Mid-Range Game 56: Day of Reckoning

[Kasimir]

Thoughts from me:

• I think I'm filing this game in the same mental place as MR1: which is to say there were definitely aspects of it that I won't pretend didn't make me rather frustrated and unhappy (hello 17S, hello asymmetric warfare, hello Nightwatcher!), but I've made my thoughts on the fliplessness and arson amply clear in the dead doc and I'd rather remember the fun I had C2-C3 going wild with Aman and Ash.
   
• I think there's been a bit of a "chaos for chaos's sake" mentality emerging at various points in this game, and I think it can be somewhat frustrating when your teammate seems to be about the raw chaos and less interested in the consequences their chaos has for their teammates. As a player with a substantial chaotic/troll streak, I'm aware it's a fine line to walk, but would request fellow chaotics be a bit more mindful about whether your chaos now is going to have downstream consequences for your fellow teammates, especially if it's a crucial cycle that players are understandably putting quite a bit of effort into trying to resolve well. tldr; I've always said chaos needs to be social, i.e. this is a social deduction game, check with your team, or at least take a read of the gamestate. Lylo probably isn't the best cycle to go wild, and it's understandably upsetting for the team (Village or Evil) to deal with.
   
• I'd agree a bit with the need for the wincon phrasing to be a bit more careful. TJ and I have spoken about how Calamity was obviously a Corrupted Epic - I feel that in a blackout game, players might be cautious about making that inference, especially in SE with a healthy meta of not being utter barves to neutrals. That is to say, insofar as there was a reasonable claim on Devo's part to be a neutral (we've spoken about this as well and I think it's a fair play on her part), players are understandably reluctant to FAFO. I think this is the correct move, but phrasing was definitely a problem for the Village.
   
• Have had some side talk with Devo about neutral play, and I have a few more thoughts on this issue I am unable to talk about right now for confidentiality reasons. In general, I think that it was an acceptable line for Devo to take - different players approach neutral play differently; some like to throw in full-throatedly with the Elims (Araris), some go hardcore Villager (Wonko), some are just chaos monsters (TJ), some play both factions (Orlok), and some just dgaf (Gears.) I think Devo being an SK limited her play options quite a bit, since she had to work both factions to win, rather than getting to win alongside one of them. Maili and I have certain concerns about an overall tendency in SE right now when it comes to potential increasing neutral hostility, but again - as Wittgenstein says, whereof we cannot speak, thereof must we remain silent.
   
• I agree about standard SKs being underbalanced in general, and I think TJ did a good job in swinging the needle back the other way. But I also question if this game would have worked if Devo had not actually played as sportingly as she did. I feel that in the hands of another player, Calamity could have done some serious damage, alongside the fliplessness and arson, and that does make me wonder about how the balance panned out, if it's so player tendency dependent. Happy for more thoughts and comments, in any case. Conversion always feels difficult for the Village to stomach, though it being a one-shot and to the Corrupted Epics instead does help a bit.
   
• I liked the fact this game messed with the standard no rolelynching doctrine to force us to do just that. I do maintain that it was, however, a very steep uphill climb for the Village because we would not have realised the secret until the first Evil flip.
   
• Thanks TJ, honestly really enjoyed this  C2-C3 kayana theorising with bros, and it'll be the best takeaway of this game for me. I think you put a great deal of thought and effort into running this and I liked the GM PM memes a lot  

[Elandera]

5 hours ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I don't think it was good for me to know who all the elims were since that made it too easy to make them lose.

This is a really good point. We tried to balance your knowledge of the elims with the need for them to stay alive long enough for Calamity to avoid suspicion. It worked okay-ish in the end, but it's definitely not ideal and not something I'd suggest in the future.

11 hours ago, Illwei said:

I think wincons should be included in rolecards. I know it's a blackout but wincons should be blatant imo. Simply saying "all threats" or something similar works. The factions specifically said:

5 hours ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I think it should be possible to figure out whether there are hostile(game-ending) neutrals present

This was absolutely a misstep in the game balance. My concern was trying to keep Calamity from being a major target, as SK roles normally are in games. Historically, it's nearly impossible to win as an SK without serious dedication and buckets of luck. The goal of Calamity was to find a way to work around that problem. If Calamity's presence was known as a threat to village, any sign of a neutral would likely have led to a role exe. I traditionally dislike those, and so wanted to balance against that. However, we absolutely went too far in not letting the village know there may be another threat outside of the traditional elim team.

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

But I also question if this game would have worked if Devo had not actually played as sportingly as she did. I feel that in the hands of another player, Calamity could have done some serious damage, alongside the fliplessness and arson, and that does make me wonder about how the balance panned out, if it's so player tendency dependent.

