Yeah, I need to applaud:
Sir Fab - Sure he missed days but when he was playing he did a great job using his power to try and get info.
Rawkking Goodguy - I'm sad we didn't see the ghost guard in action but the freeform stuff to get people to form connections with him were great.
The L337 Gamers that didn't get day 1'd - for sticking this out.
Obi - for helping out after he got killed.
Brad - for the entertaining role and the entertaining MS paint images.
I'm sure there are others that need applause, apologies if missed anyone, but brain is still fried form keeping track of this monster. So many working parts.
I'm sure me making you look through every post for a code word wasn't part of the plan when you designed the game.
You and Sir Fab. I had to look through the thread every night to figure out who Sir Fab had interacted with.
You need to check out my Phalla Hunters mini. It was a disaster, but I had to look at every post because every player had multi-use code word activated abiltities that had to be used in thread.
Burnage, how would you feel about the role if you were barred from communicating mafia names (or direct descriptions, etc)?
In that case it'd just feel like a novelty win condition. Unless somebody who had that objective wound up getting an attack ability, I don't see how they'd be able to fulfill it (depending on how strict that communication restriction was - would "the person I'm about to vote for is mafia" be allowed?). If they did find a way to circumvent the rule or get a kill, then the standard Vlad issues come right up.
A role which has a restriction on usage of information that the player possesses seems very weird to me. If you're having to clamp down that hard on a player's actions in order to fit a role into the game, it's probably better to just not include it.
Actually the most efficient way to win for us would have been for Burnage to just directly say what it was to us, to pass the rule we did and then have cesare do seer calls on mafia to get extra kills, and both of our kills killing mafia, essentially suiciding as fast as possible
Burnage, how would you feel about the role if you were barred from communicating mafia names (or direct descriptions, etc)?
In that case it'd just feel like a novelty win condition. Unless somebody who had that objective wound up getting an attack ability, I don't see how they'd be able to fulfill it (depending on how strict that communication restriction was - would "the person I'm about to vote for is mafia" be allowed?). If they did find a way to circumvent the rule or get a kill, then the standard Vlad issues come right up.
A role which has a restriction on usage of information that the player possesses seems very weird to me. If you're having to clamp down that hard on a player's actions in order to fit a role into the game, it's probably better to just not include it.
Well, it was /supposed/ to be a novelty wincon. : ) You had a central wincon, but under some circumstances the novelty wincon might've very well become relevant. In fact, your rule you got Grimmy to pass was a brilliant example of a way of making that wincon relevant. At the same time, part of the quirk structure is to provide some flavor to the various roles; it's not really a game that focuses on simplicity.
Anyway, I don't mean to argue with you; thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. You have developed a reputation for running weird games that I've caught onto without playing with you before, and I have kind of a taste for weird games myself, so I'm glad to get feedback from you.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
Actually the most efficient way to win for us would have been for Burnage to just directly say what it was to us, to pass the rule we did and then have cesare do seer calls on mafia to get extra kills, and both of our kills killing mafia, essentially suiciding as fast as possible
Yup, I didn't predict Burnage's day 1 rule, but one of the reasons there was no backchanneling to begin the game was to cut back on the mafia's ability to leverage its fiat rule-changes. I was kind of relying on village democracy to tend toward moderating the kinds of rules they would pass, which to some extent worked and to some extent didn't.
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
You didn't register people to be killed when you voted for them, because they had to have two or fewer votes for the day in order to be registered. That information was only available after vote close, so you picked a target during the day to be registered (by voting for him) and then during the night, we checked to see if your target had two or fewer votes.
Mechanically, your role was actually very similar to a standard vig, it's just that 1) you picked your vig target by voting for them, 2) only targets with two or fewer red votes (at vote close) were eligible to be targeted, and 3) they only died when you died.
So the vote killed you before you registered any targets.
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
" -To be precise you are a very special bomb. Your damage only targets those you vote for that aren't part of a wagon. If you vote for someone and they receive no more than two votes at the end of that night, they are registered as a target. "
I think the text was not written as clearly as it should've been, but the intent was that the registration occurs at night, after vote close.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
0
Options
vertroueI am FemaleTotes Not a SithRegistered Userregular
I honestly had no clue what was happening most of this game. All I knew was that I was changing how people where dying. lolol That amused me to no end.
