836 posts in this topic

49 minutes ago, Elbereth said:

When did I say that? :P 

When I changed the background colour of the dead doc and you told us you'd change it back. You said this isn't a joe game or something like that :P

Also, was this possibly the longest QF yet? Page-wise?

Edited by _Stick_
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well. ok then. i lost.

I honestly only just figured out (even after the write up) that Orlok was an eliminator.

Time for another game lol!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man. One heck of a first game, I suppose. It was very very fun, nonetheless.

Also, I think that the fact so many people were suspicious of me helped, in the end. Sure, we lost, but I did get some insight to all you guys' thought processes, so yay? Always look forward, I guess.

Well played, Orlok, Stink. Had me fooled, that's for sure.

Stink, I don't think I'll ever be able to trust you again, ever. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eternum said:

Man. One heck of a first game, I suppose. It was very very fun, nonetheless.

Also, I think that the fact so many people were suspicious of me helped, in the end. Sure, we lost, but I did get some insight to all you guys' thought processes, so yay? Always look forward, I guess.

Well played, Orlok, Stink. Had me fooled, that's for sure.

Stink, I don't think I'll ever be able to trust you again, ever. :P

You should never trust stink anyway. Hes just playing this game to be a troll. He was the perfect truthless

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flash said:

You should never trust stink anyway. Hes just playing this game to be a troll. He was the perfect truthless

Yeah, I think he was.

Again, GG.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Flash said:

You should never trust stink anyway. Hes just playing this game to be a troll. He was the perfect truthless

Actually, @Flash, I think Stink deserves credit for very well executed deception. Both Stink and I were targeting specific behaviours - I was trying to draw just enough suspicion to make it look like I was trying to draw suspicion, and so be considered Truthless rather than evil. Stink was, as the Truthless, playing an eliminator acting as Truthless, trying to make it look like he'd failed, and so drawing votes. I thought Stink pulled this off spectacularly, and it's certainly something far beyond merely being a troll.

Quote

@Magestar @Jondesu @Roadwalker @Sart @overlordjebus @Ecthelion III, mind adding your vote to Stink? I don't want a hammer to be pulled, and not voting leaves things wide open for one. Especially if they have vote manipulation. At this point, I don't think any of us voting on Stink are going to change our minds, so splitting the votes by voting someone else will more than likely end up working in the elims favor.

@TheMightyLopen, I'd like to commend you for your assistance, which was much appreciated. :P

More seriously, you're an excellent person, and I felt awful manipulating you. I made it clear several times in our PM that your best move was to out me to the thread as having revealed Stink, and get me eliminator killed, going a cycle without a village death, but instead of doing so, you came up with suggestions for how I could win as a Truthless, even if the village had lost.

Edited by Orlok Tsubodai
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

STINK was the perfect choice for a truthless, honestly... :lol:

Heh, I'm glad that this wasn't said at the beginning of the game :P

13 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

Secret roles in and of themselves aren't that bad.  The problem arises when either the existence of secret roles is hidden (not the case here), or when the secret roles substantially change the fundamental nature of the game (as here, where they changed it from "normal number of elims" to "few elims with powerful roles that also synergize with each other)".

In terms of the synergy idea, I'd say that Orlok's synergy with me is about the same as having a team of 4 people would've been. Yes, Orlok has riots, but if I had 3 other people all gunning for me to be lynched, it's more likely that other villagers would join in. Also, my role isn't that powerful when you think of all the conditions it has, such as not being able to use it early-game because it's not worth it, others being aware that the role exists and being cautions of it, and then how it basically needs to be used at the end when we probably could have pulled out a win anyway. Orlok was strong yes, but we sacrificed 2 teammates for that power :P

9 hours ago, Magestar said:

But there's a reason I didn't vote on STINK.

Not that it matters at this point. :P Well played, guys.  I can't say I had any idea Orlok was evil.  Good game.

I don't know why I listened to STINK in the first place. :P 

I mean, I never said that I was good. Or that Orlok was good, just that you never know what you'll get with me, and that Lopen and Orlok being the same alignment? A silly idea. 

Please keep listening to me :(

3 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

It is indeed exactly the same; a highly unusual role distribution for the elims (among normal roles) that made the game play differently would have had the same trolly effect even if there had been a PAFO about elim role distribution.

