The problem is that the monsters would just wait as long as they could, and then kill off the most active people, stopping most discussion.
That's typically how the games tend to go anyways. The active players tend to get the knife quicker than those who pay attention without contributing a huge amount. I'm not seeing why this is going to be much different otherwise. I mean, I might hoard my kills in case someone wants to come forward trying to setup a network to see if I can't extinguish the network in the next day or two with my huge amount of kills, then sit back and giggle.
For as much as we tweak the specials and such and maybe how many monsters there are or how many groups, I think changing their abilities a bit might be interesting as well. I mean, if the monsters held off on killing people for a bit, maybe people will be a little more active. ElJeffe's game had no monster killings for the first two nights and there was a lot of discussion going on at that time.
These ideas aren't meant to be game breaking, but it might help if someone finds a hole in your rules to create a network that greatly increases the chances of your side winning.
Oh, a mechanic I thought about for guardians? Perhaps the guardians can block standard monster kills only. So a vigilante could pierce it and maybe a bad guy vigilante could as well, if he had a one time use ability or something.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the next game might start? I've got a lot of work coming my way and I enjoy participating in these. I'm just curious to know when I have to have the work under control by.
Ardor on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
D&D is on cooldown until the 16th. I don't know if Hacksaw/Giganticus said they were ready or not.
...boo, I seem to be moving up the list. I'd better start thinking about it more.
I've been brainstorming ideas for classes and abilities for my Phalla game, but I think I've got enough. While I had as many as 6 villager classes and 5 monster classes at one point, I decided it's best to keep things simple and just go with 3 on each side. Time for balancing. I'm going to dump some information here for you guys to look at. My goal right now is to make all 3 villager classes equally appealing and useful. I know classes probably won't end up perfectly distributed, but I really don't want half the village or more in the same class.
So here are the stats. This is for a 30 man game, with 5 monsters. I've also provided the current abilities of the monster classes, since those may influence the players' choice. Oh, and if you're completely confused, I made a post much earlier in thread describing the game's basics.
Villager Classes
Note: Multiclassing is allowed. Abilities can be saved up, and multiple different abilities may be used on the same night, but the same ability cannot be used more than once in a given round( example: a Fighter may choose to hold onto his Strikes until late in the game, but he can never Strike more than once per round ).
Heal: Heals 5x(Current Cleric Level) damage to one target.
Prevent Poison: Target cannot be inflicted with poison that round.
Cure Poison: Eliminates poison from one target. Any HP or levels lost are restored.
Shield: Standard guardian ability. Can target themselves or someone else. May be affected by the Bruiser's Smash ability.
Divine Shield: Same as a normal Shield, but unless Smashed, the attacker takes the damage they were trying to inflict.
Strike: Deals 5x(Current Fighter Level) to one target.
Double Strike: Deals 10x(Current Fighter Level) to one target.
Monsters
Monsters get 4 attacks each night. Each attack does 5x(Current Round) damage. Monsters can also choose to level up in villager classes if they wish.
Monster classes
No leveling details are given, so that villagers do not know when or how often the monsters can use their abilities.
Bruiser
HP: 7/level
Strike: Deals 5x(Current Bruiser Level) to one target.
Double Strike: Deals 10x(Current Bruiser Level) to one target.
Smash: Breaks out a shield, allowing the target to be damaged by Strikes or normal monster attacks that night.
Assassin
HP: 7/level
Note: Poisons cannot be prevented by Shields.
Dust of forgetfulness(Poison): Target loses their last 3 levels. If this would drop the target's HP or level to 0 or less, the target dies.
Potion of invisibility(Poison): Target cannot be targeted by anything, including monster attacks, other than staking. Lasts 3 rounds.
Venom(Poison): Target loses 2x(Current Assassin Level) HP every night, until the target dies or is cured.
Toxic Gas(Poison): 4 targets each lose 3x(Current Assassin Level) HP.
False Panacea(Poison): Target cannot be healed, although they gain HP from leveling as normal.
Watchful Eye: The assassin is told if he is seered, although he is not told who seered him. This is a passive ability.
Nightmare
HP: 7/level
Spy: Learn the HP and levels of the target.
Hide: The Nightmare will seer as innocent that night. NOT a passive ability.
Whisper Lies: Target shows up as a monster if seered that night.
Deception: Changes narration of that night to make dead target be listed as a villager or a monster.
Well, that was a lot. Please let me know what you think, if any villager classes seem signficantly weaker or stronger than the others, or if you see something exploitable, or whatever.
Cantide on
0
Options
thorgotthere is special providencein the fall of a sparrowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Since I had to go find it, his post about the game is here.
Few questions about the abilities.
You list the wizard as having "the standard seer ability." Does it just reveal innocent/monster, or does it include classes as well?
Is the cleric's shield used up even if no one attacks the protected?
Does the vote inflict a certain amount of damage or does it kill outright?
Is it revealed who is attacked during a night, or only who died? Meaning will the villagers know who is at less than full health.
Now for observations;
The fighter's strike ability seems a little weak, since presumably nothing else will be dealing damage to the monsters and it can't kill one by itself. So either a fighter will have to use 2 strikes, or multiple fighters will have to coordinate to kill a single person.
The wizard seems a little weak as well, it only gets 3 seerings during the game(assuming they live at least 9 rounds) and there is no reason to take it to level 10.
Last Son on
0
Options
thorgotthere is special providencein the fall of a sparrowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Also, it seems like you'd be sending out ~30 PMs a day with updated hitpoints and skills.
I think I might actually sign up for a Kittens/Puppy phalla. I'm not sure how the spies would work, but there would be a high concentration of cuteness in every narration.
