Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to Host a Phalla (mechanics & balance discussion)

13468938

Posts

  • ArdorArdor Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I didn't think of it before, buy removing a single person with a seer ability really cuts down on the network chances.

    However, there's a decent gamble at play with having multiple people find out the results of a seering though. Imagine if you had the village vote on multiple things, but one being who should reveal their role to the group? It could be narration, like someone who is a piece of the narration would be able to provide the entire village with results of a seering provided several people are alive? They are specials of sorts, but only to continue allowing the village a second vote of whom to seer that night. It would be a nice way to condemn someone, but would have less in hiding and less potential for a network?

    Ardor on
  • SpawnbrokerSpawnbroker Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I think the biggest reason people are coming out with their special roles on day 1 in these Phallas is they know that they will be protected by the guardians every night until they form a network. I think having the guardians' ability be on a limited number of uses would help fix this, as I think was mentioned earlier in the thread.

    Spawnbroker on
    Battle.net: Spawnbroker#1471
    Steam: Spawnbroker
    Final Fantasy XIV: Spawn Broken
  • NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Ardor wrote: »
    I didn't think of it before, buy removing a single person with a seer ability really cuts down on the network chances.

    However, there's a decent gamble at play with having multiple people find out the results of a seering though. Imagine if you had the village vote on multiple things, but one being who should reveal their role to the group? It could be narration, like someone who is a piece of the narration would be able to provide the entire village with results of a seering provided several people are alive? They are specials of sorts, but only to continue allowing the village a second vote of whom to seer that night. It would be a nice way to condemn someone, but would have less in hiding and less potential for a network?

    What do you think of having the seer not being able to chose their own target? Either have it be random or have someone else actually decide the target for them.

    Nerissa on
    Personally, I like D&D because I find OCD much more interesting than ADD.
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Nerissa wrote: »
    Ardor wrote: »
    I didn't think of it before, buy removing a single person with a seer ability really cuts down on the network chances.

    However, there's a decent gamble at play with having multiple people find out the results of a seering though. Imagine if you had the village vote on multiple things, but one being who should reveal their role to the group? It could be narration, like someone who is a piece of the narration would be able to provide the entire village with results of a seering provided several people are alive? They are specials of sorts, but only to continue allowing the village a second vote of whom to seer that night. It would be a nice way to condemn someone, but would have less in hiding and less potential for a network?

    What do you think of having the seer not being able to chose their own target? Either have it be random or have someone else actually decide the target for them.

    My personal distaste for randomness leads me to be wary of the former, though I don't think it would be gamebreaking. For the latter, how would you handle it if the chooser died before the seer?

    Smasher on
  • GnastyGnasty Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Hey guys, I'm interested in your thoughts on one of the mechanics I want to use in my game. I'm planning on turning all of the traditional roles into items. There will be a sword, and shield, and a mirror. There are a few things different from past Phallas with items though:

    Items cannot be traded.
    When someone holding an item dies, there is a 50% chance it breaks. Otherwise it is randomly distributed to one of the members of the group that killed the person holding the item.
    There will be thief abilities in the game, including another item that will give its holder thief powers.

    This way, no one would be safe coming out saying "I'm the seer" or "I'm the guardian," because that night someone could steal that power away from them.

    Also, the shield will only be able to block one attack per night, and there are two bad guy groups in my game. So if both groups target a guarded player, that player will still die.

    Gnasty on
    i just wanna 'be myself'
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Overloading defenses is fine.

    I have to say, though, that it sounds almost exactly like the Castle Phalla's items. Can't really help that considering the usage, I guess.

    tuxkamen on

    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
  • GnastyGnasty Registered User
    edited March 2007
    tuxkamen wrote: »
    Overloading defenses is fine.

    I have to say, though, that it sounds almost exactly like the Castle Phalla's items. Can't really help that considering the usage, I guess.

    Well the difference is that there won't be both a vigilante role and a vigilante item, just the item. The items in Castle where one-shot, well in my game they will be replacement for the roles. I'm hoping the stealing mechanism I'm introducing will shake things up a bit.

    Also, the Castle Phalla items unbalanced it because they were guaranteed to be given to innocents, and they were tradeable. I'm not going to confirm that only innocents will start out with the items, and my items will not be tradeable.

