The Art of Game Creation

[Jondesu he/him]

Hey, look, it's another game idea from the noob! Yes, I'll probably try my hand at running a game sometime soon, though my mind and calendar will both have to cooperate.

This may have been done before, in some form, so I wanted to get feedback if it has, or thoughts if it hasn't. Basically, it's a faction game, but with a possibly overpowered faction that I'm not sure wouldn't be a game breaker. 

I'm thinking of a game set in The Reckoners universe, with Epics, Reckoners, and regulars. The Epics would be few, probably 1-3 depending on the size of the game, and would be publicly identified by name and primary power (they might have a secondary power that's unrevealed). They would be immune from attacks by the regulars, and would have a public kill maybe not every cycle, but several times within the game (executions or random violence, as befits the Epics).  They win by finding and destroying the Reckoners, but they must have an equal number of townspeople left for them to dominate at the end of the game (so if there's 2 Epics still alive, they don't win unless there's also at least 2 regulars).

The rebel faction would be the Reckoners, who are given information they can use to eliminate the Epics, but must acquire either items or some other requirement (this I haven't nailed down inside my mind) in order to actually take them out. They win if all the Epics are killed.

Regulars win if the Reckoners win, but have no particular abilities. They may have items that the Reckoners will need, however, so will need to secretly find and coordinate with them.

Looking over this now, I can see a lot of holes where things wouldn't work (what would the townspeople do, during either a day or night cycle, and if the Epics are all publicly known, what's to stop everyone else from just PM'ing all together to coordinate?), but perhaps it can be turned into a workable concept.

Oh, and @Elbereth, on the spoiler policy, is everything good once something's been out 6 months, or is there more we follow? The site rules overall differentiate between the Cosmere Theories (where anything goes) and the individual series forums, so I'm guessing it's more like the former, with spoiler tags needed within 6 months (and games run around that type of information would just be impractical or impossible if so), but I wanted to check.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Jondesu

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

hmm. Would there be lynches in this game? As far as I can tell, you basically have a lynch accessible by only the epics, and actions accessible only by the reckoners. A very boring game for the regulars.

I think a better way to do it would be to have reckoners and epics both hidden, both with a group kill, and have all the regulars be neutral, but still have roles.

[Elbereth she/her]

14 minutes ago, Jondesu said:

Hey, look, it's another game idea from the noob! Yes, I'll probably try my hand at running a game sometime soon, though my mind and calendar will both have to cooperate.

This may have been done before, in some form, so I wanted to get feedback if it has, or thoughts if it hasn't. Basically, it's a faction game, but with a possibly overpowered faction that I'm not sure wouldn't be a game breaker. 

I'm thinking of a game set in The Reckoners universe, with Epics, Reckoners, and regulars. The Epics would be few, probably 1-3 depending on the size of the game, and would be publicly identified by name and primary power (they might have a secondary power that's unrevealed). They would be immune from attacks by the regulars, and would have a public kill maybe not every cycle, but several times within the game (executions or random violence, as befits the Epics).  They win by finding and destroying the Reckoners, but they must have an equal number of townspeople left for them to dominate at the end of the game (so if there's 2 Epics still alive, they don't win unless there's also at least 2 regulars).

The rebel faction would be the Reckoners, who are given information they can use to eliminate the Epics, but must acquire either items or some other requirement (this I haven't nailed down inside my mind) in order to actually take them out. They win if all the Epics are killed.

Regulars win if the Reckoners win, but have no particular abilities. They may have items that the Reckoners will need, however, so will need to secretly find and coordinate with them.

Looking over this now, I can see a lot of holes where things wouldn't work (what would the townspeople do, during either a day or night cycle, and if the Epics are all publicly known, what's to stop everyone else from just PM'ing all together to coordinate?), but perhaps it can be turned into a workable concept.

Oh, and @Elbereth, on the spoiler policy, is everything good once something's been out 6 months, or is there more we follow? The site rules overall differentiate between the Cosmere Theories (where anything goes) and the individual series forums, so I'm guessing it's more like the former, with spoiler tags needed within 6 months (and games run around that type of information would just be impractical or impossible if so), but I wanted to check.

Why are you asking me in particular?  SE follows the overall site rules, which I believe means 6 months. And that does sound like a cool game, but I agree with Joe that it'll need some modification. The regulars need something to do. Even if it's only the lynch. Or give them a different goal. Something they can work towards, anyway. 

I presume the Reckoners would be a hidden faction then? 

[Jondesu he/him]

18 minutes ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

hmm. Would there be lynches in this game? As far as I can tell, you basically have a lynch accessible by only the epics, and actions accessible only by the reckoners. A very boring game for the regulars.

I think a better way to do it would be to have reckoners and epics both hidden, both with a group kill, and have all the regulars be neutral, but still have roles.

Yeah, that would make it more playable, but I was hoping to somehow keep the Epics in character (arrogant, public, etc). Perhaps that just won't really work out for an SE game, but I'm hoping I can figure out a way.

9 minutes ago, Elbereth said:

Why are you asking me in particular?  SE follows the overall site rules, which I believe means 6 months. And that does sound like a cool game, but I agree with Joe that it'll need some modification. The regulars need something to do. Even if it's only the lynch. Or give them a different goal. Something they can work towards, anyway. 

I presume the Reckoners would be a hidden faction then? 

I asked you about the spoiler rules because you mentioned them in your last post to me here. Figured you must know at least the basics of the rules.

And yeah, the Reckoners would have to be a hidden faction.

Maybe the Epics shouldn't be players, but the mod or NPC's basically, and the Regulars would need to try to weed out the Reckoners or else incite the wrath of the Epics in some way. That way the Reckoners could be a hidden faction trying to protect themselves and accomplish a goal, but that goal wouldn't necessarily entail killing off all the regulars. 

