early if there are enough votes for a majority either in favor or against the proposed subcommittee. Especially in this first round, when there is so little to discuss, please vote quickly once a set of names are proposed. I won't put a definite time limit on each round, but I'd like to see things progressing to a new mission every few days. It really depends on how many subcommittee votes we have each round and how quickly people do motions and votes.
Everyone should receive a PM from me indicating their role in the next few minutes. If you don't get one, please inform me as soon as possible.
If something I posted here is incomplete, really stupid, excessively repetitive, or just confusing, I did write this up late at night and I apologize. Like I said, please ask questions if you have any. This is a very new game for us to play. There are variants we may wish to try in the future, but I'm keeping this as just a basic game to get our feet wet.
"Should five motions fail in a row, the Security Council will be deadlocked, and the terrorists will detonate nuclear bombs in several world capitals." If this happens, does this mean the terrorists won?
My head hurts... I'll have to read this again at a later time.
Interesting. And rather difficult-looking at first, but it seems reasonable enough.
Ok, I think I get it now, but a whole bunch of it takes place outside of this thread. So how will we figure out who the mafia is?
@retep998, on 26 May 2012 - 04:29 AM, said in GTW 36:
Yes.
@jacabyte, on 26 May 2012 - 12:56 PM, said in GTW 36:
Not a whole lot takes place outside the thread, just the actual voting. Motions to form a mission subcommittee and discussion take place here, and each vote will be revealed similar to how mafia actions in the night are revealed.
Playing this game in person with cards, everyone has a yes and no card, which they select in secret and place face down in front of them, then all is revealed at once, flipping the cards over simultaneously. Everyone is free to say what their vote will be, as a proposed mission group is discussed, though they may lie, and you don't know until everyone has decided and voted all at once.
You figure out who the bad guys are through careful deduction. This game actually has more evidence to figure that out than traditional mafia. In mafia, you only know that there's mafia remaining when people keep dying in the night. In this game, if a mission fails, you know how many votes there were to cause it to fail, and thus how many bad guys were on the mission. It narrows down your suspects. Of course, there's no actual proof at any time that somebody is good, as bad guys can vote for a mission to succeed any time they like. Still, the more missions that succeed with a particular person on it, chances are that person's probably not a bad guy.
After the first round, I'm pretty sure everyone will understand the mechanics very well. It's really just the strategy that's hard, on both sides. It's one of those minute to learn, lifetime to master games. The last few rounds are always the most tense, as one side or the other is getting close to victory. Good guys have to examine the evidence carefully, and bad guys have to make sure they time their mission failures well for maximum confusion.
I got some other PMs, and I'll post here to clarify a few things.
There is no elimination in the mafia-sense. All players will play every round. Good guys win by identifying, through deduction or intuition, who the bad guys are, and keeping them off of mission subcommittees. The bad guys win by getting on those mission subcommittees and then sabotaging three missions.
Let's say the first mission fails with a single fail vote. Well, it's clear that at least one member of the mission subcommittee is a bad guy. Good guys can sabotage a mission if they choose, but they really shouldn't, that's just stupid. Additionally, there is public information on who voted to approve or reject that mission, evidence that may be useful in identifying who the bad guys are. For good guys, the game is all about collecting information and acting logically on it, to exclude suspected bad guys from missions.
The bad guys have one weapon, though, and that's deception. A bad guy is not obligated to fail a mission, thus confusing the gathered evidence. It's easier for bad guys to hide in larger groups and spread the blame around, but larger groups come at the end when the good guys have more evidence. Bad guys have to plan their sabotages carefully, so as not to leave too much evidence, but there are only so many opportunities that they have to cause failures, and they must get people on missions with their subcommittee motions and votes. They might help the first two missions succeed, making it impossible for the good guys to narrow down their list of suspects, but then they'll have to get bad guys on the last three missions, including two on the fourth. They may come to regret not failing the earlier missions, especially if they leave other evidence, like which subcommittees they vote to approve or reject. Bad guys have a careful line to walk.
Now, about subcommittee selection. The current Speaker, let's call him, puts forward their proposed list of names publicly. They may choose to include their own name, or not. It's up to every Speaker to decide if it's good strategy or not to include themselves, but to point out the obvious, in the fifth round no good guy would ever not include themselves unless they want the vote to fail. Earlier rounds where the margin for error is greater, well, you can decide for yourselves what to do.
Playing this game in person, every player would choose one of two vote cards in front of them to play, face down. When everyone is ready, the cards are flipped up simultaneously. This is why we are using a secret (PM) vote for subcommittee selection, and why I'll reveal all of the votes and who voted how once they're all in. People are free to post and say how they're voting, and why, but they may choose to lie, or change their mind. What matters is the PM I get, and what I post once all the PMs are in.
If the vote does not pass with at least five approvals, the Speakership rotates around the virtual table. If Crow T. Robot's first proposal fails, it goes to retep998 to put forth a new motion with a different set of three names, then mud212, and so on until either five rejections (and the terrorists win), or a subcommittee is agreed upon (we move on to the mission phase).
@mrxak, on 26 May 2012 - 01:22 PM, said in GTW 36:
The bad guys have one weapon, though, and that's deception. A bad guy is not obligated to fail a mission, thus confusing the gathered evidence. It's easier for bad guys to hide in larger groups and spread the blame around, but larger groups come at the end when the good guys have more evidence. Bad guys have to plan their sabotages carefully, so as not to leave too much evidence, but there are only so many opportunities that they have to cause failures, and they must get people on missions with their subcommittee motions and votes. They might help the first two missions succeed, making it impossible for the good guys to narrow down their list of suspects, but then they'll have to get bad guys on the last three missions, including two on the fourth.(/color)
OCC: Okay that explains some of the questions that I had. Thanks for that update mrxak.
