Dannyboy-the-Dane
-
Posts
14942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dannyboy-the-Dane
-
-
I think people are complicating things too much. The people that don't like two "epic" games together, should only sign into one. People who know they will be busy, should sign into one or none. People who know they can handle two games should sign into both. People who don't bother playing should sign into none.
It's very simple. Instead of having the games catered around some. People should cater themselves into the games they can and will play in.
While I agree with you somewhat, there's the problem of participation. A number of people won't be able to participate if too many games run at once. I'm not saying smaller games aren't a great idea (because I think they are), but we risk cutting a good deal of players off from a number of games, and that's generally a shame I think.
-
That puts an emphasis on not putting on more than two games at a time, then. I really believe that problems attributed to game size are really dependent on activity. I personally don't mind, even enjoy, big walls of text - exciting discussion! Brief games just don't feel...significant/epic enough. But it doesn't work if you have to keep track of one game of textwalls, and a different game of differently-themed textwalls with different alignment and players and - *head explodes*
I agree completely.
Perhaps the solution is to keep it mixed? To make sure that for every big, epic Gentlemen's Mafia we have, there are a couple of smaller, less epic games? It would require a bit more planning, and I have no idea how well it would work, but it's a possibility.
-
He gets amazing performances out of his actors, so I'm over it.
And many actors actively come to him/find working with him enlightening. Charlotte Gainsbourg is about to star in her second film in a row with him at the helm, Willem Dafoe did two...Kirsten Dunst and Keifer Sutherland (not who you'd think of as "von trier"-ish) are in his new film Melancholia...I think his reputation means many actors who want a challenge seek him out.
But yes. He's a depressive and openly talks about how it affects the filmmaking process.
He is undoubtedly one of the most interest directors today, and his work reflects it - for better or for worse.
-
She swore never to act again after this film and reportedly (as in, it's confirmed by other peole on set) she started eating a shoe.
According to most accounts, Lars von Trier is a socially awkward dick.
-
I maintain that there absolutely needs to be limits on dayphases (though I'm personally more partial to the 24 hour night, 48 hour day for the sake of convenience). Otherwise the town can just sit around and be passive instead of taking matters into their own hands and getting stuff done. Passivity on the town's side needs to be punished.
Regarding the number of games, I still don't like to have more than two active at a time. I'm not against the idea of more if people really want it, but I find myself busy enough when I need to divide my attention between two, so I probably would have to skip some, which would be a shame.
The list is a good idea since hosting mafias is so popular. It also gives both hosts and players a schedule to work from.
-
Magnus has officially become the most awesome member ever.
-
Interference from mafia is a given but with our trackers and protectors I'd be surprised if we didn't catch them interfering.
I hope so.
-
Do you mean the logic of the game 'mafia' as a general concept? Or this game's logic specifically? Because while I admit you're right about the general game, but as I have said, in previous games it hasn't been the case. Then again, the game has evolved so much from the 'vanilla' style game it started as, there is little point in saying that :p
Basically, all I'm saying is that while logically it may make sense for a killer to be classed as town, it is just as logical for them not to be. It depends on what logic you follow :p Saying either for sure is just not possible, as the GM can do what they want.
I think the best way to sum this up is as follows:
This discussion has been fun, but ultimately pointless. There is no certain answer to whether there would be a good killer, or whether the killer would be neutral. The best way to find out will be determined by what happens tonight
SO!
Tonight, Dazz is the person who most needs to be protected. I know there have been a couple of protectors who have come out, so if one of you could protect him that would be good. If the other wouldn't mind protecting me I would really appreciate it (only because having entirely revealed myself I am now coming out to help the town, rather than hiding in my room and setting traps, so I'm clearly on your side), but as I say, Dazz is a priority. Depending on his result tonight we may confirm 3 players as good (and me as neutral) OR prove that Dazz is not as useful as we thought, and that we shouldn't trust his investigations.
It's going to be an interesting/exciting night....
I meant the logic of the game in general, and since all our mafia games are based on the basic principles of mafia, I did indeed consider those principles to extend to this. However, having had our discussion, I do indeed see your point that we can't actually know for sure*. So it hasn't been entirely pointless! :p
*Except for the fact that my role PM says I'm good and can kill.
But yes, it shall indeed be an interesting night! Though I do fear intereference from the mafia.
