Or Russia?

I'm fine with any of those things, but there is a little rule change I'd like to propose:

I think the traitor should not have to kill the knights, because it just hit me that it otherwise basically means the traitor has to take every single SC on the map to win...

And that's unfair compared to the rest of the roles, isn't it?

This way the traitor still has a tougher go at it than most of the others, but he at least has a chance...

If not, I think there should be some other way for the traitor to have a reasonable win chance. Maybe the usual SC count needed for a solo?

Yeah I was thinking just own half the map, because otherwise if the traitor kills off the king and knights but there's still rebels don't the rebels win?

Yup. Traitor loses. That's my point: the only way for the traitor to win is to take every single SC (practically, in theory some SCs could stay neutral but no way right?), and he also has to kill the rebels before killing the king. Seems harsh.

The rebels have to kill the traitor before finishing off the knights and king.

Besides, if the traitor has a vast amount of SC's, it's possible. In effect, the traitor acts as another knight.

I believe pretty much everyone agrees that the traitor's objective is the most difficult; the question is how best to solve this without causing problems elsewhere. I like EmperorMaximus and Steephie's idea of the traitor only having to reach a VC specific to him.

In practice, the traitor will pretend to be a knight since he has to keep the King alive while he grows. The problem is that the traitor may be able to win without having to actually become a "traitor" to the King, if the VC were set too low. Could we preserve the integrity of the game w/o making it quite so hard on the traitor, perhaps by setting the VC to half+1? Maybe even lower?

Alternatively, we could use the map's predetermined VC and just set the rule that the trator must kill the King to win as a requirement in addition to reaching the VC.

I think the difficulty makes it fun. All roles have difficulty.

What if the rebels kill the king first?

Then they win. The traitor must kill the King after reaching the specified VC, or else the Rebels win. It still seems very challenging, but perhaps a bit more manageable.

But the original description stipulate that the rebels have to kill the king without the rebel being the only survivor. Thus, wouldn't the rebels lose?

What happens in the end of your scenario? They all draw?

I suggest trying these games first before experimenting with alternate rules. Ask the players how it was after.

Experimenting may be the best option, I'll certainly go with whatever popular opinion decrees. If we did decide to go through with this though, the objectives would look like this:

Rebels: eliminate the King while the traitor has not reached his VC
King & Knights: eliminate all rebels & the traitor while keeping King alive
Traitor: must eliminate King while having reached his specified VC

HawknEye-
I apologize if I was unclear-In the scenario of the Rebels killing the King, if the traitor had reached his VC at the exact phase the King was eliminated he would win. If he hadn't yet reached the VC, the Rebels would win. This means that the rebels would have to beware any extremely fast growing power for fear that the traitor would win.

Got it. That makes more sense.

Ok I have an idea that may work but also be confusing to understand:

King- Survive, kill all Rebels and Traitors
Knights- Protect the king, killing all Rebels and Traitors. Should the king die while there is still 1 or more Traitors alive, they join the Rebels)
Rebels- Kill the King and the Traitors. The king may die before the Traitor(s) are all dead, the Rebels must still kill the Traitor(this is to give the Traitor a chance to win even if the king dies before he kills the others).
Traitor(s)- kill all other players EXCLUDING other Traitors. In a large game(with more than 1 Traitor), Taking over the board is going to be very difficult. being able to work with the other traitors(should they be able to figure out who they are) may make that easier, while still being the most difficult goal for players to achieve.

Thoughts?

I don't think Knights should have an alternate goal if the king dies, they should lose and either submit all holds or just try to stop anyone else from winning.

Problem with that is that then they get board and end up just missing turns, or get taken out by the Traitor/Rebels which throws off the balance of the game. If they join the rebels(something somewhat historically accurate, as if a king died there is often small revolts in order to establish a new ruler if there is no heir to the thrown), they stay interested but they don't throw the balance off anymore than it already is.

Can we just stick to either drano's rules or the original card game rules?

There is a slight difference between what drano stipulated and the card game rules. In the card game, the Traitor wins once all other ROLES are eliminated, while drano recommended all other PLAYERS are out, even other traitors if there are more than one.

