The Art of Game Creation

[Kasimir]

20 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

Something that has been brought up in a few different places is the amount that the village depends on alignment scans rather than doing analysis to solve the game. So I thought of an idea for a pseudo alignment scan to kick things off in a game where the GM is worried the village might struggle. Basically, around Cycle 3-4 roughly, if no elims have yet been caught, the elim team has to choose one of their members to be revealed as an elim and removed from the game. However, unlike a regular death, that player does not get access to the dead doc, and is still able to participate in the elim doc.

I think this might work well as a core mechanic in a QF or MR with 15+ players.

I like this idea and it seems interesting to me for the mindgames it could foster. My question would be if you expect Elim teams to game this by appointing a fall guy beforehand and then just refusing to interact or interacting minimally? (I know, it's still data and zero interaction is sus, but just thinking aloud I suppose.) 

[Araris Valerian]

2 hours ago, Kasimir said:

I like this idea and it seems interesting to me for the mindgames it could foster. My question would be if you expect Elim teams to game this by appointing a fall guy beforehand and then just refusing to interact or interacting minimally? (I know, it's still data and zero interaction is sus, but just thinking aloud I suppose.) 

That”s a good thought. One way to deal with that would be for this to be a random event. Say it has a 10% chance during C1, 20% during C2, etc until either the event happens or an elim dies by other means. The elims could still play around it, but it would be quite a bit more risky to sacrifice a player for potentially no gain. I’m not exactly sure what the best way to randomize this would be.

[Kasimir]

8 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

That”s a good thought. One way to deal with that would be for this to be a random event. Say it has a 10% chance during C1, 20% during C2, etc until either the event happens or an elim dies by other means. The elims could still play around it, but it would be quite a bit more risky to sacrifice a player for potentially no gain. I’m not exactly sure what the best way to randomize this would be.

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing the best way to work the randomisation would be to build it into a game simulation and then keep running the simulations until you reach a balance of probabilities you're comfortable with. The one scenario the GM'd want to avoid would be the one where that one compulsory Elim reveal just snowballs into a Village victory. It shouldn't, because teams should distance, ideally, but we do know ideal things don't always happen.

Randomising which Elim is revealed could be an option but I'm not really keen on that as I feel it takes away agency from the Elim team, making it a bit of a punch to the face for an Elim team that has otherwise been faring relatively well in the game. The team shouldn't feel punished for success I guess is what I'm saying.

[Araris Valerian]

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing the best way to work the randomisation would be to build it into a game simulation and then keep running the simulations until you reach a balance of probabilities you're comfortable with. The one scenario the GM'd want to avoid would be the one where that one compulsory Elim reveal just snowballs into a Village victory. It shouldn't, because teams should distance, ideally, but we do know ideal things don't always happen.

Hmm. Maybe another way to do this is to make it a village role. Same effect, but a villager gets to choose when it goes off. It would be useless to do it right away, and that would give the elims the chance to kill off the player before it happens.

[Kasimir]

10 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

Hmm. Maybe another way to do this is to make it a village role. Same effect, but a villager gets to choose when it goes off. It would be useless to do it right away, and that would give the elims the chance to kill off the player before it happens.

I think this would work better. If so, the reveal of the Elim as well would more or less be an Elim 'penalty' rather than punishment for them doing well. It's a little stronger than a one-shot Seeker because it guarantees an Elim reveal - but the Elims also get a say in who gets outed by it.

[DrakeMarshall]

I know this is a little late to the discussion but I’d like to point out that this mechanic would potentially create a fairly significant incentive for the eliminators to be much more agressive about bussing each other. If you are losing a teammate either way, you might as well do it on your own terms and get something out of it. The tradeoff here is that the bus victim likely does not get to keep participating in the elim doc, but arguably the benefits justify the cost.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s just a thing. People could adapt to it. At a guess, it would mean that voting up an eliminator early in the game doesn’t necessarily clear you as strongly as it otherwise would. Which could be interesting.

It’s an interesting mechanic. I like it when games have some measures to still give the other team a fighting chance even if one side has a stronger start. If this can be done in a way that doesn’t feel overly manufactured then that is generally great.