-
Im afraid you don't understand. The neutral killer, in those games, was neutral as they were a killer, but their win condition was the same as the rest of the town - 'you will win when the mafia has been eliminated'. The only reason they were neutral was because they were a killer.
It wasn't a mistake, it was the decision of the GM. This is what I mean - saying that it is ALWAYS the case that a win condition denotes an alignment is simply not the case. The GM can do whatever they like with a game - there are no rules about alignments, and if a GM decides to make a neutral killer with a town-like win condition, that's their choice. It's not a mistake.
And of course, I wouldn't have been referring to these examples if the alignment had appeared wrongly during the game. At the end of the game, when a list of roles was posted, there was a neutral killer with a town-like win condition. I wish I could find the game to show you, but having played in around 30 or something, it's rather difficult.
I think the point is not whether we can trust the GM, but whether we can predict what they want to do with their game. The answer is that we cannot predict how a GM will organise his game, so assuming anything about alignments, or anything else, is foolish as it may certainly not be the case.
Anyway, as I said, we will find out tonight. If there is any messing about on your part I will take it as confirmation that you are evil :p
I do understand perfectly, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to do it that way according to the game's original logic, since alignment originated as a simple term to determine whether someone was on the town's side or the mafia's side. To suddenly change that definition of alignment is to bring a whole new aspect into the game - much like some RPGs distinguishes between "lawful good" and "chaotic good", for instance.
All that being said, I completely agree that the GM can do what he wants with the game. I honestly couldn't care less what we're labelled as, I just wanted to underline the facts since some people were still confused.
This is the point at which it stops being logic and starts being you making shit up :p Sorry, but to me it is logical that a killer cannot be called good, no matter what his win condition is. If someone can kill, they are not good, and to me that is entirely logical, by the simple statement of killing = bad.Not according to the original game logic, I'm afraid.
It's not built on ethics, my friend! Lynching is killing, too, you know. Haha, you two. You're both right.Yeah, I know, but apparently we both love a good discussion, however pointless and fruitless it may be! :p
-
Right, so I'll admit there have been examples, however this is simply not the case. I know, for a 100% fact, that there have been several games in which neutrals have had the same win condition as the town. I know because I was one once - a 'good' player, but who was neutral due to the way in which I carried out my night power. I won with the town, nevertheless.
Fine, you may have run games in which the win condition decided the alignment, but to say that this is always the case is both incorrect and foolish. You cannot be so sure what the GM would do in the game, so saying it is simple is just no true.
Be aware that I've ever only argued that my point is true logically. I'm not saying what GMs would and wouldn't do, I'm saying what makes sense from a logical point of view.
The only reason I even begun arguing about this was to make sure that no one was suspicious of the two of us on a false basis. What matters is that you have your own win condition separate to that of the town while I simply win alongside the town when all threats to it have been eliminated. I am labelled good in my role PM while you are labelled neutral.
Anyway, if there is a kill tonight from Angus, when you are laying your traps and I am targeting you, I will believe you 100%. If there is no kill I will be almost 100% convinced you are Angus.I'll just pray that the mafia doesn't decide to play tactically and refrain from killing tonight, then.
-
Aside from the fact that its some of the funniest stuff on the internet.
Tastes differ, mate.
It's not that I'm against offensive humour at all. It's just ... there's something that just really displeases me about his way of going about it. I can't exactly put my finger on it, to be honest.
Anyway, carry on.
-
Of course, if the killer's objective was to kill the mafia by himself and win by himself that way, it would make sense that he's neutral, but that's because his win condition differs from that of the town.
Hmm, well fine then. I remember several games (that were admittedly a while ago) in which the neutral vig had the same win condition as the town. I remember them because people questioned whether the vigilantes were telling the truth when they said that was their win condition, but when they were lynched they were shown to be neutral but telling the truth.I'd say that's a logical mistake on the part of the GM, then. Of course, people can appear with a "wrong" alignment when investigated, and the alignment revealed at death may not actually be correct, either (or even present at all), but then we're back at the "How much can you trust the GM?" debate.
-
No, I'm afraid that is incorrect. There have been a number of games in which there have been neutral killers whose win condition is to eliminate the mafia. Of course, if you can find a few examples of when your situation was the case I'll concede, but I'm pretty sure others who have been playing these games for a while will back me up here.
I'm not denying that, I'm just saying it makes absolutely no sense. Win condition determines alignment. It's as simple as that.
