Kasimir he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 Oh yeah, anyone who wants to @ me about not accepting that I or Araris could just simply change my wincon - that's not the point. The point is that two factions are completely fed out the gate and telling me I chose not to defect doesn't change that this is a fundamental structural problem and I'm not in the mood to hear it. You're also implying that if neither of us happened to be CE, we'd be thoroughly screwed, and that'd be a problem too. I GMed MR7 and MR7 wasn't structurally broken (though the Bribe mechanic did cause issues.) The biggest core problem with MR7 was that it completely failed to look at player incentives and player motivations and the logical result of that was that players ganged up on the Elims out the gate and without a kill, and with zero player incentive to break that coalition, the Elims couldn't do anything and just died cycle after cycle without the ability to retaliate or change the gamestate. Nothing about my game said that had to happen. But it turned out the distribution of player incentives and motivations meant that was what happened. Meant that I was signing in as a GM to watch some of the calmest, trolliest, and most even-tempered of my players snap and start yelling in the GM PM. And that's how I knew my game was utterly, f-ing broken and a complete shabla clusterchull. Anyway. Ball's in your court, Doves. I'm not gonna get mad because I get rage headaches when I get really mad and Wyrm @s me enough about living off painkillers.
Archer he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 21 minutes ago, Kasimir said: You killed Fifth. We're basically going to kill you, end of. There's a powerful bias towards an Infil-Rev-Neutrals alliance baked into the fing DNA of this game. I get the sense that you’re taking out your frustrations about the game structure on players who are trying to be successful by working towards their win conditions. In the midst of that, you’re glossing over how important identifying and killing/protecting Royals is. They’re likely concentrated among the neutral factions who have little incentive to make themselves vulnerable by revealing their Royal teammates. Ta da, intrigue. By introducing personal goals, you’re changing the nature of the game. Choosing not to use the Cowardly Elite option is a good example of that. Wasn’t it Steeldancer who expected players to change alignment as part of their Singer game? Maybe he expected you to take the out that was offered when faced with these apparently insurmountable odds. You won’t know unless you give the game a chance to run as the GM intended. Maybe it is broken, but we’ll have more fun trying to find out than we would giving up on it mid-game. You could have just said hey, a Hawk-Dove alliance makes sense, lets join forces. Making people feel guilty for playing the hand they've been dealt kills the mood real fast. At the very least, kindly direct your frustrations towards the GM and not the other players. It's unreasonable to ask others to intentionally play sub-optimally to 'salvage' a game while this degree of uncertainty remains in play.
Mat he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 44 minutes ago, Kasimir said: You killed Fifth. We're basically going to kill you, end of. Or: You’re an Infiltrator, an elim, and that’s why he’s going to kill you. In this case it lines up with wincons but I legitimately worry about what would happen if it didn’t. Exercise caution when your primary motive is revenge. Probably won’t vote this round.
Kasimir he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Archer said: I get the sense that you’re taking out your frustrations about the game structure on players who are trying to be successful by working towards their win conditions. In the midst of that, you’re glossing over how important identifying and killing/protecting Royals is. They’re likely concentrated among the neutral factions who have little incentive to make themselves vulnerable by revealing their Royal teammates. Ta da, intrigue. By introducing personal goals, you’re changing the nature of the game. Choosing not to use the Cowardly Elite option is a good example of that. Wasn’t it Steeldancer who expected players to change alignment as part of their Singer game? Maybe he expected you to take the out that was offered when faced with these apparently insurmountable odds. You won’t know unless you give the game a chance to run as the GM intended. Maybe it is broken, but we’ll have more fun trying to find out than we would giving up on it mid-game. You could have just said hey, a Hawk-Dove alliance makes sense, lets join forces. Making people feel guilty for playing the hand they've been dealt kills the mood real fast. At the very least, kindly direct your frustrations towards the GM and not the other players. It's unreasonable to ask others to intentionally play sub-optimally to 'salvage' a game while this degree of uncertainty remains in play. I'm not asking anyone to play sub-optimally. I think you guys do what makes sense to you, and I know you're very much an optimal player person. I'm pointing out to the Doves that this is absolutely their best