Alvron

Well, that's boring. Of those playing, I believe that Xino, myself, Shanerocks, Kidpen and Bard were the only ones not to post anything. Good chance of one of us being an elim.

I doubt they started with just one elim. That would be far too low given they can't rely on defections to bolster their numbers. A 2-3 elim team would be my guess. As for defections, I think one defection for Sequence death which we have seen and perhaps one for every 3? Set rank deaths/arrests but only after Sequence dies. I don't think there would be a reverse defection should we take out the EBI originals given they can just reveal everything though. Would be cool though if the defections were given a special Doc with the EBIs but the EBIs could stay anonymous so the defections couldn't reveal everything if they flipped again. Hmm, I might tinker with that idea a bit for one of my own games.

Not necessarily. At moment there's five active votes, each on one person so you only have a 20% chance of lynching. Right in the sweet spot. Votes: Bard (0): Shanerockes Elkanah (1): God King, Elandera Elandera (0): Xino Kynedath (0): Coda, Elkanah Zillah (0): Experience Alvron (1): Venture Experience (0): Abstrusity Abstrusity (1): Kidpen Kidpen (1): Abstrusity Venture (1) : Bard

6%? bah not worth it. 20% - 50% chance of death is the sweet spot. Under, it's not thrilling enough. Over, it's almost certain that you're the one to die. But 20-50% chance. Now there's where the fun lies. 1 post? It's two posts before this one. And I'm always nice. It's easier to slip the knife between the ribs if you're nice. I would also point out that not all members of the Set are killers. Some are administrators while others do manual labour. Professor Irich for instance.

As things currently stand the only votes are on Bard and Kynedath at one each. With almost no information to go on, a no vote might be worth considering. Votes: Bard (1): Shanerockes Elkanah (0): God King Elandera (0): Xino Kynedath (1): Coda Zillah (0): Experience

While I like the thought of being on the same GM level as Joe, I don't think any of my games have allowed players to kill the GM. I enjoy living too much I guess.

*is convinced otherwise*

Those who rule alone often have an empty kingdom.

MY DRINK IS NOW BODY TEMPERATURE.

*Wins in silence*

Pete Zahutt is here.

Mostly it comes down to the mechanics. For instance if you have a game that uses Spanreeds then it wouldn't make sense to have group PMs due to Spanreeds only being one on one in world. There could also be a PM spying role, which is fairly rare, so a group PM would be quite the pain to have in game. Other times GMs don't want a large group forming and sharing information so easily. In past the community has disapproved of trust groups forming as it can marginalize those playing but not in the group by not giving them an equal or fair say. If one person asks you to do something you can always say no but it a group of trusted villagers ask you to do something and you don't want to, it can lead to issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-trust group mentality has seeped into the GMs thinking when making a game and they subconsciously went away from group PMs. There is no reason for your game not to have group PMs. No one is going to complain that they can talk to others.

Shì de, wǒ yíngle

Or so you think but really, I win.