The basic idea is as follows: What matters isn't whether it's an effect of player number, activity, roles, unexpected rules, or any other wacky thing the GM comes up with.  What determines the effect of this sort of unexpected situation on the players' fun is (a) whether the players feel that the GM planned for it, (b) whether there were hints in the OP that it might occur, and (c) how much it changes the way that the game plays.  (How much they change the game's balance is also a factor, but a much more minor one.)  In this one, (a) and (b) were done well, but it changed the character of the game so much that it still felt trollish.  (Probably even more so than a neutral Truthless as a secret role would have, and that's classic bastard mod, to use mafiascum terminology.)

I mean, Orlok was actually basically a Rioter for that whole game, so the 'character' of the game didn't change at all. Mistakes were made by the Village, but that doesn't mean the balance was bad. 

2 hours ago, Elbereth said:

 Orlok ended up just manipulating Lopen instead. 

---------------------------------------------------

Orlok: For strategising, remaining mostly out of suspicion despite being in the spotlight alone, and for manipulating Lopen. (In particular, for the efforts to tell Lopen that his best move was actually to out the plan to the thread and have no village deaths for a turn. Unfortunately, Lopen is slightly too kind.)
Also, for his strategy in eliminator kills: he made a list of players who were recently returned, new, or had died early in games recently. Everyone not in one of those three categories were the players crossed off first. I greatly approve of this kind of strategy. Also, on a similar note, not killing to stifle discussion. That made this QF much more active than usual for a significantly longer time, and it was wonderful. 

 

I wasn't even aware about what was going on in the PM with Lopen! Seriously though, Orlok's a great teammate, y'all. He did like basically everything for me, and even dealt with my stupid comments :P

23 minutes ago, Eternum said:

Stink, I don't think I'll ever be able to trust you again, ever. :P

As I said to Mage, I didn't actually lie! Jeez, just 'cause you all read me good for talking about pizza doesn't mean you shouldn't trust me! 

But seriously, thanks to Orlok for being like the best teammate, and thanks to El for being so on top of things! 

(also sorry to Winter for being rude to you but it was the best way to get you to vote for me so yeah soz)

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Elbereth said:

Post-Game Thoughts

Balance 

There were two balance issues with this game: Orlok’s powers and Lopen. Fortunately, neither ended up coming into play. 

1. 

2. Lopen. The problem with this one is less complicated to explain, and also didn’t come into play, but could have: 

Lopen was an Elsecaller. This is a massive disadvantage to Orlok for two reasons: 

First, it somewhat clears Lopen for a turn. Not completely, obviously, but he was at least soft-cleared. Given that he and Orlok are pretty unquestionably the two most high-profile players in the game, that’s very, very dangerous for Orlok. Normally I wouldn’t worry about this for a team, but unlike most teams, this one could not afford to take a hit. Because there were only two of them. 

Secondly, it takes away a great deal of the use of his passive lives. Rather than taking two hits, he only needs one to be fairly confirmed as an eliminator. Because while it’s somewhat unlikely that Lopen and Orlok are both villagers, from a balance perspective it’s essentially impossible that both of them are village Elsecallers. If Orlok had taken a hit, the most he could’ve done is tried to take Lopen down first, and been lynched constantly once Lopen was revealed as good. 

These ended up not being an issue. Orlok didn’t take a hit, and Lopen wasn’t cleared from the hit he took, and Orlok ended up just manipulating Lopen instead. 


Commendations

To Orlok and Stink: they made a magnificent plan together. I suggest going to the eliminator doc and reading it (I believe it’s in Cycle 5), but it’s worth pointing out here too. It’s a perfect example of why they were on a team together: Orlok thought of Stink suggesting that he’s Truthless to the thread. It was Stink’s idea to say that Orlok had claimed it rather than merely suggest it, and Orlok’s to do so specifically to Lopen rather than the entire thread. That claim essentially ensured Stink’s death: if Lopen believed Stink, he would go to Orlok (who was claiming to be neutral but in contact with the elim team), and Orlok would give him Stink. (The other option is if Lopen didn’t believe Stink - in which case he’s much more suspicious of Stink anyway.) Lopen and Orlok working together to lynch Stink was practically guaranteed to get a lot of votes. 