The spies could totally be fleas, each night they drink the blood of one of the players and can taste the difference between cats and dogs.
Last Son on
0
Options
thorgotthere is special providencein the fall of a sparrowRegistered Userregular
I think I might actually sign up for a Kittens/Puppy phalla. I'm not sure how the spies would work, but there would be a high concentration of cuteness in every narration.
The spies could totally be fleas, each night they drink the blood of one of the players and can taste the difference between cats and dogs.
I don't know about the fleas. I think that there shouldn't be any spies. That cats try to get rid of the dogs, the dogs the cats. Everyone wins because everyone gets to see puppies and kittens. I'm still thinking about how to make the Puppy/Kitten concept work, but I will find a way, damnit.
Few questions about the abilities.
You list the wizard as having "the standard seer ability." Does it just reveal innocent/monster, or does it include classes as well?
Is the cleric's shield used up even if no one attacks the protected?
Does the vote inflict a certain amount of damage or does it kill outright?
Is it revealed who is attacked during a night, or only who died? Meaning will the villagers know who is at less than full health.
Now for observations;
The fighter's strike ability seems a little weak, since presumably nothing else will be dealing damage to the monsters and it can't kill one by itself. So either a fighter will have to use 2 strikes, or multiple fighters will have to coordinate to kill a single person.
The wizard seems a little weak as well, it only gets 3 seerings during the game(assuming they live at least 9 rounds) and there is no reason to take it to level 10.
Seering shows only if they're a villager or a monster, nothing about class.
Shields are used up whether the target is attacked or not.
The vote kills outright.
All attacks are revealed in narration. That means Strikes, Poisons, stakings, and monster attacks. The amount of damage will be included.
As to the Fighter's ability, I've been considering increasing to 10x, but I can't decide whether it would imbalance it or not. The question goes hand in hand with whether or not to vary the monsters' HP, probably setting it at 4/7/12 for Nightmares/Assassins/Bruisers to match the village.
The wizard seems weak at first glance, but never underestimate the power of a seer. Each wizard that survives long enough to seer gets to build up their own little network, and that can quickly blossom into a huge group.
Also, it seems like you'd be sending out ~30 PMs a day with updated hitpoints and skills.
Yes, I'm well aware of the toll this will take on my inbox. That's why I'm limiting the player size to a moderate 30, instead of the standard 40-50 we've been having.
Cantide on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
We just pick cute avatars and keep voting people to get adopted until we all win!
I think that game would have to go like this:
*Half kitties, half puppies.
*Each side gets identical specials, including one vigilante.
*Nobody knows what anyone's alignment is besides their own.
*Group votes one player out per day, then all surviving vigilantes act (they play the part of the bad guy kills).
*Last side standing wins.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
We just pick cute avatars and keep voting people to get adopted until we all win!
I think that game would have to go like this:
*Half kitties, half puppies.
*Each side gets identical specials, including one vigilante.
*Nobody knows what anyone's alignment is besides their own.
*Group votes one player out per day, then all surviving vigilantes act (they play the part of the bad guy kills).
*Last side standing wins.
Pretty much. A lot like Arudocs. I'll write down all this stuff, figure out if any tweaks are needed, and if so, what they are. I think we could make this work.
You just popped out of your mother's womb with however many of your other siblings. Unfortunately, you were born by one of those Japanese breeders that tries to create the ultimate-cute puppy by inbreeding dogs a whole bunch, and you are not one of the lucky puppies to come out of this process unscathed. You are blind, deaf, and cannot smell anything (at least your coat is tinged blue like the breeder wanted!). But despite all of your flaws, you instinctively know that you must root out your sworn enemy: the kittens. They are crafty and do not love people as much as your kind, and for this they must be destroyed. Each turn you may vote to kill a puppy or kitty (you do not know which is which), and whoever wins the vote is viciously killed and devoured by the mutant puppy and kitty hoard.
You just popped out of your mother's womb with however many of your other siblings. Unfortunately, you were born by one of those Japanese breeders that tries to create the ultimate-cute puppy by inbreeding dogs a whole bunch, and you are not one of the lucky puppies to come out of this process unscathed. You are blind, deaf, and cannot smell anything (at least your coat is tinged blue like the breeder wanted!). But despite all of your flaws, you instinctively know that you must root out your sworn enemy: the kittens. They are crafty and do not love people as much as your kind, and for this they must be destroyed. Each turn you may vote to kill a puppy or kitty (you do not know which is which), and whoever wins the vote is viciously killed and devoured by the mutant puppy and kitty hoard.
After the ramming our network just took because of spawnbroker being off the forums since 3-30, I think we should have some form of waiting list for future games. Maybe take MTV's idea of 'you get to miss one vote period' would work out great. We might also consider having people sign up specifically for the wait list if they'd like to sit on the bench while not necessarily ready to or able to play the game right away.
Man, we took that one in the face, but I still think it's hilarious that an inactive with a fairly minor power pretty much doomed our chances of winning the game. Must be karma, although I swear I didn't spend much lately.
After the ramming our network just took because of spawnbroker being off the forums since 3-30, I think we should have some form of waiting list for future games. Maybe take MTV's idea of 'you get to miss one vote period' would work out great. We might also consider having people sign up specifically for the wait list if they'd like to sit on the bench while not necessarily ready to or able to play the game right away.
Man, we took that one in the face, but I still think it's hilarious that an inactive with a fairly minor power pretty much doomed our chances of winning the game. Must be karma, although I swear I didn't spend much lately.
I like this idea. Fixed criteria for ejecting players lends itself to ugly metagaming as seen in mtvcdm's game, but if you replace the players instead of leaving the spot open that concern largely disappears.
