Overlord's Orders Commentary

[Matthias720]

Thanks! ^_^

[DanielofRedwall]

Sorry all it's been a crazy few days in my life I'll make my first post tomorrow.

[Hickory]

I have no incrimination as of yet.

[Skyblade]

I have no incrimination as of yet.

Neither do I, but it's still very encouraged to post

I'm sick today, so I'm finally taking the time to reply to posts/PMs, including this game Anyway, I'll read and review James' OO guide.

I'm working on a sort of "encyclopedia of OO". Here's what I have so far. Suggestions for expanding it are more than welcome; just PM me and I'll think about adding it in. Great and thoughtful idea I've actually made one of these myself back in the summer, but I don't believe I'm qualified enough to share it.

Categories of Defense
Rebound
"Bob said I broke the ladder? He's one to talk about breaking things... he dropped the vase we were there to get in the first place."
Turning an attack back against the person who attacked you. Not a preferable defense because they tend to do the same thing to you, bringing you back to square one. Hmm, interesting. I agree this isn't the best idea for your reasons. Also, in the example, you wouldn't be justifying WHY you even broke the ladder. That leaves you still guilty.
Deflection
"I admit that what he said is true; I couldn't keep the door shut. However, that was because of Cynthia. She insisted we leave it open to 'let some air in', and reopened it every time she crossed the room."
Redirecting an attack to a third player. This is generally good for the game because it gives more people a chance to get involved in the play. If they continue with a deflection of their own, this also keeps the attention away from you, so it is preferable to rebounding. Good idea. Also, nice names for strategies.
Diffusion
"I was making good time, but then two masked men burst into the room. Before anybody knew what was happening they grabbed the golden board and took off."
Directing an attack at a NPC or part of the environment. If there are too many things going on in the story, this can be a good way to get rid of some of them. Commonly used by players who felt they've posted enough and don't want to have to make any more responses in a phase. I prefer to attack other players, but it is preferable to wrap up the round or deal with smaller things.

Problematic Defenses
Threatened with a Gun
"I did pull the ejection lever, but that's because Joe pointed a gun at me and forced me to do it!"
This defense became notable in the last few rounds, when it was repeatedly used more or less as written above. Can be done with other types of violence or weapons. This has probably always been around in some form or fashion, and always will be, but if you plan on doing this, make sure it hasn't been recently employed (either by you or someone else). I personally think this is a cheap and easy way to defend yourself. Be more creative

Mind Control
"I was just going along, minding my own business, when all of the sudden, I was brainwashed by beavers. They forced me to put in the nuclear launch codes."
This infamous defense became so commonly used that it was banned just several rounds after its first appearance. It still gets trotted out on occasion, though, by players that have forgotten that part of the rules. A good Overlord will call players on it, but this can be countered as a player, by noting the controlled servant must have neglected to apply their mind-control preventant. Yeah, that should be unacceptable. It's an even cheaper excuse.

It Knocked Me Out
"Little did I know that the closet had been filled with bricks. When I opened the door, all of them fell out, burying me and knocking me unconscious."
A defense that essentially attempts to escape from having to answer any charges that might arise from one part of the story. (After all, you can't attack someone who wasn't there.) This has a place in stories that have gotten especially long or complicated, when the player can't keep up with some of what's going on, and uses this to skip over it to something else. However, it's often used to try to bypass taking any responsibility at all (by claiming they were "knocked out" or tied up or whatever for the entire duration of the story). Observant Overlords should punish servants who use it in this fashion. Cases like the example above can be countered by saying that the servants did things they weren't aware of (by sleepwalking or such like). It's an interesting strategy, though I find it more beneficial to say that you were awake and trying to do something to improve the situation (but failing because the others messed it up).

Opposite Day
"I did denounce you, oh great Overlord, on radio, television and the Internet for the entire world to see and hear, in multiple languages, but that was after I said, "Everything I am about to say is untrue". I really meant that you were the best there was."
This defense redefines the context of something a character said or did so as to make it achieve the opposite result as the attack had implied. Almost exclusively follows "They Said It" (a type of attack which has its own entry down below), but creative readers might be able to imagine other circumstances where it could be used. This was (to my recollection) introduced, used and then abused at the beginning of OOXV, and has been cliched ever since. I recommend this only on special occasions (like when the characters involved are in especially childish situations). It should not be your go-to defense. Aren't I the one who started this? I intended to use it once, but it got out of hand. I don't plan to employ it often at all anymore.

Problematic Attacks
The Disloyal Servant
"Sam called his friends over, and they sat around for hours, drawing up plans of how they were going to put a bomb in your Highness' room to kill you."
An attack that asserts the servant was blatantly involved in subversive plots against the Overlord. Has been used very much lately, and is cliched. This might also risk violating the rule about presuming someone's motives:

"Also, a character doesn't know what someone else's motives were in doing or saying something -- they can speculate on those motives, but saying about someone, for instance, that "they meant to kill the Overlord" is not automatically factual."

It has gotten old.

