Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
34 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Dead of Winter: A Crossroads Game» Forums » General

Subject: Self-Exile rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In another thread I was talking to someone about a player that asked to be exiled because he believed his secret objective to be hopeless. At first I said that I don't think I would vote to exile someone in that situation, but it was pointed out to me that they could get the other players to vote for exile by just overtly acting as a betrayer.

And I couldn't think of any way to stop that.

And since there's no way to stop it, I think that self-exile should be allowed as an action.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leon Z.
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To self-exile is pretty much saying "I am not gonna win so I don't want to play anymore." The player can still help the colony reach the goal & contribute to the crisis, or just play spoiler and sabotage other's effort. Don't be a filthy neutral and pick a side.

Edit: read through your discussion with Matthew. Still don't agree with such house rule. He didn't play well (intentionally) and when he realized he wasn't going to win, he bend the rule of the game so he himself has a better chance of winning the game toward the end. Being so meta with the game does not improve such a thematic game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well then it makes it extra risky to vote to exile another player for risk of having 2 non-betrayers exiled.

A 2nd non-betrayer can feel their secret objective is too hard too and decide to self-exile and kill the game.

What if the person that exiled themselves draws a difficult new exiled objective card based on the scenario and time of the game?

Turn order can allow for one player with a difficult (in their eyes) objective to self-exile and the following players are stuck and can't do it. Though I might say F it and self-exile myself too just to kill the game and discourage people from doing it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Bohm
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coincidentally, I was thinking the same thing this morning. I'm curious to hear the thoughts of others, but I agree, no reason why a player shouldn't be able to nominate himself for exile. I would say though that the self-exile has to be approved by a vote from the other players.

Also....nice to see a new thread without a ridiculous rules question.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul H
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
Why aren't you at your post?
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
In another thread I was talking to someone about a player that asked to be exiled because he believed his secret objective to be hopeless. At first I said that I don't think I would vote to exile someone in that situation, but it was pointed out to me that they could get the other players to vote for exile by just overtly acting as a betrayer.

And I couldn't think of any way to stop that.

And since there's no way to stop it, I think that self-exile should be allowed as an action.


Dead of Winter Rulebook pg. 11 wrote:
Vote to Exile: Once during each of his turns a player may choose another player and initiate a vote to exile that player. Initiating a vote forces all players to simultaneously cast a vote of yes (thumbs up) or no (thumbs down) to determine whether or not the chosen player is exiled. A player cannot initiate a vote to exile themselves. Remember all ties are broken by the first player, this includes votes to exile (see the Exile section
on page 14 for details).


I think that self-exile could be a house rule, but it is explicitly forbidden in the rules. I did find it interesting that it appears that you can still vote on your own exile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ryocho wrote:
Still don't agree with such house rule. He didn't play well (intentionally) and when he realized he wasn't going to win, he bend the rule of the game so he himself has a better chance of winning the game toward the end. Being so meta with the game does not improve such a thematic game.


But how can you stop it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hahma wrote:
Well then it makes it extra risky to vote to exile another player for risk of having 2 non-betrayers exiled.

A 2nd non-betrayer can feel their secret objective is too hard too and decide to self-exile and kill the game.


Agreed. But I don't see any way to stop someone from doing this even without a self-exile rule.

If a 2nd non-betrayer decides to tank the game by lowering Morale any way he can, we will still all lose. The lack of a self-exile rule will not stop him.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leon Z.
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
But how can you stop it?

Tank the game on his turn and get voted out next turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bohmoplata wrote:
I would say though that the self-exile has to be approved by a vote from the other players.


Let's say that the other players decide not to approve it. Then he's just going to eat all the food, send his characters out into the cold without fuel, make a bunch of noise, attract zombies, etc.

Since there's no way to stop him from doing those things, there is no choice but to do what he demands, which is exiling him. There's no reason to call a vote about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
Hahma wrote:
Well then it makes it extra risky to vote to exile another player for risk of having 2 non-betrayers exiled.

A 2nd non-betrayer can feel their secret objective is too hard too and decide to self-exile and kill the game.


Agreed. But I don't see any way to stop someone from doing this even without a self-exile rule.

If a 2nd non-betrayer decides to tank the game by lowering Morale any way he can, we will still all lose. The lack of a self-exile rule will not stop him.



A 2nd non-betrayer can just cut to the chase and not waste people's time by just self-exiling himself/herself on their very next turn after the first person did it.

Then people can move on and have more time to play a different game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rraahk wrote:
I think that self-exile could be a house rule, but it is explicitly forbidden in the rules. I did find it interesting that it appears that you can still vote on your own exile.


Oh yes, it's definitely against the current rules. But I'm saying that it's a moot rule since it's so easy to get around. So my proposal is to actually change the rules of the game to explicitly allow it since there's no way to stop it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathon Neff
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmb
Honestly, if I have a non-betrayer in my group that wants to tank the game just because they are not satisfied with their objective, or aren't going to try to go for theirs just because it's too difficult, I'm probably going to stop playing with said person. Everyone I've played with so far, even if they come to the point where they can't complete their own, at least tries to get the colony to survive. Heck, sometimes we all forget about the secret objectives because the struggle to survive is so real on its own.