After the ramming our network just took because of spawnbroker being off the forums since 3-30, I think we should have some form of waiting list for future games. Maybe take MTV's idea of 'you get to miss one vote period' would work out great. We might also consider having people sign up specifically for the wait list if they'd like to sit on the bench while not necessarily ready to or able to play the game right away.
Man, we took that one in the face, but I still think it's hilarious that an inactive with a fairly minor power pretty much doomed our chances of winning the game. Must be karma, although I swear I didn't spend much lately.
I like this idea. Fixed criteria for ejecting players lends itself to ugly metagaming as seen in mtvcdm's game, but if you replace the players instead of leaving the spot open that concern largely disappears.
Another concern is typically with the villagers as well. Other than a single game, the sicily one from Shinto I believe, where inactivity killed villians, the inactives are almost always villagers or good specials. This greatly reduces the chances from the villager standpoint because it reduces the days available to play the game. The argument can be made that the villagers would probably stake these inactive players, but more often than not, the people missing votes constantly aren't the bad guys.
I mean, take a look at the current game, we've lost 3-4 villagers now to inactivity, in the end, that costs us 2 days of kills (GS + villager vote) that had a 0% chance of hitting a rebel.
Nothing against the gamemasters of any of these games, I just think It'd be nice if there was a way to remedy it, and the wait list idea seems appropriate. For example, Squasha came back after a weekend off and sounded like he'd be willing to play, but missed sign ups etc. Plus, enough people probably spectate these that you might find a few interested parties to add to the wait list by their request after a game commences.
So presumably the inactive would be swapped out, and the new player would absorb all of his abilities? So an inactive seer would get booted, and the new person would be a seer?
I think this could possibly work for the first few days of play, but would many people want to join in the mid- or end-game? In order to know what was going on, they'd have to have been following the game more or less, and I'm not sure how many people are going to do that when they don't even know if they get to play.
It still might be better than the people simply getting offed for inactivity, though. One thing to consider is that this would benefit the village. In any given game, about 5-10% of players get knocked off for inactivity, and they're almost never bad guys. It basically amounts to 3-4 bonus kills for the bad guys.
edit: Ardor beat me to my latter point. Fucking ninja.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
After the ramming our network just took because of spawnbroker being off the forums since 3-30, I think we should have some form of waiting list for future games. Maybe take MTV's idea of 'you get to miss one vote period' would work out great. We might also consider having people sign up specifically for the wait list if they'd like to sit on the bench while not necessarily ready to or able to play the game right away.
Man, we took that one in the face, but I still think it's hilarious that an inactive with a fairly minor power pretty much doomed our chances of winning the game. Must be karma, although I swear I didn't spend much lately.
I like this idea. Fixed criteria for ejecting players lends itself to ugly metagaming as seen in mtvcdm's game, but if you replace the players instead of leaving the spot open that concern largely disappears.
Another concern is typically with the villagers as well. Other than a single game, the sicily one from Shinto I believe, where inactivity killed villians, the inactives are almost always villagers or good specials. This greatly reduces the chances from the villager standpoint because it reduces the days available to play the game. The argument can be made that the villagers would probably stake these inactive players, but more often than not, the people missing votes constantly aren't the bad guys.
I mean, take a look at the current game, we've lost 3-4 villagers now to inactivity, in the end, that costs us 2 days of kills (GS + villager vote) that had a 0% chance of hitting a rebel.
Nothing against the gamemasters of any of these games, I just think It'd be nice if there was a way to remedy it, and the wait list idea seems appropriate. For example, Squasha came back after a weekend off and sounded like he'd be willing to play, but missed sign ups etc. Plus, enough people probably spectate these that you might find a few interested parties to add to the wait list by their request after a game commences.
I'd think it'd almost be a good idea as an evil guy to drop out half way so somebody with a different post style takes over. You can distance yourself from the previous voting record and have a built in excuse for previous actions. One way to help this is to keep the replacement list blind to players.
One idea that I'd thought about but uncertain how I feel about is a Phalla blacklist. People who routinely inactive out or simply started fucking around to screw with the game would go on it and GM's decide if they really want to include those people. This idea makes sense but also leaves me feeling incredibly leery at the same time.
One idea that I'd thought about but uncertain how I feel about is a Phalla blacklist. People who routinely inactive out or simply started fucking around to screw with the game would go on it and GM's decide if they really want to include those people. This idea makes sense but also leaves me feeling incredibly leery at the same time.
I don't know if I like the idea of an official list, though if a given GM wants to exclude certain people, it's his prerogative. But I don't see anyone letting Eri back in a game if she ever decides to come back, and I'd be wary of letting Rygar in (though I'd probably still let him join if he wanted to).
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
One idea that I'd thought about but uncertain how I feel about is a Phalla blacklist. People who routinely inactive out or simply started fucking around to screw with the game would go on it and GM's decide if they really want to include those people. This idea makes sense but also leaves me feeling incredibly leery at the same time.
I don't know if I like the idea of an official list, though if a given GM wants to exclude certain people, it's his prerogative. But I don't see anyone letting Eri back in a game if she ever decides to come back, and I'd be wary of letting Rygar in (though I'd probably still let him join if he wanted to).
I think it depends on the GM's really. People have bad days or other factors that might prevent them from either able to be active etc, but they really want to play, knowing they cannot fully commit to being there everyday.
One thing that might be advisable, would be to have the GM's ask in this thread or the gaming thread setup in D&D if there's anyone they should be wary of to join the game and people can send them pm's. It's one method that doesn't allow us to publically crush other people for circumstances that might have been beyond their control and it lends us to be civil as well.
