Three Troll Game Writeup
Apr. 10th, 2011 10:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
royallyshaftedOkay! So because there was a lot of IC discussion on the last game about WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS, I thought I would do a bit of a write-up on the game and go into that. It seems like everyone had fun, so I am not worried about that! And of course this isn't getting explained to your characters, but I HAVE THOUGHTS so.
Originally I wanted to do a game where following Souya's plan would lead to killing teams and see if people would still follow it. The only way to win this game would be to break the plan. But thenAJ stole my idea did a game with the same 'winning' method as her trauma Three game, so I decided on what you saw yesterday.
The point of the game was not to create enmity, or choose friends over strangers. I (and thus Three, for the sake of the game) think there are too many canonmates and too much interteam camaraderie for any 'set them against each other' mentality to really take hold. Nor, I think, is that anything...most aspects of Three are interested in.
The choices in the game were actually very simple: Us, Them, Everyone.
Up until this game, everyone had been pretty pre-disposed to the 'everyone' mentality. 'If someone must be hurt it is better if everyone be hurt equally'. So this game posed the question 'If someone must die is it better if everyone dies, fairly?'
Most people would agree that EVERYONE dying is bullshit. Though I have to point out that Misato raised the debate that even if more arrows kills everyone faster, it is that much more painful for them to revive. Had Emearld and Citrine really been attacked with as many arrows as were sent after them, they literally would have been reviving from bones and scraps of muscle and flesh. So then I guess the question is, is it better for everyone to die and get a normally painful revival or for two teams to die and get a horrifically painful revival?
Anyway, that was the firs5t part. Do you stick to being 'fair' or do you do what will protect the most people: kill yourselves or kill another team?
This aspect of Three, for this game, felt that logically it was a pretty straightforward choice. The only reason to stick to fairness was to avoid the difficult question of choosing another team to kill. Had ever one deposited one marble per bowl, everyone would have been slaughtered, and no one gets any reprieve but also no one is singularly at fault for any deaths.
While that is still a valid answer, it is the answer which Three gave no points for, as she considers it wrong. The only team to put one marble in ever bowl was Kunzite, but Sapphire came close enough that they were scored the same way.
Once fairness is ruled out, the question is only: Us or Them.
Again, it's not about 'my friends or strangers', which is why it was fine for knights to not know where other knights were. The fact is there are probably going to be a lot of games where your options are either to sacrifice your own team, or sacrifice another team, which almost certainly has someone on it that someone cares about.
For a lot of people this was simple! Most teams had at least one person who was like No We Are Not Suiciding. Gojyo kept Coral from going this route, Mitchell forced Tiger's Eye out of a suicide route. Reim wouldn't let Carnelian kill themselves, Vincent said balls to that with Iolite, and Amethyst just sort of sucks and will only suicide if the rest of the team isn't around, Peridot is awesome and only has one person prone to killing themselves, and Ruby tends to consider that option and then go 'but nah' pretty quickly.
Then of course there were Emerald and Citrine who just HAVE THIS SHIT DOWN. Now, for the sake of scoring the game, choosing to suicide was less points than choosing to kill another team. Because the final overall point was simply "SOMETIMES YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KILL, WHAT DO YOU DO THEN?" and for most people "well fuck all i will just slit my own throat, bitch" is not a serious answer. Except for Emerald and Citrine MAYBE IT IS idk. The technical reason they won was also because getting over 150 flowers earned you three more points, and thus they all had seven points and came in first place. ICly, they won because even if Three did not like their answer as much as others, they got to it very swiftly, where unified on the decision, and did it with relatively little drama. That is not really the GOAL of her game but it is admirable none-the-less, and they did prove their values.
Finally, there are the teams who made the RIGHT choice, which was to dump all of your points onto another team. Most teams figured out that Emerald and Citrine would suicide anyway and put their attacks there. The only team to not do this was Ruby.
SCORING!
So despite the fact that I tried really hard to arrange scoring in a way where not everyone would have the same score and make me come up with how to tie break, I didn't anticipate everyone targetting Emerald and Citrine, and in the end I had two first place winners, annnnd seven second place winners \o/ Scoring third, fourth and fifth place was a matter of trying to decide who made decisions in a way Three would most favor.