Either way, let us not alter the rules to adjust the difficulty of the role(s)? The roles are there with different game objectives and thus with different level of difficulties and different challenges. If you draw Traitor, tough luck, but if you can exercise greater diplomatic skills and win the game then there is greater glory for you.

Note: in the original card game it is preferred that the number of Traitors be kept to one, but recognizing the *extreme* difficulty of taking the entire board in, say a WWIV variant, we may allow more Traitors in a large game.

And yea, ideally no switching sides too ...

We are not talking about any card game... It's diplomacy...

I don't mind if the traitor has a tougher job but try taking 34 SCs in standard map.

And knights holding when king is dead is probably best.

And I like the traitor needing VC condition and then kill king to win...

I'm with Lukas...you guys are making this FAR too complicated. You're bastardizing a game that's already bastardized from a card game! lol

Anyways, if it's too difficult for the traitor (which, I'll have you know, is NOT a fact yet as we haven't even gotten far into a single game, let alone finished one), then the easiest thing to do is to change the victory condition for the traitor to only have to eliminate the rebels, knights, and king (king MUST be last), but NOT the other traitors. That way, on larger maps with more than one traitor, it's essentially another "team" like the Rebels have.

As for changing the victory conditions for the Rebels and Knights per Butterhead's suggestion...the entire point of this style of play is for one side to protect the King and the other to kill him. Changing it so that the game goes on after the king is dead fundamentally changes it. If the traitor(s) can't help the Knights protect the King until the Rebels are weakened, then why should the traitor(s) have a chance to win once the King is dead? They failed to accomplish their objectives. Let's not baby the game and turn it into a little league game where everyone gets a trophy and gets multiple chances to "win". Accomplish your objective or lose. If it's too tough, keep practicing and get better. Don't change the game.

I have an idea for the rules. Have approx 50% knights, 50% rebels, plus 1 king and 1 traitor. In case of odd numbers, give rebels the extra member. The king is revealed at game start, all other roles are secret. The win and loss conditions are below. In addition to the conditions listed below; any power loses when eliminated from the game (and as such, cannot win once eliminated). After a player's elimination, their role is revealed to the rest of the players.

King & Knights:
-Wins when all rebels and the traitor have been completely eliminated from the game.
-The king is eliminated, or the traitor wins.

Rebels:
-Wins if the king is eliminated while at least 1 rebel power is still in the game.
-Elimination is the only way for rebels to lose.

Traitor:
-Can only win if all rebels have been eliminated. After this condition is met, victory is achieved either through eliminating the king, or controlling all of the kings home centres during a build phase, whichever comes first.
-Loses when the king is eliminated while rebels are still in play. (If both are eliminated on the same turn, the traitor wins.)

^That works for me.

I don't think that the traitor should have to wait for all rebels to be killed, or he will probably be overwhelmed by the forces that the rebels couldn't overcome as a group (if you see what I mean). Perhaps the traitor should only have to wait until there is one rebel left? In this scenario, it would have to be accepted that both a rebel (but not the rebels as a whole) and the traitor could win (but that is no different to multiple rebels winning, or even a knight and a king winning, for example).

In an alternative version, identities could be made known, except for the traitor who is to everyone else's knowledge a knight, but told privately that he is the traitor. Then his job would just be to kill the king regardless of the number of rebels/knights left in the game.

thanks drano.

Knights fight for the king
Rebels kill the king and fight the knights
traitor= no rules

King= Britain (imperial)

let's start and see what happens!

How can the traitor win if there are no rules?

How can anyone win if we don't start?

I just think there's too much time being spent on conjecture. If the traitor kicks butt, then he wins, that's all I'm saying. If the traitor is still alive when the king dies, then he wins.
If we don't know who anyone is (except the king), why are we mapping out the game. The traitor has free-reign to increase his position in the game, he has allegiance to no-one, so if he draws or wins the game, then he wins.

Agree. The rules for the traitor seem impossible. That's exactly why it's fun.