Blood and Fire
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
In theory that could have saved some people and doomed others depending on where certain powers landed since you got a list of people targeted for attack before anything else was factored in. It's a shame no one pushed for having narration reveal alignments of kills after day 3. There were a few change ups that were amusing.
vertroueI am FemaleTotes Not a SithRegistered Userregular
I was trying, but being on a phone for that game made it hard for me to go back and search for it. I honestly had no Idea what I was moving around just picking to names.
Blood and Fire
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
Thanks for hosting guys. I definitely had a ton of fun the first few days. Unfortunately real life got in the way and I have no idea what happened the last couple days. How did everyone get converted?
Thanks for hosting guys. I definitely had a ton of fun the first few days. Unfortunately real life got in the way and I have no idea what happened the last couple days. How did everyone get converted?
Thanks for hosting guys. I definitely had a ton of fun the first few days. Unfortunately real life got in the way and I have no idea what happened the last couple days. How did everyone get converted?
Here are the rules that got implemented last couple days:
"As a contestant your goal is to either eliminate all threats to the Danger Zone or declare peace. Any contestant may say "peace" in purple to make a non-revocable declaration of their intent to win with everyone. Once at least 3/40ths of the remaining contestants have declared peace, all contestants that have declared peace leave victorious, abilities or actions they have taken that night are voided and they are forbidden from communicating with any player. Subsequently, any contestant that declares peace leaves victorious that night. This does not end the game or affect any other victory conditions"
Any player who has left play victorious by way of a purple peace declaration returns to play immediately, as members of the 1337 Gamers. Players converted in this fashion abandon all previously held wincons. Said players who are unable to be converted are immediately removed from game in defeat. (This rule may not be changed in any way).
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
You didn't register people to be killed when you voted for them, because they had to have two or fewer votes for the day in order to be registered. That information was only available after vote close, so you picked a target during the day to be registered (by voting for him) and then during the night, we checked to see if your target had two or fewer votes.
Mechanically, your role was actually very similar to a standard vig, it's just that 1) you picked your vig target by voting for them, 2) only targets with two or fewer red votes (at vote close) were eligible to be targeted, and 3) they only died when you died.
So the vote killed you before you registered any targets.
Yes, so the validity of my targets could only be known after vote close, but that doesn't make those who were eligible not targets just because we didn't know beforehand.
Sorry if I'm coming across as rude. I really just don't understand.
What, in particular? I spent awhile thinking about how to deal with it.
EDIT: it doesn't, for example, guarantee that there are any 1337 gamerz. It just says that if such and such event happens, that event will produce 1337 gamerz. But it does not guarantee that the event will occur, and thereby stays consistent with a.iii.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
You didn't register people to be killed when you voted for them, because they had to have two or fewer votes for the day in order to be registered. That information was only available after vote close, so you picked a target during the day to be registered (by voting for him) and then during the night, we checked to see if your target had two or fewer votes.
Mechanically, your role was actually very similar to a standard vig, it's just that 1) you picked your vig target by voting for them, 2) only targets with two or fewer red votes (at vote close) were eligible to be targeted, and 3) they only died when you died.
So the vote killed you before you registered any targets.
Yes, so the validity of my targets could only be known after vote close, but that doesn't make those who were eligible not targets just because we didn't know beforehand.
Sorry if I'm coming across as rude. I really just don't understand.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'll be able to say much more that will satisfy you : (
The role was written such that your target was only registered after we knew whether your target was a legitimate target. On your interpretation, you really do register them as targets as soon as you vote, but if it turns out that they had too many votes at vote's end, they get unregistered, or it turns out retroactively that you didn't register them after all.
It is possible to interpret your role as including some kind of unregistering action or retroactive registering, but the text of your role doesn't include any reference to anything like that.
I prefer it where your role involves a variety of conditions to be fulfilled, and if they are, once they are, the target is registered. That way nothing happens retroactively, because things happening retroactively are weird.
Invictus on
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
Well my understanding of the "one word" alteration was that the mafia could change it before it came into being. Not the day it became active so I would have thought the mafia could change how the peace vote worked when I got voted as a thing to be voted on as opposed to the day it was being voted on. That is it seemed a bit retroactive.
Similarly I was told earlier that we could be granted abilities (e.g. conversions ) from rules which I guess this technically wasn't, since the rule just converted everyone as opposed to granting players an ability. But it did seem a bit iffy in terms of the retroactive stuff.