    Gnasty on
    i just wanna 'be myself'
  • NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    Nerissa wrote: »
    Ardor wrote: »
    I didn't think of it before, buy removing a single person with a seer ability really cuts down on the network chances.

    However, there's a decent gamble at play with having multiple people find out the results of a seering though. Imagine if you had the village vote on multiple things, but one being who should reveal their role to the group? It could be narration, like someone who is a piece of the narration would be able to provide the entire village with results of a seering provided several people are alive? They are specials of sorts, but only to continue allowing the village a second vote of whom to seer that night. It would be a nice way to condemn someone, but would have less in hiding and less potential for a network?

    What do you think of having the seer not being able to chose their own target? Either have it be random or have someone else actually decide the target for them.

    My personal distaste for randomness leads me to be wary of the former, though I don't think it would be gamebreaking. For the latter, how would you handle it if the chooser died before the seer?

    I guess that depends on who the chooser is... any ideas?

    Nerissa on
    Personally, I like D&D because I find OCD much more interesting than ADD.
  • GnastyGnasty Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Nerissa wrote: »
    Smasher wrote: »
    Nerissa wrote: »
    Ardor wrote: »
    I didn't think of it before, buy removing a single person with a seer ability really cuts down on the network chances.

    However, there's a decent gamble at play with having multiple people find out the results of a seering though. Imagine if you had the village vote on multiple things, but one being who should reveal their role to the group? It could be narration, like someone who is a piece of the narration would be able to provide the entire village with results of a seering provided several people are alive? They are specials of sorts, but only to continue allowing the village a second vote of whom to seer that night. It would be a nice way to condemn someone, but would have less in hiding and less potential for a network?

    What do you think of having the seer not being able to chose their own target? Either have it be random or have someone else actually decide the target for them.

    My personal distaste for randomness leads me to be wary of the former, though I don't think it would be gamebreaking. For the latter, how would you handle it if the chooser died before the seer?

    I guess that depends on who the chooser is... any ideas?
    I'm just wondering how much the chooser will affect the game. Will they be in contact with the seer? If so, it isn't really any different than just having a regular seer. If they aren't in contact and the chooser is relatively intelligent, it just means that the seer will be getting worthwhile visions, they just won't have control over them. It limits their ability somewhat, but not too much. I'm just not sure I see the point.

    Gnasty on
    i just wanna 'be myself'
  • NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Gnasty wrote: »
    Hey guys, I'm interested in your thoughts on one of the mechanics I want to use in my game. I'm planning on turning all of the traditional roles into items. There will be a sword, and shield, and a mirror. There are a few things different from past Phallas with items though:

    Items cannot be traded.
    When someone holding an item dies, there is a 50% chance it breaks. Otherwise it is randomly distributed to one of the members of the group that killed the person holding the item.
    There will be thief abilities in the game, including another item that will give its holder thief powers.

    This way, no one would be safe coming out saying "I'm the seer" or "I'm the guardian," because that night someone could steal that power away from them.

    Also, the shield will only be able to block one attack per night, and there are two bad guy groups in my game. So if both groups target a guarded player, that player will still die.

    I'd put some sort of limitation on the thief power, like only allow them to have one additional item / power at a time. Also, you might limit the total number of items a person can have at a time, so if I have the sword and shield, and I'm a member of the group that kills the mirror-holder, I'm ineligable to get the mirror. That way you keep your items from all clustering on one person.

    Nerissa on
    Personally, I like D&D because I find OCD much more interesting than ADD.
  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Chantry of NightmaresRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Nerissa wrote: »
    Normal ratios tend to be around 15-20 percent bad guys, so you've got almost double that.

    However, if you evenly distribute clans among your players, you've also got way more guardians than most games (and if you read some of the most recent discussion in this thread, we've been looking at ways to make guardians weaker, not stronger).

