The Art of Game Creation

[phattemer]

Is there a place to sign up to GM a game or a place where it is explained more?

[little wilson she/her]

You can do it here or you can PM me, Gamma, or Meta. All we need to know is which format you'd like to sign up for and we'll get you on the list (GM lists located here).

[phattemer]

How about the next available long game?

[little wilson she/her]

How about the next available long game?

 

I'll get you on the Long Game list.

 

Wilson, while I was reading the lists, I saw that it said that I was still playing the Roshar long game. I changed my mind, I'm doing a Scadrial one I made a few pages back. Could someone fix that, please?

 

Done.

[Metacognition he/him]

How about the next available long game?

 

That's not how it works, Phatt. The GMs create their own games (thus the entire point of this thread), so you couldn't just GM someone else's game without their permission. Feel free to PM either Wilson, Gamma or myself and we'll help walk you through the process and we'll be able to answer any additional questions you have. There's a lot that goes into GMing one of these games, which is why we're all so thankful to those that have decided to GM a game, so it's understandable if you have questions. 

[little wilson she/her]

I think he was referring to being put on the list for the next opening (as in, after Winter, so 10th in line, currently) in the Long Games, but I could be wrong....

Edited April 16, 2015 by little wilson

[Herowannabe he/him]

While we're on the subject, it would be good I think to just have a place to mark down who is dead (or even a general 'status')? Perhaps in the slot under the vote which has 'action' currently in it?

I don't know how other GM's handle it, but for me personally when a player gets killed I select his whole row in the spreadsheet, change the background color to gray, then move it to the bottom of the spreadsheet.

Edit:

That's not how it works, Phatt. The GMs create their own games (thus the entire point of this thread), so you couldn't just GM someone else's game without their permission. Feel free to PM either Wilson, Gamma or myself and we'll help walk you through the process and we'll be able to answer any additional questions you have. There's a lot that goes into GMing one of these games, which is why we're all so thankful to those that have decided to GM a game, so it's understandable if you have questions.

All of that being said, I for one would be honored if someone else wanted to GM a game using a ruleset or idea that I came up with- even if they tweaked it and modified it and made it their own. I'm sure most of the other game creators would feel the same way. If there is a set of rules you want to use, just PM the creator and ask them.

Edit2:

@Moderators: also, while you are at it, would someone please go to my Elantris Game in the first post and update the link to the recent ruleset? (oops, it looks like someone already did. Thanks.) Also, the game description ought to be changed. Wilson's Kingkiller game rightly deserves the "Most complex game ever" title now.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Herowannabe

[little wilson she/her]

Edit2:

@Moderators: also, while you are at it, would someone please go to my Elantris Game in the first post and update the link to the recent ruleset? (oops, it looks like someone already did. Thanks.) Also, the game description ought to be changed. Wilson's Kingkiller game rightly deserves the "Most complex game ever" title now.

 

I updated the link the very day you posted that. And the game description is staying. Mostly because I still have no idea how to sum up your game and all the mechanics.

[Herowannabe he/him]

I updated the link the very day you posted that. And the game description is staying. Mostly because I still have no idea how to sum up your game and all the mechanics.

"3 factions, lots of vote manipulation, and discoverable secrets hidden within the ruined city of Elantris!"

[Metacognition he/him]

"3 factions, lots of vote manipulation, and discoverable secrets hidden within the ruined city of Elantris!"

 

Considering votes are still the most reliable way to find the Evil Faction, I'd say it still counts.  

 

You've added an entire additional level to the voting and that's not counting all the other shenanigans that could go on! Still counts in my book!

 

The one thing I'd like to say, though, is that's not a contest. Just being complex does not make for a good game. No offense Joe, I'm just using it as an example, but your last game (LG10) was crazy complex. So much so that no one caught the imbalances due to the complexity. I still love what you came up with and would still love to see a tweaked version of it. It was still an incredibly fun game and will, rightfully so, be a solid foundation for people to build of off!  

 

Point is, complexity does not necessarily make a great game. Balance does. Quick Fixes, which are limited by how much they can do, wouldn't be as popular as they are if that wasn't the case. 

 

So, to future and present GMs, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. We already have a lot of great roles and structures in place. It's all in how you use them that can make a game great. Feel free to switch things up! 

 

Want to run a game where 90% of the players are Lurchers and Coinshots? Go for it! Want to create a Roshar game without Shardbearers? Awesome! 

 

Just keep in mind the balance to make it a fair game for everyone and I can almost guarantee you that your players will have fun!

[Herowannabe he/him]

Considering votes are still the most reliable way to find the Evil Faction, I'd say it still counts.

You've added an entire additional level to the voting and that's not counting all the other shenanigans that could go on! Still counts in my book!