One idea that I'd thought about but uncertain how I feel about is a Phalla blacklist. People who routinely inactive out or simply started fucking around to screw with the game would go on it and GM's decide if they really want to include those people. This idea makes sense but also leaves me feeling incredibly leery at the same time.
I don't know if I like the idea of an official list, though if a given GM wants to exclude certain people, it's his prerogative. But I don't see anyone letting Eri back in a game if she ever decides to come back, and I'd be wary of letting Rygar in (though I'd probably still let him join if he wanted to).
Yep. I think the primary benefit of the list would simply to show repeated patterns of behavior. While it's just a game I don't find people who amuse themselves by ruining a larger group of peoples fun all that desirable.
As for any kind of official status, that'd increase my reservations about 10 fold. Every once in a while D&D gets slung with the 'clique' mud and doing anything that'd make that worse or even give it an appearance of credibility makes me leery.
One thing that might be advisable, would be to have the GM's ask in this thread or the gaming thread setup in D&D if there's anyone they should be wary of to join the game and people can send them pm's. It's one method that doesn't allow us to publically crush other people for circumstances that might have been beyond their control and it lends us to be civil as well.
I remember MrMister had to bow out of a phalla at one point. He emailed the GM, apologized to the group and that was that. I think we all know that real life comes before internet forum games. Just walking away (and helping the other team in the process) and ignoring what amounts to 30+ people is why I find it annoying.
The PM method would favor impressions over substance and looks a lot like a cliquish gossip fest. Eh.
One idea that I'd thought about but uncertain how I feel about is a Phalla blacklist. People who routinely inactive out or simply started fucking around to screw with the game would go on it and GM's decide if they really want to include those people. This idea makes sense but also leaves me feeling incredibly leery at the same time.
I don't know if I like the idea of an official list, though if a given GM wants to exclude certain people, it's his prerogative. But I don't see anyone letting Eri back in a game if she ever decides to come back, and I'd be wary of letting Rygar in (though I'd probably still let him join if he wanted to).
I think even an unofficial list is unnecessry. I mean, if you have paid enough attention to previous games (whether you played them or not) to be able to run a decent game, then you already know who the troublemakers are. At that point, it's each GM's discretion whether to exclude them or allow them the chance to ruin their game (or potentially reform).
So presumably the inactive would be swapped out, and the new player would absorb all of his abilities? So an inactive seer would get booted, and the new person would be a seer?
I think this could possibly work for the first few days of play, but would many people want to join in the mid- or end-game? In order to know what was going on, they'd have to have been following the game more or less, and I'm not sure how many people are going to do that when they don't even know if they get to play.
It still might be better than the people simply getting offed for inactivity, though. One thing to consider is that this would benefit the village. In any given game, about 5-10% of players get knocked off for inactivity, and they're almost never bad guys. It basically amounts to 3-4 bonus kills for the bad guys.
edit: Ardor beat me to my latter point. Fucking ninja.
4 minute ninja?
Anyways, here's a thought. Let's say I'm a seer but I disappear for a few days and I get booted with someone else taking my place. Why not give the new guy villager status? There's the chance nobody knows my role anyways if I'm inactive, like spawnbroker, so nothing's really lost if someone else takes my spot, right?
I think it might be something to consider where special abiilties don't transfer to the next in line, but what team does. An inactive monster role with special abilites to that person alone would just become a regular monster to the person taknig the spot or in the example above with me, the next person in line would simply be a villager.
The only real unknown I can think about would be the information the inactive might have. If I seered someone before going AWOL, the person taking my place wouldn't necessarily know that and could have someone random claiming to be their friend. Maybe a disclaimer should be issued with the replacement that Joe has no information at this time and is simply taking Jane's place. Contact at your own risk?
One thing that might be advisable, would be to have the GM's ask in this thread or the gaming thread setup in D&D if there's anyone they should be wary of to join the game and people can send them pm's. It's one method that doesn't allow us to publically crush other people for circumstances that might have been beyond their control and it lends us to be civil as well.
I remember MrMister had to bow out of a phalla at one point. He emailed the GM, apologized to the group and that was that. I think we all know that real life comes before internet forum games. Just walking away (and helping the other team in the process) and ignoring what amounts to 30+ people is why I find it annoying.
The PM method would favor impressions over substance and looks a lot like a cliquish gossip fest. Eh.
Fair enough.
Here's an idea that I would be willing to do, although I won't go through the entire game thread but just loko for day end links and roster updates. I would be willing to go compile a list and put it here of anyone who died due to inactivity and which game it was. It's not really being biased at all and to be used at each person's discretion. So if someone appears several times, perhaps it's not the best idea to let them join again, but if someone's only been booted once, it's a non-issue.
Ardor on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Blacklists did come up back in the Yahoo Groups era, but they were never formalized- they were more like 'This guy completely messed up my game, he's not getting into any more of mine'. I had to do that once with some guy who was, in addition to the biggest jackass imaginable, a cheater. It's your game, you let in whoever you want; that was the general rule.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
I completely agree with the blacklist (at the GM's discretion) and intend to use it religiously.
But you guys have pointed out the problem with waitlists--what if an inactive is a special or a monster? I actually don't like the idea of replacing these roles with new people who have to immediately jump into the roles. For one thing, let's say they are replacing someone completely inactive. For the monsters, whatever, I know who they are and can inform the new player, but all that role's previous behavior is now out the window. Likewise, let's say they're replacing a seer. Now you have the extra problem of them having to determine what network they had, if any, and getting in touch with them.
Now that people are awake and around, any thoughts on my earlier post?
Cantide on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
Addendum:
1) Again, being able to voluntarily suicide yourself by non-voting is not an option. Don't let players puss out.