In terms of future games I would recommend making a rule based game more faction-y game or much more "everyone for themselves" (like 2-3 man teams or so and it can maybe develop from there). I found the 'try to completely fuck over the mafia" or "make this an instant win" kind of annoying/dull, I realize people say that was the point of the game and I can understand that. But I think making people much less united would potentially make it more interesting.
0
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
Yeah, we were thinking on the last word edit rule change. We decided to let it through to avoid doing a day 7 that would have likely resulted in most, if not all the remaining village, picking peace followed by the vote and most of the remaining kills used to clear out anyone not in favor of peace.
I think setting this up with more factions might be a good idea; especially, if the more structured rules make it clear that "fuck you, I win rules," were a no go (not sure if that's the best wording but I hope people get the idea of what I'm trying to convey). Might have to compensate a little since that would result in two factions, not afraid of being in the open vying for control of the public rule changes.
I think one of the other things that should be done, looking at ZH's comment is if a replacement is brought in, try to restructure any post restrictions if a role had them. Changing powers is kind of a no go since that would be changing what passes for the balance of power.
Correct. I won if more of the odd numbered players in sign were alive at the end of the game and Invictus had to achieve the opposite scenario. A survival wincon wasn't really an option since hosts are immortal and the rule that brought us in was the source of the first contradiction kill.
Yeah, we were thinking on the last word edit rule change. We decided to let it through to avoid doing a day 7 that would have likely resulted in most, if not all the remaining village, picking peace followed by the vote and most of the remaining kills used to clear out anyone not in favor of peace.
I think setting this up with more factions might be a good idea; especially, if the more structured rules make it clear that "fuck you, I win rules," were a no go (not sure if that's the best wording but I hope people get the idea of what I'm trying to convey). Might have to compensate a little since that would result in two factions, not afraid of being in the open vying for control of the public rule changes.
I think one of the other things that should be done, looking at ZH's comment is if a replacement is brought in, try to restructure any post restrictions if a role had them. Changing powers is kind of a no go since that would be changing what passes for the balance of power.
Yeah I think I might considering look at Edcrab's Phallakinetic Aramageddon for some idea on things may play out. And definitely don't go with two factions. I would definitely make sure to include a bunch of minutia in the rules section. E.G. you can't redefine what a threat is. Basically anticipate various rule fuckery that you may want to avoid. There may be some changes you don't mind.
Also with you guys needing time to incorporate quirks and such. I would recommend you guys just demand it during the sign-up stage and/or delay start-up extend day-0 quite a bit (like to two days) so you have more times and have a set time instead of cutting the day short. So there isn't pressure on you two.
You didn't register people to be killed when you voted for them, because they had to have two or fewer votes for the day in order to be registered. That information was only available after vote close, so you picked a target during the day to be registered (by voting for him) and then during the night, we checked to see if your target had two or fewer votes.
Mechanically, your role was actually very similar to a standard vig, it's just that 1) you picked your vig target by voting for them, 2) only targets with two or fewer red votes (at vote close) were eligible to be targeted, and 3) they only died when you died.
So the vote killed you before you registered any targets.
Yes, so the validity of my targets could only be known after vote close, but that doesn't make those who were eligible not targets just because we didn't know beforehand.
Sorry if I'm coming across as rude. I really just don't understand.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'll be able to say much more that will satisfy you : (
The role was written such that your target was only registered after we knew whether your target was a legitimate target. On your interpretation, you really do register them as targets as soon as you vote, but if it turns out that they had too many votes at vote's end, they get unregistered, or it turns out retroactively that you didn't register them after all.
It is possible to interpret your role as including some kind of unregistering action or retroactive registering, but the text of your role doesn't include any reference to anything like that.
I prefer it where your role involves a variety of conditions to be fulfilled, and if they are, once they are, the target is registered. That way nothing happens retroactively, because things happening retroactively are weird.
Yeah, we were thinking on the last word edit rule change. We decided to let it through to avoid doing a day 7 that would have likely resulted in most, if not all the remaining village, picking peace followed by the vote and most of the remaining kills used to clear out anyone not in favor of peace.
I think setting this up with more factions might be a good idea; especially, if the more structured rules make it clear that "fuck you, I win rules," were a no go (not sure if that's the best wording but I hope people get the idea of what I'm trying to convey). Might have to compensate a little since that would result in two factions, not afraid of being in the open vying for control of the public rule changes.