[Jondesu he/him]

EDIT: Sorry, really didn't realize this was a double post.  Admins, feel free to combine it if that's best.

Alright, want to get some thoughts on combining some of the mechanisms I talked about so far.

How about a Reckoners setting with Regulars and Reckoners (no Epics, at least not exactly), set in Newcago or a similar city ruled by a powerful Epic with underlings.  This Epic has ordered his subjects to rid him of the nuisance that is the Reckoners, and therefore they must imprison one or more people each day or suffer his wrath.  Any cycles in which at least one person is not jailed, a player will be randomly killed (could be Reckoner or Regular).  Those who are imprisoned are not out of the game immediately, but lose the ability to use any abilities they may have (with possible exceptions depending on the roles in play).  The Reckoners can win by finding and exploiting the Epic's weakness, done by collecting items.  Each cycle, they'll have the option of receiving one of ~15-20 items, or instead receiving a clue about the nature of the Epic's weakness or about his/her past.  They will need to use two of those items in tandem to kill the Epic, so they will also need two members to survive in order to win. EDIT: That means that once they have at least two items, they can select two of their items to try together against the Epic, in addition to other actions that night.  If they pick the right two, they win.  They can go randomly, but there will be enough items to discourage that approach.  The Regulars win if the Reckoners win, but they lose if the Reckoners neither win nor are imprisoned before the Regulars are all killed or imprisoned themselves.

To foil the Reckoners (and keep the town from just openly coordinating with them), the Epics will have a few Minions out amongst the town, who will be aiming both to identify and get rid of the Reckoners, and to steal the items they need.  Each round, they'll have the chance to take one of the same items the Reckoners would access, or to follow one of the other players.  When they follow a player, they get to find out what they did that night (haven't decided what level of detail would be appropriate).  If they determine that person is a Reckoner, they can then turn them in to the Epics during the next day's turn, but if that person turns out not to be a Reckoner, the Epics will kill the Minion in retaliation.  That discourages them from simply trying to turn over random people until they find the Reckoners.

There would likely be at least a few special roles.  For instance, I could include Gifters, who could be working for any of the teams, and can grant abilities to other people for one cycle at a time (that person would be told what their new ability is, but not who granted it, to keep the Gifters safer from discovery).  If they are attacked, however, they could change sides and become a minor Epic Minion, and their powers would be granted to all the Minions instead.

The Reckoners and Minions would both be secret factions.  The Reckoners would have a doc or shared PM so they know who the others are, but the Minions would not (I think).  Jailed players can still talk via PM, but not in the thread (as if people are visiting them in prison).

I don't think that has any hugely broken mechanics, and it's a nice different style from a typical game (particularly since the Reckoners faction can cause the Regulars to also win with them, and doesn't have to eliminate them).  Anyone want to point out the glaring flaws I probably missed, though?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Jondesu

[Elbereth she/her]

Ooh. I like this variation considerably more than the last. Assortment of questions, at random as I try to get it sorted in my head - 

1. Would PMs be completely open, then? 
2. Do the items do anything else other than helping against the Epic? 
3. The Regulars are a lot better than before. I still worry that they'd be somewhat bored because they're not trying to find eliminators? They're trying to find Minions, who aren't even relevant to them. 
4. Can the Regulars win if they imprison all the Reckoners? Or do they have to win with the Reckoners? 
5. Can the Jailed talk to each other? Would they have a doc in which to do so? (that thought is prompted by QF14, which had a similar if-you're-lynched-you're-jailed mechanic). 
6. Is alignment revealed upon being jailed? 
7. Can anyone other than the Reckoners use the items? 

The only other thought I have right now - though not a question - is that this is going to be very... GM-heavy? Like, the idea of "hints" to the Epic's backstory, and a random assortment of items and such. You'll have to be very careful about how that part is designed, and as it's secret it's not exactly something anyone but your mod (and your co-GM ) can help with. That said, it can totally be done well. As a whole, I really like this game idea. The win cons interact in a really fun way, and I can't wait to see it run.  

[Jondesu he/him]

@Elbereth

1. Would PMs be completely open, then? 
   1. Pretty much
2. Do the items do anything else other than helping against the Epic? 
   1. Some would, most likely (hadn't actually considered that part much yet, thanks).
3. The Regulars are a lot better than before. I still worry that they'd be somewhat bored because they're not trying to find eliminators? They're trying to find Minions, who aren't even relevant to them. 
4. Can the Regulars win if they imprison all the Reckoners? Or do they have to win with the Reckoners? 
   1. These go together.  The Regulars win if they imprison all the Reckoners (who would then be publicly executed by the Epic).
5. Can the Jailed talk to each other? Would they have a doc in which to do so? (that thought is prompted by QF14, which had a similar if-you're-lynched-you're-jailed mechanic). 
   1. Jailed can talk to each other, sure, but only via PM, no doc (a doc would open up the ability for newly jailed people to see previous messages, which I wouldn't want).
6. Is alignment revealed upon being jailed? 
   1. Yes, though perhaps with some special exceptions for some roles. I was originally thinking no, but there's actually no reason not to, except maybe the Minions.  Getting rid of the Minions doesn't win the game for the Regulars, so perhaps letting their identity be kept secret when they're jailed would make sense.
7. Can anyone other than the Reckoners use the items? 
   1. The items needed to kill the Epic would only be available to the Reckoners.  There may be additional roles or "items" separate from those which the regulars or minions would have access to, however.  I would figure out a way to distinguish those clearly (though it wouldn't matter to non-Reckoners).

It indeed would be GM-heavy in a way, with hints and the items keyed into that.  I would make sure I had that all planned out well in advance so I'm not thinking of it during the game, though.  Thanks for your input, glad it looks like a fun game to you!  If you don't end up co-GMing for some reason, I hope you play it instead! 