2) My current no-fly list is fairly short. I don't want to burn people because they don't know how to play--everyone's been there once--but there's not knowing how to play and there's actively f***ing things up.
Prince Rhaegar - METSITLUC
Rygar - Spazzed one game, pussed out on another.
Lady Eri - Absolutely spazzed out and contributed to the ruining of a very interesting game.
Spawnbroker - Well, still on the fence here, but inactive special + blabbing out your network = profound inability to play. If he explains himself or learns from it, no big deal.
Infidel - Apparently he 'got bored' on day 1. Nice.
Anyways, here's a thought. Let's say I'm a seer but I disappear for a few days and I get booted with someone else taking my place. Why not give the new guy villager status? There's the chance nobody knows my role anyways if I'm inactive, like spawnbroker, so nothing's really lost if someone else takes my spot, right?
The problem with that is that it communicates information to the various parties, and I'm not sure being voted off for inactivity should do that.
It's true that monsters are far less likely to be inactive than villagers and even specials. If someone gets voted off and replaced, using that idea, they're about as close to a confirmed innocent villager as possible.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyways, here's a thought. Let's say I'm a seer but I disappear for a few days and I get booted with someone else taking my place. Why not give the new guy villager status? There's the chance nobody knows my role anyways if I'm inactive, like spawnbroker, so nothing's really lost if someone else takes my spot, right?
The problem with that is that it communicates information to the various parties, and I'm not sure being voted off for inactivity should do that.
It's true that monsters are far less likely to be inactive than villagers and even specials. If someone gets voted off and replaced, using that idea, they're about as close to a confirmed innocent villager as possible.
Slippery slope then. I suppose it's not usually a huge amount of people going away due to inactivity, so perhaps we should just suck it up then.
I might counter your argument with the "If a guy's gonna get voted off for inactivity he's about the same as a confirmed innocent as well due to past phalla experiences'. That can be abused though.
This is a thought, and probably a poor one due to it getting complex. What if the opposing factions (villagers then monsters) had to use kills on inactives? So, when infidel and got taken out on the same day, the village vote goes to one while one monster kill was used to get the other? It accomplishes getting rid of the inactives and can keep the game moving still. Otherwise, starting with the village vote (since the village almost always wins these games) just have each faction take turns in having to use their kills (GM's call) on killing inactives.
I'm inclined to say, with the replies people have given, that it probably wouldn't hurt to keep things as they are at GM discretion because inactives going away nearly always favors the bad guys, but the bad guys are also the losers in many games.
Yeah, I really don't like the idea of forcing groups to waste their kills on inactives. That could totally screw up the flow of the game, especially if the village knows that someone is a bad guy, or the bad guys have an awesome plan that requires two precise kills.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I've been brainstorming ideas for classes and abilities for my Phalla game, but I think I've got enough. While I had as many as 6 villager classes and 5 monster classes at one point, I decided it's best to keep things simple and just go with 3 on each side. Time for balancing. I'm going to dump some information here for you guys to look at. My goal right now is to make all 3 villager classes equally appealing and useful. I know classes probably won't end up perfectly distributed, but I really don't want half the village or more in the same class.
So here are the stats. This is for a 30 man game, with 5 monsters. I've also provided the current abilities of the monster classes, since those may influence the players' choice. Oh, and if you're completely confused, I made a post much earlier in thread describing the game's basics.
Villager Classes
Note: Multiclassing is allowed. Abilities can be saved up, and multiple different abilities may be used on the same night, but the same ability cannot be used more than once in a given round( example: a Fighter may choose to hold onto his Strikes until late in the game, but he can never Strike more than once per round ).
Heal: Heals 5x(Current Cleric Level) damage to one target.
Prevent Poison: Target cannot be inflicted with poison that round.
Cure Poison: Eliminates poison from one target. Any HP or levels lost are restored.
Shield: Standard guardian ability. Can target themselves or someone else. May be affected by the Bruiser's Smash ability.
Divine Shield: Same as a normal Shield, but unless Smashed, the attacker takes the damage they were trying to inflict.
Strike: Deals 5x(Current Fighter Level) to one target.
Double Strike: Deals 10x(Current Fighter Level) to one target.
Monsters
Monsters get 4 attacks each night. Each attack does 5x(Current Round) damage. Monsters can also choose to level up in villager classes if they wish.
Monster classes
No leveling details are given, so that villagers do not know when or how often the monsters can use their abilities.
Bruiser
HP: 7/level
Strike: Deals 5x(Current Bruiser Level) to one target.
Double Strike: Deals 10x(Current Bruiser Level) to one target.
Smash: Breaks out a shield, allowing the target to be damaged by Strikes or normal monster attacks that night.
Assassin
HP: 7/level
Note: Poisons cannot be prevented by Shields.
Dust of forgetfulness(Poison): Target loses their last 3 levels. If this would drop the target's HP or level to 0 or less, the target dies.
Potion of invisibility(Poison): Target cannot be targeted by anything, including monster attacks, other than staking. Lasts 3 rounds.
Venom(Poison): Target loses 2x(Current Assassin Level) HP every night, until the target dies or is cured.
Toxic Gas(Poison): 4 targets each lose 3x(Current Assassin Level) HP.
False Panacea(Poison): Target cannot be healed, although they gain HP from leveling as normal.
Watchful Eye: The assassin is told if he is seered, although he is not told who seered him. This is a passive ability.
Nightmare
HP: 7/level
Spy: Learn the HP and levels of the target.
Hide: The Nightmare will seer as innocent that night. NOT a passive ability.
Whisper Lies: Target shows up as a monster if seered that night.
Deception: Changes narration of that night to make dead target be listed as a villager or a monster.
