Speaking of which, who targetted who in the wee hours of the night?

Well, I killed Thawmus.

After Kit and Maniac (both of whom had high fast-draw scores, but not as high as Thawmus) were killed, I figured that someone was going after gunmen. They probably left Thawmus alone, figuring that his high fast draw score would be useful and that they could kill him on the last night.

Unfortunately, that left me high on the list of targets. I didn't know who was going after the gunmen, and even if I did, it's possible that my treachery score wasn't high enough to take them down.

So I figured killing Thawmus would improve my chances. I'd have the highest fast draw score, so there'd be a chance that I'd be left alone in case future challenges required fast draw. And if someone killed me, well, at least I'd make those future fast draw challenges a lot tougher for them without Thawmus.

I wonder if I could make the decision of whether to backstab someone a little more interesting.

What if the players pick which skills they have, but don't have to assign points. You either have a skill or you don't.

Then, when you meet a challenge, you have a base 50% chance of defeating it without someone getting killed. Each person who can donate an applicable skill would up the chance of success by 5% or 10%.

That way, every time you backstab someone, you always reduce the chances of defeating the next challenge.

Hows that sound? Or should I keep things the way they are?

Yeah, as I watched the game progress, I realized the strategy behind that. SOMEONE was going to have to kill me at some point, because my fast-draw was dangerously high for end-game. The highest end game score to roll with was an 18 for knife fighting. So in order to open themselves up so they could attack OTHER people later in the game, I was gonna have to go early.

And then when I realized that their challenges would always be meetable, regardless of how many people were alive, I realized my stats weren't really sound for this game in the first place. Nobody ever needed my fast-draw stats, so my whole strategy of making myself a valuable resource, was stupid.

No big deal, I figured it out.

You could try something like that.

I'm not sure what a good system would be.

The current system seems a bit broken, though. What's to stop someone from loading themselves up with 50 treachery points, and not have anything elsewhere? The challenges were always meetable, so they'd never have anything to fear.

That's fixable by just putting a cap on the number of Treachery points you are allowed to give yourself. If I stick with the point system, I'll do that.

I could also keep the point system, but make it so the challenges aren't always meetable. I could plot out in advance just how many points from specific attributes are needed to advance without a loss. That way, if enough guys are killed, you could all suddenly slam into a challenge you can't meet.

I could add the option to every round of spending an attribute point of some sort to make sure you aren't the person killed.

How's that sound?

How about this:

The challenges are always meetable, but for each person already killed, there is a cumulative 5% chance of someone else getting killed even if the challenge is met.

Any way you want is fine. I only had a high Treachery score once I saw Anti's. I figured I needed to keep up with the Jones's.

I think the challenges shouldn't always be meetable.

The point of the game is to balance cooperating to achieve a common goal against backstabbing other players for your own advantage. If there's a real possibility that doing away with another player will have real consequences for the group as a whole, you get more tension between the the competing values of common good/selfish advantage, and that makes the game more interesting.

Okay, right now I'm planning on modifying the game as follows:

There will be a cap on the number of points that can be initially assigned to Treachery

All challenges will be meetable in terms of assigning the required points, but there will be a cumulative 5% chance for each person killed of failing the challenge regardless. That means there will be consequences to backstabbing your comrades.

Since the next one is science fiction, I'm thinking about giving everyone a personal scanner that guards against backstabbing, but only has a limited amount of power. I'm not sure how the exact mechanics of this will work, but if I come up with a good idea, I'll use it.

I'm still open to input on whether these are good ideas.

I posted before I saw your post.

If the challenges aren't always meetable, then I have to plan them all out in advance, assigning the number of points needed to make the goal. This is no problem.

The danger, though, is that there might come a point late in the game where the challenges are NEVER meetable and the group is doomed no matter what they do. If I can come up with a way to avoid this, then the idea of not having all the challenges meetable becomes more practical.

Well, if the treacherous players kill off the people who can meet the challenges, why shouldn't they suffer the consequences of their actions?

That's true. It just wouldn't be much fun to play a game with no chance of meeting any of the challenges. There always has to be a chance of someone winning.

Kal, I think you HAVE to make it that way, actually. There has to be a point where, if there are too many deaths, nobody's going to win. Otherwise people will be content with the bare minimum, as they were in this game. If there has to be a game where this happens, it may be enough to tip the balance back to cooperation.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, and all that.

Well, that's what we're saying, though. If it means losing, then people will be less apt to do it. Thing is, it might have to happen for one game, just so everyone is aware of the breaking point.