[Elbereth she/her]

3/4. Excellent. That wasn't quite clear, but I like that much better than the alternative. So the Regulars can either win with the Reckoners or can find and jail them all. 
Actually. That does bring up a point - you've balanced against the Reckoners revealing to the thread and avoiding being jailed. What's to stop the Minions from doing something similar? Revealing and coordinating with the townspeople to help? Obviously, this isn't as much of an issue as the other way around, but it is something to watch for. (Naturally, the Reckoners even having the potential of having a kill - which might be a public role or something - would solve everything quite neatly. Just something that I thought was worth pointing out.)

6. Alright, that's probably fine. I'll have to think about it for a while, because having living confirmed-alignment players is generally quite tricky. In this case since it's a faction game, though, I don't think it'd be problematic. (The only strategy I could come up with using that mechanic in the ten seconds or so I spent thinking about it is a Regular is lynched and confirmed to be Regular, then the Reckoners PM that person and reveal their identities, and then the Regular can decide who gets lynched as a result, so the Minions can't interfere with that and they don't have much guess as to who the Reckoners are. Of course, that strategy would never stand in an actual game. Dictatorships like that are horrible, and everyone knows it. But it's theoretically possible.)

Um - how would you not reveal the Minions but reveal the alignment of everyone else?...

Alright, great. Other than that it looks wonderful, I think. I... had another question. Unrelated to the above points. I'm not sure what it was, though, so I might as well post now.  I'll remember eventually. 

[Jondesu he/him]

I've wavered on revealing roles of jailed players. It could be depressing to put people in jail but have no clue if you're getting close to winning, or it might keep the game from breaking. Perhaps it would be best to keep jailed players roles secret.

Having a way to get rid of a Minion would be good for the Reckoners. Perhaps instead of gaining an item, they could get a kill (they wouldn't have reason to use that often, since killing Regulars doesn't help them, but it would keep the Minions from wanting to reveal themselves).

[Elbereth she/her]

Ooh. Interesting. Or just give them a group kill from the beginning. Well. Hm. They don't have incentive to kill Regulars, no, but they're also not particularly punished for doing so, I don't think. So they would probably use it every cycle. Thus making the Regulars more likely to ally with the Epics... perhaps best not to just straight up give them a group kill, then. But it does need to be possible for them to have, at least. That's all that's needed.  

And as I said, not sure on alignment here either. Reveals can be fine, but can also be very problematic. 

Hm, corollary - are alignments revealed upon death? 

[Jondesu he/him]

Yeah, making them not able to both kill and receive an item in the same cycle would discourage them from killing very often, since they can't win if they don't get the items. 

As for alignment, I would almost certainly reveal that on death, but I'm back to leaning towards not revealing it for jailed players. Edit: I also think there will be a mechanism for releasing people from the jail, either via a role, or if the Regulars vote on that instead of a lynch (so a reverse lynch, I suppose).

Edited November 21, 2016 by Jondesu

[Elbereth she/her]

Yep. Makes sense. Although - is this a group action or individual? That is, can every Reckoner send in an action to get an item and/or a kill? Or just the group as a whole?

Right. If there's a mechanism for releasing people, then yeah, I'd definitely say no alignment reveal. As for that mechanism... multiple, somewhat contradictory questions. 

1. If it is a lynch, would it have to be instead of the lynch, or concurrent? 
2. Also if it's a lynch - you realize the Regulars would probably just jail and then unjail people? So as to try to avoid their win con?
3. Again, if lynch - if they rescue someone from the jail but don't jail anyone (either because they can't because they're mutually exclusive actions or because they just fail to), will someone still die from the Epic?
4. If it's a role - what would happen there if it's an every-cycle kind of role would be that they'd just rescue the people who got jailed, every cycle, again to help the Regulars. (Unless that role isn't a Regular, of course. Even so, Minions and Reckoners probably won't care about jailed being rescued anyway. Only argument there is that then they have other abilities they might want to be able to use.) So that's kind of problematic as well. 

[Jondesu he/him]

The Reckoners would be using group actions for both acquiring items and sending in a kill (so only one item received, or one person killed, per cycle, and not both). 

Definitely won't reveal roles if I include a releasing mechanism. It would be instead of the lynch if the Regulars do it, but there would have to be something to prevent them from breaking the game with that, yeah. Hadn't decided if the Epic would kill if they only release someone, but probably. I guess that tends back towards a role, but it'd need to be one time use or in some other way limited.

[Haelbarde he/him]

@luckat I was going to respond to this post in the LG27 thread, but here is probably the best place to put it. 

I think you'll be missed if you were to stop playing completely. And I think that to fix the problems you talked about, we need GM's who try and address those issues in the game they play, and we need players dedicated to actually playing the games properly. But I totally agree with what you were saying. It's why I've opted to run 2 games with basic rules now, and why I imposed an inactivity filter last game. (This game I've just put a warning. I don't know if that's what scared people off, or if it's the fact that the LG just started). 

But I do think we need to work out how to deal with inactives. Providing motivation is obviously the ideal, but I think inactivity should at least be specifically addressed in any games that a run - a GM should have some strategy to deal with it, whether reserving pinch hitters, implementing an inactivity filter, or something else. Or there be a way of restricting players who habitually go inactive from playing some games, or something.

Re: Complex games. I'm not sure about the best way to deal with that is. They can in theory be done well, but historically have tended to be the more broken games. Possibly GM's should be restricted from running complex games until they've run a simpler game (standard elimination, with a few roles) first, before slowly moving into more complex things. I also think that GM's have to pay more attention to what SE is about at its core - it's about deception and perception, trying to catch the hidden eliminators. As games get more complex, that focus seems to drift, and the problem with role madness is that everyone has something that they can do which could help them win, without posting in thread. Which ends up with nothing happening in thread, and then people going inactive because all they've ever done is role stuff, and when they can't do anything useful, they don't know what to do. I don't know. I feel like maybe the mods should moderate what sort of games are played, like make sure that there aren't too many crazy complex games at the same time, that there are always more standard games, or something.