Well, that was a lot. Please let me know what you think, if any villager classes seem signficantly weaker or stronger than the others, or if you see something exploitable, or whatever.
Quoting so you have the information on this page as well Cantide.
Per your request, I've looked over the information here and have to admit I'm not very interested in some form of rpg-style game.
So in addition to the abilities a monster gets, they also have those 4 (5x round) damage attacks they can use right?
Clarification question. Do they have to assign attacks per person? So do I have to say I want to hit Cantide 3 times and Ardor once, or do I just have to say who I want to kill and you would somehow split the damage up between the targets? Or, do they have to attack 4 different targets?
Also, if the monsters get extra attacks, does this mean the villagers get to perform the usual voting for each round, which would either kill someone outright or deal them damage?
Do you plan on having limits as to how many people can start out as a class? If everyone became a fighter for example, the nightmare class wouldn't be very useful and there'd be a lot of damage flying out every other round. With some form of vote, I can also see the village having everyone as fighters make the potentially more difficult for the monsters. Everyone who took damage below, if they were combing for wizards, can pretty much be a confirmed innocent and go from there, depending upon how you tell people who got attacked etc.
Just taking a look at the hps of various classes along with the 4 monster kills, they can comb for wizards pretty quickly. On night one, they attack 4 different people and any wizards will outright die, then night two they can (if the rules allow) attack 2 different people 2 times, etc. I'm not sure if this is simply the risks of being a class that can get a few seerings by the end of the game, which it probably is. I might voice that the wizards should get more seerings and the nightmares get more whisper uses to counter it. Why? The wizard class has a pretty good chance of dying within the first few days due to low hps as the assassins can deal them some pretty nasty damage and the searching for wizards idea I posted above, just for the chance to have 3 seerings by late game.
One last question (sorry for them all). Who starts out knowing each other? Do you create Mason groups at all? Do the monsters know each other?
Posts
That's typically how the games tend to go anyways. The active players tend to get the knife quicker than those who pay attention without contributing a huge amount. I'm not seeing why this is going to be much different otherwise. I mean, I might hoard my kills in case someone wants to come forward trying to setup a network to see if I can't extinguish the network in the next day or two with my huge amount of kills, then sit back and giggle.
For as much as we tweak the specials and such and maybe how many monsters there are or how many groups, I think changing their abilities a bit might be interesting as well. I mean, if the monsters held off on killing people for a bit, maybe people will be a little more active. ElJeffe's game had no monster killings for the first two nights and there was a lot of discussion going on at that time.
These ideas aren't meant to be game breaking, but it might help if someone finds a hole in your rules to create a network that greatly increases the chances of your side winning.
Oh, a mechanic I thought about for guardians? Perhaps the guardians can block standard monster kills only. So a vigilante could pierce it and maybe a bad guy vigilante could as well, if he had a one time use ability or something.
...boo, I seem to be moving up the list. I'd better start thinking about it more.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
So here are the stats. This is for a 30 man game, with 5 monsters. I've also provided the current abilities of the monster classes, since those may influence the players' choice. Oh, and if you're completely confused, I made a post much earlier in thread describing the game's basics.
Villager Classes
Note: Multiclassing is allowed. Abilities can be saved up, and multiple different abilities may be used on the same night, but the same ability cannot be used more than once in a given round( example: a Fighter may choose to hold onto his Strikes until late in the game, but he can never Strike more than once per round ).
Wizard
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4 Seering
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7 Seering
Level 8
Level 9 Seering
Level 10
Seering: Standard seer ability. May be affected by the Nightmare's Whisper Lies ability.
Cleric
Level 1 Heal
Level 2 Heal; Prevent Poison
Level 3 Heal
Level 4 Heal; Shield
Level 5 Heal
Level 6 Heal; Prevent Poison
Level 7 Heal; Shield
Level 8 Heal; Cure Poison
Level 9 Heal; Shield
Level 10 Heal; Divine Shield; Cure Poison
Heal: Heals 5x(Current Cleric Level) damage to one target.
Prevent Poison: Target cannot be inflicted with poison that round.
Cure Poison: Eliminates poison from one target. Any HP or levels lost are restored.
Shield: Standard guardian ability. Can target themselves or someone else. May be affected by the Bruiser's Smash ability.
Divine Shield: Same as a normal Shield, but unless Smashed, the attacker takes the damage they were trying to inflict.
Fighter
Level 1
Level 2 Strike
Level 3
Level 4 Strike
Level 5
Level 6 Strike
Level 7
Level 8 Strike
Level 9
Level 10 Double Strike
Strike: Deals 5x(Current Fighter Level) to one target.
Double Strike: Deals 10x(Current Fighter Level) to one target.
Monsters
Monsters get 4 attacks each night. Each attack does 5x(Current Round) damage. Monsters can also choose to level up in villager classes if they wish.
Monster classes
No leveling details are given, so that villagers do not know when or how often the monsters can use their abilities.
Bruiser
Strike: Deals 5x(Current Bruiser Level) to one target.
Double Strike: Deals 10x(Current Bruiser Level) to one target.
Smash: Breaks out a shield, allowing the target to be damaged by Strikes or normal monster attacks that night.
Assassin
Note: Poisons cannot be prevented by Shields.
Dust of forgetfulness(Poison): Target loses their last 3 levels. If this would drop the target's HP or level to 0 or less, the target dies.
Potion of invisibility(Poison): Target cannot be targeted by anything, including monster attacks, other than staking. Lasts 3 rounds.
Venom(Poison): Target loses 2x(Current Assassin Level) HP every night, until the target dies or is cured.
Toxic Gas(Poison): 4 targets each lose 3x(Current Assassin Level) HP.