    Considering that, I'll probably limit the Nosferatu and Gangrel roles just like any other special.
    Also, I'm not sure if a bad guy "vigilante" is a good idea, and I'm not sure making the Assamites vigilantes is quite in-story -- as an assassin, I think they kill whoever they are hired to kill, not who they want to.
    That's true, so I guess there's two ways around this: that the Assamites have been given free reign to decide their own targets, or that a key member of the Camarilla/Sabbat decides their targets for them(I'm pretty sure this'd be an unpopular idea).
    Also, I don't see any other mechanism for the Sabbat / Anarchs to make a kill -- I assume you'll be using the usual mechanism there?
    Are the Sabbat and Anarchs going to be separate groups, with separate win conditions (I would think this would be the case)?

    If both groups are used, they certainly wouldn't be working together. The Sabbat want the Camarilla dead, but I figure Anarchs can be slightly more reasonable, as in they'd rather turn Camarilla followers to their side as opposed to killing them. Maybe they can get a specialty for turning Camarilla members to their side instead of killing them, like the Sabbat will. On the other hand, maybe the Sabbat Special can be for a pack assault on a certain victim one per evening?

    I guess I'd need to work on this part the most.

    Either way, I'd like the Assamites to be an unpredictable element. Maybe it's possible that higher-ups in the Sabbat and Camarilla set them loose, so no one but the Assamites know who they are.
    I really like the idea of the Prince mechanic, although I think you need to flesh it out a bit and make it more clear exactly how it works.

    My main guess is that the person who becomes Prince stays Prince until he's either removed from power, or killed, like in a normal city.

    cj iwakura on
    9LlOwgn.png
    Well, good morning. Welcome to the new scenario. What should we do today?
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    I'm going to make a big game in about two months when I have more free time. Let's say about 50+ players.

    Seven clans with 7/8 players each. All the normal special roles are powers that the clan as a whole has. Each night the clan can perform two of the following actions: Defend a player, kill a player, seer a player, research the death of a player and find out whether a villager or villain killed them. One player will be elected as the lord of the clan and he is the one who gets the final say on what actions that clan performs. He can be deposed and replaced at any time by a majority of the players in his clan. He can expel members from the clan and admit members to it. Members of the clan can also leave at any time and either remain clanless or join another clan if the lord of that clan agrees.

    When the lord chooses the actions of his clan, he does not simply PM them to the narrator. He must choose a member of his clan to carry the action out. He must say "I order Aroduc to defend me" or "I order Aroduc to investigate RBB" or "I order Aroduc to investigate the death of stilist" or "I order Aroduc to kill Tuxkamen". It is then up to that player to execute the action. There is always the chance that they will betray their lord and defend/attack someone else or lie about the results of their investigation.

    Scattered randomly among the clans will be two sets of villains - six each with the usual goal of killing the other team of villains and the villagers.

    Also, there will be a magician character. His goal will initially be to hunt the villains. He will begin with the power of a vigilante, but with every villain he kills he will grow stronger, gaining the ability to defend, and investigate as well. His victory condition is to be the last man standing or be elected king.

    The game will have an automatic termination mechanism to prevent it dragging on too long if the players don't want it to. The narrative of the game will be framed as a succession struggle. At any point if the majority of villagers pledge allegiance to the lord of one clan he becomes the king and the game ends. So theoretically the game could go on for quite some time even once all the villains and the magician are defeated, with the different clans and lords competing for kingship.

    Thoughts?

    Shinto on
  • ArdorArdor Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    I'm going to make a big game in about two months when I have more free time. Let's say about 50+ players.

    Seven clans with 7/8 players each. All the normal special roles are powers that the clan as a whole has. Each night the clan can perform two of the following actions: Defend a player, kill a player, seer a player, research the death of a player and find out whether a villager or villain killed them. One player will be elected as the lord of the clan and he is the one who gets the final say on what actions that clan performs. He can be deposed and replaced at any time by a majority of the players in his clan. He can expel members from the clan and admit members to it. Members of the clan can also leave at any time and either remain clanless or join another clan if the lord of that clan agrees.

    When the lord chooses the actions of his clan, he does not simply PM them to the narrator. He must choose a member of his clan to carry the action out. He must say "I order Aroduc to defend me" or "I order Aroduc to investigate RBB" or "I order Aroduc to investigate the death of stilist" or "I order Aroduc to kill Tuxkamen". It is then up to that player to execute the action. There is always the chance that they will betray their lord and defend/attack someone else or lie about the results of their investigation.

