anyway.



thread: 2013-06-20 : The Sundered Land

On 2013-06-28, Jasin wrote:

Naturally, I’d love to see Vincent’s answers, but the pilgrim’s goal, as defined by the game you set out to play, is to continue safely on his way. It seems to me that the pilgrim not acting to continue safely on his way is arguably against the rules, and certainly against the… meta-rules? I’m not sure whether the distinction is worth exploring.

Your second example, as I see it, is explicitly against the rules: the no-gods can only answer the pilgrim’s questions, and the pilgrim’s first question is “something warns me of danger, what warns me?” He knows about the threat before the no-gods’ first move. And as soon as he’s back at at “you don?t know nothing about the threat”, his next move is “I win”.

Actually, that’s sort of what some of my no-gods were disappointed about. They thought they were setting up something like the (i)-(ii) punch you describe, with moves that were supposed to [i]seem[/i] nonthreatening, but [i]actually[/i] represent a threat that the pilgrim doesn’t (yet) know anything about, and I replied with “seems nonthreatening? fine, I walk out, I win”.



 

This makes VB go "Right on."

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":