False Panacea(Poison): Target cannot be healed, although they gain HP from leveling as normal.
Watchful Eye: The assassin is told if he is seered, although he is not told who seered him. This is a passive ability.
Nightmare
Spy: Learn the HP and levels of the target.
Hide: The Nightmare will seer as innocent that night. NOT a passive ability.
Whisper Lies: Target shows up as a monster if seered that night.
Deception: Changes narration of that night to make dead target be listed as a villager or a monster.
Well, that was a lot. Please let me know what you think, if any villager classes seem signficantly weaker or stronger than the others, or if you see something exploitable, or whatever.
You list the wizard as having "the standard seer ability." Does it just reveal innocent/monster, or does it include classes as well?
Is the cleric's shield used up even if no one attacks the protected?
Does the vote inflict a certain amount of damage or does it kill outright?
Is it revealed who is attacked during a night, or only who died? Meaning will the villagers know who is at less than full health.
Now for observations;
The fighter's strike ability seems a little weak, since presumably nothing else will be dealing damage to the monsters and it can't kill one by itself. So either a fighter will have to use 2 strikes, or multiple fighters will have to coordinate to kill a single person.
The wizard seems a little weak as well, it only gets 3 seerings during the game(assuming they live at least 9 rounds) and there is no reason to take it to level 10.
The spies could totally be fleas, each night they drink the blood of one of the players and can taste the difference between cats and dogs.
Or just split the players down the middle, half puppies and half kittens, no special powers and
Seering shows only if they're a villager or a monster, nothing about class.
Shields are used up whether the target is attacked or not.
The vote kills outright.
All attacks are revealed in narration. That means Strikes, Poisons, stakings, and monster attacks. The amount of damage will be included.
As to the Fighter's ability, I've been considering increasing to 10x, but I can't decide whether it would imbalance it or not. The question goes hand in hand with whether or not to vary the monsters' HP, probably setting it at 4/7/12 for Nightmares/Assassins/Bruisers to match the village.
The wizard seems weak at first glance, but never underestimate the power of a seer. Each wizard that survives long enough to seer gets to build up their own little network, and that can quickly blossom into a huge group.
Yes, I'm well aware of the toll this will take on my inbox. That's why I'm limiting the player size to a moderate 30, instead of the standard 40-50 we've been having.
*Half kitties, half puppies.
*Each side gets identical specials, including one vigilante.
*Nobody knows what anyone's alignment is besides their own.
*Group votes one player out per day, then all surviving vigilantes act (they play the part of the bad guy kills).
*Last side standing wins.
Man, we took that one in the face, but I still think it's hilarious that an inactive with a fairly minor power pretty much doomed our chances of winning the game. Must be karma, although I swear I didn't spend much lately.
I like this idea. Fixed criteria for ejecting players lends itself to ugly metagaming as seen in mtvcdm's game, but if you replace the players instead of leaving the spot open that concern largely disappears.
Another concern is typically with the villagers as well. Other than a single game, the sicily one from Shinto I believe, where inactivity killed villians, the inactives are almost always villagers or good specials. This greatly reduces the chances from the villager standpoint because it reduces the days available to play the game. The argument can be made that the villagers would probably stake these inactive players, but more often than not, the people missing votes constantly aren't the bad guys.
I mean, take a look at the current game, we've lost 3-4 villagers now to inactivity, in the end, that costs us 2 days of kills (GS + villager vote) that had a 0% chance of hitting a rebel.
Nothing against the gamemasters of any of these games, I just think It'd be nice if there was a way to remedy it, and the wait list idea seems appropriate. For example, Squasha came back after a weekend off and sounded like he'd be willing to play, but missed sign ups etc. Plus, enough people probably spectate these that you might find a few interested parties to add to the wait list by their request after a game commences.
I think this could possibly work for the first few days of play, but would many people want to join in the mid- or end-game? In order to know what was going on, they'd have to have been following the game more or less, and I'm not sure how many people are going to do that when they don't even know if they get to play.
It still might be better than the people simply getting offed for inactivity, though. One thing to consider is that this would benefit the village. In any given game, about 5-10% of players get knocked off for inactivity, and they're almost never bad guys. It basically amounts to 3-4 bonus kills for the bad guys.
edit: Ardor beat me to my latter point. Fucking ninja.
I'd think it'd almost be a good idea as an evil guy to drop out half way so somebody with a different post style takes over. You can distance yourself from the previous voting record and have a built in excuse for previous actions. One way to help this is to keep the replacement list blind to players.
One idea that I'd thought about but uncertain how I feel about is a Phalla blacklist. People who routinely inactive out or simply started fucking around to screw with the game would go on it and GM's decide if they really want to include those people. This idea makes sense but also leaves me feeling incredibly leery at the same time.
I don't know if I like the idea of an official list, though if a given GM wants to exclude certain people, it's his prerogative. But I don't see anyone letting Eri back in a game if she ever decides to come back, and I'd be wary of letting Rygar in (though I'd probably still let him join if he wanted to).
I think it depends on the GM's really. People have bad days or other factors that might prevent them from either able to be active etc, but they really want to play, knowing they cannot fully commit to being there everyday.
One thing that might be advisable, would be to have the GM's ask in this thread or the gaming thread setup in D&D if there's anyone they should be wary of to join the game and people can send them pm's. It's one method that doesn't allow us to publically crush other people for circumstances that might have been beyond their control and it lends us to be civil as well.
Yep. I think the primary benefit of the list would simply to show repeated patterns of behavior. While it's just a game I don't find people who amuse themselves by ruining a larger group of peoples fun all that desirable.
