Again, anyone?
Jan. 17th, 2007 10:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sniffnoySo, it's over. Final 5 were the Sara(h)s, Katy, Ian, and Sam. Then went Katy, then Sarah, then Sara, and finally it was just Ian and Sam. We never did decide whether they would fight for the one extra kill, but Ian had tons of kills, whereas Sam had been playing pure defense and had none, and so Ian was declared the winner.
Well, it was a bit more confusing than that.
Or, well, actually, it was a real botch.
I had slept through the initial call-all-the-players-together-see-who's-playing-explain-the-rules meeting, so I didn't know just how ambiguous Kate and Girl Alex had left the rules. I supsected Kate's official rule summary on the board would be a disaster, and indeed, it turned out to be. We had all sorts of rules questions coming up. That in itself wasn't a big problem since most of the questions were pretty stupid and actually would have been answered by Kate's summary, but the problem was that when there were questions when things were genuinely ambiguous, people turned to us. We were playing, remember! By this point we were long out, but still... I'm pretty sure I ruled wrongly on Ian's killing of Katy according to the recorded rules (he barged through her slightly open door to tag her; I ruled it OK). Bill and Dave were nominally the GMs, but they really did nothing but the randomization, since that's all they were originally supposed to do. Then there was the case of genuine omissions from Kate's summary - Sarah got killed by Ian thinking she was safe because she was holding a Bartlett lunch tray - the rule summary didn't bother to specify that only Pierce trays would protect you, and only in Pierce dining hall itself. As there was no official rule writeup aside from what Girl Alex and Kate announced at the meeting, people didn't know.
Then we had Mark Stankevitz. Mark thought the rule was that you're safe if you're touching someone from Pierce, rather than someone in Pierce. He didn't bother to ask about this. So he was actually killed a long time ago, but his killer apparently wasn't clear on the rules either. We didn't count this when it came out for reasons of practicality... how did it come out? The same thing happened again with Sara killing him, only Sara knew her rules a bit better. Mark meanwhile killed Sarah while already dead, meaning when we found out what happened, we had to revive Sarah (not that she was ever really dead, of course). But the real problem was that he didn't tell Sara her new target! Now, from all I've ever heard, you're supposed to play it with cards - you get a card listing your target, and when you kill someone, you take their card. We weren't handing out cards, so I figured people would make their own. But Girl Alex and Kate apparently failed to mention cards entirely, so we had to rely on victims simply telling their killers their new target. And Mark didn't. When questioned later, he gave the wrong target - that this was wrong was figured out by all the people keeping track, who figured out who her target actually had to be and eventually got this information to her, but it was pretty slow - and said he "didn't care". Didn't care?! You broke it, you fix it! I shouted at him. Not a word of apology from him.
Regardless, Ian is the winner. Other people are saying we should at least a month before doing this again; I say we should do it soon to make up for this mess. And this time, I'll write down the official copy of the rules, both a summary and a detailed version.
-Harry
Well, it was a bit more confusing than that.
Or, well, actually, it was a real botch.
I had slept through the initial call-all-the-players-together-see-who's-playing-explain-the-rules meeting, so I didn't know just how ambiguous Kate and Girl Alex had left the rules. I supsected Kate's official rule summary on the board would be a disaster, and indeed, it turned out to be. We had all sorts of rules questions coming up. That in itself wasn't a big problem since most of the questions were pretty stupid and actually would have been answered by Kate's summary, but the problem was that when there were questions when things were genuinely ambiguous, people turned to us. We were playing, remember! By this point we were long out, but still... I'm pretty sure I ruled wrongly on Ian's killing of Katy according to the recorded rules (he barged through her slightly open door to tag her; I ruled it OK). Bill and Dave were nominally the GMs, but they really did nothing but the randomization, since that's all they were originally supposed to do. Then there was the case of genuine omissions from Kate's summary - Sarah got killed by Ian thinking she was safe because she was holding a Bartlett lunch tray - the rule summary didn't bother to specify that only Pierce trays would protect you, and only in Pierce dining hall itself. As there was no official rule writeup aside from what Girl Alex and Kate announced at the meeting, people didn't know.
Then we had Mark Stankevitz. Mark thought the rule was that you're safe if you're touching someone from Pierce, rather than someone in Pierce. He didn't bother to ask about this. So he was actually killed a long time ago, but his killer apparently wasn't clear on the rules either. We didn't count this when it came out for reasons of practicality... how did it come out? The same thing happened again with Sara killing him, only Sara knew her rules a bit better. Mark meanwhile killed Sarah while already dead, meaning when we found out what happened, we had to revive Sarah (not that she was ever really dead, of course). But the real problem was that he didn't tell Sara her new target! Now, from all I've ever heard, you're supposed to play it with cards - you get a card listing your target, and when you kill someone, you take their card. We weren't handing out cards, so I figured people would make their own. But Girl Alex and Kate apparently failed to mention cards entirely, so we had to rely on victims simply telling their killers their new target. And Mark didn't. When questioned later, he gave the wrong target - that this was wrong was figured out by all the people keeping track, who figured out who her target actually had to be and eventually got this information to her, but it was pretty slow - and said he "didn't care". Didn't care?! You broke it, you fix it! I shouted at him. Not a word of apology from him.
Regardless, Ian is the winner. Other people are saying we should at least a month before doing this again; I say we should do it soon to make up for this mess. And this time, I'll write down the official copy of the rules, both a summary and a detailed version.
-Harry
