CraigM cannot use Overheard Conversation, he must give it to someone else.
I’m again not the worst choice here. If I find Ot to be good, I know Thraeg is also good, and so Dave and rowe are evil. Makes an excellent chain.
Yes I was contemplating you. Because the reality is that neither Dave nor Rowe would tell us anything. Both would give us the result that implicates Thraeg.
You, however can cleanly filter this. It doesn’t give us certainty on Thraeg, should you say Ot is evil, but if you say Ot is good… well that would be quite the thing.
Overheard Conversation to Rho @Snebmi
rho21 has recieved Otthegreat’s allegiance.
Annoyingly Ot is on the evil team.
It’s helpful. If Ott is evil, so is Thraeg, and the dominos start falling.
That’s not true from an outside view. Ott can be evil and Thraeg can be good and you can be evil.
Okay, but I think the narrative is simpler if I am good and they are both evil.
I gave Open Up to Thraeg and he elected to open up to Ott, not me. This is a no-brainer if both Thraeg and Ott are evil. Ott said that Thraeg was good, of course.
Then we three went on the first mission and it passed. Neither of them voted for the mission to fail, but that’s a sensible play when two of three are evil on the first mission, so it’s not hard to believe.
Next, rowe33 gives the Overhead Conversation card to Thraeg, who says that I am evil.
Thraeg Keeps a Close Eye on rowe33, and claims that rowe33 cast the fail vote on mission two. Of course.
Then Craig gives rho21 Overhead Conversation, and he plays it on Ott, who rho21 says is evil.
That is the narrative from the Dave good, Thraeg/Ott evil universe. It seems quite straightforward. Is the narrative where I am evil quite this simple?
Your scenario is plausible, and @Thraeg’s failure to veto the team is consistent with it. That doesn’t mean it’s true, of course, but I do think it’s plausible.
I’m just looking for plausible, as there’s nothing decidable yet. I think simplicity lends weight to plausibility. SLWTP!
We shall call you Dave of Ockham.
It sure is. If Ott is evil and I’m good, then I Opened Up to Ot because it was 50-50 and I had no idea there was a metagame expectation to use it on you. Ot and you both voted for the first mission to succeed because you say that’s apparently standard strategy. Then Ott voted success on the second mission because he thought Rowe would fail it, as indeed happened.
Or we’re both good, and Rho is lying about Ott’s card.
Obviously you think the narrative is simpler. But that doesn’t make it right or actually simpler. The role distribution in this game is whatever it actually is and with the cards that have come out clearly have caused whichever people are evil to have to take some risks. There’s too many motives in play to think that us uninformed good can just go with the flow.
Speaking outside the game for a sec, I would say that no one should expect a new player to be beholden to meta-game expectations. In fact, I usually don’t pay attention to them, either.
Back into the game!
I never claimed it was right, or that simple equals better. All I am saying is that simple bolsters plausibility. And so now the Good side can decide if my narrative or Thraeg’s (a couple of posts up) is more plausible, using whatever evidence they’d like.
I just think it’s important to keep repeating the current narratives.
It’s not really a meta game expectation so much as relatively obvious strategy. The team leader has to try and pick a safe team, and the only way he can do that in the first round is to get information about someone, and the only way to do that is to get lucky and draw the right cards and use them to learn about someone. He gave the card to you with the expectation you would reveal yourself to him so that he could have the confidence to put you on his team. Otherwise he’s just shooting in the dark.
The fact that you didn’t veto a team that clearly had at least on evil person voting for it adds credibility to this view. It’s hardly certain, but it’s quite plausible.
Pretending to speak outside the game for a second, but also speaking inside the game. There are very few real and true meta-game expectations. Almost everyone who is claiming there’s a single correct move is pushing an agenda or their own perceptions.
In absence of a better plan building chains of trust is good for good. Primarily because later in the game it’s possible to end up with logically provable good players as card targets. Everything else is pretty much up in the air in my book.
Again, for the record, I am not claiming that my narrative is true, or that there’s a single correct move. In fact, I mainly wrote out that narrative just so I could see if I was missing something in it. Sounds like it’s solid, as narratives go.