Oh I'm not saying my game isn't complex, I just don't think it rightfully deserves the title of "most complex" anymore.

Thanks for your advice. I'll definitely remember that when distributing roles.

[little wilson she/her]

Oh I'm not saying my game isn't complex, I just don't think it rightfully deserves the title of "most complex" anymore.

 

Oh, fine. I caved. You get your wish. *le sigh*

[Herowannabe he/him]

Oh, fine. I caved. You get your wish. *le sigh*

Thank you!

[Wyrmhero he/him]

Nah. Maybe we should make a new category for ridiculously complex games?  

 

I did once think about making an 'Epic' Game, but that was Epic in length of time (over many months), not complexity

[Metacognition he/him]

Point is, complexity does not necessarily make a great game. Balance does.

 

I don't know how to make it clearer. 

 

Look, if you can balance a game that requires a quarter of a year or more to play and has a hundred different working parts and can keep people excited for that long, I'd be the first to applaud you on making an astounding game! And, we, the Mods, would work like crazy to make it work because something like that would be literally epic!

 

Key word there being "balanced."

 

We shouldn't even potentially, maybe, scare off people who might want to try their hand at GMing, but they don't because they think they need to go bigger or go home. That's the atmosphere of one-up-man-ship that seems to be in focus right now, IMO.

 

We should be encouraging people to be creative within the systems we've already built and to expand on the worlds Sanderson has created for us. There is still so much to explore! 

Like Hero said: 

All of that being said, I for one would be honored if someone else wanted to GM a game using a ruleset or idea that I came up with- even if they tweaked it and modified it and made it their own. I'm sure most of the other game creators would feel the same way. If there is a set of rules you want to use, just PM the creator and ask them.

 

This isn't a contest. 

 

This isn't about who can make the biggest and most complex and longest game ever. We have MRs and QFs that still get talked about to this day and those games are designed to be less complex! 

 

This is about making games that everyone can enjoy. That's why we share our ideas. So that other people can catch issues of imbalance and together create a better game. 

 

I suggest we stop worrying about labels and complexity and what not and get back to what this thread is for: 

To help GMs balance and create games that are balanced and entertaining for all those involved. 

[Herowannabe he/him]

For those paying attention, I tweaked a few things in my Elantris rules- namely, I changed the Seons so that they are a little easier for both the players and GMs to manage and keep track of. Also, I added a new item, because I felt like we needed more than two types of items in the game. All changes are noted in red. You can see the changes in this post here.

[Gamma Fiend he/him]

So it looks like Winter Cloud's MR Game will be up next after the conclusion of Wyrm's QF! Figured I'd help bump it real quick, remind people and let them know what's coming up!

Game looks pretty solid, yay for multi-factional politics and backstabbing! Will there be any Vanilla players in the game? Or would any player that's not an Allomancer be one of the extra roles, just so they have a chance to get up and save Atium as well?

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

Good Luck Winter! Which game is it?

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

A Venture In Atium

It is the 9th Century of the Lord Ruler’s reign. The House Venture has sprung to success in the last couple of years and every one of the other Great Houses are eager to get in on the secret of Venture’s riches. Many minor houses also wish to gain an alliance with the new Great House, flocking to Keep Venture for the time of their lives…

 

The Great Houses have disguised themselves among the minor houses pandering to the Lord Venture and Lady Venture in hopes of figuring out the secrets of Venture… and bring it tumbling down. Luck happened to be in favor of House Venture as they discovered the plot. The minor houses offered to discover who the Great House spies were in exchange for being brought into Venture itself.

 

24 hour cycle. See Tin under Roles for PM rules. Every other player may choose to write an anonymous message to be revealed in the writeup. The next cycle, the players who did not write a message before take a turn to. Eliminators get a doc to conspire in.

Will every message written for the writeup be revealed? Only a certain amount? Are there any limits to what the message can contain (Images, links, quotes)? What do you mean the players who do not write a message get to take a turn to?

 

 

Order of Actions

. . . Umm . . . Where is it?

And how many actions can a person take in a single cycle?

 

Roles

Mistborn- A Mistborn may burn one of any of the metals below. They must chose one metal per turn and cannot use the same metal two times in a row.

 

Steel- A Coinshot/Mistborn may burn steel to kill a different player. If that player coincidentally is also a Coinshot/Mistborn and targets you for death as well, neither player dies.

 

Iron- A Lurcher or Mistborn may burn iron to save a different player from death. If that player is a Coinshot/Mistborn and targets someone for death, the kill is cancelled as well as the Coinshot/Mistborn being saved. Is only a nighttime ability and cannot save from lynch. You cannot Lurch yourself.

Just to be clear, the person you are targeting cannot kill, or be killed? What if multiple Coinshots target them for death?