"They Said It!"
"Jane said, "I would rather die than help the Overlord. He's a brainless monkey, anyway. I only ever pretended to serve him."
A rather one-dimensional attack (very easily combined with the Disloyal Servant, as in the example above) that puts words in a character's mouth in an attempt to attack their motives. The most popular defenses to this are equally one-dimensional, and involve either redefining the context of what was said, or simply redefining the words altogether. (The latter became extremely popular in OOXII, as players claimed that practically everything said was "in a different language".) I recommend that this attack be used only sparingly; it usually does no more than bog down the game and stretch the suspension of disbelief. I guess this strategy is getting old as well, though not as much as the one right above.

Moving the Goalposts
Jack: "So Bill took the leaflet and threw it into the fire, dooming our mission to failure."
Bill: "It's true that I burned the leaflet, but I'd already written the contents of the leaflet down on my mePod. I was just trying to get rid of evidence so that the terrorists couldn't follow our tracks."
Jack: "Fine, Bill did do that. But then he smashed his mePod!"
Not unlike the logical fallacy of the same name, this responds to a defense by adjusting an attack you had previously made just enough so that it works again. This doesn't express creativity, and should generally be avoided. Hmm. Interesting observation.

Fine Print
James: Then she said, "Oh, by the way, everything I just said is what I really think, and it meant exactly what it sounded like: it wasn't a joke, or a secret message in code, or the opposite of what I meant, or another language, and also nobody is making me do this under duress."
The excessive use of some certain defenses has led to people "hardening" their attack by methodically eliminating arguments that they anticipate their target will try to make use of. This was cute the first few times. Now it's overdone. Among other things, this obviously stretches the believability of the story. In general, I think it's better to implicate people by their actions, not words. This form of attack very frequently accompanies "They Said It". It is getting kind of annoying

A helpful read, James. Thank you for posting it.

[Hickory]

@Sky: What does me and Soren being the only pople who knew how to forge have to do with the portal?

[Søren]

Uh, what now? I'm not in this, or did you guys rope me into your plot?
Hahaha, I just checked the thread. Maybe you guys forgot I'm setting this out.

[Skyblade]

Uh, what now? I'm not in this, or did you guys rope me into your plot?
Hahaha, I just checked the thread. Maybe you guys forgot I'm setting this out.

Yes, I don't have to worry about you! Oh, okay. I edited your name out

Sage, you'll have to read the responses to understand.

[Hickory]

Not 100% sure where to put this, so...

"Well, I don't know about Sam, but the items Sage was referring to were actually useless (and unsanitary) creature droppings. They were crowding the room and making it hard to navigate, as well as making us all prone to some type of creature disease. Seeing as how there was no trash can in sight, and by disposing of these I could hinder the other servants' attempts to get rid of your important belongings, I threw them in the portal (with a 10-foot pole, I might add).

I must also clarify something. When someone stops the machine, it doesn't spit back everything that it previously swallowed. What's lost is lost, hence why I couldn't save the tapestries Amber and Banya tossed inside. But it's worth nothing that had I not stopped the machine, the destruction would have been even worse. And also on the bright side, we don't have to deal with those disgusting creature droppings."

Isn't this against the rules, because I stated that they were precious items, so, by the rules, isn't that a fact?

(not to start a fight)

[SilentSam]

I'm sorry if in my post I made some mistakes, or contradicted anyone, tell me if I did. I will fix it.

[Skyblade]

I thought it was OK because the items you mentioned didn't necrssarily have to be the same ones Sam dealt with. Those were precious; yours didn't have to be.

[Izeroth]

Not 100% sure where to put this, so...

"Well, I don't know about Sam, but the items Sage was referring to were actually useless (and unsanitary) creature droppings. They were crowding the room and making it hard to navigate, as well as making us all prone to some type of creature disease. Seeing as how there was no trash can in sight, and by disposing of these I could hinder the other servants' attempts to get rid of your important belongings, I threw them in the portal (with a 10-foot pole, I might add).

I must also clarify something. When someone stops the machine, it doesn't spit back everything that it previously swallowed. What's lost is lost, hence why I couldn't save the tapestries Amber and Banya tossed inside. But it's worth nothing that had I not stopped the machine, the destruction would have been even worse. And also on the bright side, we don't have to deal with those disgusting creature droppings."

Isn't this against the rules, because I stated that they were precious items, so, by the rules, isn't that a fact?

(not to start a fight)

It's fine in this situation, as 'precious' is a relative term and you never specified exactly what objects you were talking about. If you had earlier said that the objects were precious gems, for instance, Sky would have been violating the rules.

[Hickory]

Problem fixed.

[Skyblade]

At this point I don't think I need to reply to Sage, seeing as how some people haven't posted yet. If everyone does, though, I'll form a defense.

[Izeroth]

 The round will close within (roughly) a week. Remember: even if no accusations have been leveled against you, it's still important that you post something. Inactivity almost always guarantees elimination.

[Izeroth]

 Overlord's Orders round XVII is now officially online again. On account of the recent technical difficulties, I'll give you all another week to respond.