shot at winning and this cycle will make or break them. I will also point out that you're not addressing the issue. I've told you as much in my PM: I'm happy to accept a personal loss as a result of choosing not to defect. This doesn't change the fact that: There is no incentive to go Hawk-Dove, barring an existential threat. There is no reason not to go Elim-Rev-Neutrals - the wincons don't collide since no Neutral cares about outnumbering. Total lynch control guarantees this. Happy if you can show me that your 'ta da, intrigue' is actually true. Your post reads of "Well, you chose to play suboptimally therefore this is deserved." I'm not going to engage with this since I think it's utterly disingenuous not to notice where the motivations are structurally baked. No one said anything about giving up in mid-game. You think it's fun logging in cycle after cycle to die to lynch control you can't fight? Because that's the only result for the Doves if they don't currently have the numbers. TUN has already made the 'Doves delenda est' agenda very clear. That's not giving up, that's acknowledging what the structure of the game is like. 7 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said: Or: You’re an Infiltrator, an elim, and that’s why he’s going to kill you. Funny that Araris is on board with me and that TUN isn't denying being an Elim eh? But I'm not really in this to convince you, just the Doves. Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying 'show me this is true' by defecting. You have your own wincon to think about. I'm saying show me this is true that any rational and reasonable player given the wincon, distribution of incentives, and the structure of this game, has a reason to care about Royals in their ranks to the extent this is a dealbreaker. The incompatibility just doesn't compare. Edited July 11, 2022 by Kasimir
The Unknown Medallion he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 One, I don't have precedent, because there's never been a chance for me to have precedent. The Elims absolutely must help the neutrals win, because once the Royalists are dead, we can only lose to one thing. The neutrals turning on us. So we have to keep them happy. The Royalists have no such need. Once the Revos and us are dead, the Royalist Hawks will have already fulfilled their wincon, since a Dove will likely end up dying in the near future. So it's in their best interests to end the game. It’s in ours to keep it going. Take this as you will. In the end it's your choice, and nothing I say will change your mind.
Young Bard he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kasimir said: Oh yeah, anyone who wants to @ me about not accepting that I or Araris could just simply change my wincon - that's not the point. The point is that two factions are completely fed out the gate and telling me I chose not to defect doesn't change that this is a fundamental structural problem and I'm not in the mood to hear it. You're also implying that if neither of us happened to be CE, we'd be thoroughly screwed, and that'd be a problem too. I GMed MR7 and MR7 wasn't structurally broken (though the Bribe mechanic did cause issues.) The biggest core problem with MR7 was that it completely failed to look at player incentives and player motivations and the logical result of that was that players ganged up on the Elims out the gate and without a kill, and with zero player incentive to break that coalition, the Elims couldn't do anything and just died cycle after cycle without the ability to retaliate or change the gamestate. Nothing about my game said that had to happen. But it turned out the distribution of player incentives and motivations meant that was what happened. Meant that I was signing in as a GM to watch some of the calmest, trolliest, and most even-tempered of my players snap and start yelling in the GM PM. And that's how I knew my game was utterly, f-ing broken and a complete shabla clusterchull. Anyway. Ball's in your court, Doves. I'm not gonna get mad because I get rage headaches when I get really mad and Wyrm @s me enough about living off painkillers. To follow up on broken games, I GM'ed LG27, which I absolutely would classify as structurally broken. You had one faction that was effectively seperate from what every other group was doing, you had random effects which made planning and strategy virtually impossible to accomplish, once a faction lost a couple members there was very little way for them to make a comeback (and yes, it was a faction game, surprise, surprise), and you had a whole bunch of mechanics got in the way of what the core of the game was meant to be (and which I actually still think has some merit to it, if the scars ever heal enough for me to try something like that again). Luckat, a veteran player at that time, quit after that game, which made me feel terrible, and I didn't GM another game for... probably close to 2 years. It's the only game I can ever think of that got cut off early simply because it was an unfun, broken mess that no-one was actually enjoying. The GM committee was set up shortly afterwards to try and prevent a trainwreck that bad from ever occurring that again. It happens. I don't