A couple of examples being the two mafias I have run, The Nintendo Mafia and The Colour Mafia. I know there have been others.
-
Of course, I'm not saying people wouldn't call vigilantes neutral, but if they win with the town and have no other win conditions, it defies the logic of the game to call them neutral.
-
Just to say Dannyboy, vigilantes are almost always neutral. Killers simply are not members of the town; they cannot be 'good' because by nature they kill, which is an evil act. I can remember serveral games in which vigilantes have been present as neutrals, but I cannot remember one game in which a player who had the ability to kill was good. Just something to consider.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. A player's alignment is determined by their win condition. Townies win when all threats to the town have been eliminated. A vigilante is a killer on the town's side. A serial killer is a neutral killer with his own win condition, often to kill a specific player or a certain number of players.
A player's ability to kill does not determine their alignment.
-
I also don't like the fact that a persons 2nd, 3rd or 4th vote could be counted towards someone winning when someone elses 2nd, 3rd or 4th vote who voted differently has no effect what so ever on the outcome. Therefore some people's voting choices have more power. I don't think it is that fair. You could also end up with a lot of weird parties getting more seats.
But only one vote from each person will be counted. At least this way a lot of votes won't get wasted.
Still, I'll never understand the logic behind the British and American voting systems. The Danish system makes so much more sense to me, and that isn't even due to me being Danish!
-
But he clearly makes fun of himself too. Like when he spoke about using hair removal cream on sensitive areas and his many other little anecdotes.
I loved that the school lifted the computer ban in the flash drive incident.
It's all besides the point for me, really. It doesn't change the fact that he's acting like a douche.
-
Also as much as that cat video seems silly, I think it does quite a good job of summing it up in a simple/extreme way.
It did. I hadn't understood it entirely before I watched that video.
-
Discussion has died down. Is there nothing else that needs to be discussed today?
-
Lolz, I thought that was a photoshop!
It's the Rez smirk and the fact you're quite a bit more blurry, I thought it had come from another photo!
Yeah, I thought so too when I first saw it. :p
-
Well instead of getting angry about it they could just not reply.
But isn't that the general attitude of jerks? "Well, just don't be offended by it!"
He truly is funny, I'll give you that, but I'd just like him loads better if he only used his powers for good.
-
There are some Danish bands I'd recommend to people. A lot of Danish artists sing in English, though, so it may not have that "foreign" feel. Anyway ...
Dizzy Mizz Lizzy
An extremely popular Danish band that has been around since the '80s. Has a very distinct sound.
Nephew
A newer band which has also gained a large fan base. They're known for their semi-nonsensical lyrics and their mixing of the Danish and English languages.
-
He is a prick but he's funny about it. I don't get why I find it funny because I do actually think he's mean but I can't help but laugh. I felt bad laughing at Missing Missy but I just couldn't help it.
(Well, that one was a particularly bad example for me because of my love for cats, but I acknowledge my bias there.
)Some of them are a joy to read, like the one where some idiot he once did some work for and never got paid by wants him to do some free work for him. When the bastards have it coming, it's wonderful.
But in a lot of the cases he just seems to act like a prick for no apparent reason other than to be a dick about petty things. The one with the religious play was particularly bad; I would have backed him up if it was an extremist nutjob, but it wasn't! It was a harmless play about the Christian meaning of Easter, and he could opt out of it if he wanted.
The fact that he's doing it humourously only adds to his dickishness when there's no good reason for him to act that way.
-
Because we got two, not just one, vigilantes that appearently helps the town.
Probably not. You know very well I don't like either of you.
I find it weird that you both are apparently vigilante killers yet only Angus has been killing. So you've both done practically nothing the rest of the nights?Get your facts straight, people! I fully accept the suspiciousness of my role, but I won't be suspected on false grounds.
1) Dohnut is NOT a vigilante, he is neutral. He has his own win condition: to kill Angus himself. There's no saying the town will win alongside him if he does, nor are we even certain that Angus is the mafia (to be honest, we're very much in the dark on that front).
2) I have only been a vigilante for ONE night! And I decided not to kill because I have no clue who's mafia!
N-E Picture Caption Game
in General Chit Chat
Posted
Which one?
After receiving the biggest ass-whooping in his life, George began to realise it had probably been a mistake creating a chicken/Cuccoo hybrid.