Ruffhaus -

Per my original post:

Objectives:

The King: Survive and kill all Rebels AND the Traitor
The Knights: Kill all Rebels AND the Traitor. Keep the King alive.
Rebels: Kill the King (without the only survivor being a Traitor).
Traitor: Death of ALL other players. Even other Traitors.

The game ends when the King is killed, or when all of the Rebels and Traitors are killed.

The game ends when the King is killed. That means if there's a rebel alive when that happens, they win. Period. If it doesn't work well for Diplomacy here on the website, we can modify it. We've already done that with the Imperial game, making the traitors able to work as a "team" essentially.

As for it being impossible, you yourself earlier in this thread said that THAT was what made it interesting. The traitor has a SUPER hard objective. They have to get the Knights/rebels to fight each other while they grow. They have to keep the game balanced. If either side gets too strong, they risk losing. If they can keep it balanced, they have a chance to grow. The traitor has to play the long game.

Very well then. I think it's poorly worded though, which has created the confusion. It's insanity to play as the traitor, particularly if the players badges are revealed on death. It's not a matter of having to play the long game. I get that. I get that it's super hard. What you don't understand is that the rules you are telling me to use make it impossible for the traitor. That's something completely different than super hard.

It's not impossible. Nearly? Probably. But it's meant to be. If the Traitor can successfully grow to a 12-13 SC size while keeping the knights/rebels on even footing, he can make a move to jump to 18 SCs. Once that happens, there's av ery good chance the Traitor can win. Nearly impossible? Likely. But it's meant to be.

Aye I agree with Ruffhaus

I also just think that the variant becomes less interesting through this...I mean when the traitors( have to change sides multiple time, everyone knows that these are the traitors...but as I understood it, you could never be too sure of your friends and always be cautious because there always might be a traitor in a cloak and with a dagger...well, too sad :(

Knights could easily switch sides based on confusion or misunderstanding, not just traitors.

I say this is Drano's creation and I like his rules. Traitors have it tough, but I'd enjoy that. Mind games are fun.

And when the knights and rebels are fighting each other so fiercely, it is less likely that they dare to divert resources on the traitor(s).

I have seen traitors winning the card game, and I think it is also possible at our Diplomacy adoption.

I think that once the rebels have made themselves known, the traitor is able to do as he wishes. The King will want to focus all of his resources on the rebels, while the rebels just do everything that they can to get at the King. If the traitor decides to attack someone, neither side will really want to divert resources to deal with him, especially as he is unlikely to be a threat until the endgame. In that respect, the traitor is in an extremely strong position for as long as he can keep things balanced. As soon as that balance slips, one side will have the resources to deal with him.

@Battalion, that's exactly what I said in game.

The goal of the traitor is, until he is strong enough to be by himself, to balance between the rebel and the knight, if the rebels are winning, he should pretend to be a knight to prevent the rebels from finishing while simultaneously gaining centers. Once the knights start winning he should switch sides and start attacking the knights.

The goal of the traitor should be a balancing act, make sure neither the rebels nor the knights get too powerful.

I'm not even that sure that the pretence needs to be maintained - in many ways the traitor has the fortunate position of being the primary enemy of neither side. Once the battle between King and rebels begins to rage, the traitor can get away with revealing his identity (it will be hard to keep things balanced without doing so).

Is there any upcoming game? I'd be in again, I think I'm in the first right now, could be second. It's the 1897 variant if my memory is worth shit.

Either way, the idea that a traitor's role is possible, and/or even not that hard, is well-substantiated.

So let me get this straight:

For the traitor to win, first the king has to die and THEN the rebels? Not the rebels and then the king?

Seems like for anyone to win, their opposing side PLUS the traitor should be killed.

@Chaqa: The king has to be the final person to die for the Traitor to win. For the King to win the traitor has to be eliminated.

Right, if the traitor is stupid enough to kill the King when rebels are still here, he conveniently gives the game to the rebels.

Seems stupid.

The rebels shouldn't win with the traitor alive.

^But if the king's dead, the knights lose by default, but they might still be in the game. What happens then? Normally, the game would end and rebels declared victor, avoiding that problem.

I think your query comes down to a matter of Diplomacy's end-game mechanism. It will be good if the system can be modified to allow a concession to be made to more than one player - this allows the rebels to be declared victors when the King is dead.