Stink: For playing brilliantly as an eliminator pretending to be Truthless, while actually being a Truthless eliminator. 
Also, to the people who passed Stink off as village on the logic that “he always does this”: you realise that you were essentially saying that non-alignment indicative things meant that he was village, correct? 

Orlok: For strategising, remaining mostly out of suspicion despite being in the spotlight alone, and for manipulating Lopen. (In particular, for the efforts to tell Lopen that his best move was actually to out the plan to the thread and have no village deaths for a turn. Unfortunately, Lopen is slightly too kind.)
Also, for his strategy in eliminator kills: he made a list of players who were recently returned, new, or had died early in games recently. Everyone not in one of those three categories were the players crossed off first. I greatly approve of this kind of strategy. Also, on a similar note, not killing to stifle discussion. That made this QF much more active than usual for a significantly longer time, and it was wonderful.

Lopen: For doing really well with the information you had. Sadly, your information was somewhat flawed. :P But congrats anyway for being suspicious of Orlok. And also, not being evil! For once! :P

 

Anytime I get an extra life or something to survive longer, I feel like something's up. :P

I'd had a weird feeling about Orlok since pretty early on, and when I posted my reasons for suspecting him and then voted on him, I did actually consider that the kills up to that point hinted at Orlok being evil. Sadly, that's when Stink told me he'd claimed Truthless, and that assuaged my suspicions since I wasn't entirely sure about Orlok, and him being Truthless seemed to explain away the reasons I had for suspecting him.

At the end of the game, I started being worried that something was off, because of how Stink was acting, and because the players I thought were most likely to be the eliminators(Mage, Jondesu, Eternum, Sart) weren't acting like I thought they would as eliminators. I was positive that Winter, DA, Elith, and Ecth were good, due to knowing Stink was evil, so I was very confused. Sadly, I didn't put all of the pieces together. :(

2 hours ago, Eternum said:

Man. One heck of a first game, I suppose. It was very very fun, nonetheless.

Also, I think that the fact so many people were suspicious of me helped, in the end. Sure, we lost, but I did get some insight to all you guys' thought processes, so yay? Always look forward, I guess.

Well played, Orlok, Stink. Had me fooled, that's for sure.

Stink, I don't think I'll ever be able to trust you again, ever. :P

I was only suspicious of you at the end because I couldn't find any better suspects! :P I think you did pretty well for your first game, honestly.

1 hour ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

Actually, @Flash, I think Stink deserves credit for very well executed deception. Both Stink and I were targeting specific behaviours - I was trying to draw just enough suspicion to make it look like I was trying to draw suspicion, and so be considered Truthless rather than evil. Stink was, as the Truthless, playing an eliminator acting as Truthless, trying to make it look like he'd failed, and so drawing votes. I thought Stink pulled this off spectacularly, and it's certainly something far beyond merely being a troll.

@TheMightyLopen, I'd like to commend you for your assistance, which was much appreciated. :P

More seriously, you're an excellent person, and I felt awful manipulating you. I made it clear several times in our PM that your best move was to out me to the thread as having revealed Stink, and get me eliminator killed, going a cycle without a village death, but instead of doing so, you came up with suggestions for how I could win as a Truthless, even if the village had lost.

Sigh. One other reason I felt weird about the Stink lynch was because of those upvotes. I had a feeling they were ironic somehow. >>

Thanks, I'll take consolation in your guilt. :P But for real, well played, and no hard feelings.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, STINK said:

Heh, I'm glad that this wasn't said at the beginning of the game :P

In terms of the synergy idea, I'd say that Orlok's synergy with me is about the same as having a team of 4 people would've been. Yes, Orlok has riots, but if I had 3 other people all gunning for me to be lynched, it's more likely that other villagers would join in. Also, my role isn't that powerful when you think of all the conditions it has, such as not being able to use it early-game because it's not worth it, others being aware that the role exists and being cautions of it, and then how it basically needs to be used at the end when we probably could have pulled out a win anyway. Orlok was strong yes, but we sacrificed 2 teammates for that power :P

I mean, I never said that I was good. Or that Orlok was good, just that you never know what you'll get with me, and that Lopen and Orlok being the same alignment? A silly idea. 