    Scattered randomly among the clans will be two sets of villains - six each with the usual goal of killing the other team of villains and the villagers.

    Also, there will be a magician character. His goal will initially be to hunt the villains. He will begin with the power of a vigilante, but with every villain he kills he will grow stronger, gaining the ability to defend, and investigate as well. His victory condition is to be the last man standing or be elected king.

    The game will have an automatic termination mechanism to prevent it dragging on too long if the players don't want it to. The narrative of the game will be framed as a succession struggle. At any point if the majority of villagers pledge allegiance to the lord of one clan he becomes the king and the game ends. So theoretically the game could go on for quite some time even once all the villains and the magician are defeated, with the different clans and lords competing for kingship.

    Thoughts?

    Sounds intruiging (I still need to comment on the other ideas that have been shared here, I'll try to do that today).

    Can a person be a member of multiple clans? For example, could I state my allegiance to two different clans if I somehow got invited to join both? If not, does the person inviting me find out what clan I'm from otherwise? I can assume if he finds out I'm not able to join him he already knows I'm not in his clan.

    So the lord can issue orders to the clans, but you mentioned the clan members can choose to disobey. You also mentioned that each clan can perform 2 actions per night. Does this mean that only those ordered by the lord can perform actions? If the lord isn't able to send anything in to you Shinto, what's to stop 6 of us in the clan all sending in various orders to you?

    One final question, more out of curiosity. Do the players find out the clans the dead belong to? I can imagine the investigate XXX's death means you can find out who killed him.

    Ardor on
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Ardor wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    I'm going to make a big game in about two months when I have more free time. Let's say about 50+ players.

    Seven clans with 7/8 players each. All the normal special roles are powers that the clan as a whole has. Each night the clan can perform two of the following actions: Defend a player, kill a player, seer a player, research the death of a player and find out whether a villager or villain killed them. One player will be elected as the lord of the clan and he is the one who gets the final say on what actions that clan performs. He can be deposed and replaced at any time by a majority of the players in his clan. He can expel members from the clan and admit members to it. Members of the clan can also leave at any time and either remain clanless or join another clan if the lord of that clan agrees.

    When the lord chooses the actions of his clan, he does not simply PM them to the narrator. He must choose a member of his clan to carry the action out. He must say "I order Aroduc to defend me" or "I order Aroduc to investigate RBB" or "I order Aroduc to investigate the death of stilist" or "I order Aroduc to kill Tuxkamen". It is then up to that player to execute the action. There is always the chance that they will betray their lord and defend/attack someone else or lie about the results of their investigation.

    Scattered randomly among the clans will be two sets of villains - six each with the usual goal of killing the other team of villains and the villagers.

    Also, there will be a magician character. His goal will initially be to hunt the villains. He will begin with the power of a vigilante, but with every villain he kills he will grow stronger, gaining the ability to defend, and investigate as well. His victory condition is to be the last man standing or be elected king.

    The game will have an automatic termination mechanism to prevent it dragging on too long if the players don't want it to. The narrative of the game will be framed as a succession struggle. At any point if the majority of villagers pledge allegiance to the lord of one clan he becomes the king and the game ends. So theoretically the game could go on for quite some time even once all the villains and the magician are defeated, with the different clans and lords competing for kingship.

    Thoughts?

    Sounds intruiging (I still need to comment on the other ideas that have been shared here, I'll try to do that today).

    Can a person be a member of multiple clans? For example, could I state my allegiance to two different clans if I somehow got invited to join both? If not, does the person inviting me find out what clan I'm from otherwise? I can assume if he finds out I'm not able to join him he already knows I'm not in his clan.

    So the lord can issue orders to the clans, but you mentioned the clan members can choose to disobey. You also mentioned that each clan can perform 2 actions per night. Does this mean that only those ordered by the lord can perform actions? If the lord isn't able to send anything in to you Shinto, what's to stop 6 of us in the clan all sending in various orders to you?

    One final question, more out of curiosity. Do the players find out the clans the dead belong to? I can imagine the investigate XXX's death means you can find out who killed him.

    Unless I'm reading it wrong, clan membership is totally public, and it's only the villains (and the magician, I guess) who are hidden.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
    Burnage wrote:
    FWD is very good at this game.
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Ardor wrote: »
    Sounds intruiging (I still need to comment on the other ideas that have been shared here, I'll try to do that today).

