In the immediate presence I don't think we should worry much about this when making our selections, but it might become more important as the game progresses and we develop a better understanding of players' potential dueling strength.MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?
The two "baddie" factions appear to be the Yellow Turbans and the Nanman. Their dueling prowess is as follows:
Yellow Turbans:
1 leader - d6
2 strategists - d4
(all secrets)
Nanman:
1 leader - d6
4 warriors - d8
Purely from a dueling perspective, the Nanman appear significantly more potent. We'll need to keep that in mind as we proceed. Indeed, it might even be worth considering combining a town read with a baddie read in our voting pattern to try to arrange a winnable duel. That might even amount to people volunteering themselves to enter a duel if there is a consensus suspect present. I hope enough people are able to withhold their votes long enough for those discussions to develop.
The Yellow Turbans don't have the strength in their dice, but all three of them have *secrets* which I am sure are meant to make up the difference somehow.
Did you? And would you not want to process that paranoia into your reads of players?