Edit:

While I think of it, a relevant idea would be that of 'breaktank' games - 3-4 day games with 24 hour cycles, designed to run complex games through their motions so that problems can be found in an environment where it doesn't matter.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Haelbarde

[Kasimir he/him]

On ‎21‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 0:15 PM, Haelbarde said:

@luckat I was going to respond to this post in the LG27 thread, but here is probably the best place to put it. 

I think you'll be missed if you were to stop playing completely. And I think that to fix the problems you talked about, we need GM's who try and address those issues in the game they play, and we need players dedicated to actually playing the games properly. But I totally agree with what you were saying. It's why I've opted to run 2 games with basic rules now, and why I imposed an inactivity filter last game. (This game I've just put a warning. I don't know if that's what scared people off, or if it's the fact that the LG just started). 

But I do think we need to work out how to deal with inactives. Providing motivation is obviously the ideal, but I think inactivity should at least be specifically addressed in any games that a run - a GM should have some strategy to deal with it, whether reserving pinch hitters, implementing an inactivity filter, or something else. Or there be a way of restricting players who habitually go inactive from playing some games, or something.

Re: Complex games. I'm not sure about the best way to deal with that is. They can in theory be done well, but historically have tended to be the more broken games. Possibly GM's should be restricted from running complex games until they've run a simpler game (standard elimination, with a few roles) first, before slowly moving into more complex things. I also think that GM's have to pay more attention to what SE is about at its core - it's about deception and perception, trying to catch the hidden eliminators. As games get more complex, that focus seems to drift, and the problem with role madness is that everyone has something that they can do which could help them win, without posting in thread. Which ends up with nothing happening in thread, and then people going inactive because all they've ever done is role stuff, and when they can't do anything useful, they don't know what to do. I don't know. I feel like maybe the mods should moderate what sort of games are played, like make sure that there aren't too many crazy complex games at the same time, that there are always more standard games, or something.

Edit:

While I think of it, a relevant idea would be that of 'breaktank' games - 3-4 day games with 24 hour cycles, designed to run complex games through their motions so that problems can be found in an environment where it doesn't matter.

1. I don't know if this is quite the place for this either, but we did speak of this privately, and I thought it was well-worth adding the same clarifications we mentioned. I left this community some time ago, so obviously my comments are a little dated, but perhaps it also gives me a bit of perspective, since I'm a stranger returning to somewhere foreign. It's well-worth distinguishing between several types of phenomena that we lump under inactivity:

-Unexpected inactives: People who have, for unexpected RL reasons, gone inactive. Maybe their Internet went down for a week. Maybe they got into an accident. Etcetera. We can't do anything about those sorts of inactives, and as you pointed out, these cases tend to be more rare. As far as I can tell, everyone's on board with this kind of inactivity. If it happens, ouch. Life's like that.

-Habitual inactives: People who sign up for a game, and for whatever reason, effectively log out of the game and just forget about it. They never post, and they never send in any actions. Sometimes, they do this halfway through a game. We've speculated about the reasons for habitual inactivity: overestimating RL commitments, forgeting about the game, getting bored because you're a Regular... Either way, we agree it seems to be a pretty complex phenomenon, and I'm hardly going to offer a dissection of it here. These seem to be the people we're primarily concerned with. (I should note that this also matches up with the people luckat was referring to.)

-Lurkers: People who sign up, but just lurk in the background. Perhaps sometimes they do send in orders. They just don't say very much in thread. Ironically, while I think from a GMing perspective, these kinds of inactives don't really cause problems (especially if they send in orders), they do get targeted a lot by others. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. I recall Meta once mentioning he felt lurking was a valid playstyle. (Probably a bit boring for Team Evil, but eh.) Still: from a Village perspective, it makes sense to discourage this, because you need information. But then, it boils down to a collective-individual clash. Either way, I distinguish these people from habitual inactives because it seems to me that poke-voting doesn't do anything about habitual inactives. If they forget about the game, then maybe poke-votes remind them. But maybe not. Maybe PM reminders do. But poke votes seem to be more effective against lurkers, or people who are at least partly invested in the game. And that's the point of my distinction: I think habitual inactivity appears more to a GM, while lurking appears more to players. I would honestly say that if someone is obviously lurking, i.e. reading the threads and just not posting (or not sending in orders, although that bit stretches plausibility a bit), as a GM, I'm not inclined to think that's a problem. The point of creating games is to allow people to engage with them in their own way. As a player though? I can see why that would worry me.

-Low-activity players: People who, for one reason or another, don't like to say very much in-thread and spend more time plotting or following the game and making sense of things. Occasionally they swoop up like a bat out of hell and suddenly deliver amazing analyses. Other times, they stay low-activity throughout the game, sometimes for RL reasons. Sometimes, they drop in occasional RP. This is a playstyle choice. Once again, from a GMing perspective, this is not a problem. As a GM, I'm not inclined to discourage this behaviour. As a player, I can see why this would worry me--again, because discussion and information.

The points I am trying to make are as follows. Inactivity appears differently as a problem for a GM as opposed to for a player. On the player side, there are variants of inactivity that end up being really problematic for the village, if not outright frustrating for their teammates. On the GM side, some kinds of inactivity are really not problematic. And others, we try to counter with compelling game design, or at least to mitigate with inactivity filters (which my experience with MR7 has, at least, led me to endorse. I think that's an interesting case because it was one where people were signing out midgame. I had extremely high activity near the beginning but as the game dragged out, people got bored, and I started haemorrhaging players.) I think some of the other cases become legitimate worries of individual playstyle versus communal norms. I don't think that's an easy issue to resolve :/ And finally, I think low-activity should not be conflated with any of the above cases, because while we could very well say it was a mistake--akrasia, weakness of will, etcetera--for players to sign up for a game they have little time for, I honestly think that's just being a bit excessive: it treats activity as a completely binary thing--all in or all out. You shouldn't need to be completely all over the board/thread to be 'active'. A more nuanced position to hold is to a basic minimum of activity, pegged to the kind of game. 1-2 quality posts, daily, for a QF is not optimal or ideal. But it's trying. [But we both already agreed on this; I just wanted to point out the distinction here.]

