So I haven’t watched this video all the way through but this was a continuation of a multi week discussion on what makes a cereal. We decided that to be a cereal something must be made of grain and be covered in liquid

I saw an official youtube ant (lover's) channel do this to remove unwanted ants from their house

This is actually a hot topic between Storytellers right now. I consider that to be ok, as long as you actually try to sell it, but others might disagree. - Ben

For me it depends on the meta and the response of town. The bar for madness is about whether you're legitimately working to persuade people that you're the role you were made mad as. If people just use this tactic as code for "there's a Cerenovus and I have to claim this role, but it's not really my role", then it becomes a madness break

The Pixie's target Is set on night one, the Pixie may be lied to about who that character Is if they're drunk/poisoned on night one but in that case even if the pixie becomes sober/healthy, The role they were told in that case even if it was in play does not trigger the ability. For the Pixie's ability to trigger, they'd need to be mad about their real Target that they weren't told when its player dies. An extremely unlikely scenario unless the ST knows its players well

> ST doesn't lead the drunk to belive that they are townsfolk? The character "drunk" has the drunk condition so the poison is irrelevant as you can tell the character "drunk" anything you want. You wouldn't want to tell a poisoned character "drunk" that they are in fact the character "drunk", right? > Like waking up roles doesn't wake and ilk? That's not how drunkeness/poison works. The actual ability malfunctions, not the mechanic of fe. when they wake up or how many players a noble learns

I don't think the order of operations allows for that. They ST decides which Townsfolk is actually the Drunk and everyone receives a token as part of setup before anything happens, i.e., before any poisoning. If a ST chooses who is the Drunk after players choose how to use their abilities, it's them being flexible with setup to make the game more fun and balanced, not because that's when it's supposed to happen. So for instance, in this last game, the ST decided the person who gets the Fortune Teller token would be the Drunk, then Jacqui saw the Fortune Teller token and was secretly marked with the Drunk reminder token, then the Poisoner was able to choose who to poison. If the Poisoner had picked Jacqui at this point, she would already have thought herself to be the Fortune Teller, so she couldn't have been led to believe she was something else.

I believe the short answer is: the "think you are" part of an ability is not affected by droison.

There is a standard way of running Drunk (which treats the droisoned Drunk exactly the same as the non-droisoned Drunk), but the question is a reasonable one, given how droisoning of Pixie (and Grandmother, etc.) works.

@@q-tuber7034 I mean the answer is the Drunk receives a Townsfolk token from the bag and is simulated as that TF

Double Dong Daddy? 🤣

Daddy two dongs: Noun; When Ben strongly bongs the gong when the dongs are wrong to prolong their time and don't come back to the wong.

So it’s a two part explanation Part one: Navean dosent like mint Alejo likes mint Navean and alejo are close friends whose friendship tends to revolve around jokingly not liking each other. Navean and alejo took their feelings about mint and along with others in the friend group are now engaged in a “mint war” That joke has been ongoing for at least a year now Part two The first time we played vr clocktower navean used a goose as their avatar The clocktower community at large made it a running joke that navean is actually a goose irl Hope that clears it up

​@@DakotaAvery23 I expect a formal apology for accusing me of being friends with Navean or I will see you in court

@@alejoblack368 my apologies. Navean and Alejo are very close enemies with a blood feud, whose rivalry tends to revolve around seriously not liking each other Better?

I don't think it happens often enough statistically to merit a separate jinx, but I agree it's a feels-bad moment. Just like when a preacher hits a minion on the first night.

Firstly it is sort of paused because if you and your townsfolk can both survive until you aren't being cere mad any more and you can go back to being mad as that townfolk again then you'll still get the ability. The pixie doesn't have to be mad every day, just at the time their townsfolk dies. I disagree that it's an easy snipe by the cernovus, because they'd have to figure out you're the pixie, which isn't necessarily easy because the pixie probably won't be claiming pixie, so you have to judge by double-claim. The other townsfolk might not be claiming out loud - and even if they are the cere still has to figure out which one is the pixie. Plus, if the cere does target the pixie in this way, they are giving up the opportunity to target a different townsfolk and sow potentially stronger misinformation (after all the pixie is already sowing misinformation as pixie) So if the cere does go through all that I feel they deserve it. Like when a cerenovus manages to make a mutant ceremad as the mutant. Yeah it doesn't feel great as the pixie, but at the end of the day there are going to be some situations that feel better than others. And as the pixie, you could always ignore the cere madness, as Nicky did. Heck, the storyteller might even choose not execute you.

I disagree. If the cere chooses the pixie, that's a great choice for evil. Evil abilities are supposed to hurt the good team. If the pixie's partner dies when they are cere-mad, oh well - no ability. If they die after the madness wears off and they are able to walk back (i was made mad yesterday, I'm just the innkeeper) then they can still meet the madness requirements.

I think she's polish? Don't quote me on this.

@@Cyrinil142 iirc she is polish yeah

I'm from Poland, but I don't have that very typical Polish accent that's instantly recognisable :) Hope you haven't lost sleep over it ^^

It does, they're at the bottom of it on the app, which is cut off on my set-up - Ben

@@BloodontheClocktower on the link in the description it doesnt

Awwweee this is so sweet

@@DakotaAvery23 I find it creepy as worded. However, if you are new to the internet I suppose you could not see the tragically thirsty sentiment that is being displayed. I wish I could see that world still. I'm ruined.

A round robin when used for a tournament is a tournament format. Words and language is fluid.

@@DakotaAvery23 yeah there are a few definitions so I think it’s okay

@@DakotaAvery23 You will only pry the Oxford comma and double-space from my cold dead hands.

@evenruder nobody uses double space :P:P

@@karlovisttimes8271 I know you and I are being silly, but a quick serious thing: the double-space has been shown to make paragraphs easier to read for people who have certain reading difficulties. Okay, back to the silly: my hands ain't dead yet!

I have to disagree with that. The good team always starts the game winning, which is why the ST backs evil plays for most of the game.

@@bennburns ... and the fact that the ST backs evil increases the chances of evil winning - which should be reflected in the general info.

The General is supposed to be a reflection of the Storyteller's subjective opinion and takes into account many things, including if they think one team is stacked with the most talented players, how confident people are looking, and a million other things. The players may, if they wish, ask me questions about how I might arrive at certain conclusions, such as the one we're now discussing. The only way to run the General incorrectly would be to deliberately misrepresent what I personally think about the state of the game. Literally, the only way to do this incorrectly would be to follow your opinions instead of mine. You are of course free to (and absolutely should) consider the game at a tie on the first night, and when you run the General I strongly encourage you to signal to the player your subjective opinion on who is winning. But for me to give the players your opinion would be objectively incorrect.

@@bennburns I like this argument, thanks! You've convinced me that you're doing it correctly given your opinion (but I still have a different opinion). I guess it's a matter of what you mean by "is winning". I interpret it as "having a high probability of ending up as the winner", which I think is very natural. Your interpretation seems to give more weight to the current strengths of the two teams.

@@GordonHugenay That's totally fair. I'd probably argue that it's borderline impossible to predict whether or not one team has a high probability of winning on night 1 (or even night 2 for most games). I also think most people would probably agree with your interpretation of it being 'neutral' on night 1, but that's just not how I'm wired up!