Please keep listening to me :(

I mean, Orlok was actually basically a Rioter for that whole game, so the 'character' of the game didn't change at all. Mistakes were made by the Village, but that doesn't mean the balance was bad. 

I wasn't even aware about what was going on in the PM with Lopen! Seriously though, Orlok's a great teammate, y'all. He did like basically everything for me, and even dealt with my stupid comments :P

As I said to Mage, I didn't actually lie! Jeez, just 'cause you all read me good for talking about pizza doesn't mean you shouldn't trust me! 

But seriously, thanks to Orlok for being like the best teammate, and thanks to El for being so on top of things! 

(also sorry to Winter for being rude to you but it was the best way to get you to vote for me so yeah soz)

You weren't being rude, as much as FRUSTRATING AS HECK. I'm actually really glad that you weren't good, because you were a pain and I didn't want you to have become a jerk since I last saw you. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Elbereth said:

Sorry, I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing that the way the game played changed from a normal game. Could you explain that?

Because you get players who feel "this isn't what I signed up for".  If it had played very differently and we'd known that when signing up, that would be one thing...but expecting a more normal game and then not getting it is the sort of thing that a lot of people don't enjoy.

 

(That said, the "kills everybody who votes for them" was a very insightful way to make a known Jester into a very interesting mechanic that brings the entire game to the next level, and would likely have made this a game to remember even if the Truthless had been neutral and the elims had had a normal composition.)

Edited by Yitzi2
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

Because you get players who feel "this isn't what I signed up for".  If it had played very differently and we'd known that when signing up, that would be one thing...but expecting a more normal game and then not getting it is the sort of thing that a lot of people don't enjoy.

She PAFO'd it, and it's not like the change was some hugely drastic role addition. It was a single role that duplicated abilities that were already in the rules, to make up for the lack of people on that person's team. Secret? Sure. A huge difference to what people were expecting? No. The known abilities in the game stayed the same.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I could see that coming into play if it were something like MR18, where it was made very, very clear that it was a normal game. I don't think that it does so here: it isn't the GM's duty to give the players what the players think is the "right" distribution. As this game shows, there isn't one right distribution. The players should not be able to predict the GM, in my opinion: even when there are not secrets, it is up to the players to consider every possibility. This particularly applies to the Skybreaker Truthless more than Nale, in this game - the Truthless was very, very deliberately under the "roles" section, not the "alignment" one. Just because it's not expected, in my opinion, is no reason something shouldn't be done - and is arguably a reason for it to be done. 

The other point regarding expectations: that was not my goal for this game. This game was intended to teach players not to expect particular role/eliminator team distributions just because they're used to them, to create a game to be remembered, and also to give Stink the opportunity to show that he's a dangerous player. 

To be more direct. Did you dislike this game because of the difference between it and what you expected? I certainly don't get the impression that anyone else had less fun because of it (though please speak up if you did, because that's the kind of thing that's very important to know). 

Edited by Elbereth
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would any of the New Recruits ever actually get a role?

(Len studying Truthlessness :P)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. It was probably for like, writeup purposes. If for some reason a New Recruit won the game for everyone, they'd swear the last oath or something, yadda yadda. Or, maybe, there was a way to actually become a Radiant mid-game which I doubt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eternum said:

Eh. It was probably for like, writeup purposes. If for some reason a New Recruit won the game for everyone, they'd swear the last oath or something, yadda yadda. Or, maybe, there was a way to actually become a Radiant mid-game which I doubt.

That has definitely been used in previous games, though, and I wouldn't be shocked if El had decided to include that, at least as an option in case game balancing was needed.  Turning a recruit into a role that had been lost could have been a nice option to have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it didn't happen, so I doubt it was planned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2017 at 1:24 PM, Elbereth said:

Post-Game Thoughts

Balance 

There were two balance issues with this game: Orlok’s powers and Lopen. Fortunately, neither ended up coming into play.

Actually, Orlok's did come into play: Some of those last-cycle votes on Stink seem to have been from Orlok's manipulation.

(Note, by the way, that having two riots per turn plus knowing who the Truthless was pretty much meant that unless Orlok was taken out first, Stink was guaranteed to take out a LOT of villagers in his death, as if there were few votes Orlok could remove them from Stink, and if there were too many to do that he could add even more.)

