So, our spymaster can't communicate with us, but we can communicate with him indirectly. How about directly?
Say there are two words from past clues that we're not quite sure on. So could I take the word "Winner" and post in the game thread that if "Winner", and "Artichoke" are both red then the next clue should be "Triumphant:1" (which fundamentally would be a valid clue), Triumphant:0 if only Winner is valid and no reference to triumphant if winner is not red?
Say there are two words from past clues that we're not quite sure on. So could I take the word "Winner" and post in the game thread that if "Winner", and "Artichoke" are both red then the next clue should be "Triumphant:1" (which fundamentally would be a valid clue), Triumphant:0 if only Winner is valid and no reference to triumphant if winner is not red?
That feels kinda cheaty.
I see pros and cons. Because what you're not doing is bringing significant new information to the next round other than clearing up old clues. The permutations to make it work for more than three words would be ludicrous and probably impossible within the rules.
I can see how in a table game (which this is adapted from) that it would feel a more legitimate tactic.
I can see how in a table game (which this is adapted from) that it would feel a more legitimate tactic.
but you could extend that to guesses of color and response in the thread, then obtain said response. Seems cheating to me.
Stop trying to cheat, Cheaty McCheaterson.
The table game has a rule that the clue has to be related to at least one word on the table, and cannot be the same as any word currently in play (although it can be the same as a word already revealed earlier in this game.) In the PBF variant I'd suggest the team captain should be able to justify the clue to the moderator if challenged. So your shenanigans are explicitly out of bounds.
I was thinking of buying this IRL. So I'll make my decision based on the level of fun you lot appear to be having.
Please make your emotions known at all stages of the game to help me out. Thnx.
Please make your emotions known at all stages of the game to help me out. Thnx.
This does look fun - consider me "in" for the next game please 
GazChap wrote:
This does look fun - consider me "in" for the next game please
OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Reaction unexpected.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Silent Kovacs wrote:
I will be in if there is a second game
It's a party game, I see no reason not to just add people mid-game. I will add you to the current roster.
Pod wrote:
Please make your emotions known at all stages of the game to help me out. Thnx.
As a team leader, these are the three key thought processes:
1) How the fuck do I link these words together?
2) Haha, I know all the answers, look at those dumb plebs scrambling around
3) OMG how can you not guess the right answer, you fools?!
GazChap wrote:
This does look fun - consider me "in" for the next game please
Added you to the blue team in the current game.
Current players: will you want more after this (same teams but different captains?) I'm happy to run it if so. We could do best 2-of-3, or even 3-of-5 if people are keen.
Cap'n Gingerbeard wrote:
Pod wrote:
Please make your emotions known at all stages of the game to help me out. Thnx.
As a team leader, these are the three key thought processes:
1) How the fuck do I link these words together?
2) Haha, I know all the answers, look at those dumb plebs scrambling around
3) OMG how can you not guess the right answer, you fools?!
I concur. Also: wankers.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
GazChap wrote:
This does look fun - consider me "in" for the next game please
Added you to the blue team in the current game.
Current players: will you want more after this (same teams but different captains?) I'm happy to run it if so. We could do best 2-of-3, or even 3-of-5 if people are keen.
Yes.
Pod wrote:
I was thinking of buying this IRL. So I'll make my decision based on the level of fun you lot appear to be having.
As an IRL game, I cannot imagine how hard it is to keep a straight face as either team captain while the teams debate what they should be picking. I think it might actually work better online, for that reason. 
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
GazChap wrote:
This does look fun - consider me "in" for the next game please
Added you to the blue team in the current game.
Current players: will you want more after this (same teams but different captains?) I'm happy to run it if so. We could do best 2-of-3, or even 3-of-5 if people are keen.
Yeah. Although I'd rather not be the captain.
Mr Dave wrote:
Yeah. Although I'd rather not be the captain.
Only those who have no aspirations for power truly deserve it.
MAKE ME CAPTAIN
I definitely would want to move on to another round of same team new captains, but only if the red team start working out how to hurry up their turns
Mr Dave wrote:
Although I'd rather not be the captain.
I was thinking of taking volunteers for captain, with the current captain having the tie break vote. 
FUCK YEAH CAPTAIN
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I've been playing hypothetical captain for both sides through the game, asking myself what I'd play if I had to, and it's not easy.
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I couldn't take the responsibility. 6 Brave souls relying on me... Brr.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I've been playing hypothetical captain for both sides through the game, asking myself what I'd play if I had to, and it's not easy.