IC: Gentlemen, I am sad that we must meet under these dire circumstances but we have work to do and we must find this Jimmy Kines before death and destruction is brought for to our precious planet by nuclear attacks. Therefore, the Republic of Madagascar would like to submit the following members for voting to the subcommittee that will stop this terrorist once and for all. We submit: mackilroy , croc , and prophile to work on this subcomittee.
Okay, there is now a motion put forth by Speaker Crow T. Robot.
He proposes that the first mission subcommittee be made up of the following members.
Mackilroy croc prophile
These members will be given classified information, enough to plan a mission to kill or capture Jimmy Kines with their combined forces, but also enough to sabotage the mission, if any or all of these members are helping the terrorists.
If you approve of Crow T. Robot's motion, and wish these three members of the Security Council to form the first mission subcommittee, please send me a personal message with your vote to APPROVE.
If you reject Crow T. Robot's motion, and wish for the first mission subcommittee to be made up of a different set of Security Council members, please send me a personal message with your vote to REJECT.
Once all eight votes are in, I will reveal them, including who voted how. If the motion is APPROVED by a minimum of five members of the Security Council, the subcommittee will be formed. If the motion is REJECTED by a minimum of four members of the Security Council, the Speakership will pass to retep998, and he will have opportunity to put forth a new motion for the Security Council to vote on.
You may discuss Crow T. Robot's selection for as long as you'd like, but please vote quickly, as we are facing imminent destruction. I would also like to remind the Speaker that he, too, needs to vote to APPROVE or REJECT his own motion.
Already have four votes in, just need four to go.
Fun factoid: If a motion is rejected, then the paper in question is ejected. Then, the person who proposed it feels dejected!
By what means did you choose the members of the first subcommittee Crow?
I have six votes in. Two more until we learn the fate of the Speaker's motion!
@jacabyte, on 26 May 2012 - 04:09 PM, said in GTW 36:
I went through the list of members, selected a mix of veteran players of GTW (mack and prophile) and people who I did not recognize (croc) and thought that this group might be the right people for catching the terrorist Jimmy Kines. Will see how the voting goes but I hope that answers your question Jacabyte.
So, of the two people who haven't voted, one still hasn't read his role PM yet, so probably doesn't know the game even started, and the other was last seen early this morning. Hopefully this evening they'll both see what's going on and vote, and we can either move on to a second motion, or do the first mission.
SNOZZZZZZZZZZ
We now have 7 of the 8 required votes.
Mission #1 Subcommittee Motion by Crow T. Robot Mackilroy croc prophile
Approve: Mackilroy - May 26th, 3:41 PM SoItBegins - May 26th, 3:57 PM Crow T. Robot - May 26th, 4:08 PM retep998 - May 26th, 4:10 PM JacaByte - May 26th, 5:08 PM mud212 - May 27th, 12:20 AM croc - May 27th, 2:05 AM
Reject: prophile - May 26th, 5:16 PM
Result: Approve 7, Reject 1 Motion Passes
The subcommittee consisting of Mackilroy, croc, and prophile has been approved, and will now carry out the first mission. Those three people need to PM me as soon as possible, indicating whether they will help the mission SUCCEED or FAIL. A single vote of FAIL will cause the mission to be unsuccessful. When I have received all three PMs, I will inform you of the mission's result, and then it will be retep998's turn as Speaker to suggest the next subcommittee.
I'm making a post ! Look at that!
Now I get emails! Great!!!
All of you are slowpokes.
Mission #1 Jimmy Kines Succeed: 3 Fail: 0
One of five missions have now succeeded. Jimmy Kines was taken alive at his safe house, and is now being interrogated. If three missions succeed, the good guys win.
retep998, you may now submit four names (which may include your own name) in a motion to form a subcommittee to carry out the second mission. Should your motion fail, mud212 will have opportunity to submit four different names for consideration, and so on, until a motion passes. Should five motions fail in a row, the Security Council will be deadlocked, and the terrorists will detonate nuclear bombs in several world capitals.
Mission Profile #2 "Rondel" Only one confirmed picture exists of the female assassin known as Rondel, taken from a hotel lobby security camera just minutes prior to the stabbing death of Prime Minister Hitzig in an elevator six years ago. She's an East German expatriate and is believed to be between 26 and 32 years old. More than fifteen assassinations have been linked to Rondel in the last eight years, each with a blade, and each one taken credit for by a terrorist organization after the fact. We are unsure of Rondel's role in the upcoming attacks, but her recent movements in concert with the other cell members make us think she is involved. It's possible she has been hired to assassinate Security Council members' command and control prior to the attack to disrupt our efforts to prevent it. We believe we know where she will be at a specific time in the very near future, and it may be possible to intercept her. Her death or capture is a top priority, and should she escape us now, the terrorists will be one step closer to bringing about destruction on a massive scale. Members of the mission subcommittee will be given access to classified intelligence pooled from each of the Security Council members. They will then plan and carry out a mission to neutralize the threat.
Once retep998 puts forth four names, Security Council members should begin sending me votes to approve or reject the proposed subcommittee, via personal message. As always, public or private discussion at any time is welcome between members. You may publicly offer support or condemnation for the proposed subcommittee (either truthful or not), but only your private vote will be counted when all votes are in. You may PM me a second time (or more) to change your official vote. Once I receive 8 votes, I will announce the results. If I do not receive all 8 votes in a timely manner, I may choose to end the vote early if there are enough votes for a majority either in favor or against the proposed subcommittee. Please vote quickly once a set of names are proposed. I won't put a definite time limit on each round, but I'd like to see things progressing to a new mission every few days. It really depends on how many subcommittee votes we have each round and how quickly people do motions and votes.