As for any kind of official status, that'd increase my reservations about 10 fold. Every once in a while D&D gets slung with the 'clique' mud and doing anything that'd make that worse or even give it an appearance of credibility makes me leery.
I remember MrMister had to bow out of a phalla at one point. He emailed the GM, apologized to the group and that was that. I think we all know that real life comes before internet forum games. Just walking away (and helping the other team in the process) and ignoring what amounts to 30+ people is why I find it annoying.
The PM method would favor impressions over substance and looks a lot like a cliquish gossip fest. Eh.
I think even an unofficial list is unnecessry. I mean, if you have paid enough attention to previous games (whether you played them or not) to be able to run a decent game, then you already know who the troublemakers are. At that point, it's each GM's discretion whether to exclude them or allow them the chance to ruin their game (or potentially reform).
4 minute ninja?
Anyways, here's a thought. Let's say I'm a seer but I disappear for a few days and I get booted with someone else taking my place. Why not give the new guy villager status? There's the chance nobody knows my role anyways if I'm inactive, like spawnbroker, so nothing's really lost if someone else takes my spot, right?
I think it might be something to consider where special abiilties don't transfer to the next in line, but what team does. An inactive monster role with special abilites to that person alone would just become a regular monster to the person taknig the spot or in the example above with me, the next person in line would simply be a villager.
The only real unknown I can think about would be the information the inactive might have. If I seered someone before going AWOL, the person taking my place wouldn't necessarily know that and could have someone random claiming to be their friend. Maybe a disclaimer should be issued with the replacement that Joe has no information at this time and is simply taking Jane's place. Contact at your own risk?
Fair enough.
Here's an idea that I would be willing to do, although I won't go through the entire game thread but just loko for day end links and roster updates. I would be willing to go compile a list and put it here of anyone who died due to inactivity and which game it was. It's not really being biased at all and to be used at each person's discretion. So if someone appears several times, perhaps it's not the best idea to let them join again, but if someone's only been booted once, it's a non-issue.
But you guys have pointed out the problem with waitlists--what if an inactive is a special or a monster? I actually don't like the idea of replacing these roles with new people who have to immediately jump into the roles. For one thing, let's say they are replacing someone completely inactive. For the monsters, whatever, I know who they are and can inform the new player, but all that role's previous behavior is now out the window. Likewise, let's say they're replacing a seer. Now you have the extra problem of them having to determine what network they had, if any, and getting in touch with them.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
1) Again, being able to voluntarily suicide yourself by non-voting is not an option. Don't let players puss out.
2) My current no-fly list is fairly short. I don't want to burn people because they don't know how to play--everyone's been there once--but there's not knowing how to play and there's actively f***ing things up.
Rygar - Spazzed one game, pussed out on another.
Lady Eri - Absolutely spazzed out and contributed to the ruining of a very interesting game.
Spawnbroker - Well, still on the fence here, but inactive special + blabbing out your network = profound inability to play. If he explains himself or learns from it, no big deal.
Infidel - Apparently he 'got bored' on day 1. Nice.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Rygar - gave up on the game
Lady Eri - gave up on the game
Spawnbroker
Infidel
Cthulu Phalla
MrMister
Prince Rhaegar
The problem with that is that it communicates information to the various parties, and I'm not sure being voted off for inactivity should do that.
It's true that monsters are far less likely to be inactive than villagers and even specials. If someone gets voted off and replaced, using that idea, they're about as close to a confirmed innocent villager as possible.
Slippery slope then. I suppose it's not usually a huge amount of people going away due to inactivity, so perhaps we should just suck it up then.
I might counter your argument with the "If a guy's gonna get voted off for inactivity he's about the same as a confirmed innocent as well due to past phalla experiences'. That can be abused though.
This is a thought, and probably a poor one due to it getting complex. What if the opposing factions (villagers then monsters) had to use kills on inactives? So, when infidel and
I'm inclined to say, with the replies people have given, that it probably wouldn't hurt to keep things as they are at GM discretion because inactives going away nearly always favors the bad guys, but the bad guys are also the losers in many games.
Quoting so you have the information on this page as well Cantide.
Per your request, I've looked over the information here and have to admit I'm not very interested in some form of rpg-style game.
So in addition to the abilities a monster gets, they also have those 4 (5x round) damage attacks they can use right?
Clarification question. Do they have to assign attacks per person? So do I have to say I want to hit Cantide 3 times and Ardor once, or do I just have to say who I want to kill and you would somehow split the damage up between the targets? Or, do they have to attack 4 different targets?
Also, if the monsters get extra attacks, does this mean the villagers get to perform the usual voting for each round, which would either kill someone outright or deal them damage?
Do you plan on having limits as to how many people can start out as a class? If everyone became a fighter for example, the nightmare class wouldn't be very useful and there'd be a lot of damage flying out every other round. With some form of vote, I can also see the village having everyone as fighters make the potentially more difficult for the monsters. Everyone who took damage below, if they were combing for wizards, can pretty much be a confirmed innocent and go from there, depending upon how you tell people who got attacked etc.
Just taking a look at the hps of various classes along with the 4 monster kills, they can comb for wizards pretty quickly. On night one, they attack 4 different people and any wizards will outright die, then night two they can (if the rules allow) attack 2 different people 2 times, etc. I'm not sure if this is simply the risks of being a class that can get a few seerings by the end of the game, which it probably is. I might voice that the wizards should get more seerings and the nightmares get more whisper uses to counter it. Why? The wizard class has a pretty good chance of dying within the first few days due to low hps as the assassins can deal them some pretty nasty damage and the searching for wizards idea I posted above, just for the chance to have 3 seerings by late game.
One last question (sorry for them all). Who starts out knowing each other? Do you create Mason groups at all? Do the monsters know each other?