    Can a person be a member of multiple clans? For example, could I state my allegiance to two different clans if I somehow got invited to join both? If not, does the person inviting me find out what clan I'm from otherwise? I can assume if he finds out I'm not able to join him he already knows I'm not in his clan.

    So the lord can issue orders to the clans, but you mentioned the clan members can choose to disobey. You also mentioned that each clan can perform 2 actions per night. Does this mean that only those ordered by the lord can perform actions? If the lord isn't able to send anything in to you Shinto, what's to stop 6 of us in the clan all sending in various orders to you?

    One final question, more out of curiosity. Do the players find out the clans the dead belong to? I can imagine the investigate XXX's death means you can find out who killed him.

    Unless I'm reading it wrong, clan membership is totally public, and it's only the villains (and the magician, I guess) who are hidden.

    Yes, clan membership would be public, and you could only belong to one clan. A player could also be clanless.

    Yes, only those ordered by the clans can perform actions. Because the lords must maintain the support of their clans in order to remain lords, my guess is that a lot of time will be spent consulting and debating within the clans about what the lord should order. Also, intriguing in general to depose the current lords and elect new ones.

    The lords will have the responsibility of sending their orders to me. The players executing the orders will also have the responsibility of sending me PMs letting me know that they are executing them.

    Investigating deaths will determine whether or not the killer was a villain, the magician or a villager. If the killing is at the order of a lord, it will also identify the clan of the killer. The identity of the victim will become known when they are killed.

    Shinto on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    Could you elaborate on the win conditions as pertains to the king?

    So the game progresses until someone is king. If the magician is king, he wins. If a non-villain is made king, does that mean all the non-villains win?

    If only the members of the king's clan win, then why would anybody ever choose to make someone from a different clan their king?

    If all the villagers win, then it means that all the villagers have to do is definitely verify one person as a non-villain, and the game is over. While I don't immediately see a mechanism for complete verification in your game, that doesn't mean there isn't one, and if one exists, the players will find it.

    Overall, it sounds cool. I'm just unsure about how the king thing works.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    and if one exists, the players will find it.

    :lol:

    Smasher on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    and if one exists, the players will find it.

    :lol:

    Fucking players with their finding weak points in our carefully formed rulesets.

    :x

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Could you elaborate on the win conditions as pertains to the king?

    So the game progresses until someone is king. If the magician is king, he wins. If a non-villain is made king, does that mean all the non-villains win?

    If only the members of the king's clan win, then why would anybody ever choose to make someone from a different clan their king?

    If all the villagers win, then it means that all the villagers have to do is definitely verify one person as a non-villain, and the game is over. While I don't immediately see a mechanism for complete verification in your game, that doesn't mean there isn't one, and if one exists, the players will find it.

    Overall, it sounds cool. I'm just unsure about how the king thing works.

    A king cannot be elected before all the villains have been killed. Tussling over the king is really a late game option, not a strategy for the main game.

    Also, players don't vote for the king. They leave their clan and join the clan of which he is the lord. So there isn't really a question of why vote for someone who isn't your clan.

    It isn't meant to be a stable game dynamic, its meant to be a fun little way for the villagers to end the game.

    Shinto on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    Oh, I see.

    In that case, sounds cool. That and Nerissa's game are topping my must-play list.

    Also, 50+ is "massive"? Sorry, Shinto, but I've set the bar at 60 people. If you want to achieve "massive", I think you need at least 80. ;-)

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • GnastyGnasty Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Shinto, would a clanless player be able to do anything? At the very least, is there still an all-villager execution vote?

    Gnasty on
    i just wanna 'be myself'
  • ShamusShamus Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shinto, your idea sounds awesome. I love it.

    Shamus on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Oh, I see.

    In that case, sounds cool. That and Nerissa's game are topping my must-play list.

    Also, 50+ is "massive"? Sorry, Shinto, but I've set the bar at 60 people. If you want to achieve "massive", I think you need at least 80. ;-)

    It can have as many people as will sign up. Fifties is as high as I've seen. I'm not really sure what the ceiling would be on how many it can accomodate.