22 hours ago, STINK said:

In terms of the synergy idea, I'd say that Orlok's synergy with me is about the same as having a team of 4 people would've been. Yes, Orlok has riots, but if I had 3 other people all gunning for me to be lynched, it's more likely that other villagers would join in.

Only up to a point, because we all knew about the danger of the Truthless.

But with Orlok having 2 riots per turn, that essentially amounts to 4 extra kills (2 because we need two more to lynch you, and 2 because he can then riot two people to you).  An elim jester is essentially already worth a number of kills equal to one more than the number of elims (so 3), and the 2 riots mean that Orlok would essentially win if he could get it down to 4 villagers plus himself...I'd say as a rough estimate that your role was worth 1 extra elim, Orlok's role was worth 1 extra elim, and the synergy between them was worth 2 extra elims.  So the elim team was somewhat stronger than standard, though not ridiculously so.

3 hours ago, little wilson said:

She PAFO'd it, and it's not like the change was some hugely drastic role addition. It was a single role that duplicated abilities that were already in the rules, to make up for the lack of people on that person's team. Secret? Sure. A huge difference to what people were expecting? No. The known abilities in the game stayed the same.

The nature of the game is a function not only of the known abilities, but how they interact.  For instance, the normal expectation with a "vote on him and you die" role is that he can catch elims as well as villagers; a role without that effect is a functionally different role, even if the effect is the same.  A Rioter who knows who the Truthless is is a functionally different role than one who doesn't, because he has a very different use for his Riot.

Edited by Yitzi2
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think this game was completely balanced. The village just failed. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably reread what El said, Yitzi. Because it looks like you missed some of her comments. Namely the one that said that Orlok never even used the second riot until the very last turn, when not using it still would've resulted in them winning, due to the two inactives in the game. For how Orlok used his abilities in the game, he was functionally just a single Rioter with a couple extra lives. That's all.

If you want to complain about every game you lose, be my guest, but don't try to say that no one else has fun when it's really just you that isn't having fun.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Elbereth  I wouldn't say that it negatively affected my game experience, but I do concur with Yitzi that the specific role distribution made the optimal strategy for this game very different than usual. Had I known the Truthless was elim I would have had a very different approach to the game.

One issue I did have with the game, though, was that I took so much flak for my suspicion of Orlok based on reasoning that the elims needed to have a very experienced and active player, both while I was living and especially while I was dead. I completely understand if you don't agree with my suspicions, but when it goes so far as to say "you shouldn't reason like that" that's taking it too far. With all the discussion recently about how "sub-optimal" play is a part of the game and contributes to the fun, I'm surprised to still have players telling me how I should and should not choose my suspicions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, little wilson said:

You should probably reread what El said, Yitzi. Because it looks like you missed some of her comments. Namely the one that said that Orlok never even used the second riot until the very last turn, when not using it still would've resulted in them winning, due to the two inactives in the game. For how Orlok used his abilities in the game, he was functionally just a single Rioter with a couple extra lives. That's all.

Not quite, actually - even if the inactives had both been active he would've won with a single riot. One Riot and two passive lives wins against four villagers, which is who would've been left alive. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elenion said:

@Elbereth  I wouldn't say that it negatively affected my game experience, but I do concur with Yitzi that the specific role distribution made the optimal strategy for this game very different than usual. Had I known the Truthless was elim I would have had a very different approach to the game.

One issue I did have with the game, though, was that I took so much flak for my suspicion of Orlok based on reasoning that the elims needed to have a very experienced and active player, both while I was living and especially while I was dead. I completely understand if you don't agree with my suspicions, but when it goes so far as to say "you shouldn't reason like that" that's taking it too far. With all the discussion recently about how "sub-optimal" play is a part of the game and contributes to the fun, I'm surprised to still have players telling me how I should and should not choose my suspicions.

Sure. I'm fine with that, because the point of this game is partly to point out that there are other ways to balance a game than through normal distribution, and just because something's unlikely doesn't make it impossible. It's similar to putting an eliminator Coinshot in the game, for instance: not impossible, just unusual. 

