My major problem with the game is the opposite of Jesse's -- I've known some people who have done some very awful things, and thus one person is in the game is going to end up being a total fink that everyone is probably going to want to kill on general principle, and most players probably wouldn't want to portray because the acts in question are vile enough that they churn the stomach.

I wish that there were some rules caveat for using the second or third worst thing, both for the reasons of not wanting to blow the other players out of the water and for the purposes of allowing a group to play the game (which seems somewhat finite) more than once.

Like the resolution system, though.

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Ben,

I'm glad you posted this, because my thoughts on the issue were similar to yours, especially the part about playing more than once. Also, we had a big discussion about this very thing last Tuesday, at the campus club. One of the club members pointed out that moral examinations were all very well, but there's some shit that he doesn't really feel like examining all the time every time.

Here are my conclusions from the discussion:

1. "One of the worst things" is probably the best phrasing.

2. Each person puts two things into the hat, not just one.

3. We really are talking about moral issues, something that you the player, not the person who did it, think is the worst (i.e. one of the worst) thing.

What do you think? I think it hits most of the angles from which the game will work well.

Best,
Ron