have anything against Steel or Devo for running a broken game, and I suspect Kas doesn't either, just that he's probably in a better position than most to understand and empathise with how that sucks and makes an unfun experience. To Steel and Devo, I'm aware it probably sucks to be reading some of this right now, and I'm sorry for that. Luckily, this isn't the first game you've GM'ed for either of you - you know you can run good games that people enjoy, and I fully trust you can again. In fact, much like LG27, I see the seeds of a good idea in this game, that unfortunately don't seem to have materialised. TUN. If TUN lives, then it's a boring game, that will ultimately be unsatisfying for everyone involved - the losers feel like they couldn't have done anything differently, and the winners don't feel satisfied that their victory was earned. In effect, everybody loses, regardless of who - technically - wins. If TUN dies this cycle, this still has the potential to be an interesting game. You have the Dove/Hawk coalition vs Revs/Infils, with the Neutrals holding the balance of power. We've played that formula a bunch of times before, and it works, and it's why, after all this time, I'm still playing SE. I told Kas in PM's that I was going to stay out of what was going down in thread, and at the time I said that, I genuinely wasn't sure if that was the case, because I was still thinking from the perspective of the game and how to maximise the winning chances for my faction as a neutral. But the more I've thought about Kas's words, the more I'm reminded of LG27, and the less interested I am in playing for strict strategic advantage. Edited July 11, 2022 by Young Bard I apparently left a sentence half-finished, because I can't read
Kasimir he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 Just now, Young Bard said: TUN. If TUN lives, then it's a boring game, that will ultimately be unsatisfying for everyone involved - the losers feel like they couldn't have done anything differently, and the victors don't feel satisfied that . In effect, everybody loses, regardless of who - technically - wins. If TUN dies this cycle, this still has the potential to be an interesting game. You have the Dove/Hawk coalition vs Revs/Infils, with the Neutrals holding the balance of power. We've played that formula a bunch of times before, and it works, and it's why, after all this time, I'm still playing SE. Please don't. Your faction has nothing to gain, and I'm only interested in convincing the Doves. I'm not down for validating Archer's thoughts on 'guilting' players into going with the Hawk-Dove coalition, and if Archer wants the game to go that way, he can have it. Please stay out of this.
Young Bard he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 Just now, Kasimir said: Please don't. Your faction has nothing to gain, and I'm only interested in convincing the Doves. I'm not down for validating Archer's thoughts on 'guilting' players into going with the Hawk-Dove coalition, and if Archer wants the game to go that way, he can have it. Please stay out of this. ...That was poor phrasing on my part. I'm not trying to guilt anyone. I'm simply trying to clearly explain my thought process in why I came to the decision I did. Other players are free to make any decision they like.
Steeldancer he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Author Posted July 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Kasimir said: The balance of this game is utterly fed and I'm not sorry to say that openly to Devo or to Steel. Alright I, being me, am going to jump in to the fray because I'm not some aloof GM who loves his game being broken. Especially my first faction game, which I knew had a lot of moving parts and whatnot. So the fundamental problem here is that while the Revolutionaries and Infiltrators have a reason to collaborate, the Doves and Hawks don't, giving them greater vote advantage and reason for the neutrals, who I designed to be a swing group, to side with them. No other issues? Pretty much everything else is working out as intended so far, which I'm good with, other than maybe a heavier than intended reliance on PMs, but given the nature of the game I'm ok with that. However, I made that interaction mostly by accident, and when asked about it, didn't necessarily think about the consequences of that choice. In other words, I am willing to make a slight change to the win condition of either the Revolutionaries or Infiltrators to make them unable to win with each other, putting them on equal footing with the Royalists. That's what I'm reading to be the main issue right now, and I don't feel it would affect the game immediately too much besides making it a more healthy game to play, since technically the game can't be ended yet anyway. I would ask for Devotary's input on this as well. When originally set up this way, the idea was that the win condition for both to win together was so complex I didn't think it was really feasible without some form of betrayal, but... yeah clearly that's not working. And it's only D2. Would it be ok for me to make this change? Would this create the game environment for this LG to be played to completion?