The thing is, that reasoning does significantly contribute to less fun in the game. By that argument, both of them should've been lynched in the first two cycles, and you'd have had a 100% chance of catching an eliminator. Is that fun for them? Decidedly not. Suspecting people based on their experience rather than anything they've done isn't really fun. Moreover, if you use that reasoning in this game, logically it should apply in every game they play (or every game 2-3 high profile players play, which is most games recently), meaning that they never survive past C2. 

Side note - I'd agree that both of them being village (especially with Lopen being an Elsecaller) is somewhat difficult balance-wise. But by no means does that rule out one of them being Truthless rather than an eliminator, and it's interesting to me that exactly no-one brought that possibility up. I have no qualms about an eliminator team without a high-profile player on it, certainly, and don't view that as a requirement for an elim team at all. Without one such teams are harder to balance, but by no means impossible. A team of yourself, Jondesu, PK, and Bard would have worked just fine this game, for instance. 

Anyway. It's not fun reasoning, and it's not necessarily correct (particularly when you've just been talking about unusual eliminator distributions, too). 

Also, well done on successfully ninja'ing me and making me double post. :P 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Elenion said:

One issue I did have with the game, though, was that I took so much flak for my suspicion of Orlok based on reasoning that the elims needed to have a very experienced and active player, both while I was living and especially while I was dead. I completely understand if you don't agree with my suspicions, but when it goes so far as to say "you shouldn't reason like that" that's taking it too far. With all the discussion recently about how "sub-optimal" play is a part of the game and contributes to the fun, I'm surprised to still have players telling me how I should and should not choose my suspicions.

El already touched on this, but what I will add is that even though you were right in this game, the basis for the logic is not always correct. Not every game needs to have a very experienced and active person on their team. Is that often what happens? Yes, but it's not necessary. The reason it happens so frequently is because so many GMs think that that is necessary. But we've seen teams full of very experienced players lose (LG20 and LG33). We've seen teams full of newer, less-experienced players either win or cause a draw (AG2 (since Lopen, the most experienced player on the team, died C1) and MR22). So that idea that elim teams need a very experienced player is very wrong. And let me tell how frustrating it is to be considered a very experienced player and then people start using that "logic" on you. You're about to join the ranks of those players, Len. You're over 20 games now. We've had 220 players and you're in the top 30. That's pretty high up. Do you want people saying that about you? That you have to be evil, and then targeting you for that logic? Pushing your death for it? Do you want to die merely because of how many games you've played and not because of how  you're playing a particular game?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the number of elims is risky. Too many, and they overwhelm the village in the voting. Too little, and the village might overwhelm them. The reason why we have a normal number of eliminators is for balance purposes. Meta did a mathematical proof that stated games are balanced when the number of eliminators equals the square root of the number of players. That's why we have that tradition. That being said, you can tip the scales provided you balance it well enough. You could run a game with 8 elims, but all the villagers are Seekers, or something silly like that. You could have a conversion role, and have that reek havoc with the town. Or you could run a game with a Serial Killer, as shown in this game. That's not a bad thing, and it can be a good change from the norm.

The problem with this game is that the Serial Killer was more powerful than a regular eliminator team. First, having a smaller number of eliminators is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Less eliminators means less chances to make mistakes in thread, and less chances to be caught defending one another. My favorite part of the game is seeing that an eliminator died, and then deducing who else must be evil because of it. To balance out this inherent strength, a smaller team has less power to vote. That can be especially dangerous if one of them dies early on. Thus, serial killers usually have some sort of extra power to balance it out. There are 3 common ones.

  • Having some sort of protection
  • Having some sort of vote manipulation
  • Having some sort of extra kill power.

Having one or two of those can make for a balanced game. The problem was, the Skybreakers had all three!

2 hours ago, Elbereth said:

Interesting. I could see that coming into play if it were something like MR18, where it was made very, very clear that it was a normal game. I don't think that it does so here: it isn't the GM's duty to give the players what the players think is the "right" distribution. As this game shows, there isn't one right distribution. The players should not be able to predict the GM, in my opinion: even when there are not secrets, it is up to the players to consider every possibility. This particularly applies to the Skybreaker Truthless more than Nale, in this game - the Truthless was very, very deliberately under the "roles" section, not the "alignment" one. Just because it's not expected, in my opinion, is no reason something shouldn't be done - and is arguably a reason for it to be done. 