This was definitely a role that had to be carefully chosen rather than simply RNG assigned, which can be dangerous (take note, any future GMs). You're right that it only worked because of the player who ended up with Calamity. Devo did a fantastic job keeping it as balanced as she did, though I know it can't have been easy.

Overall, I don't suggest this kind of role in other games. It might have worked better as a known (and small) neutral faction rather than a single player working as an unknown neutral. 

I also want to add that I am very proud of all of you for not exing based on roles. I know that TJ balanced for that, but with my history, it's good to know our meta is moving away from that. However, this does offer a good reminder to take caution when considering role claims, especially in a blackout game. It shouldn't encourage people to exe simply because of a claim (there were good examples of all alignments faking a claim for various reasons), but nor should claims be 100% trusted. I say this not as an excuse for the problems this game had (there were many that should have been caught), but as a general caution when approaching games. Like Araris's stance on PM safety.

[Ashbringer]

20 minutes ago, Elandera said:

The goal of Calamity was to find a way to work around that problem. If Calamity's presence was known as a threat to village, any sign of a neutral would likely have led to a role exe. I traditionally dislike those, and so wanted to balance against that. However, we absolutely went too far in not letting the village know there may be another threat outside of the traditional elim team.

I will say, this is exactly where I was trying to go C4, for several reasons. Mainly because while I'd seen roles that needed the game to last a certain time to win (ie AG7 Autonomy), what I knew of Calamity didn't feel that way, and Devotary's claim of letting a faction win around her (down to 3 people) was a bit too fishy for me. Like I said, it's the exact thing a Kandra wants to do, especially if they don't force the game's continuence. I was also pretty darn sure that if we didn't exe Devo C4 we weren't going to get another opportunity, and that ended up only being wrong because TUA didn't kill at the very end. And I also really wanted to see her role card to see how much more powerful a Kandra could be what abilities she could have - I'm not going to claim that I was thinking TUA was a Convert, because I wasn't really, but I wanted to know.

I do think being aware of the possibility of that threat would be good to know - I can almost imagine this game as having Calamity in the Elim Doc, Elims thinking they're an ally, when really they're a true SK, but that goes a bit puppetteery(?) for my liking. But I'm not entirely sure how that would work when there's secret SK type roles. Either you've got a really hedgy GM PM, or you reveal too much, or you just lie. Which while being a viable option and being sometimes understandable for balance reasons, doesn't leave a happy impression when secrets are revealed TJ... /s

... TJ may have lied about what my role could do  all for good reason, all in good fun, and using it as a roleclaim clear button was a nice trick.

 

But yeah. Being Neutral Killing is always fun to play but hard to win. What needs to change about that - whether winning above Village/Elim, some level of undetecatbility... hard to say. Might be something to test in some Break Tanks. 

[Experience]

Had a really fun time playing @|TJ|!

I was going to protect myself on the turn that I died, but completely forgot to do so until after rolloever, which for some reason wasn't allowed. :P.

I should have just stayed with my gut on stick after all the weirdness of my protection hitting them, oh well.

Sorry Araris for tunneling on you xD.

That's all I think. 

Exp out.

[Stick.]

25 minutes ago, Experience said:

I was going to protect myself on the turn that I died, but completely forgot to do so until after rolloever, which for some reason wasn't allowed. :P.

FYI Your protection wouldn't have done anything against the Annihilation kill  

[Experience]

3 minutes ago, _Stick_ said:

FYI Your protection wouldn't have done anything against the Annihilation kill  

...oh xD

[Steeldancer]

Ahem ahem

@Devotary of Spontaneity

As the only other member of this esteemed club, I would like to welcome you to the "people who pulled off an SK win" club. 

It brings me great joy to see serial killers win. They're the best, and always have the odds stacked against them. I applaud your achievement. May your murderous tendencies bear fruit again in the future. 

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Congratulations to Calamity for winning, and thank you to TJ for running the game!

As always, if anyone would like to try their hand at running a game, please get ahold of Wilson, Devotary of Spontaneity, Elbereth, Araris Valerian, Elandera, or StrikerEZ, or post in the GM Signups & Discussion Thread. Not only will we get you added to the list, but we'd also be more than willing to help out in any way we can. 

You can also ask questions and get some hints and feedback from everyone in our Art of Game Creation thread. With all the games that we've run so far, we have plenty of experienced GMs that can help you refine any game you're thinking about. If you would rather keep some detail secret, or are self-conscious about posting in thread (there's really no need to be; while we do slaughter each other, we are very polite about it), then I'm sure one of our fantastic committee members (Amanuensis, STINK, Sart, Fifth Scholar, Straw, Archer, and Kasimir) would be more than willing to help you out in private.

Thanks again to everyone that played, and we look forward to killing seeing you in future games!