The Unknown Medallion he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Steeldancer said: Alright I, being me, am going to jump in to the fray because I'm not some aloof GM who loves his game being broken. Especially my first faction game, which I knew had a lot of moving parts and whatnot. So the fundamental problem here is that while the Revolutionaries and Infiltrators have a reason to collaborate, the Doves and Hawks don't, giving them greater vote advantage and reason for the neutrals, who I designed to be a swing group, to side with them. No other issues? Pretty much everything else is working out as intended so far, which I'm good with, other than maybe a heavier than intended reliance on PMs, but given the nature of the game I'm ok with that. However, I made that interaction mostly by accident, and when asked about it, didn't necessarily think about the consequences of that choice. In other words, I am willing to make a slight change to the win condition of either the Revolutionaries or Infiltrators to make them unable to win with each other, putting them on equal footing with the Royalists. That's what I'm reading to be the main issue right now, and I don't feel it would affect the game immediately too much besides making it a more healthy game to play, since technically the game can't be ended yet anyway. I would ask for Devotary's input on this as well. When originally set up this way, the idea was that the win condition for both to win together was so complex I didn't think it was really feasible without some form of betrayal, but... yeah clearly that's not working. And it's only D2. Would it be ok for me to make this change? Would this create the game environment for this LG to be played to completion? It could work out better, but it leads to pretty much all of the elims dying I think. Not for this game, but in the future have the Infils be a joinable faction with an outnumber absolutely everything might work better in the future.
Ashbringer he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 3 hours ago, The Unknown Novel said: We invite everyone to make the most mutually beneficial kill choice today, which is killing Ashbringer the Dove Hmmm… tempting offer. I would like some more time to try DbD out. The Unknown Novel
Steeldancer he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Author Posted July 11, 2022 1 minute ago, The Unknown Novel said: It could work out better, but it leads to pretty much all of the elims dying I think. Not for this game, but in the future have the Infils be a joinable faction with an outnumber absolutely everything might work better in the future. Possibly. The fact of the matter is the infiltrators still have a night kill, while the other factions only get an exe, which needs to be negotiated between factions. But yeah, it will certainly reduce the Infiltrators chances of winning, especially given what's already happened so far in the game. That's why I gave this some thought before proposing it. The only problem from my perspective on making the Infiltrators joinable was that I added them as one of two elements of "You cannot absolutely trust your faction," the other being the cowardly elite, which has heavy costs on using the ability, as designed. So making them joinable would have taken away that element of the gameplay I was looking for. I wouldn't necessarily say that hasn't worked here either? There are also abilities that have not been discovered yet that can further swing the game, but... I'll let those be discovered later on.
Araris Valerian he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 21 minutes ago, Steeldancer said: Would it be ok for me to make this change? Would this create the game environment for this LG to be played to completion? I think, as Archer pointed out, there is still enough unknown information in this game for it to play out as-is. I'm sort of assuming that TUN/the Infiltrators don't actually know all the Neutral win conditions, or who all of the Royals are. I'd pretty strongly lean against changing win conditions at this point in the game. On a somewhat related note, none of the role/faction claims that have been made this cycle are confirmed by the GM. That means that Kas and I could be lying about TUN being an Infiltrator, TUN could be lying about Kas and I being Cowardly Elites, Kas and/or I could have lied to TUN about being Cowardly Elites, and there are probably some other potential lies that could float out there. So it's a little arrogant of anyone to assume that there are optimal actions for people to take, or that the game is essentially solved. My main stake in this is that I was enjoying my doc with Kas and Fifth, and I don't really like someone from a hostile faction dictating to me how I should use my role if I want to be able to win. I can solve both of those issues (well, the former might be a bit of a lost cause), while playing toward my current win condition, by voting out TUN.
Steeldancer he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Author Posted July 11, 2022 1 minute ago, Araris Valerian said: I think, as Archer pointed out, there is still enough unknown information in this game for it to play out as-is. I'm sort of assuming that TUN/the Infiltrators don't actually know all the Neutral win conditions, or who all of the Royals are. I'd pretty strongly lean against changing win conditions at this point in the game. On a somewhat related note, none of the role/faction claims that have been made this cycle are confirmed by the GM. That means that Kas and I could be lying about TUN being an Infiltrator, TUN could be lying about Kas and I being Cowardly Elites, Kas and/or I could have lied to TUN about being Cowardly Elites, and there are probably some other potential lies that could float out there. So it's a little arrogant of anyone to assume that there are optimal actions for people to take, or that the game is essentially solved. My main stake in this is that I was enjoying my doc with Kas and Fifth, and I don't really like someone from a hostile faction dictating to me how I should use my role if I want to be able to win. I can solve both of those issues (well, the former might be a bit of a lost cause), while playing toward my current win condition, by voting out TUN. While I agree with this, I also feel that, now that I'm looking at it a bit closer, having the infiltrators and revolutionaries able to win together and the Doves and Hawks not kind of betrays what I was going for in the game. I was counting on the element of betrayal to be the balancing factor there, and perhaps counting on play styles for balance isn't the best idea. Making things more even between the Primary factions is... well honestly what I should have gone for from the start. For reference, I'm thinking just adding a clause that says "including the infiltrators" to the current Revolutionaries win condition. That will allow short term stuff to continue as currently going, without making things set in stone as to an "optimized" game, at any point. I'd rather nip this in the bud now than have the problem get worse and have this game be unfun for any players, as that is my personal priority. I don't forsee this changing anything currently going on in thread, for instance.