The other point regarding expectations: that was not my goal for this game. This game was intended to teach players not to expect particular role/eliminator team distributions just because they're used to them, to create a game to be remembered, and also to give Stink the opportunity to show that he's a dangerous player. 

To be more direct. Did you dislike this game because of the difference between it and what you expected? I certainly don't get the impression that anyone else had less fun because of it (though please speak up if you did, because that's the kind of thing that's very important to know). 

I'm not mad; I'm just disappointed. I enjoyed this game while I was playing it. I loved seeing the debate, the back and forth of conversation, all the crazy conjectures people were making. I hated the ending of this game. I've been writing this post for a while now, and I finally figured out why I don't like this game.

Voting didn't matter. No, scratch that. Voting was harmful to everyone. Let me explain from each player's perspective.

  • The villagers:
    • On another villager: This is normal, and drives discussion. However, it still hurts the village in the long run. Games should try to encourage this type of behavior.
    • On Stink: They lose their lives. It benefits the person being lynched more than the person killing him. If it's a neutral role we can avoid, that's fine. However, we had to lynch Stink. There was no other way to kill him. We had to act against our own self-interest to win the game. Yuck.
    • On Orlok: Hooray! We lynched the elim we're supposed to lynch. What's that? He had an extra life? Oh well, I guess he might be an Elsecaller. Guess we learned nothing from that lynch. What's that? We lynched him again, and he still didn't die? Huh, guess he might be some type of Survival role. Better lynch him again to make sure. Yay! We finally killed him! And it only took 2 cycles without any relevant discussion. Hooray!
  • The eliminators:
    • On another villager: This will just make me look suspicious. I guess I will if I start looking suspicious, but there's no rush. I can just hide among the crowd anyways. Games should try to encourage this type of behavior, to make mafia stand out.
    • On Stink: Haha. Suck it losers, get wrecked son! I guess we still lose a teammate... and Orlok loses his extra life... why do we have to do this again?
    • On Orlok: I really don't want to vote on myself. Eh, worse case scenario I just lose an extra life.

Do you see the problem here? This isn't healthy. We want players to vote and engage with this discussion. I want to see the benefits of me voting, and see "So and So has died, they were Evil" I especially want to see that text when the only thing I can literally do in this game is vote on people! Seriously, when 90% of your players can do nothing besides vote or influence the vote, I want my vote to actually be meaningful!

I could forgive all that for just being bad game balance. It's fine, it's just an experiment that didn't go well. We need those every once in a while. They're healthy for the community. But you crossed a line. You made this game broken on purpose. You gave your boyfriend the most powerful role in the game. I think your romance is one of the coolest things that has come out of this forum, but you have to understand how this looks. You gave the troll the trolliest role in the game. You didn't do this randomly! I play with the expectation that everyone has a fair shot of being evil, and a fair shot of being good. That didn't happen this game. If you needed to tell Orlok the role distribution twist, Orlok shouldn't have played.

In the past 2 games I've played (this and the last MR), GMs have given out roles to players. On the Question and Answer page, both Aman and Elb have admitted to tweaking distributions after seeing the player list. This can't continue! Just look at the discussion above me. Head-hunting has been occurring because "there must be one experienced eliminator on a team". That type of logic is cancerous, and just leads to experienced players having less fun, while other players never get a chance to be bad guys. This can't hold.

Do you want to know something? I've run two games recently, and I think they've been good games. I created a role list before the game began, detailing roles and alignments. Then I assigned players randomly, and hit start. I didn't look if the team would be good, if the team had experienced players, or if the team was composed entirely of new players. It shouldn't matter. Yes it sucks if Ruin suddenly goes inactive, and he's the only evil kill role. However, that's an outcome we may face.

I propose the following rule: All games should be made name-blind. That is to say, role lists should not be based off of particular people, and roles should be assigned randomly to all players. It's the only way to keep the process fair and balanced. It's how we've done things in the past, but we've just strayed away from it. We need to be better than this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow guys.

I leave for one week and you all accidentally commit suicide. This is why we can't have nice things.

Also great game Elbereth, and well played, STINK/Orlok. I looked over the post-game notes and some other comments that people made, and it looks like you two did very well for yourselves.

Also I survived. Not sure how that happened. Awesome job everyone, and much clapping over here!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.