 

Pewter- Your pewter enhanced muscles prevent you from dying from the first time you would die. This is the only role that will let you live through a lynch. This effect can only be used during night for a Mistborn.

So there's no way for a mistborn to survive a lynch?

 

Tin- If the tineye is alive, any allomancer can request that a message be given to another player through the GM. If the Tineye/Mistborn burning tin who is given that particular message decides to let it through, the GM tells the player what it is. However, the Tineye/Mistborn burning tin may opt to modify the message slightly.

Only an allomancer? Well then, Day One: "Everyone send me a message, if you don't you're either the Skaa or the Kandra." Too easy to determine who the Skaa are that way.

 

Bronze- You may burn bronze to discover another player’s role. It only shows if they are an allomancer and which metal they’re burning. The same result will show up if they’re being Smoked or if they simply not an allomancer.

What If I'm an allomancer, but aren't burning a metal?

 

Copper- You may hide yours and anyone else’s allomancy.

 

Zinc- You may change one person’s vote, deleting your own.

Can you change a no-vote? Can you make someone vote for them selves? What happens if two rioters target the same person? A soother and a rioter? What if a rioter moves your vote, is it still canceled?

 

Brass- You may delete one person’s vote.

 

Atium- May only be burned by a Mistborn. Will let you survive all attacks on a night cycle.  

 

Special Roles (may be included or not)

Kandra- You may decide to eat a person who dies the cycle before. You are not told which options you will have. You will be told any messages the tineye has allowed them and then discovered. Whoever owns your Contract  will be told whatever info you gain. You start as the Venture’s contract. If the Venture is killed, your Contract will be given to the person with the highest amount of atium. You will be told the owner of your Contract. They will be told what information you get but not you. You can survive one kill, including the lynch. Your alignment is the same as the owner of your Contract at the end of the game.

​Does the Kandra know it's alignment after changing masters?

 

Venture- You are a member of the House Venture and have the force of the Great House on your side. You start with two atium and the Contract to the kandra.

 

Skaa- You don’t like any of these nobles! You just want to kill as many of them as you can before you’re discovered and lynched. You may kill once each night and you have the ability to escape from one kill except the Inquisitor’s. You may not use atium in any way. Victory Condition: Kill all nobles.

Can the Skaa kill the Inquisitor?

 

Inquisitor- You don’t really care about any of the petty noble problems. Your only issue is the Skaa. You may kill once each night. Victory Condition: Kill the skaa.

Does anything happen if the Inquisitor kills a Noble?

 

 

Atium

Atium is a valuable resource. Many will kill for it. During a night cycle, a player with a role may give up the option to use their action (and disable an extra life) in exchange for x pieces of atium. Or, in the day cycle, the option to vote. Each cycle, x amount of atium is available. Atium may be used to:

Does X mean there will be a set amount decided at the beginning of  each cycle? Or They can ask for as many as they want?

 

Burn, for a Mistborn.

 

Bribe someone to change their vote (the other player will receive one atium)

Depending on how much Atium is available each day, this might be too cheap.

 

 

Bribe someone to not take an action (the other player will receive two atium. Does not affect vanillas, with or without items)

 

Buy an item

 

Give to someone else

Do you have to give all your atium? Or can you choose how much to give?

 

X amount of items will be up for purchase for x amount of atium in day cycles. See Items for more details.

Items

Dueling Cane (1 atium) - Will kill one player before shattering.

 

Poison (1 atium) - May be used to poison one player. They will die when you die.

Can I keep buying poison and poison multiple people?

 

 

Marriage Contract (3 atium) - Join two Minor Houses together and turn them into one secondary goal wise. (see Houses) Will not effect a Great House Spy’s victory condition, they will simply be added into the Google Doc. The Minor House who offered the contract’s House Doc will be the newly joined one. The Great House Spies may not purchase a Marriage Contract but it may be used on them.

 

Extra Metal Vials (4 atium) - Mistborn may burn the same metal twice in a row, but only twice.

Can you buy and use an Item in the same cycle? If you're killed, are your items and Atium given to your killer? Can you buy multiple items in the same cycle?

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

In most of the games on Sanderson elimination, Inactive players are either killed or ignored, but both mess up the balance of gameplay, as usually one of the teams gets an advantage over the other.

 

But what if instead the gamemaster strips the inactive player of their role and alignment, and gives it to a player in the spec doc? That way the balance is maintained and late players can join in.

 

This would of course require the Game master to not give the spec players any additional Information, and probably make them delete the spec doc itself when the new player joins, but it could work.

 

What do you guys all think?

Edited April 24, 2015 by The Only Joe

[Wyrmhero he/him]

In most of the games on Sanderson elimination, Inactive players are either killed or ignored, but both mess up the balance of gameplay, as usually one of the teams gets an advantage over the other.