I think one of the other things that should be done, looking at ZH's comment is if a replacement is brought in, try to restructure any post restrictions if a role had them. Changing powers is kind of a no go since that would be changing what passes for the balance of power.
Yeah I think I might considering look at Edcrab's Phallakinetic Aramageddon for some idea on things may play out. And definitely don't go with two factions. I would definitely make sure to include a bunch of minutia in the rules section. E.G. you can't redefine what a threat is. Basically anticipate various rule fuckery that you may want to avoid. There may be some changes you don't mind.
Also with you guys needing time to incorporate quirks and such. I would recommend you guys just demand it during the sign-up stage and/or delay start-up extend day-0 quite a bit (like to two days) so you have more times and have a set time instead of cutting the day short. So there isn't pressure on you two.
I really, really think that trying to figure out all the ways in which the players might break the game with rule changes is both a lost cause and, really, counterproductive. All the cool rules people might come up with is mostly the point of wanting to include rule-changes.
And the thing is, if you design the game so it supposedly can't be broken, when someone stumbles on an awesome broken thing you didn't see coming, you've either got to ad hoc ban it or just let the game be broken. At least when I leave the door entirely open this way, everyone involved has the big guns so at least it's kinda fair that way.
Generalísimo de Fuerzas Armadas de la República Argentina
I was the one stabbing people. It was mostly just a cute ability that posed a post restriction. It also had a tracker effect that never came into play. I had fun with it while I was still alive.
Posts
You and Sir Fab. I had to look through the thread every night to figure out who Sir Fab had interacted with.
Sir Fab - Sure he missed days but when he was playing he did a great job using his power to try and get info.
Rawkking Goodguy - I'm sad we didn't see the ghost guard in action but the freeform stuff to get people to form connections with him were great.
The L337 Gamers that didn't get day 1'd - for sticking this out.
Obi - for helping out after he got killed.
Brad - for the entertaining role and the entertaining MS paint images.
I'm sure there are others that need applause, apologies if missed anyone, but brain is still fried form keeping track of this monster. So many working parts.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
You need to check out my Phalla Hunters mini. It was a disaster, but I had to look at every post because every player had multi-use code word activated abiltities that had to be used in thread.
In that case it'd just feel like a novelty win condition. Unless somebody who had that objective wound up getting an attack ability, I don't see how they'd be able to fulfill it (depending on how strict that communication restriction was - would "the person I'm about to vote for is mafia" be allowed?). If they did find a way to circumvent the rule or get a kill, then the standard Vlad issues come right up.
A role which has a restriction on usage of information that the player possesses seems very weird to me. If you're having to clamp down that hard on a player's actions in order to fit a role into the game, it's probably better to just not include it.
Well, it was /supposed/ to be a novelty wincon. : ) You had a central wincon, but under some circumstances the novelty wincon might've very well become relevant. In fact, your rule you got Grimmy to pass was a brilliant example of a way of making that wincon relevant. At the same time, part of the quirk structure is to provide some flavor to the various roles; it's not really a game that focuses on simplicity.
Anyway, I don't mean to argue with you; thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. You have developed a reputation for running weird games that I've caught onto without playing with you before, and I have kind of a taste for weird games myself, so I'm glad to get feedback from you.
Yup, I didn't predict Burnage's day 1 rule, but one of the reasons there was no backchanneling to begin the game was to cut back on the mafia's ability to leverage its fiat rule-changes. I was kind of relying on village democracy to tend toward moderating the kinds of rules they would pass, which to some extent worked and to some extent didn't.
Mechanically, your role was actually very similar to a standard vig, it's just that 1) you picked your vig target by voting for them, 2) only targets with two or fewer red votes (at vote close) were eligible to be targeted, and 3) they only died when you died.
So the vote killed you before you registered any targets.
" -To be precise you are a very special bomb. Your damage only targets those you vote for that aren't part of a wagon. If you vote for someone and they receive no more than two votes at the end of that night, they are registered as a target. "
I think the text was not written as clearly as it should've been, but the intent was that the registration occurs at night, after vote close.