Edited July 31, 2021 by DrakeMarshall

[Araris Valerian]

12 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

I know this is a little late to the discussion but I’d like to point out that this mechanic would potentially create a fairly significant incentive for the eliminators to be much more agressive about bussing each other. If you are losing a teammate either way, you might as well do it on your own terms and get something out of it. The tradeoff here is that the bus victim likely does not get to keep participating in the elim doc, but arguably the benefits justify the cost.

I agree with this. I've been on the elim team a lot recently, and often the village has had a hard time figuring things out, so I advocate for total avoidance of bussing in the hopes of denying the village any footholds. This mechanic is intended to force the issue in the other direction, one way or another.

On an unrelated note, I'm on the search for 2 new mechanics. One is a way for villagers and/or eliminators to be able to kill inactive players without hindering themselves. Sort of like a player enforced activity filter that would replace what we currently use. Something simple would be a kill role that can only target a player that hasn't voted. But more nuance would likely be better here. Maybe once per game a player could ask to be granted immunity against this kill during the current or next cycle.

The second is a way to reward villagers (mechanically or otherwise) for finding elims through analysis. The game already does this by default, but I think we as a community can step up our game here, and a good mechanic might help with that. A rough idea would be that during each night turn, players have to submit a guess at the elim team (whose size would be revealed at the game start). Then over the course of the game, the players who have the most accurate guesses get something at the end. So something similar to what I proposed for the locations in my LG ruleset.

[Kasimir]

14 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

The second is a way to reward villagers (mechanically or otherwise) for finding elims through analysis. The game already does this by default, but I think we as a community can step up our game here, and a good mechanic might help with that. A rough idea would be that during each night turn, players have to submit a guess at the elim team (whose size would be revealed at the game start). Then over the course of the game, the players who have the most accurate guesses get something at the end. So something similar to what I proposed for the locations in my LG ruleset.

This one definitely has to be done carefully, I think. There was quite some controversy about the Breath rewards in LG4, and AFAIR, Maili gave out one-use shields and a Shardhammer (the mACE of Ace - long story...) to players who solved his codes. That sort of cemented a consensus in terms of stopping mini-games. Shardhammer wouldn't have stopped my team from losing in LG5 but it sure was a nasty surprise to encounter.

[+Lotus]

Does anyone happen to have like, blank GM spreadsheets with places to put what people vote and stuff?

[DrakeMarshall]

On 7/31/2021 at 10:40 AM, Araris Valerian said:

I agree with this. I've been on the elim team a lot recently, and often the village has had a hard time figuring things out, so I advocate for total avoidance of bussing in the hopes of denying the village any footholds. This mechanic is intended to force the issue in the other direction, one way or another.

On an unrelated note, I'm on the search for 2 new mechanics. One is a way for villagers and/or eliminators to be able to kill inactive players without hindering themselves. Sort of like a player enforced activity filter that would replace what we currently use. Something simple would be a kill role that can only target a player that hasn't voted. But more nuance would likely be better here. Maybe once per game a player could ask to be granted immunity against this kill during the current or next cycle.

The second is a way to reward villagers (mechanically or otherwise) for finding elims through analysis. The game already does this by default, but I think we as a community can step up our game here, and a good mechanic might help with that. A rough idea would be that during each night turn, players have to submit a guess at the elim team (whose size would be revealed at the game start). Then over the course of the game, the players who have the most accurate guesses get something at the end. So something similar to what I proposed for the locations in my LG ruleset.

I can't speak much to the second mechanic, but I likes me a good set of rules to encourage activity.

A loose idea for an activity policy I have been toying with is that basically, if you can't find a pinch hitter for an inactive player, they are removed from the game without an alignment flip, and their vote and any roles they possessed are given to another player of the same alignment.

What counts as an inactive player is up to the discretion of the particular setup (personally, I prefer basing it completely on voter turnout, but I have literally never seen anyone else run games that way so your mileage may vary).

What criteria is used to redistribute votes/roles to other players of the same faction is also up to the discretion of the particular setup. Off the top of my head, you could totally just do it randomly, with preference given to players who don't already have a role.