Araris Valerian he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Steeldancer said: While I agree with this, I also feel that, now that I'm looking at it a bit closer, having the infiltrators and revolutionaries able to win together and the Doves and Hawks not kind of betrays what I was going for in the game. I was counting on the element of betrayal to be the balancing factor there, and perhaps counting on play styles for balance isn't the best idea. Making things more even between the Primary factions is... well honestly what I should have gone for from the start. For reference, I'm thinking just adding a clause that says "including the infiltrators" to the current Revolutionaries win condition. That will allow short term stuff to continue as currently going, without making things set in stone as to an "optimized" game, at any point. I'd rather nip this in the bud now than have the problem get worse and have this game be unfun for any players, as that is my personal priority. I don't forsee this changing anything currently going on in thread, for instance. I guess Devotary should be the main person making this call then. Most of the issues that I can see with making this change revolve around what TUN and/or the other Infiltrators might have done differently given an inability to permanently work with the Revolutionaries, but the details there probably shouldn't be discussed in the thread. I'm happy to play out the game either way, but to elaborate on what I said above, if you have an imbalanced game, and the only fix imbalances in favor of a different team, then it's most fair to leave things as they are. Edited July 12, 2022 by Araris Valerian 1
Clanky he/him Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 TUN Voting for self proclaimed eliminators always seems like a safe bet to me. This kind of bandwagon doesn't really give much new information but this game doesn't really seem like we are learning stuff in the thread based off voting patterns. Instead people are just straight up telling everything about themselves
The Unknown Medallion he/him Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 19 minutes ago, Clanky said: TUN Voting for self proclaimed eliminators always seems like a safe bet to me. This kind of bandwagon doesn't really give much new information but this game doesn't really seem like we are learning stuff in the thread based off voting patterns. Instead people are just straight up telling everything about themselves Well, unless you're a Dove, this is probably the least optimal play, so it isn't really a safe bet.
Steeldancer he/him Posted July 12, 2022 Author Posted July 12, 2022 Devotary made a call, and for now we're going to hold off on any rule changes unless we deem it necessary. Which is fine with me. Carry on with your scheduled murdering. 1
Luckspren she/her Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 On 7/11/2022 at 2:19 PM, Kasimir said: TUN approached us and asked us to jump ship and lynch @Luckspren. Guess they've changed their target right now. We said no because we have principles and we're not going to 'win' over getting rid of the d-n Infil who killed our Royal. TUN. Kas might be lying, but since the stories all line up to get TUN killed, I doubt it. TUN (8): Kas, Araris, Bard, Ash, Clanky, Sart, Stick, Luck
JNV Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 Hi Im here one for the breath chance two for the public infiltrator so The Unknown Novel have fun with that now RP cause Ive kinda just forgotten to Kalomi offered their voice in a gesture of useless agreement, only further ensuring an already foregone conclusion out of greed and selfishness. They did not regret it. It was the best and only way to attain their goals, though in a small, pitiful part of their mind, they do wish everyone could have won together.
Steeldancer he/him Posted July 12, 2022 Author Posted July 12, 2022 I'm gonna go see Thor with my family tonight, and since things seem set in stone here, I'm gonna end the turn early. I'm gonna end in like an hour, if that's all right with all of you. The night turn will then be a bit longer to end at the normal time.
The Unknown Medallion he/him Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 Quick! Enact Plan Changeover Alpha!
Recommended Posts