It's not 'body' either.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I've been playing hypothetical captain for both sides through the game, asking myself what I'd play if I had to, and it's not easy.
Which is what should make it fun
Curiositree wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I've been playing hypothetical captain for both sides through the game, asking myself what I'd play if I had to, and it's not easy.
It's not 'body' either.
You figured it out eventually
DavPaz wrote:
Curiositree wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I've been playing hypothetical captain for both sides through the game, asking myself what I'd play if I had to, and it's not easy.
It's not 'body' either.
Myp figured it out immediately
Indeed.
Festive Warrior wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Curiositree wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Malc wrote:
I think being captain would be the best part. Even if you don't get to do much between clues.
I've been playing hypothetical captain for both sides through the game, asking myself what I'd play if I had to, and it's not easy.
It's not 'body' either.
Myp figured it out immediately
Indeed.
I'm not sure that's something to be proud of.
For either of them
Cap'n Gingerbeard wrote:
I definitely would want to move on to another round of same team new captains, but only if the blue team start working out how to hurry up their turns
I agree.
Are the words completely random, or are they selected from a gurt big master list?
Cap'n Gingerbeard wrote:
Are the words completely random, or are they selected from a gurt big master list?
I've got a list of about 750 words I swiped from Board Game Geek. They are not random; they are chosen to be relatively rich in double meanings and common associations.
I thought that would have to be the case
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
they are chosen to be relatively rich in double meanings and common associations.
Like Grim...'s mum.
YES! I got one!
I am being asked questions about clues that involve Google/Wikipedia/etc. I'm going to stick to the BoardGameGeek rules;
Quote:
2. Restricted Google/Wikipedia use for Players is impossible to enforce so there will be no official rules on this. That said, I would prefer that it only be used by spymasters to create clues and that spymasters not create clues that they think will require google use by their spies.
-Also, if you use google don't make it obvious. I don't want to see people saying that they have no idea to what that "apoptosis" clue is referring and then 10 minutes later giving a technical definition of it. It is annoying to watch an opponent spymaster use a bizarre term/reference about which very few people are familiar and then everyone on the team appears to be experts in that topic. At least try to pretend you are not using google.
3. If you are not sure if a clue is allowable then check with opposing spy master to get approval.
4. If you need a judgement on something and I haven't chimed in then GM me.
5. Please point at one word at a time and wait until finding out the result prior to pointing at another clue.
6. Any private GM discourse about the game between anyone other than the two spymasters should go through the GM and with GM approval prior to sending it.
7. Moderation of apparently invalid clue: The rules indicate that the offending spymaster should lose their turn and that their opponent will get to choose a free word of their own color to be revealed. The moderator reserves the right to enforce that rule or to use a less harsh version of that rule if it seems more appropriate. A less harsh version could involve only a word reveal or only a loss of turn or a word reveal chosen by the offending spymaster. This may be done to deal with a borderline case.
-Also, if you use google don't make it obvious. I don't want to see people saying that they have no idea to what that "apoptosis" clue is referring and then 10 minutes later giving a technical definition of it. It is annoying to watch an opponent spymaster use a bizarre term/reference about which very few people are familiar and then everyone on the team appears to be experts in that topic. At least try to pretend you are not using google.
3. If you are not sure if a clue is allowable then check with opposing spy master to get approval.
4. If you need a judgement on something and I haven't chimed in then GM me.
5. Please point at one word at a time and wait until finding out the result prior to pointing at another clue.
6. Any private GM discourse about the game between anyone other than the two spymasters should go through the GM and with GM approval prior to sending it.
7. Moderation of apparently invalid clue: The rules indicate that the offending spymaster should lose their turn and that their opponent will get to choose a free word of their own color to be revealed. The moderator reserves the right to enforce that rule or to use a less harsh version of that rule if it seems more appropriate. A less harsh version could involve only a word reveal or only a loss of turn or a word reveal chosen by the offending spymaster. This may be done to deal with a borderline case.
Amusingly, after buying me 'c9lt 'express for my birthday, my Brother has now bought me this for Christmas.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I am literally never running this game again. I see now it was a terrible mistake.
...but if anyone else wants to have "fun" arguing about what is or isn't a valid clue, I have a Google spreadsheet set up that takes most of the work out of running a game.
Edit -- here.
I could run one if there's appetite.
Just to see if Grim... explodes.
Just to see if Grim... explodes.
Mr Dave wrote:
I could run one if there's appetite.
Just to see if Grim... explodes.
Just to see if Grim... explodes.
In.
PectIN
BattINg a thousand
OK, why not.
In.
In.