I have to agree with drano. The entire point of this game is for each side to play their role and try to win, despite some being significantly more difficult than the others. You get dealt a role and you have to orchestrate your game according to your role's objectives and if you can't do that, then you lose!

When you are dealt a traitor, you should have to be the last player alive on the map, meaning you control the entire board. Granted, in a variant like WWIV, that is difficult so I can see where multiple traitors can come in handy. However, there should not be an easier VC for traitors just because it is difficult to play as them. You play both sides of the game while each side weakens the other and then you pick your time to strike and see if it gets you a win. If not, you gave it a shot with the most difficult role. I have been playing a card game similar to this with friends for close to five years now and I have seen the traitor win just once.

I'm still confused, if all that's left is rebels and the traitor do the rebels win or does he game continue?

It's a 13 player variant right? 1 king, 5/5 knights and rebs, 2 traitors

I don't think that the traitors will have it too tough because they can play both sides as they see fit and be in good position for stabs. They also have better opportunity to win than the knights/rebs, so it evens out. I wouldn't say that traitors MUST stab either side, even if the king dies. If we want to keep the game going, then the Knights can elect a new king from within themselves and fight the rebels. The traitors can join either side and stab at will. Who cares? Let's play and have a little confidence that we can play a fun game without necessarily spelling out every possible scenario. Traitors can do whatever they want. Let's play!

Raro -

Please don't start suggesting things like electing a new king, even in jest. People will take that and run with it.

Look people, it's simple. Just modify the rules so that the traitors don't have to eliminate other traitors. So basically they're just a smaller "team" that can play both sides as they see fit. Again, with the fact that roles are unknown, even 5 knights on the same team might be fighting each other. Some people seem to think that it's automatically a knights+king vs rebels vs traitors game. In actuality, since you can't be totally sure who's on what side, it will be a much more fluid game.

I'm fine with anything, just to be clear. I'll remove nyself from the discussion and see what happens. Tell me when I need to break some tie :)

I'm fine with anything too, that's all I was trying to say.
How many ppl do we have/need?

I think we're waiting for one or two more.

We need 13 if we go with Imperial Diplomacy.

At risk of igniting a furious debate, I wonder if I may pose a new suggestion unrelated to the traitors. It is regarding role anonymity.

When the game starts, it is my understanding that only the king's identity will be known. However, I think it might be wise that the identity of one rebel and one knight also be divulged. For intance, the "Governor General" and "Leader of the Resistance". I think it would be necessary for proper game-flow, and to set a foundation for knights/rebels to arrange their strategy. It also seems more realistic that the King has at least one loyal subject that he can undoubtedly trust, as well as the rebels having someone which they can ground their efforts to. If nobody thinks this is a good idea, then I'll shut up and we can start the game, but I just wanted to throw it out there to see if anyone agrees.

Who's all in right now? I might be convinced to join. My pending game list is getting long, but I might be able to squeeze another in.

That's an interesting idea Raro, and on larger maps, I'd be inclined to say it would work. After all, surely a large enough rebellion that can threaten an entire kingdom would have some sort of central figure? I don't think it would work on classic (after all, you'd know 1/3 of the rebels right off the bat, and 1/2 the knights, which would limit the ability of the traitor to impersonate people), but perhaps it would on Imperial. Definitely would work on anything larger, and in fact, I think it'd be a very interesting add.

1. butterhead
2. Spartan22
3. Battalion (if there aren't enough people already playing)
4. steephie22 (same as Battalion)
5. Reserved spot for ScubaSteve if he wants (?)
6. Scordatura
7. Erudite
8. GOD
9. Captainmeme
10. General Cool
11. Raro
12. EmperorMaximus
13. DoubleCapitals

I think this is the list we had?

Drano: Seems that if you join the game can begin, since ScubaSteve is MIA.

Some expectations I have:
-The King & Knights would seem to have the advantage in the long run since they have the King, and also the fact that the traitor must kill the King as his final victim means that he acts as a Knight for most of the game. This tips the raw numbers in their favor.

So I propose that we include:
-1 King: Survive, kill all Rebels and Traitors
-4 Knights: Keep King alive, kill all Rebels and Traitors
-6 Rebels: Kill King w/o traitor being the only survivor
-2 Traitors: Kill all other ROLES (traitors can work together, if they find each other)

This layout seems to give Rebels an edge, but since the Traitor's should act like Knights that will be balanced out. It also implements the idea of having the traitors capable of working together. I don't think this is a very good solution to the traitor's extreme difficulty, but it seems people want that, and I just want the game to start. :)

Is everyone alright with this?

