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:
3 Players, 1 to fail
4 Players, 1 to fail
4 Players, 1 to fail
5 Players, 2 to fail
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
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
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.