Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

The Resistance» Forums » General

Subject: The »double whammy« rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2097 wrote:
Personally, I’m tired of:
1. The risk that spies will play a double fail, and, especially
2. Arguments (and there are many) that depend on such a risk.

I'm not; I like the game the way it is. (And the spies around here have a pretty good win/loss record, so I don't think it's necessary or good to make the game simpler for them.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2097 wrote:
So you believe that the »double whammy« argument hurts the spies.

Well, as I understand it, the whole point of the convention is to eliminate the risk (for the spies) that they will double-fail a mission unnecessarily (which gives the Resistance a lot of information), which eliminates the disincentive to put more than one spy on missions which don't require two, and eliminates the decision-making for the spies when there are extra spies along.

So, increasing the spies' chances of winning, and removing fun decisions for the spies before and during missions--I don't like it. I haven't tried it, have no interest in trying it, would never suggest it with my group, and would discourage people from discussing conventions if someone did suggest it.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A double or triple fail is one of my favorite things in this game. Please don't take it away from me.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In my local metagame, it is accepted that a multiple-fail is very damaging for the spies, and that a mission that succeeds because a pair of spies each thought the other would fail it (or was sufficiently worried to play around the possibility) is also a bad result for the spies. That belief means spies prefer mission teams with exactly one spy on.

If the suggested protocol were widely accepted, then the spies would have no reason to avoid multi-spy mission teams, and the second or later spy on the mission would have no decision to make about what to play. The lead spy on the mission would have a simple choice - succeed/fail - without having to judge whether or not they think the other spies would also sabotage.

If you have the protocol but it's not reliably followed, then it doesn't add anything to the spies thinking - without it, they're thinking "will the other spy sabotage, or are they leaving it up to me?"; with it, the lead spy is thinking "will the other spy sabotage, or are they leaving it up to me?" and the junior spies are thinking "will the other spy sabotage, or should I step in?". The vocabulary may shift slightly, and there's seondary effects from the symmetry breaking involved, but the general logic, and the outcome is pretty much the same - if it's critical to fail the mission, then it's likely to multi-fail; if it's not, then there's a non-trivial risk of it passing anyway.


In other words, if it makes a difference, then it helps the spies out, and makes their decisions (marginally) less interesting; if it doesn't make a difference, then it doesn't make a difference.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Figuring out who spies were was one of the most boring things about the game?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The way I see it is this:
- this strategy increases the chance of a spy win
- to be effective this strategy must obviously be agreed to before role cards are looked at - i.e. "if I am a spy this game, I will follow strategy X" rather than "as a spy this game, I follow strategy X"
- but before you look at your role card, you are more likely to be resistance than a spy
- therefore, agreeing to this strategy decreases your expected chances of winning the game
...so no-one rationally should do anything to suggest such a strategy before the game begins.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All excellent reasons to never speak of coordination conventions before a game.

Another excellent thing to do before a game starts: publicly and loudly declare that if you are a spy in this game, you will randomly pass and fail missions 50/50 by shuffling mission cards and putting the top card in. Encourage other potential spies to do same.

That really throws spies for a loop.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Old Gamer
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2097 wrote:
2. That such somehow would help the Resistance, give them more information. (“If we send two guys on the team, and the mission fails, we know that A. AAron AArdvark is more likely to be the spy than Zachary ZZra!”)

I don’t get this line of argument at all, and find it illogical.

You are correct - this argument is absurd. The protocol only comes into play when more than one spy is on the mission. It doesn't give us any information about spy identities, rather it gives us information about which spy played the fail, which is useless.

2097 wrote:
My own experience is that the resistance often overestimates this disincentive and get burned by it, again and again.
Sometimes they (or a duplicitous spy) hinge the whole resistance strategy on this point and then everything just collapses because of the spies had a lucky break or subtle signals.


2097 wrote:
... specifically, discussion about the risk for the double fail is very boring to me.


2097 wrote:
I’m so sick and tired of being shut down by the argument that “No, they’re not both spies because they both went on the same mission and there was only one fail!”
All of the drawbacks you guys argue in this thread would be worth it if that meant I never had to hear that false, spy-covering argument again.


It sounds like this is a local group issue, where the people you play with refuse to believe that multiple spies on the same mission will ever successfully single fail. Is that right?

I have no interest in protocols like this, but I would probably change my mind if I was unable to persuade anyone that maybe both of the people on that single failed mission were spies for the tenth hundredth time.

I had a glimpse of how that might feel, playing for a night with a group who viewed any reasoning more complex than "He was on both failed missions. He's a spy!" as extremely suspect and proof that I was a spy. This was especially frustrating when I was able to logically (almost)prove the non-spy status of several of the group...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
2097 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
In other words, if it makes a difference, then it helps the spies out, and makes their decisions (marginally) less interesting; if it doesn't make a difference, then it doesn't make a difference.


I like your analysis about how this would work for the spies.
However, I’m also thinking about it from the perspective of being resistance.
I’m so sick and tired of being shut down by the argument that “No, they’re not both spies because they both went on the same mission and there was only one fail!”
All of the drawbacks you guys argue in this thread would be worth it if that meant I never had to hear that false, spy-covering argument again.
If you think it was two-spy, "shut down" those who argue otherwise. It's a social game and persuasion is one skill needed.

Let me ask you, when you argue it was two-spy and everyone shuts you down and you end up being right after them game is over, do they apologize to you? Do you then remind them later of this fact when they're trying to shut you down again?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikael Halonen
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmb
Quote:
it removes some of the random goofy slapstick losses.



It also removes the strategy of putting two or more suspected spies against one another. If playing Avalon, Merlin might even want to do this early on. With a pre-set system this and probably alot more of the tactics the resistance can employ are lost.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Solution:

After getting roles, openly and honestly say:

"If I am a spy, I am not going to play by any coordination rules. Do not ignore this statement. It is equally strong for a spy furthest from the leader and closest to the leader to fail a mission. I won't being doing any of that."

Any one who in turn does not make this declaration is a spy. Once everyone makes this declaration, there should be some doubt as to what to do for coordination.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Old Gamer
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clydeiii wrote:
If you think it was two-spy, "shut down" those who argue otherwise. It's a social game and persuasion is one skill needed.

Let me ask you, when you argue it was two-spy and everyone shuts you down and you end up being right after them game is over, do they apologize to you? Do you then remind them later of this fact when they're trying to shut you down again?

It seems like it should, over time, be impossible for your group to ignore the occasions when they lost because they rejected your "two spy mission" theory.

But then, I've seen a group where one person consistently identified the spies and was ignored, and another (mentioned above) where publicly deducing facts about the spy identities was considered evidence of me being a spy*.

If you're playing in the wrong group, you might never get through to them.

*This group was actually fun to play with, but in a very slapstick, "this is a fun game but it's not resistance" way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikael Halonen
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmb
Quote:
I’ve never ever seen those strategies pay off for the resistance.
As Merlin, deliberately putting any spies on the team whatsoever, let alone double spies has been disastrous so far. If nothing else, you give away to the spies that you are Merlin.


Perhaps you are right but if everyone thinks that a merlin who is putting two spies on the same team is dumb, then its suddenly viable for merlin to do that. Because even the spies will have a hard time beliving merlin could have done such a stupid thing. Its clearly possible that it can be a good move.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.