^Great, then nothing needs to be changed, right? I'd swear this is exactly how it works with concede button... Basically you agree to not be part of any draw.

the bad thing is that the concede thing only works when all except one players do it, so as I said, you can't have a concession made to, say, two rebels

Not even if those 2 rebels vote draw? I thought it was possible.

Nope, Lukas is right. What would have to happen is that when the game is over, all the "losers" just enter holds while the "winners" take their SCs and then draw. A bit tedious, but that would then give the proper people the "win".

Actually a great deal needs to be changed if you really want there to be more of these games. I won't walk away from GMing the 4 that are in progress, but I will; not take on more of them until this is fleshed out better. I'll certainly never play this under the the concept that the rebels do not have to kill the traitors(s) as well. Why would anyone ever agree to be the traitor? People will just quit the game as soon as it's assigned to them. And why not. It's an automatic loss. It is impossible to win as the traitor under the rules at the top of this thread. I misunderstood them slightly earlier, which is why I defended the point that it was merely very difficult, and said that made it fun.

I think it was a good concept, but the ruling is poorly worded and confusing (as evidenced by the many posts here), and now upon seeing drano's clarifications, it's not completely thought out for playability. It's just a flawed concept which these initial games have proven. It's a completely unplayable arrangement for the traitor.

Furthermore there is no reason for the requirement for the "losers" to stop playing the Diplomacy game. The SRG is a special rules victory, not a Diplomacy victory. This talk of having "losing" players hold while the "winners" take their remaining centers is just silly, and there are absolutely no rules for that at all. You're making up rules on the fly now.

The only way the DRAW buttons should be used is if the GM directs players to do so because the game is over. The rules specifically say that the game ends when the king is killed, or when all of the rebels and traitors are killed. There is no mention of conceding or holding until eliminated.

Ruffhaus I think you are taking things a bit too far concerning the rule-making, um, frenzy, if any ...

What drano suggested about the losers holding is not a new rule ... it is a recommendation to facilitate the ending of the game once the winners and losers are determined - and it was recommended in light of the current game-ending system of Diplomacy itself.

I would propose we cancel the game after knowing who wins and loses though - it's a SRG as said and it would be enough if the winner(s) is/are acknowledged openly in the thread. Of course, a reason to oppose this is the effect on Vdip points and statistics - but personally I don't think the points and number of games won/lost are so important.

Ruffhaus -

Again, of all people, I would think that YOU would agree that the traitor's role as written is, while extremely difficult, also extremely intriguing. I mean, you always rant about how people need to stop being "dot grabbers" and focus on the larger strategy, and that's EXACTLY what the traitor must do.

Look, no one is denying that it's extremely difficult as the traitor to win. It's supposed to be. The traitor must essentially solo the game while also keeping the game balanced. It's incredibly hard, and most will almost assuredly fail.

However, making the rebels eliminate the traitor(s) as well completely ruins the balance of the game. Why would the traitor ever do anything except pretend to be a rebel if that were the case? If the traitor acted just like a rebel, and diplomed with others as if he was a rebel, there would be ZERO way to know who the traitor is. That would lead to an end game where instead of the rebels being able to declare victory, they would have to not only kill the King, but then eliminate their OWN TEAMMATES. The traitor could easily hide within the Rebels and then, instead of the traitor having no chance, the Knights would have absolutely zero chance of victory since they'd be outnumbered in every single game. How do you win when you're outnumbered from the start AND you don't even know who you enemy is?

Regarding the rule "making"...Lukas is absolutely right. No one is trying to make "rules". I was simply building on the conversation going on. I was saying that there is no way to "concede" to a team, and that if we wanted the winning team to be able to "win" in vdip mechanic, they'd have to eliminate the others and then draw. Personally, I'd be fine canceling as Lukas suggested. I know people would object to a large draw for Vdip points and stat reasons, and canceling would go around that.

Ruffhaus is focusing on the larger strategy, but there is none for the traitor it seems...

I think the traitor would be much more balanced if his object was to solo (18 scs) rather then eliminate everyone.

Fasces -

The game isnt supposed to be balanced. The traitor is supposed to be at a big disadvantage. Thats how its supposed to work.

As for making soloing the traitors objective, woukdnt it be weird to have 6 people play a SRG whike 1 person is essentially playing a normal game? That strikes me as extremely odd.