    Gnasty - no, there is no village vote. Villagers have to find a place in a clan to have any power. The clanless have no protection and no capability to strike back.

    Shinto on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    What if the clanless had the power to start up new clans if they amassed enough people?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ShamusShamus Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Would everyone start off in a clan, or would there be a randomly selected pool of clanless/?

    Does the magician belong to a clan, with the eventual hope of becoming Lord and then King? Or does he/she start off as one of the clanless?

    As far as I understand it, the object is to root out the villains and then raise your clan and it's Lord to monarchy?

    The premise is great and sounds like a phalla that could be run more then once.

    Shamus on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    What if the clanless had the power to start up new clans if they amassed enough people?

    I've been toying with that idea.

    This is already a very shifting, unstable system.

    Shinto on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Shamus wrote: »
    Would everyone start off in a clan, or would there be a randomly selected pool of clanless/?

    Does the magician belong to a clan, with the eventual hope of becoming Lord and then King? Or does he/she start off as one of the clanless?

    As far as I understand it, the object is to root out the villains and then raise your clan and it's Lord to monarchy?

    The premise is great and sounds like a phalla that could be run more then once.

    Everyone, including the magician, starts out randomly assigned to a clan. Those groups would then elect lords for their clans. Perhaps this would happen before roles were assigned.

    Yes, the general idea is to raise your clan to glory and one of its members to the kingship.

    On the one hand the village is fragmented.

    On the other hand, it could potentially have 14 seerings the first night.

    On the other hand, it would be hard to determine which of the villagers who did those seerings were villains.

    I'm really worried about balance issues. I worry that either the villagers are being favored too highly or the villains are.

    Also, I hope that the magician isn't killed by happenstance.

    Shinto on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    The magician is definitely at a stark disadvantage. If he's supposed to be a one-man team, you may want to consider making him harder to kill, but in such a way that him not dying easily isn't readily obvious. For example, make him unkillable unless two or more parties try to kill him. If a party targets him and he survives, it could be because he's the magician, or it could be because he was guarded.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Make him Athan.

    And then let me be him.

    Elendil on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The magician is definitely at a stark disadvantage. If he's supposed to be a one-man team, you may want to consider making him harder to kill, but in such a way that him not dying easily isn't readily obvious. For example, make him unkillable unless two or more parties try to kill him. If a party targets him and he survives, it could be because he's the magician, or it could be because he was guarded.

    Yes, this was one of the first powers I had him achieving if he managed to kill a villain.

    With a highish villain/villager ratio that puts the odds of him hitting a villain on the 3rd or 4th night. It shouldn't be too hard to survive until then.

    I was thinking like this: Say there are 60 players and 15 villains.

    One kill: Defense against one attacker
    Two kill: Power to investigate a player
    Five kill: Power to kill two players per night
    Seven kill: Power to investigate two players per night
    Ten kill: Power to defend against two attackers.

    I really doubt it would go much higher, or even reach that number of kills. The villagers will be hunting the villains also after all.

    Shinto on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Elendil wrote: »
    Make him Athan.

    And then let me be him.

    I really liked MTV's way of randomly assigning roles by having the players choose a number.

    I might have the first day of the game be devoted to organizing and answering questions. Everyone could pick a number and get their role. The clans could elect their leaders and choose symbols and names for them. That kind of thing. Then the game starts on day two.

    Shinto on
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Indeed, that is nice. And, I have a card-shuffling algorithm all ready to go for that purpose.

    tuxkamen on

    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    Picking a number is a nice gimmick, since it makes everyone feel like they're picking their own fate, even though it's statistically indistinguishable from assigning the roles randomly after the fact.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    What if the clanless had the power to start up new clans if they amassed enough people?

    I've been toying with that idea.

    This is already a very shifting, unstable system.

    What if you had a limited number of clans, but allowed a new clan to form after the limit is reached if there is a rival clan below a certain membership threshold? The weak rival clan could be forced to disband.

    I know this would be hard to balance, but I've got this beautiful picture in my head of precisionk collecting the misanthropes from among the other clans to build his new empire.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
    Burnage wrote:
    FWD is very good at this game.
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    This really does make me think of Survivor: Phalla with tribes and such.