On 7/31/2021 at 10:57 AM, Kasimir said:

This one definitely has to be done carefully, I think. There was quite some controversy about the Breath rewards in LG4, and AFAIR, Maili gave out one-use shields and a Shardhammer (the mACE of Ace - long story...) to players who solved his codes. That sort of cemented a consensus in terms of stopping mini-games. Shardhammer wouldn't have stopped my team from losing in LG5 but it sure was a nasty surprise to encounter.

I think Araris was suggesting that the reward happens after the game ends.

If it happened during the game, you are correct that it might upset the balance. And on top of that, there would be a danger that players could use the system like an alignment scanner, which is kinda the exact opposite of what this mechanic is going for  If you get rewarded for having accurate analysis during the game, then that is basically confirmation that many of the people you guessed are eliminators.

[Kasimir]

15 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

A loose idea for an activity policy I have been toying with is that basically, if you can't find a pinch hitter for an inactive player, they are removed from the game without an alignment flip, and their vote and any roles they possessed are given to another player of the same alignment.

This reminds me of/is similar to the LG2 set-up, I think, or one of those back-up roles type roles. Players had a % chance of Snapping throughout the game and IIRC that's partly affected by losing a role. The one issue I have with this policy is it saves the Village from losing key roles but the problem with inactivity is also the free wincon progression for either team, really. It only gets very blatant in games where you have, say, five inactives, but it's worth pointing out anyway.

15 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

I think Araris was suggesting that the reward happens after the game ends.

If it happened during the game, you are correct that it might upset the balance. And on top of that, there would be a danger that players could use the system like an alignment scanner, which is kinda the exact opposite of what this mechanic is going for  If you get rewarded for having accurate analysis during the game, then that is basically confirmation that many of the people you guessed are eliminators.

RIP I promise I am literate.

Edited to add: In that case, I'd just be cautious? We used to do an Awards system given by the GM, but I can't remember why we got rid of it. Likely to do with concerns it was making people too competitive or made players feel left out - I do know some of the awards were a bit eh, like naming one award after the first player to get C1ed repeatedly and giving it to a player who got C1ed. But figuring out why it was gotten rid of is probably important before thinking of reinstating it.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Kasimir

[DrakeMarshall]

15 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

This reminds me of/is similar to the LG2 set-up, I think, or one of those back-up roles type roles. Players had a % chance of Snapping throughout the game and IIRC that's partly affected by losing a role. The one issue I have with this policy is it saves the Village from losing key roles but the problem with inactivity is also the free wincon progression for either team, really. It only gets very blatant in games where you have, say, five inactives, but it's worth pointing out anyway.

Yeah but if the vote as well of the role of inactive players is given to an active player of the same alignment, it doesn't actually progress the wincon of either side. That is a fairly important part of it.

This doesn't really "fix" inactivity, because inactivity still hurts your faction by depriving them of an additional person's perspective and voice in the game. It also makes your faction somewhat more reliant on whoever receives the additional vote and/or role (it might not be a bad idea to split those things up and give them to different players, if possible). But unless you have a pinch hitter on hand (which I still think should always be the first fallback in the case of inactivity) there is not a whole lot you can do about this.

Idk, using game mechanics to deal with the activity in a game is kinda hard, but I feel like the goal should generally be to mitigate the impact of inactivity on the balance of the game, and hopefully this does that somewhat.

15 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

RIP I promise I am literate.

Edited to add: In that case, I'd just be cautious? We used to do an Awards system given by the GM, but I can't remember why we got rid of it. Likely to do with concerns it was making people too competitive or made players feel left out - I do know some of the awards were a bit eh, like naming one award after the first player to get C1ed repeatedly and giving it to a player who got C1ed. But figuring out why it was gotten rid of is probably important before thinking of reinstating it.

Literacy is highly overrated tbh.

I agree that it is still something to be cautious about, for multiple reasons. Depending on how it is done though it might be able to work.

Edited August 1, 2021 by DrakeMarshall

[StrikerEZ]

4 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

What counts as an inactive player is up to the discretion of the particular setup (personally, I prefer basing it completely on voter turnout, but I have literally never seen anyone else run games that way so your mileage may vary).

I can’t remember if I’ve done this or not before, but I’ve definitely considered doing this. I think having inactivity filters based on voting is 100% the way to go, and if I haven’t done it before, I don’t know why I haven’t done it.