 

But what if instead the gamemaster strips the inactive player of their role and alignment, and gives it to a player in the spec doc? That way the balance is maintained and late players can join in.

 

This would of course require the Game master to not give the spec players any additional Information, and probably make them delete the spec doc itself when the new player joins, but it could work.

 

What do you guys all think?

 

As I've said on the Dead Doc, I think this could work. The deletion of the spec doc is a little inelegant though. It could perhaps be done more smoothly if you asked players who are spectating to sign in on the doc using emails, and then boot them off if they get chosen? But then not everyone wants to give out their email for that sort of thing.

 

The main question here though other than that is how to define an inactive. Different GMs have different ideas of what makes a GM, and it is very different depending on the game size. It is certainly worth a trial run though, in my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Wyrmhero

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

My definition of Inactive is failure to post in either the main thread of a PM in at least 2 full day/night cycles. Other GM's could define it differently.

[little wilson she/her]

I'd say an inactive would be someone who's not posting or PMing for 2 full cycles, as well as not using their powers either. Because some people feign inactivity. This would actually be a nice way to tell players who aren't sure if someone's feigning that they actually are.

 

I'd probably add onto the whole taking-someone-from-the-spec doc idea that it work some thing similar to LG11 with the mistwraith list. So if someone doesn't want any chance of joining the game, they won't be suddenly chosen, but others who aren't certain can sign up and be chosen. That way, you could have a sort of honor system thing going where if someone in the spec doc figures out a bunch of roles because of people they're in non-game PMs with, they can take themselves off the list so as not to give one side an unfair advantage.

 

And as for the people in the spec doc. Wyrm mentioned the emails. That'd be the best way to do it. And if someone doesn't want to give out their personal email, you can easily create a side account with your user name. That's what a lot of people did for MR1, when we required emails.

 

I think this is a good idea, and it should definitely be tested. If someone hasn't done it before my MR comes up, I'll use it. I'll probably use it anyway (unless it fails terribly).

[little wilson she/her]

So I've thought more about the idea of having spectators take over for inactives. I'm not so sure it'll actually work. Here's why:

 

Fair Play. We have rules in place about players not in the game talking strategy and other stuff with players actually in the game. The spec doc gets into strategy and suspicions and stuff. If a spectator then joins the game, even if their access to the spec doc is cut off, they've still seen what's been said, and some of that could change the outcome of the game.

 

For example, in Quick Fix 6, let's say that Wyrm hadn't confirmed the lawmen guesses. I pegged Clanky and Fel fairly early on, and my evidence against them was pretty good (particularly against Clanky). No one in the game saw the comments that I'd seen them make (or at least, they didn't pick them apart like I did). If someone in the spec doc had taken over for one of the inactives, they probably would've mentioned the things I'd said, and depending on the reaction of the active scoundrels, that could've ended with Clanky and Fel getting lynched and that would've completely changed the outcome of the game. Because of one spectator who didn't even join the game.

 

Now, I don't even really know Clanky and Fel's playstyles, so that was just mere guesswork for me. But there are players who are rather familiar with other players because of how often they've played together. Players like Wyrm and Kas, Maill and Joe, etc. Players who can make a very educated guess about what alignment the other is because of that familiarity. Any spectator added to the game after that would have more reason to go after that player based on those comments.

 

 

This isn't to say that I think this is a terrible idea. I like the idea of finding some way of replacing the inactives, since the GM balances the role/faction distribution based on the number of players who have signed up and and that balance can get seriously tweaked when a couple of those players go inactive (particularly since those inactives are most often villagers). It gets even worse when those inactives have important roles. Inactives happen. That's just a fact of the game. Most of the quicker games have a built in mechanic to take care of the inactives, but the longer games lack that, and I've never been a fan of the killing roles killing off the inactives. I know other players like that idea, using the idea that it gives the eliminators less places to hide, but for every example they can give of an eliminator hiding among the inactives, I can give at least 10 more examples of the inactives being villagers per one of the "inactive" being an eliminator. Hence, I think finding something to replace the inactives in the longer games would be good, if only to keep the balance the GM used, but I don't think taking from the spec doc is it.

[Kasimir he/him]

Hmm. For fanwork exchanges, I'm given to understand there's normally a cadre of pinch-hitters: people who aren't immediately keen on signing up, or missed the deadline, but have no issues with signing up to 'pinch-hit' so if someone drops out or goes inactive, they fill in the hole.

 

What if we did something like that instead? So they don't go into the actual gameplay list, but they sign up as pinch-hitters, and because of that, don't sign up for the spec doc? [One of the groups I'm thinking of who might be interested in pinch-hitting are people who want a break but don't mind filling in for a short while in mid-game or so, or in the same light--some of the occasional people who miss a deadline but would like to play anyway.] Perhaps it wouldn't be a very long list. But it might be worth a shot.