Overlord's Orders Commentary

[Izeroth]

 I'll try to post the next round by Saturday.

[James Gryphon]

Hopefully it can get back some of the spotlight that Mafia'd taken from it. The main thing is to make sure that things keep flowing; I think the last round started bogging down as things went on.

[Izeroth]

Hopefully it can get back some of the spotlight that Mafia'd taken from it. The main thing is to make sure that things keep flowing; I think the last round started bogging down as things went on.

All rounds will be up for a maximum of two weeks. After that point, regardless of how hard it is to choose, I will pick a servant to dispose of.

[Vilu Daskar]

Izeroth is starting this next round, it should be good. I've got some good expectations for my first round since I left. Seeing how horrible I did my last round I'm hoping for a little redemption.

I've never even played.

[Jukka the Sling]

And here's a late apology from me for never posting in that one phase. I kept procrastinating, and then I never saw James's warning post until the day afterward.  So, during the two times I've played, I've never made it past the final three. Anyway, I've never wanted to become the Overlord.  I'd be absolutely hopeless at choosing which person to kick out.

[Hickory]

I, meanwhile, have some very inventive ways of punishement...

[James Gryphon]

@Jukka: I actually wrote an Overlording "guide" at one point, actually. I thought it would have been helpful for prospective OLs. Maybe I ought to post it up in public sometime.

I was thinking about making a companion volume, for OO players, but never got around to it. Maybe when I have some spare time one of these days...

[Jukka the Sling]

That would be helpful, I think.  Why don't you post it?

[James Gryphon]

Sure. Haven't touched it since at least January, so it could stand an update (firstly to use the new distinction between "rounds" and "stages", which didn't exist at the time, and also to talk about rounds that took place after 2011), but it's still serviceable.

First, look back at rounds 2, 3, and 4 (which I think were the best). You can learn a lot by observing me and the other Overlords in these rounds.

Round 2
Round 3
Round 4

The first thing, which I cannot overemphasize, is to be active. This last round was disastrous mainly because the Overlord was one of the ones missing in action. Along similar lines, you have to make sure that you always keep the action going. Don't ask just one person to answer your question; leave it open for other people to answer you. The reason for this is because if you only ask one person, and they're inactive, the game comes to a halt. You can stretch this rule if you know that the member you're asking is always active, but if you have any doubts leave it open for others.

Each round is supposed to last about a month or so. If you have to wait more than two or three days for a reply, you're doing something wrong. Inactive users are very common in these games, so what you want to do is eliminate them first. When you're deciding who to eliminate, and you have a choice between someone who's been posting and someone who hasn't, you should never eliminate the active user, no matter how bad it looks for them in the story. Make up any excuse you need to to get rid of your inactive players.

The Overlord is playing the game just like anyone else, he just has a different role. You have to set the scene, make sure that the minions don't get too crazy in their responses, and bring out the quality in their responses.

On setting the scene: you need a good villain's lair and interrogation room, with a lot of descriptive text detailing their appearance and layout. You will see this in all three of the above rounds. This sets the example that you want your players to follow throughout the entire round, and gives more character to your questioning them. Make sure that you have innovative ways to eliminate players when you're getting rid of them. Be as creative as you want in doing so, just make sure that it's intimidating enough so as not to ruin the atmosphere that you're building. Your punishments, as a general rule, should be more harsh as the story goes on.

Make sure that you don't leave the players a totally blank slate. At the beginning of each round, define what went wrong. For example, in this post, I mention that they ruined my book and were caught breaking into the facility. If you only say "You failed; tell me why", they will come up with the most off-the-wall stuff you can imagine, and the entire round will be completely silly. Overlord's Orders is more than a game; it's a roleplaying exercise of sorts. A little bit of silliness is going to leak into the prose anyway, and it spices up the story, but if you're not careful it's very easy for it to take over and kill off anything that resembles a coherent plot. Overlord's Orders I is the perfect example of silliness run amok.

Your players should not normally post single-line responses. Feel free to ask them (in-character) for more detail if they haven't been forthcoming. In general, though, I think the best way to encourage quality of response is to set a good example. When you look at the three rounds I showed you at the top, you'll notice that me, Daniel, and Matthias all tended to make very long posts, when we were Overlording. That's a Good Thing.

In deciding who to eliminate: The biggest thing, like I mentioned before, is to get rid of inactive people first. After you're down to only active players, then what you should do depends on the story, and on the players themselves. Look at the excuses that the players have given and determine who is most at fault, in the context of the story. Then, look at the players themselves. You will notice that some of them are better writers than others. You have to carefully weigh the strength of the excuses and the writing ability of the players. In general, I would say that you should favor better writers. The better the writer, the harder it should be to get rid of them. Once you're down to the point where you have only good writers, then you can judge mostly based on their excuses.

It is the tradition (established by me, actually) that the Overlord asks the final two players a question to decide who replaces him. The loser is not normally punished. You can mess with all of this any way you like, or do something else entirely -- there is no hard rule regarding how succession or the final round are done -- but this is a proven formula and you can't go wrong by following it.

I hope this general guide to running a round of OO is helpful. If you have any questions or need any advice when you're running it, feel free to ask me again.

[Cornflower MM]

Thanks, James.

I'll be definitely joining this one. . . . Let's hope I can keep up with you wordy people.

[Jukka the Sling]

@James:  Cool!  That was really helpful.  Thanks!

@Corny:  Cool!

[Søren]

I'll be joining. Only Tag, James and Matthias have been Overlord multiple times. I want to blow that top-3 open.

[Hickory]

I soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo want to be Overlord.

[LT Sandpaw]

Lots of people going for the top spot this time, I hope I'm just online when Izeroth posts the sign-ups. Or I'll miss the deadline which would be the worst!

[James Gryphon]

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.

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.
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.
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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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."

"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.

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.

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".