Granted, I've seen someone tank a crisis just for the fun of making everyone think there is a betrayer when there wasn't. He was shunned for the rest of the day.

I don't think many of the secret objectives fall in the realm of "impossible to complete" until close to the end of the game anyway, and at that point it's just as difficult to win the exile one as well. Unless you are fishing for the 'complete main objective' one, in which case shame on you?

At the end of the day though, it's a matter of what keeps the game fun for your group. If you have to change some rules, go for it, but I personally wouldn't keep playing with someone that flushes the game each time if something doesn't go well for them. I feel like then you have a player that won't allow the game to go on until they feel like they can win, which to me is unfun, because then the game has to revolve around letting that person win to even complete it.

/bitter rant
13 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Koch
United States
Omaha
Nebraska
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are playing the "player elimination" variant and will lose morale anyway from their actions you can always gang up on their characters and knock them out of the game.

This is not a favorable option, but depending on the situation it is a option.

And as stated by others I would most likely not play with this person again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan M
Canada
Regina
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
Hahma wrote:
Well then it makes it extra risky to vote to exile another player for risk of having 2 non-betrayers exiled.

A 2nd non-betrayer can feel their secret objective is too hard too and decide to self-exile and kill the game.


Agreed. But I don't see any way to stop someone from doing this even without a self-exile rule.

If a 2nd non-betrayer decides to tank the game by lowering Morale any way he can, we will still all lose. The lack of a self-exile rule will not stop him.



That is the nature of gaming. If someone is going to be a poor sport and ruin the game for everybody, there isn't much you can do about it. Best bet is to just not play with them any more.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathon Neff
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmb
As an additional note, what happens when the player that got exiled doesn't think they can complete that objective either? Will they start going to the locations you put your survivors at and attack them because they feel they can't win anyway? Attract zombies to make sure your characters die at the end of the round? If you have someone bitter about not being able to win, you really are not going to stop them from ruining your game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Meredyth
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, a player wants to self-exile because the chances of winning are slim? He does realize no one gets out of this game alive, right? Hell, one of the non-betrayer objectives is to gather enough supplies to trap everyone in the colony and burn them alive!!!! You all might survive the worst part of winter, but you're all dead in the end. (Man, I love this game!)

Having crazy, next to impossible objectives is part of the fun and some thematic role play is necessary. A junkie is going to hoard every medicine card and the mom is going to rescue survivors. Games like this make the struggle of "one vs. many" decision making part of the entertainment.

Self-exile is also a terrible idea because if there is a real betrayer, then the colony will be down 2 members, making the game downright impossible. (Or even the chance of an automatic loss if another innocent is exiled.)

Instead of self-exile, the other players could vote to have the player wishing to be exiled put to death for the amusement of the colony (think coliseum zombie fights to the death). The player is chucked out of the game, morale goes up by one and all remaining items and characters are split up between players with characters at the colony.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
Quote:
Let's say that the other players decide not to approve it. Then he's just going to eat all the food, send his characters out into the cold without fuel, make a bunch of noise, attract zombies, etc.


I think it's a mistake to generalise and assume this. It's a discussion to be had before the vote - the colony need to persuade them one way or the other. Automatic self-exile simply doesn't work as it screws the colony over too much. Self-nomination I could be on board with, but the colony still need to vote on it.

ryocho wrote:
To self-exile is pretty much saying "I am not gonna win so I don't want to play anymore." The player can still help the colony reach the goal & contribute to the crisis, or just play spoiler and sabotage other's effort. Don't be a filthy neutral and pick a side.


But I also don't quite agree with the above statement. They aren't saying they don't want to play, they are saying they want a shot at a different objective.

While I agree this is a bit of a selfish move when they could instead just contribute to the colony and get some satisfaction from completing the main objective, it's arguably no less selfish than playing outsider cards or keeping all your cards to yourself, all of which are allowed. And since I believe a vote is required, the colony has the opportunity to argue the case for staying with the colony - if that's what they want.

TBH though, I don't think there's any need for a rule change. If someone wants out they can just tell the previous/next player, and that player can decide whether to nominate them or not. It seems a pretty rare situation where the exiling would need to occur in the middle of their turn.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion3T wrote:
I think it's a mistake to generalise and assume this. It's a discussion to be had before the vote - the colony need to persuade them one way or the other. Automatic self-exile simply doesn't work as it screws the colony over too much. Self-nomination I could be on board with, but the colony still need to vote on it.


I see what you're saying, but why would the rest of the players ever vote for exiling someone that wants to leave? There's no incentive for them to do so, other than the threat of that player going rogue until he gets exiled anyway. If the player actually promises that he won't go rogue no matter what the decision is, but he would just rather have a different secret objective, would you ever vote yes for that?

I think it's too dangerous to exile someone just to give them another secret objective. It takes away one of the two exiles that could be used for the actual purpose of stopping a betrayer, and it gets you one mistaken exile closer to losing the game entirely.