I have no idea how one would go about integrating an inactivity filter into the mechanics of a game, so I’m going to leave that talk to you guys.

[Straw]

On 8/1/2021 at 0:40 AM, Lotus said:

Does anyone happen to have like, blank GM spreadsheets with places to put what people vote and stuff?

For voting, I use this sheet that I made: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W_rR7TjRRvlvpGKSzvgHmkNVG8aX-kYrgaYnbw1-2V0/edit?usp=sharing

The Vote Seeds column in the Data tab should be filled out using https://bigprimes.org/ with ten numbers and six digits as the settings.

The full sheets I use look more like this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LKI-T5UG20mWHIxdezwxGQSRC_l6v6KrxUtBJh3gIso/edit?usp=sharing

[Araris Valerian]

Thinking about the self-conversion capability in the recent LG, it might be interesting to have a ruleset that sort of allows players to pick their alignments at the start. So the first 24-48 hours, there are open (maybe only partly open?) PMs and (maybe) everyone gets their roles, if there are any. Probably don't want many power roles for this idea. Then each player picks alignment A or alignment B in their GM PM (might work with more than 2 choices as well). From whichever group has fewer players (this wouldn't actually be revealed ever), the GM randomly assigns players to be elims so that roughly 20% of the total players are elims. Gameplay proceeds from normal after that, with PMs being closed. 

There would definitely be some edge cases in the setup to build rules around, but the concept seems like it could be fun.

 

[Steeldancer]

10 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

Thinking about the self-conversion capability in the recent LG, it might be interesting to have a ruleset that sort of allows players to pick their alignments at the start. So the first 24-48 hours, there are open (maybe only partly open?) PMs and (maybe) everyone gets their roles, if there are any. Probably don't want many power roles for this idea. Then each player picks alignment A or alignment B in their GM PM (might work with more than 2 choices as well). From whichever group has fewer players (this wouldn't actually be revealed ever), the GM randomly assigns players to be elims so that roughly 20% of the total players are elims. Gameplay proceeds from normal after that, with PMs being closed. 

There would definitely be some edge cases in the setup to build rules around, but the concept seems like it could be fun.

 

Araris, you literally read my freaking mind. 
The idea I came up with was basically what I just ran, but with one Knight Radiant, and one Fused. Then everyone else has to choose their gemstone, and that gemstone will determine their alignment. Could also be spicy with additional factions as well. It would most likely work best if it weren't a classic village/elim situation though. 
I'm going to stew on this one. Might pop out a rule set eventually. 

[Experience]

Well, not sure if I've posted my role-madness ruleset in here yet, but thought I would do so just to see what ya'll's thoughts on it are. I know that there is virtually no way to perfectly balance this ruleset because there are so many roles, but if there is something that is especially powerful or weak let me know. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g5YwfCzOXRG20s4gRqjF9tEd6VChy-4cReGX0DrjXpU/edit

[The Unknown Ajah]

Hey, I think we should put the ideas for basic QF, MR, LG rulesets here.

[---]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ia4i3zp03LPxr8fD4BtK-MNgG4Zn6ns7YCiU8E2NGhU/edit?usp=sharing

Vanilla game, one simple removal mechanic.

...Questionable flavor. :p.

[danex]

random idea I literally just had

imagine a game with 3 factions, each with an equal player count

I'll call em A,B,and C

Faction A's wincon is to eliminate all of faction B, and keep at least 50% of faction C alive
Faction B's wincon is to eliminate all of faction C, and keep at least 50% of faction A alive
Faction C's wincon is to eliminate all of Faction A and keep at least 50% of faction B alive

each faction would be roughly the same other than their wincons. 

I can already see so many problems with this, but can you grasp the basic idea? I think this could be quite fun.

[The Unknown Ajah]

1 hour ago, Danex said:

random idea I literally just had

imagine a game with 3 factions, each with an equal player count

I'll call em A,B,and C

Faction A's wincon is to eliminate all of faction B, and keep at least 50% of faction C alive
Faction B's wincon is to eliminate all of faction C, and keep at least 50% of faction A alive
Faction C's wincon is to eliminate all of Faction A and keep at least 50% of faction B alive

each faction would be roughly the same other than their wincons. 

I can already see so many problems with this, but can you grasp the basic idea? I think this could be quite fun.