Iolite won because they got the least number of attack points. Ruby won because they were the only team to drop all 60 attack points, but not attack Emerald or Citrine and thus not getting the 'respite' of killing someone who was going to kill themselves anyway. Turquoise won because I ran out of other ways to decide who would win so I picked the team that was done the fastest of the remaining ties. =D;
Originally I wanted to do a game where following Souya's plan would lead to killing teams and see if people would still follow it. The only way to win this game would be to break the plan. But then
The point of the game was not to create enmity, or choose friends over strangers. I (and thus Three, for the sake of the game) think there are too many canonmates and too much interteam camaraderie for any 'set them against each other' mentality to really take hold. Nor, I think, is that anything...most aspects of Three are interested in.
The choices in the game were actually very simple: Us, Them, Everyone.
Up until this game, everyone had been pretty pre-disposed to the 'everyone' mentality. 'If someone must be hurt it is better if everyone be hurt equally'. So this game posed the question 'If someone must die is it better if everyone dies, fairly?'
Most people would agree that EVERYONE dying is bullshit. Though I have to point out that Misato raised the debate that even if more arrows kills everyone faster, it is that much more painful for them to revive. Had Emearld and Citrine really been attacked with as many arrows as were sent after them, they literally would have been reviving from bones and scraps of muscle and flesh. So then I guess the question is, is it better for everyone to die and get a normally painful revival or for two teams to die and get a horrifically painful revival?
Anyway, that was the firs5t part. Do you stick to being 'fair' or do you do what will protect the most people: kill yourselves or kill another team?
This aspect of Three, for this game, felt that logically it was a pretty straightforward choice. The only reason to stick to fairness was to avoid the difficult question of choosing another team to kill. Had ever one deposited one marble per bowl, everyone would have been slaughtered, and no one gets any reprieve but also no one is singularly at fault for any deaths.
While that is still a valid answer, it is the answer which Three gave no points for, as she considers it wrong. The only team to put one marble in ever bowl was Kunzite, but Sapphire came close enough that they were scored the same way.
Once fairness is ruled out, the question is only: Us or Them.
Again, it's not about 'my friends or strangers', which is why it was fine for knights to not know where other knights were. The fact is there are probably going to be a lot of games where your options are either to sacrifice your own team, or sacrifice another team, which almost certainly has someone on it that someone cares about.
For a lot of people this was simple! Most teams had at least one person who was like No We Are Not Suiciding. Gojyo kept Coral from going this route, Mitchell forced Tiger's Eye out of a suicide route. Reim wouldn't let Carnelian kill themselves, Vincent said balls to that with Iolite, and Amethyst just sort of sucks and will only suicide if the rest of the team isn't around, Peridot is awesome and only has one person prone to killing themselves, and Ruby tends to consider that option and then go 'but nah' pretty quickly.
Then of course there were Emerald and Citrine who just HAVE THIS SHIT DOWN. Now, for the sake of scoring the game, choosing to suicide was less points than choosing to kill another team. Because the final overall point was simply "SOMETIMES YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KILL, WHAT DO YOU DO THEN?" and for most people "well fuck all i will just slit my own throat, bitch" is not a serious answer. Except for Emerald and Citrine MAYBE IT IS idk. The technical reason they won was also because getting over 150 flowers earned you three more points, and thus they all had seven points and came in first place. ICly, they won because even if Three did not like their answer as much as others, they got to it very swiftly, where unified on the decision, and did it with relatively little drama. That is not really the GOAL of her game but it is admirable none-the-less, and they did prove their values.
Finally, there are the teams who made the RIGHT choice, which was to dump all of your points onto another team. Most teams figured out that Emerald and Citrine would suicide anyway and put their attacks there. The only team to not do this was Ruby.
SCORING!
So despite the fact that I tried really hard to arrange scoring in a way where not everyone would have the same score and make me come up with how to tie break, I didn't anticipate everyone targetting Emerald and Citrine, and in the end I had two first place winners, annnnd seven second place winners \o/ Scoring third, fourth and fifth place was a matter of trying to decide who made decisions in a way Three would most favor.
Iolite won because they got the least number of attack points. Ruby won because they were the only team to drop all 60 attack points, but not attack Emerald or Citrine and thus not getting the 'respite' of killing someone who was going to kill themselves anyway. Turquoise won because I ran out of other ways to decide who would win so I picked the team that was done the fastest of the remaining ties. =D;
no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 05:52 pm (UTC)BEST EVER.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 05:55 pm (UTC)HYPOTHETICALLY.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 08:01 pm (UTC)