2. I honestly think 'breaktank' games are a really good idea. I think the problem with running simulations as a GM (I'm using MR7 once again because it's the only one I've had experience with, from the GMing end) is that there's a limit to what you can predict, in terms of how mechanics interact with each other, or in terms of what players will do. All the test cases I tried had a limitation, because it was a role madness game. And I don't think any amount of personal wargaming would have helped me realise that the game could be easily broken if everyone ganged up on Discovery and decided to go Mega-Faction. All the scenarios I had in mind simply assumed Faction feuding since the win con was that way. So I think it would have immensely helped my broken game if I had a chance to run it for 3-4 cycles with actual players, just to see what they'd do. The usual stuff about how things break unexpected in the real world, and so on. This especially goes for if you have lots of roles and mechanics and are just not sure of how they might interact.

[Amanuensis he/him]

@Jondesu, earlier today I randomly decided to start developing a Reckoners game, and it turned out to be very similar to yours, albeit unintentionally. El was actually the one who pointed it out. At first, I didn't want to have kills at all, and have it more of a race of wits / against time, but since people said that it wasn't an elimination game at that point, I had no choice but to add it. I ended up going with a "jailing" mechanic as well, because I personally am tired of the same old death mechanics, and have always been fond of medium-esque things. My interpretation of it was to make the game less role-based, however. I wanted the bulk of it to be people gathering clues and putting the pieces together. Here's the generic details I ended up whipping together:

 

Trouble in Trimountaine

Introduction

 

Before Calamity ascended and the United States was shattered from within, Trimountaine went by another name: Boston, Massachusetts. Not long after the federal and state governments fell, a powerful Epic known simply as The Governor took control, and has since ruled from the State House on Beacon Hill.

 

As was common in North America, a rival epic attempted to seize The Governor’s land out from under him, but the titanic man known as Black Hood stood no chance against The Governor’s overwhelming psionic abilities. Rather than kill Black Hood, The Governor offered the man a chance to live, but only if he served him absolutely. Reluctant to die, Black Good agreed, and the two have been inseparable ever since.

 

Not long after, a young, minor Epic who went by the alias Polygraph surfaced. For reasons unknown, The Governor took quick interest in the girl. Despite her age, she now rules the city alongside the two superior epics. Together, The Governor, Polygraph and Black Hood are known as the Triumvirate.

 

In Trimountaine, they are the Judge, the Jury, and the Executioner.

 

Overview

 

Trouble in Trimountaine is a Mid-Ranged Sanderson Elimination Game that takes place in the Reckonersverse. Recently, the Reckoners have inspired a group of Unhappy Citizens to begin making plans of overthrowing the Triumvirate. In response, the Triumvirate has ordered a few of their Loyal Minions to infiltrate the Citizen’s meetings, in order to sabotage their efforts and arrest their most dangerous members.

 

Every Cycle, each Citizens can “Investigate” one of the three Epics to discover a random “Tidbit” about them. It is then up to the Citizens to reveal the information they learn and collectively put the pieces together in order to figure out the Epic’s weaknesses. Once a Citizen is confident they have figured out an Epics weakness, they can attempt to “Assassinate” them. If the Citizen is wrong they will be killed in retaliation, but if they succeed, they will kill the Epic and gain an item based on one of their powers, to use for future investigations. In order for the Citizens to win, both The Governor and Black Hood must die. Polygraph is optional.

 

Because murder is forbidden in Trimountaine (for anybody but Black Hood), the Minions cannot kill the Citizens, nor can the Citizens kill the Minions. The Minions can, however, “Arrest” a single player every cycle. Although free players can personally message “Arrested” players, the “Arrested” are no longer allowed to “Investigate” or post in the thread. Every cycle, the free players can vote to “Arrest” another free player, although it will only succeed if 50% of the free players vote to “Arrest” the same player. The Minions win when they outnumber the Citizens.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Jondesu he/him]

That's a really cool concept, and yeah, it's similar while being different. We could probably get away with running those as separate games because of the few differences, but I'm definitely going to learn from some of your ideas when I get a chance to sit down and compare. 

[Amanuensis he/him]

Working on a Post-Words of Radiance Roshar game currently. Here's the general premise of the game (basically everything excluding the specific roles, which I'm still trying to work out and would appreciate help developing from anyone who is willing)

The Most Important Words

 

The Most Important Words is a Long Sanderson Elimination Game that takes place in Urithiru following the events of Words of Radiance. Upon bonding the Stormfather, Highprince Dalinar Kholin has started recruiting men and women from around Roshar to become full-fledged Knights Radiant. Under the tutelage of Kaladin Stormblessed and Shallan Davar, these brave people have sworn the First Ideal, allowing them breathe in Stormlight and begin attracting Spren of their own, hoping to amass enough power to save their world from the Final Desolation.

 

Despite these initiates noble intentions, Darkness has sent a group of apprentice “Skybreakers” to infiltrate the Honorbound to uncover their crimes, and execute them all in order to prevent the Final Desolation before it can truly begin.

 

Like most Long Games, each Part (Cycle) of The Most Important Words is split into two Chapters (Turns): a 48 hour Day and a 24 hour Night. Unlike most Long Games, there will be a 24 hour Interlude for the GMs to process the player’s actions and produce the subsequent write up. During Chapters and Interludes, players who are not dead or imprisoned can post in thread. In the Day only, players who are not dead or Imprisoned can vote to Interrogate another player and submit an order to develop a particular Attribute. In the Night only, all living players can exchange private messages with one another, while only those who are not Imprisoned can utilize a single ability (if applicable).

