Gia, sorry for any confusion I may be creating. I’m not seeking any rules clarification. I’m simply saying that I was asked a question in the game thread, I answered it, but now the post has been shifted over here. Hopefully everyone follows the links, but I’m not assuming that.
We already talked about this, it’s okay to have meta discussions and nobody is obliged to keep in character. Discussions about what the rules should be are better done in this thread.
No, I decided it’s more fun if they are left in the dark. Of course the Guardian knows, and is free to announce what they know. And of course, by pedantry, if the Guardian protected themself, then the protected player would know they were protected.
There would not. It is part of the rules that there is no new Nightwatch when one gets killed.
I tried putting a motivation for this that made sense storywise in the rules, but there is no option for you to actually vote for this. It would also not make sense, since you would first need to know that the Nightwatch died before voting, which is not revealed.
Maybe this is my mistake, I should’ve stated the rule more clearly
We don’t get to vote on this, therefore we are not the people in the court.
Well we are people in the court, that somehow don’t have the power to allow someone to watch over at night, but then we are able to vote to kill someone. Why?
Well, I understand why, just if I think about my role it is confusing.
You are the court… I’ve been calling you all “courtiers” since the first sentence of the game.
As for that you didn’t get to vote for it, that’s since it’s not a game mechanic, as I said above, I tried to translate the mechanic into something vaguely plausible, just like I made up a crossbow and gave you all arbitrary jobs. There’s no actual crossbow, you’re not actually Master of the Hunt. Got it?
Actually voting for a Nightwatch would be impossible as well:
Perhaps a good thing to keep in mind for role-play in general:
Don’t go about confronting people for not being consistent, flaws in the story, pointing out illogical explanations, etc. Instead, go with the flow, try to bend the story towards what people make of it. Never shoot down an idea, but adopt it instead. It’s rule #1 of improvisation.
I completely agree. I was also told at one point to “stay in character” that to me included disagreeing with the importance rules in a game. It is kind of hard to think of it as improv though because I think of the more obvious things as improv but now always the less obvious things.