Therefore, if the only way for someone to purposely get themselves exiled is to threaten harming the colony, then they should do so every time. And if they're going to do that, then they should just be allowed to leave without going through the motions of having a vote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Meredyth
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Self -exiling is not inherently more selfish than hoarding cards, etc... However, it would make it very difficult for the colony to deal with any would be betrayer.

Just thinking on the fly: What about a house rule where everyone gets dealt 2 objective cards at the beginning and the players could get their choice of objective? If wouldn't really change the odds of the betrayer if you picked 2 regular objective cards per player, minus 1, and 1 betrayer objective card; Shuffle and deal out. (So, in a 4 player game there would be 7 regular objective cards and 1 betrayer objective card).

The person who got the betrayer would still have a choice to take it or not, so others would still not know for sure if that objective was in play...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are two other ways out of this mess.

1) Exile = Elimination. If this were true, no one would ever purposely try to get themselves exiled. They would have to stick it out until the end, giving it their best shot no matter how slim the chances of winning.

2) Agreement before the game. Right at the beginning of the game, state that we're all aware that this game allows for the possibility of players to act in a way to try to get themselves exiled in order to get a new secret objective. But we all agree to not do that, no matter how slim the chances seem of completing the objectives we started with.

So, just as we decide which scenario length to play at the beginning of the game, I propose that there also be a discussion as to which of these we're going to do:

1. Self-exile (or self-nomination, if you prefer)
2. Exile = elimination
3. Agreement to not try to get exiled

Personally, I have more fun when we all agree to do #3.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
randomlife wrote:
Orion3T wrote:
I think it's a mistake to generalise and assume this. It's a discussion to be had before the vote - the colony need to persuade them one way or the other. Automatic self-exile simply doesn't work as it screws the colony over too much. Self-nomination I could be on board with, but the colony still need to vote on it.


I see what you're saying, but why would the rest of the players ever vote for exiling someone that wants to leave? There's no incentive for them to do so, other than the threat of that player going rogue until he gets exiled anyway. If the player actually promises that he won't go rogue no matter what the decision is, but he would just rather have a different secret objective, would you ever vote yes for that?

I think it's too dangerous to exile someone just to give them another secret objective. It takes away one of the two exiles that could be used for the actual purpose of stopping a betrayer, and it gets you one mistaken exile closer to losing the game entirely.

Therefore, if the only way for someone to purposely get themselves exiled is to threaten harming the colony, then they should do so every time. And if they're going to do that, then they should just be allowed to leave without going through the motions of having a vote.


That's all very logical, however in the middle of a game someone probably hasn't thought it all through. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to assume it's a forgone conclusion either way. If someone says they want to be exiled - then a discussion should ensue. If the player is certain of what they want to do and can convince the others they mean it, then they will vote to exile. If they change their mind then there's no vote, and if they cannot convince the others they actually mean to damage the colony if they aren't exiled then people might vote against it. It all depends on the player dynamics.

The point being there's a process and it should be followed rather than every stage assumed to follow logically, so let's just make a rule that cuts out the discussion. If people can automatically self-exile then there is no need for any discussion, so it probably won't happen and people will just do it.

And the final point is even if I agree that you're right - that's no reason not to follow the process of voting. It will just be a foregone conclusion. But then you could make a similar argument for someone who just attacked someone - the vote should be held no matter what the evidence is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Self-Exile is a bad idea.

It means that a a non-betrayer player can sabatoge the colony and then self-exile giving themselves a chance for a win. By requiring a vote this prevents that option.

Yes they can sabatoge the colony and then lose, but why turn a losing strategy into a winning one?

The simple fact is that there are no non-betrayer objectives that are impossible to do. The change suggested turns a non problem into a problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bijan Ajamlou
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Forcing other to exile you is a great strategy. You could straight win if you get exiled. I think that the game rules doesn't work 100% since you have a incitament to be exiled sometimes. But this game is not to be played competitive its just a thematic ride. I look at it more as an activity than a game. If I had designed the game i would have made the exiled player play a mini game, where he has to survive and get food, if he survived he would have shared victory at most. Or just get eliminated, that would be the best solution.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What if the betrayer hates being betrayer and always hardclaims betrayer at the start of the game? Would you exile a player that does this?

What happens when that player was lying?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Favazza
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was the Betrayer in my game and I realized there was no way I could get morale to 0 in time. Afterward I realized I should have just gone all out in trying to obviously sabotage the colony so that they would be forced to exile me and maybe I'd be able to do my exiled goal. Instead I kept trying to bring down morale without being discovered and ended up losing.

In this case I guess it is fine, since I was the betrayer.

But I like the idea that colonists are in the colony by choice and could leave (self-exile) at any time. They see the colony is going down and they want to try surviving on their own? Go for it. They realize their groups goals will not be accomplished in the colony so they head out to see if they can do better outside? Be my guest.

They don't need to ask permission. They would just announce that they are leaving and leave.

However - I'd be okay with a penalty for giving up on your current goal and the colony too soon. Self-exiled people don't win if the colony succeeds in their goal after they left?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.