Raro:
I like the idea of the Resistance Leader and King's Aide, but they bring up a whole slew of other debates, like should the Rebels lose if their Leader dies and should the traitor have to kill both the Rebel Leader and King's Aide last and such. Let's save that for if we play this on a second occasion.

I don't like drano's latest idea, it isn't as hard as you might think to discover who your allies and enemies are. Most rebels will just attack the king. Some might act like traitors themselves, maybe forced because they're surrounded by knights/real traitors... But in the end the only really dicey ones and, if done properly, hidden ones will be the traitors.

Erudite: you can't assume traitors will help the king most of the time, after all, if the king gets too strong the traitors are practically dead... The traitors will want to make sure the king stays alive for as long as needed, but nothing more... And if the king is Britain they can still do a lot of fighting against the king...

Having said that though I still like the division of roles you propose, IF we indeed agree the king is Britain...

steephie -

You seriously underestimate what the Rebels can do. If they just flat out attack the king...well...no offense, but they kinda suck at strategy.

Erudite: the breakdown on this map is going to be dicey. The 1:4:6:2 breakdown you suggested could work, but it could also be a colossal failure. What if the king is Britain, and France, Holland, and Russia are all Rebels, along with 3 others! That would be a complete nightmare and would most likely end pretty quickly. A lot of this map comes down to luck of the draw probably.

That said, consider me game if we can get going quickly. I'm a sucker for fun variants.

Great, I guess that's as close as this group is going to get to a unanimous vote! The King will be Britain, and we will try a 1:4:6:2 breakdown. I agree that it will largely come down to which side gets lucky (oh god, let's not bring that topic back again) by drawing the right powers. However, I think that this breakdown is our best bet of balancing it out prior to the country draw.

Yeah good luck to the traitor who draws Mexico :p

Dare I intervene, but I think the breakdown is now slightly tilted in favor the rebels. I think the King + Knights should be equal to the total # of Rebels, the rest being traitors.

Perhaps 1 King, 4 knights, 5 rebs, 3 traitors (who have no affiliation but can bargain/ stab/ cheat their way to the top: (king dethroned [and] either majority leader/game winner could be criteria).

I just want to play, this sounds fun. I hope I'm the king so I can publicly scold and give orders to the entire kingdom. Or perhaps I would be a merciful and benevolent king? hmmm, I can't wait to find out. All hail the Royal King! Your loyal subject Sir Raro is at your Liege.

I'm ready to go. Rules are fine as they stand. Let me know when the party starts.

That breakdown could work too Raro, I just wonder if 3 starts to get to be too many traitors. Almost a quarter of the map as traitors seems kinda high. Then again, this is all guess work right now since it's never been done! I do like that it somewhat balances the groups though. About 40% rebels, 40% loyalists, and about 20% traitors. Makes it pretty nice.

Why not just take a quick vote? We could even run the vote while people are joining the game yes?

So -

Breakdown:

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 2 votes (Raro, Drano)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 1 vote (Erudite)

2 traitors for me

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 2 votes (Raro, Drano)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 2 votes (Erudite, Battalion)

The difference between the two breakdowns come down to one core aspect that no one can be completely sure about yet: will the traitors assist the Loyalists for the most part? Since the traitors have to kill the King last, they certainly won't go at the King with as much ferocity as could be expected of a Rebel. If you believe they will work with the Loyalists for the most part, then my proposed breakdown would be ideal, whereas if you think they won't, then Raro's would be.

Ah but what they do depends on your breakdown. With Erudite's proposal I would be inclined to support the loyalists a lot, in the other case I would just go over anyone's back to get as powerful as possible at the start.

I vote the 3 traitor variant because it gives the traitor the freedom I think it should have.

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 3 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 2 votes (Erudite, Battalion)

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 3 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie, Scordatura)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 2 votes (Erudite, Battalion)

*4 votes for 3 traitors

1 King, 4 Knights, 5 Rebels, 3 Traitors: 3 votes (Raro, Drano, steephie, Scordatura)
1 King, 4 Knights, 6 Rebels, 2 Traitors: 2 votes (Erudite, Battalion, EM)