This sounds like a fun break tank or Quick fix.

Speaking of Quick Fixes, I had an idea for a Reckoners game where each person is randomly assigned a player as a weakness. The Reckoners have a weakness detection and a redirect.

[Straw]

On 10/28/2021 at 0:02 AM, Danex said:

random idea I literally just had

imagine a game with 3 factions, each with an equal player count

I'll call em A,B,and C

Faction A's wincon is to eliminate all of faction B, and keep at least 50% of faction C alive
Faction B's wincon is to eliminate all of faction C, and keep at least 50% of faction A alive
Faction C's wincon is to eliminate all of Faction A and keep at least 50% of faction B alive

each faction would be roughly the same other than their wincons. 

I can already see so many problems with this, but can you grasp the basic idea? I think this could be quite fun.

That kind of reminds me of QF46, where certain factions had to keep other factions alive.

I think the 50% thing is very very likely to lead to a three way loss, considering the equal player count. For example, QF46 ended with only one player left alive, out of 21 players at the start of the game.

[The Unknown Ajah]

I'm around seventh on the list for MRs and I'm planning on doing this game.

Comments from anyone would be nice, but I'll @ the committee for approval:

@Amanuensis@STINK@Sart@Fifth Scholar@Straw@Haelbarde@Young Bard@Araris Valerian@Devotary of Spontaneity@Elandera @Elbereth@little wilson

Here's a non-doc form of the rules as well.

Spoiler

To Kill a Skyeel:

Basics:

Spoiler

There will be a group execution every day. The chosen player will be removed from the meeting and the game.

More than 50% of the players must vote in order for the execution to succeed. 

Ties will result in no one being removed. 

There will be a 48 hour day turn and a 24 hour night turn. A cycle will consist of a day and a night turn.

Every even night, skyeels will target a random player. Anyone who visits that player will be killed unless they have the field exterminator role, in which case nobody dies.

If you do not vote during the day and make less than five (will adjust for player count) posts, you will be removed. 

During the night, PMs are open, however talking in-thread is not allowed.

During the day, PMs and the Elim doc are closed, but posting is allowed.
 

Factions:

 

Spoiler

 

The Exterminators: The village faction for this game. They must eject all Environmentalists from the meeting before they reach majority and eradicate the guild.

The Environmentalists: The elim faction for this game. They must reach majority in order to democratically eliminate the guild. They will have access to a group doc every night and a factional kill, which is flavored as silencing a target

 

Roles:

Spoiler

 

Former Detective: You can dig up dirt on anyone in the meeting, allowing you to remove them. You can pick a player every night, and they will be removed the next night.

Skyeel Enthusiast: You love skyeels so much that you keep them as pets, but you're willing to let go of them to save the lives of their species. Once per game, you can pick a player, and anyone who visits them will be killed until a field exterminator visits.

Humane Skyeel Capturer: If you go to the house the skyeels attack, nobody will die, but there will be a 25% chance of the skyeels returning the next night.

Politician: You have strong ties with the Exterminators guild, so you've been allowed in. You also hold a lot of sway with the members of the guild. Your vote counts for double, but you can choose to change a person's vote, if you do, your vote will not be doubled.

Field Exterminator: You are just an exterminator who's made it through the ranks to get into this meeting, but luckily you know how to exterminate skyeels. If you visit the house that the skyeels attack, nobody will die. 20% of players rounded up will be Field Exterminators.

Apprentice Exterminator: You aren't allowed to exterminate skyeels yet, but you can protect a person from their attacks. Protect a person from dying to a skyeel attack.

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by The Unknown Order

[Mat]

35 minutes ago, The Unknown Order said:

Comments from anyone would be nice, but I'll @ the committee for approval:

In the future, this is normally done via PM, about when your slot is coming around. It should include the SE mods as well. This technically works, but I thought you should know  

[The Unknown Ajah]

Just now, Matrim's Dice said:

In the future, this is normally done via PM, about when your slot is coming around. It should include the SE mods as well. This technically works, but I thought you should know  

I couldn't find a list of the SE mods in the Signups thread. I also wanted any opinions on the ruleset, and the Signups thread mentioned asking for approval here, so I saved redundancy and did everything here.