    Unfortunately, I have no good way of building water obstacles for everyone. Metaphorically speaking.

    tuxkamen on

    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Chantry of NightmaresRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    How are the order of ODaM games handled? It seems pretty clear a V:TM one would have to be held here to keep it interesting, and I'm not sure if it's a first-come/first-serve order, or something more predetermined.

    I liked the idea of being on D&D's waiting list, since it gave me time to plan things out, but I don't see anything similar in place here...

    Never mind, problem solved. Back to the proverbial drawing board.

    cj iwakura on
    9LlOwgn.png
    Well, good morning. Welcome to the new scenario. What should we do today?
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Picking a number is a nice gimmick, since it makes everyone feel like they're picking their own fate, even though it's statistically indistinguishable from assigning the roles randomly after the fact.

    Yes. Also the same with being able to name their clan and draw a symbol for its banner.

    Also, individualized PMs. For story and depth.

    Because I have a few months to get ready anyway.

    Shinto on
  • NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    All I can say is I hope this game doesn't fall when I'm on vacation... it's one of the few I'd truly hate to miss, I think.

    Nerissa on
    Personally, I like D&D because I find OCD much more interesting than ADD.
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Okay.

    So the lessons I take from previous and current Phalla games are as follows.

    1) Strive for 10 days maximum.

    Obviously, interest starts to go down as time wears on and the players thin out. More importantly than that, 24-hour cycles don't lend themselves well to endgame situations where you have days of <10 people without a lot of movement. In the Mole, having three days sunk into having to off possible converts at the halfway point took a lot of the wind out the sails.

    2) Players want to win your game, not to play your scenario.

    Again, the halfway point of the Mole game was...interesting. I'm sure the host didn't mean it to turn out like it did, but the idea to actually answer the questions based on special roles or the bios of the players got curb-stomped over 'we want our confirmed network in here'. Then, the resolution of it was unsatisfying for most parties involved ('Welcome back, now suicide yourself.'), because it was most efficient.

    In the Soviet Phalla, the concept of the Politburo, GS, and rotating powers were extremely interesting, but again the players (well, player. Well, ex-player) immediately wanted to leverage the rules to secure a day one network. That plan failed due to the heavy cat-herding required and the various holes in the theory. The point, I guess, is that you need to go over your rules carefully and then think of how players will try to exploit them, just like any other online game.

    3) Punish inactivity yourself.

    - Don't let players puss out or they will be made to (see #2).
    - Have a small waiting list. Let people know that there are others waiting in line.

    4) 100% secure networks suck.

    So do unlimited guardians.

    5) So do conversions, generally.

    They only work under highly controlled circumstances.

    6) Having said that, the less information you give about the executed players, the more interesting the game will be.

    In the Mole, one nagging problem for me was that people were told exactly which role was executed. It made sense, but (for example) it made it very clear that our first convert was just that (because he had no ability), instead of possibly being an unseered mole from the start.

    On the other hand...

    7) Make the rules you do give out as clear as you think possible.

    8) Do not mess up.

    Yeah, it sounds obvious. Don't mess up. But it's not.

    I'm not talking about vagueness of rules or clarifications necessary to focus the players in this case. I mean simply that you double- and triple-check every bit of information you send out (seering results, kill orders, guardianships) and ensure that your narration posts put precisely (and correctly) the information that the players need to move along. This has affected games in the past, sometimes severely.

    9) Do not provide clues to the identities of players in your narration or mechanics unless you mean to.

    Whether inadvertent (remarking on how a special/bad guy appears to not be paying attention) or deliberate (giving your specials background information that blatantly implicate their roles), be extremely careful with the information you provide to the public. Assume that everything you write will be scrutinized for hints and ways to get ahead (see point #2).

    tuxkamen on

    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
  • Last SonLast Son Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I need some more experienced people's opinions on something. What do people think a 'more powerful' ability for a monster group would be:
    1)Protected from 1 attack each night(2 or more still kills them)(Village execution isn't an attack)
    2)Seers as an innocent

    There is an opposing monster group with multiple kills, as well as a vigilante.

    Option (1) makes them rather protected from monsters/vigs, but Option (2) virtually assures they won't be executed late game.

    Last Son on
This discussion has been closed.