Quote from xFenix

So, when someone dies, you generate a new character for them? This ensures the game never ends?

When a killer has been found, you put it up on the op as some kind of scoreboard and then generate them an innocent character?

E.G.

User- - - - Successive Kills
Player 1 // 1
Player 2 // 3
Player 3 // 1

Would that work? Then we have a constant game, with no limit on players and a form of competition to motivate the killer in making a better story.

That is actually a very good idea. I like it.
What do you guys think?

It's good, although, generate me a new identity, will you?

Quote from Sadko

It's good, although, generate me a new identity, will you?

I will i will, don't worry ;)
Just please, don't get pissed, ok? It's not my fault * decided to kill u first.

But it is your fault for having flawed game mechanics

Quote from Hewitt

But it is your fault for having flawed game mechanics

There is nothing flawed. The game starts upon the killer's first kill. It was written like that from the start, and everybody agreed to it automatically the moment they requested identities.
The thing about regenerating identities is an improvement. Not a remake.

Alright alright, I'm sorry. I never wished to argue about your game in this thread. I only desire that you do not implement the rule that will make this game virtually endless. That's pretty much a death sentence to send this thread into spamville.

So is the generating new identity an official
rule? Or is it just for Sadko?

BREAKING NEWS
Nathan Lordson and Galena Hannas were poisoned earlier this morning. The poison appears to be a kind of a contact poison, possibly yellow toad effect.
The house is currently searched, but no source can be discovered.

I don't think anyone is gonna play this game.

I will... But it seems like no one else is playing T_T

Well I think this game is over:(

Rule concerning the killer nonwithstanding, this game is flawed on several fronts, but the biggest offense is the host's inactivity

Quote from Hewitt

Rule concerning the killer nonwithstanding, this game is flawed on several fronts, but the biggest offense is the host's inactivity

You calling me inactive? I'm supposed to interpret the activities of the players into the game. I don't pull events out of my ass.
Try going to Google Translate, and don't type anything into the translation box. How long will it be before something appears in the translation?

Oh pardon me, I did not mean inactive as in you haven't been tending to your game. I just meant inactive in a sense that because the way the game was designed, there's no penalty for not asking questions or even the slightest hint of direction that players are suppose to take.

If I may, I know it's suppose to be a random scenario each time but this isn't like your Detective game where there is a clear fixed given and the time limit is infinite and the penalties for failing to solve it are just your brain stumping itself. Failure to solve the puzzle in this game just kills you. At random. For no discernible reason other than "because he was my target that extrafred said i should write about." The penalty of dying isn't enough to give players an incentive to solve your case if they know that their time is short and at any moment they can just go.

I'm not at all trying to discourage you, but from the way I see it ever since Sadko's outburst and fenix' comment, no one else has since come forth to ask. And in my experience (and this is where you may disagree), a bad game or a game that does not attract is not the fault of bad players, but a flawed game design altogether. You need to figure out what exactly is wrong with your current setup: why nobody's asking questions, and you can't just say "because nobody is playing". There must be a reason that lies in your mechanics.