 

In this game, Interrogations replace the lynch. At the end of each Day, the player with the most votes will admit all crimes they have committed in their lifetime and be arrested promptly. In the case of ties, the player with the most recent vote will be the one interrogated. If the interrogated is Honorbound, they will be freed 2 Cycles later. If the interrogated is a Skybreaker, they will remain imprisoned for the rest of the game.

 

All players will begin the game having sworn the First Ideal, granting them the ability to breathe in Stormlight. By developing specific Attributes, players can attract partcular Spren to begin the Bonding process. By continuing to build up their desired Orders Attributes, their Bond strengthens and gives them access to new abilities. Only one Spren from each of the available Orders will exist in the game at a time. In the event that a player with a Spren dies, that Spren will go on to bond the next player most aligned to their Order.

 

Even without Spren, each Skybreaker can perform one of the two following actions: Investigate or Execute. In order to Execute an Honorbound, the Skybreakers must be aware of their past crimes. These can be discovered through Investigations or Interrogations. While Imprisoned, an Honorbound can be Executed by a single Skybreaker. Due to a free Honorbound being able to fend off a single attacker, two Skybreakers must attempt to Execute them simultaneously, or a single Skybreaker must attack them twice in a row, in order to succeed. Unlike the Honorbound, the Skybreakers will increase in power as their numbers dwindle, allowing their team to remain competitive if a few members are lost. In the event that a Skybreaker informs the GM that they will not be able to submit any orders during a night turn, a teammate will be allowed to direct their action for them. Each Radiant action needs Stormlight. Every second Day, a Highstorm will pass and Invest each player. These Investments do not stack.

In order to encourage activity and RP, players will earn an extra Attribute point if they participate in the thread 10 times during a Cycle. This includes any on-topic contribution that helps further the discussion. Roleplay of at least 100 words will count as two posts towards this.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

Hello, it's me again! Have yet another continuation of the Shard Games

 

 

Alignments:

The Zeroth Shard - The Zeroth Shard, Lead by Hoid, seek to rebuild the Lost God, Adonalsium.

Victory Conditions:

• Gibletish - Have Members of the Zeroth Shard hold all the Shards.

• You! -  Have the Zeroth Shard outnumber Surviving Players.

Group Powers:

• Novelty - Each Night, a Member of the Zeroth Shard may Attack a Player.

• Originality - Each Night, a Member of the shard may attempt to convert a Player to the Zeroth Shard. This will only work if the number of living and dead members of the Zeroth Shard is Below their starting Amount.

• Innovation - All Members of the Zeroth Shard start with access to the Zeroth Doc.

 

Voidbringers: - The VoidBringers, Servitors of Lord Odium, Seek to destroy the Shards of Adonalsium. (No Player starts as a Voidbringer. See Odium for more details)

Victory Condition:

• The Broken One Reigns - All Shards must be held by Voidbringers.

Group Powers:

• Bound by Hatred -  All Voidbringers gain Access to the Void Doc

 

Serial Killers: Alone, and Loving it. These men and women simply want to watch the World Burn. (No Players start as Serial Killers. See Ruin and <Redacted> for more Details)

Victory Conditions:

• Alone at the Top - Be the last player left alive.

Group Powers:

• My Enemy’s Enemy - All Serial Killers know the identity of all other Serial Killers.

• Democratic Darwinism - In addition to any other action they take, All Serial Killers may vote each night to attack one player. Whoever gets the most votes is attacked once.

 

Silverlight: The Shards and their Allies. All they want is peace,

Victory Conditions:

• Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) - Kill all non-Silverlight Players.

 

PM’s: See Cultivation

 

Shards:

Each shard has a Shardic Ability, a Sliver Ability, and a Conversion ability. The Shardic Ability may only be used by the current holder of the Shard. Each use of the Shardic Ability doubles the chance of Conversion.

The Sliver ability is gained by holding a Shard, and passing it on. (You may use a Shardic ability and pass the shard on the same turn)

The Conversion Effect is what happens if you hold a shard for too long. Each turn you hold the shard, there is a chance you will be shaped by that Shard’s intent. You can be shaped by multiple shards.

 

Odium:

• To Hate Another (Shardic): Each Night, you may attack one player
• To Inspire Hatred (Sliver): Each Day, you may move one player’s vote to a different player.
• To Be Hated (Conversion): Each Night you have a 15% chance of joining the Voidbringers faction.

Preservation

• For I must Save (Shardic): Each Night, you may save a player from an Attack.
• For I must Survive (Sliver): Each night, you may choose to protect yourself.
• For I must Scream (Conversion): Each Night, there is a 20% that you become immune to all actions, and lose all your abilities, including voting. You can only talk.

Ruin

• The End of a Life (Shardic): Each night, you may attack a player. But if you kill a player who shares your alignment, you will commit suicide the next night.
• The End of a Day (Sliver): Each night, you may stop one player from taking any actions.
• The End of an Era (Conversion): Each Night, there is a 10% Chance of your Alignment changing to Serial Killer.

Endowment

• Without Others, I Am Nothing (Shardic): Endowment has no Shardic ability.
• Without Power, I Am Worthless (Sliver): You permanently gain a Sliver power of your Choice.
• Without Responsibility, I Am Powerful (Conversion): Each Day, there is a 25% chance of you dying and Returning. Returned have a Passive Extra Life, and the Ability to detect the most recent Shard to grant a targeted player power.

