Liar Game Forum RPG/New Forum Gameplay ideas

[Guest]

I have been thinking of how to add a way for players to make "contracts" with eachother. My creative mind went to work, and I have come up with a new display that will introduce new gameplay features to the Liar Game Tournament such as:

1. Contracts - Form contracts with one or several players or alliances
2. Buying and purchasing items - Spend your accumulated yen on items and weapons.
3. "Stress bar" system - A system in which once your stress reaches a certain level you are disabled from actions.
4. "Attack system" - Attack players to increase their stress or steal their yen.
5. "Hiring" - Hire agents, civilians, or slaves to join your empire.
6. Improved Trading - An easy way to exchange items or yen.
7. Leveling up - Earn EXP from attacking players and discovering their hideouts
8. Hideouts - Players will be given a hideout with a coordinate on a map. Upgrades can be purchased for the hideouts, and defensive measures can be installed.
8. Stock Market System - Buy and sell stocks to profit yen.
9. Alliance Pages - Each member of an alliance will have access to their own alliance page which is only visible to members of the alliance

Basically, store items will include items like "Coffee" which will reduce your "Stress Bar". Players can choose to increase the "Stress bars" of other players by choosing to attack, or form an attack group to do extra damage. I am still deciding whether I'd like to make this a round in the future or an everyday gameplay feature to the forum, but I believe it is a unique way to incorporate lying into an RPG-styled gameplay.

[BadPlayer]

I think turning this into an everyday sort of thing would be convoluting the whole point of the LGT and make things unnecessarily confusing.


It would be fine as a round, if it were refined and streamlined.

[Masquerade]

It's a nice idea but I don't think statistical elements that aren't money are necessary or even helpful. Stress and attack are already going to happen regardless to the player him/her-self, and players will use several means to communicate with each other (PMs, AIM, MSN, Facebook, etc.), rendering hideouts and alliance pages useless. Plus, since their page can be confirmed and revealed by opponents, it makes it a liability to have. Alliances in a game like this are rarely solid anyway, they're continually shifting.

I think a natural, organic gameflow is best since the real influence in this game is talk and mental strategy. The existence of contracts may not be a bad thing, although it might make deals too secure and everyone will bust out a contract for every move they want to make that will affect them negatively. If they're used for a round where its game and players would benefit from the use of contracts but still have challenges to face, then that's fine, but for the entire tournament? I dunno about that either.

[Tsuki]

ooh but i do like the item exchange thingy

[TrueAnonyman]

I'd say that turning a simplified version of this into a round is better than making it part of the overall game, but it sounds like a pretty cool idea nonetheless.

[Guest]

I agree with only the contracts part, nothing else. What would happen if you broke the contract though?

[L]

I agree with only the contracts part, nothing else. What would happen if you broke the contract though?

I'd come over to your house and break your kneecaps.

[BadPlayer]

I agree with only the contracts part, nothing else. What would happen if you broke the contract though?

I initially thought the contracts would be a good idea, but then I realized basically what Masquerade said. Introducing contracts would really make everyone use a contract for everything, meaning you can't lie at all. Also, what happens if the contract is written in a way that one person believes he has obeyed the contract and the other person does not?

Really, adding just contracts will unnecessarily complicate things, and take away a large part of the core of what the LGT is about. (I mean, if there's a game that involves something like M Tickets that's fine, but I don't think we should generally have contracts.)

[Morte]

Well... if they put a limit of contracts, 1 or 2 per round, then it'll be a really good idea.

[Tsuki]

Well... if they put a limit of contracts, 1 or 2 per round, then it'll be a really good idea.

Or if they break the contract they can get reported and banned?

[Morte]

Well... if the contract' doesn't specify it, then that wouldn't be necessary

[BadPlayer]

Well... if the contract' doesn't specify it, then that wouldn't be necessary

As a pointed out earlier, what if there is a dispute over whether someone has followed the contract or not, due to ambiguous wording. Also, punishment is a valid concern; would it be through payment or through a ban/suspension? The former may not be possible, and the latter is a bit extreme.

I believe contracts should only be included if it is part of the game, like M-Tickets.

[Guest]

So how about a limit of contracts per person? Max of 3 each. You can't give another player more contracts.

Also, the contract should state a penalty for breaking the contract. If there is no penalty, then you may break the contract with no problem. A penalty can only be of tournament monetary value (ranging from 10 million yen to 1,000 yen. 1,000 yen, because it would be a -1 on the total thousand yen amount).

[Guest]

So how about a limit of contracts per person? Max of 3 each. You can't give another player more contracts.

Also, the contract should state a penalty for breaking the contract. If there is no penalty, then you may break the contract with no problem. A penalty can only be of tournament monetary value (ranging from 10 million yen to 1,000 yen. 1,000 yen, because it would be a -1 on the total thousand yen amount).

Limit is another issue, but then again I think having contracts are a problem in their own self.

We can just drop it down to 1 if you want. Contracts would only last in between rounds then? For example, a contract made after Round 1 for the rest of the game to help each other, would be ineffective because it could only last in between Round 1 and Round 2.

[Guest]

@surfeit King I personally believe it would be better to play a week long game where everyone, indiscriminate of group, gets to play against each other where contracts are more of an ease to make, get right and set into motion. That is the better idea of a Round 1 to me ^^

[Sponsored content]