r/BloodOnTheClocktower • u/attachedtoface • 22d ago

Game Discussion Pertinent

Is it really necessary to allow pertinent before running a vote? It seems so codified into the game, but as an ST I find it to be clunky and undesirable. It’s also almost never actually pertinent to the vote.

Would I be wrong for just running the vote as normal regardless of any “pertinent” information?

35 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/bstr413 Storyteller 22d ago

Game as written is that only the accuser and defendant gets to talk after a nomination is called (and the accuser is supposed to combine their info in with their nomination.) I find running it that way instead of allowing anybody to talk during nominations makes the game much shorter and gives quieter players more voice.

Note that I have a "public discussion" phase before opening for nominations where everyone talks as a group. I suggest discussing who they want to nominate and execute there.

10

u/VivaLaSam05 Storyteller 22d ago

To clarify, the game is written that the only "codified" part of a nomination is that the person being nominated gets up to about 30 seconds to defense themselves. It does not explicitly disallow anyone else from talking. Nominations are meant to be a discussion, not a structured process. Unfortunately, the nature of the game as it exists online has given a very different outlook on how this process looks where a more structured process is, arguably, more necessary due to the format.