Ambition

• I Must Become Strong (Shardic): Each Night, you can target a player, and steal their powers. They cannot use any powers they had, and must regain them as if they never had them.
• I Must Become Wise (Sliver): Each Night, you may target a player and see what Powers they currently have.
• I Must Become Alone (Conversion): Each Night, there is a 10% chance of your Alignment changing to Serial Killer.

Devotion

• Love Brings us Together (Shardic): Each Day, you make change a Target Player’s Alignment to Village
• Love Makes you Powerful (Sliver): Each Day, you may double a player’s Vote
• Love Makes you Weak (Conversion): Each Day, there is a 25% chance of becoming unable to vote or use kill roles.

Dominion

• Serve Me (Shardic):Each Night, you may redirect a player’s action.
• Tell Me (Sliver): Each Night, you may learn what powers a player has.
• Fight Me (Conversion): Each Night, there is a 15% chance that you will begin to attract votes. Once Fight Me becomes Active, every player you use an action on will have a second vote applied to you each Day.

Honour

• Life Before Death (Shardic): Each Night, you may protect a Player from 1 attack.
• Strength Before Weakness (Sliver): Each Night, you make target a Player. All Attacks targeting them target you instead.
• Journey Before Destination (Conversion): Each Night, there will be a 30% of Journey Before Destination being Applied. Once it is Applied, you will commit suicide if you participate in the lynch of village player.

Cultivation

• Growing Connections (Shardic): You may Start PM Conversations. There are no limits to how many PM’s, or how Many Players. All PM Conversations must include at least one Sliver of Cultivation, or yourself. If there are no Living Slivers or Bearers of Cultivation in the PM, it shuts down.
• Maintaining Connections (Sliver): Continue PM Conversations.
• Prioritizing Connections (Conversion): Each Day, there is a 10% Chance of you losing the ability to talk in the thread. Exception, you make make a one word Post each Day in order to vote.

Autonomy

• Unresponsive (Shardic): Each Day, you may target a Player and remove them from all Docs and PM’s they are a part of. (Includes Docs and PM’s)
• Uncooperative (Sliver): Each Day, you may Target a player, and protect them from all roles Except Attack and Protect Roles for that Cycle..
• Unfeeling (Conversion):Each Day, there is a 15% of you completely losing your alignment. You cannot win unless you gain a new Alignment.

Edited March 27, 2017 by A Joe in the Bush
Spoilers policy

[Nyali she/her]

 

Whenever my QF or MR turn comes up, I think I'm going to run a simpler version of something I posted here before. I agree that we need some more standard-format games rather than making every game be a complex one.

The Conclave of Urithiru
 

Rules

 

 

 

This is a standard Radiants (town) versus Traitors (eliminators) game. The Radiants win if all Traitors are dead, and the Traitors win if they outnumber the Radiants.
 

Players vote on someone to lynch each cycle. For someone to be lynched, they need at least two votes. If there is a tie, all tied players with the most votes are killed.

On death, a player’s alignment (Radiant or Traitor) will be revealed, but not their role.
 

There are 11 potential power roles in the game. How many of these are assigned depends on the number of players. There will never be more than one of each power role. Those without roles are Squires who have no powers. One role is limited to Traitors only, but all of the other roles can be given to Radiants or Traitors. A couple roles differ in their power based on their alignment.
 

The Traitors will have a doc in which they can communicate. Each cycle, one Traitor may perform the Traitor Faction Kill. This player may not also use their role action if they have one.
 

The only PMs that are allowed are those created by the Bondsmith role action.
 

Any player who does not make a meaningful post related to the game in the main thread for two cycles in a row will be killed for inactivity. RP only counts if it is directly related to the game. “I’m here” posts do not count.

 

Roles

 

 

• Voidbringer (Traitor Only): May perform one of the following actions:

  • 1) Target a player and block their action. Unless they have a detection-type ability, they are not informed that they were blocked.
     

  • 2) Target a player, name their role, and choose a new target for their role if correct. If incorrect, nothing happens. The Voidbringer may not force someone to target themself. This can redirect someone who takes no action, forcing them to use their role on the specified target.
     

• Windrunner: Protect one player from a single kill action. Does not protect from the Lynch. You are not informed if you are successful or not, but if someone is attacked and does not die, it will be included in the writeup but the target will not be revealed. Cannot target self.
   

• Skybreaker:

  • If a Radiant, can perform a kill every cycle. The attack is included in the writeup, but not who performed it. If unsuccessful for any reason, the target will not be revealed.

  • If a Traitor, can jail one player each cycle. Jailed players are roleblocked and all actions taken against them fail. The failures are silent (those who are blocked are not told they were blocked), except in the case of detection roles.
     

• Releaser: Can target one player. If that player is killed by anything other than the lynch, execute a simultaneous kill against their killer. The target must actually die for this to work. Can target self. The kill is included in the writeup if executed, but if the attacker you attack is protected, their name will not be revealed.
   

• Lightweaver: Can target one player and discover the names of everyone who targets them. Can target self. Note that a Traitor Truthwatcher can foil this ability.
   

• Willshaper: Can target one player and discover the name of their target. Note that a Traitor Truthwatcher can foil this ability.
   

• Edgedancer: Can target one player. Silently negate one vote against that player. Can target self.
   

• Stoneward: Can target one player. Silently add one vote to that player. Can target self.
   

• Truthwatcher:

  • If a Radiant, detect one player’s alignment.

  • If a Traitor, hide one player’s action from action detection abilities (their name will not show up for Lightweavers or Willshapers). This does not hide roles and will not protect the Voidbringer against the Elsecaller’s action.
     

• Elsecaller: Detect one player’s role. You may only target living players.
   

• Bondsmith: As an action, can open one PM per cycle between any two players, one of whom could be themself. The first specified player will be considered the target if redirected by the Voidbringer. You may have any number of PMs open at a time, but may only open one per cycle. The PMs you open between other players do not go away if you die.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Nyali
Updated with Wilson's suggestions.