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
Here are the rules that got implemented last couple days:
"As a contestant your goal is to either eliminate all threats to the Danger Zone or declare peace. Any contestant may say "peace" in purple to make a non-revocable declaration of their intent to win with everyone. Once at least 3/40ths of the remaining contestants have declared peace, all contestants that have declared peace leave victorious, abilities or actions they have taken that night are voided and they are forbidden from communicating with any player. Subsequently, any contestant that declares peace leaves victorious that night. This does not end the game or affect any other victory conditions"
Any player who has left play victorious by way of a purple peace declaration returns to play immediately, as members of the 1337 Gamers. Players converted in this fashion abandon all previously held wincons. Said players who are unable to be converted are immediately removed from game in defeat. (This rule may not be changed in any way).
Yes, so the validity of my targets could only be known after vote close, but that doesn't make those who were eligible not targets just because we didn't know beforehand.
Sorry if I'm coming across as rude. I really just don't understand.
I'm surprised you let that go through.
EDIT: it doesn't, for example, guarantee that there are any 1337 gamerz. It just says that if such and such event happens, that event will produce 1337 gamerz. But it does not guarantee that the event will occur, and thereby stays consistent with a.iii.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'll be able to say much more that will satisfy you : (
The role was written such that your target was only registered after we knew whether your target was a legitimate target. On your interpretation, you really do register them as targets as soon as you vote, but if it turns out that they had too many votes at vote's end, they get unregistered, or it turns out retroactively that you didn't register them after all.
It is possible to interpret your role as including some kind of unregistering action or retroactive registering, but the text of your role doesn't include any reference to anything like that.
I prefer it where your role involves a variety of conditions to be fulfilled, and if they are, once they are, the target is registered. That way nothing happens retroactively, because things happening retroactively are weird.
Similarly I was told earlier that we could be granted abilities (e.g. conversions ) from rules which I guess this technically wasn't, since the rule just converted everyone as opposed to granting players an ability. But it did seem a bit iffy in terms of the retroactive stuff.
In terms of future games I would recommend making a rule based game more faction-y game or much more "everyone for themselves" (like 2-3 man teams or so and it can maybe develop from there). I found the 'try to completely fuck over the mafia" or "make this an instant win" kind of annoying/dull, I realize people say that was the point of the game and I can understand that. But I think making people much less united would potentially make it more interesting.
I think setting this up with more factions might be a good idea; especially, if the more structured rules make it clear that "fuck you, I win rules," were a no go (not sure if that's the best wording but I hope people get the idea of what I'm trying to convey). Might have to compensate a little since that would result in two factions, not afraid of being in the open vying for control of the public rule changes.
I think one of the other things that should be done, looking at ZH's comment is if a replacement is brought in, try to restructure any post restrictions if a role had them. Changing powers is kind of a no go since that would be changing what passes for the balance of power.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I was wondering whether Mill was telling the truth.
What was the deal with the hosts, even/odd stuff? Was that just having more players alive that were numbered even vs. odd in the signups?
Truth about what?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Yeah I think I might considering look at Edcrab's Phallakinetic Aramageddon for some idea on things may play out. And definitely don't go with two factions. I would definitely make sure to include a bunch of minutia in the rules section. E.G. you can't redefine what a threat is. Basically anticipate various rule fuckery that you may want to avoid. There may be some changes you don't mind.
Also with you guys needing time to incorporate quirks and such. I would recommend you guys just demand it during the sign-up stage and/or delay start-up extend day-0 quite a bit (like to two days) so you have more times and have a set time instead of cutting the day short. So there isn't pressure on you two.
No worries
I was basically getting a file on one person per day from Mill (their VC, abilities, etc.)
Yours had the "I'm too old for this shit" thing. I started thinking maybe he was just making stuff up.
That was clearly the best one.
I really, really think that trying to figure out all the ways in which the players might break the game with rule changes is both a lost cause and, really, counterproductive. All the cool rules people might come up with is mostly the point of wanting to include rule-changes.
And the thing is, if you design the game so it supposedly can't be broken, when someone stumbles on an awesome broken thing you didn't see coming, you've either got to ad hoc ban it or just let the game be broken. At least when I leave the door entirely open this way, everyone involved has the big guns so at least it's kinda fair that way.
Interestingly, INANTP deduced that this was the case after I gave him just a little info about how our roles were structured.
I was the one stabbing people. It was mostly just a cute ability that posed a post restriction. It also had a tracker effect that never came into play. I had fun with it while I was still alive.
Thanks to @Mill and @Invictus for running this one.