[little wilson she/her]

Two comments I want to make. One on safe roles and the other on village alignment detectors.

First, safe roles can be very dangerous. The few times they've shown up in these games, they've been abused about 90% of the time. It's not so bad when safe roles are really hard to verify, but when they're easy to verify (like, a kill ability particularly), it makes it a lot easier to break the game. Limited PMs, evil redirects, and action shields will mitigate it, but not as much as you might think. For example, what if a Skybreaker reveals in the thread? The unknown Windrunner then protects the Skybreaker, which means the Traitors can't kill the Skybreaker because they can't double tap, and they don't know who the Windrunner is, so they can't redirect them. The only way they'd even have a chance in that scenario is if they had both a Lightweaver and a Voidbringer, and both roles were alive and weren't suspicious (something that's really hard to guarantee, regardless of who has those roles).

But tt's generally inadvisable anyway to balance a team on a very specific role in order for the team to have a hope, because if something happens to that role (like inactivity or death), the rest of the team is left with nothing to do to save themselves. For example, one evil team I was on, our ability to win was almost purely based on one specific role, but that role died early. I also died early. Most of the rest of the team was inactive (and didn't have power roles anyway). The one active member of the team was an alignment scanner, which couldn't exactly do much. She gave it a good go, but the team was doomed when that one power role died. It just took a while for that death to be complete. A similar thing will happen to any team that's built around one role if that role dies early or is inactive.

Second, village alignment detectors are usually best when coupled with some sort of alignment shielding role, because a halfway decent alignment scanner can break a game if the team doesn't have anything to protect themselves from the scanner. And a redirect doesn't count as protecting, because that requires the redirect to know exactly who has the scanning ability rather than just protecting the members of their team. And the first is significantly harder to count on (and it also relies on the redirect being alive, active, and not tied up with fighting off a Mayor).

Add to that a village Elsecaller, with three roles in the game that, should the Elsecaller scan those roles, might as well make them an alignment scanner as well... Note that I don't think the Elsecaller is inherently a problem. It's just that the Elsecaller compounds the other problems. Remove the other problems, and the Elsecaller will be fine.

Outside of those issues, it looks great. But those could cause some problems with the way they interact with some of the other roles.

[Nyali she/her]

Thank you for the analysis!

There's no role reveal on death, only alignment. That means that a kill does not reveal information about what roles are left in the game.

If a Skybreaker reveals in the main thread, the Voidbringer can redirect the Skybreaker every turn, effectively gaining a second kill. That was meant to be a defense against role claims.

Do you think it would be better if I changed the Skybreaker to work like the Truthwatcher, meaning, if they are a Traitor, their power is different? I obviously can't give the elims a vig. I could remove the vig role from the game and replace it with a Jailer (roleblocks your target and everyone who targets them with an action that turn).

Also, not all roles will be in the game. Only a subset would be, depending on how many players sign up. What roles are in the game will not be publicly revealed, and that's reinforced by the no role reveal on death.

[little wilson she/her]

Ah. That will help too. Can the Elsecaller scan the dead?

And right. Voidbringer redirects Skybreaker to themselves and so long as the Traitor kill also hits the Skybreaker, it doesn't matter if the Windrunner protects. Skybreaker is still dead. And if the Windrunner reveals, their protect is gone. That could definitely work. Especially with not knowing which roles are dead or even in the game.

And I think the vig role is fine. Village kill works. Though it would be interesting if the Skybreaker worked like the Truthwatcher, with the village alignment being the vig and the eliminator alignment being the Jailor.

[Nyali she/her]

21 minutes ago, little wilson said:

Ah. That will help too. Can the Elsecaller scan the dead?

No. I should clarify that.

21 minutes ago, little wilson said:

And right. Voidbringer redirects Skybreaker to themselves and so long as the Traitor kill also hits the Skybreaker

You can't redirect to self, but as long as the Voidbringer is alive, they can use the Skybreaker to kill an extra villager every turn. Of course, if the Voidbringer dies and THEN the Skybreaker reveals, it could be a problem. If I made Traitor Skybreakers Jailers, then a Radiant Skybreaker can prove their role and alignment trivially. That's the biggest flaw that I see.

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

Master of the House

This is a Not-a-Faction-Game. This is also a Not-a-free-for-all-Game. This is a Classic Troll GM Joe Game. This will be run as a Medium Range Game with combined days and nights and a normal lynch.

In this game, everyone has the same win condition. Be the last member standing in your faction. The other factions are completely irrelevant. You just have to kill your team members, Except, due to the watchful eyes of the Steel inquisitors, you can't. But you can ask a friend to do it.

At the start of the game, everyone will be sorted into a noble house. No house will have more than 5 players or less than 4. No one will have a role, or an alignment. Everyone in a given house will have access to that house's Doc. In that Doc, each turn, the housemates must divy up 6 actions. Each player may only take one action per turn, in addition to voting. Housemates cannot use the kill action or the roleblock action on each other. If two housemates attempt to use the same action, both will fail, but both will be told they succeeded.

The Six Actions:
Mistborn: Attack a player.
Hazekillers: Protect a player from one attack.
Inquisitors: Block another player from taking an Action
Obligators: Move a player’s vote to someone else.
Skaa: Mining for Atium has a 1 in 3 chance of succeeding. See Atium Rules.
Spies: Listen in on all PM’s a Player was in.

Atium can be used for a few things. Mostly to modify other actions. To start, if you choose to use atium with an action, you cannot be roleblocked.
Atium Mistborn: You can attack the same target three times.
Atium Hazekillers: Your target is protected from Mistborn, Inquisitors, Obligators and Spies.
Atium Obligators: Your can remove all the votes on one player.
Atium Skaa: You have a 1 in 1 chance of finding Atium
Atium Spies: Listen in on all PM's, and their House Doc.
Kandra: If you can target a player with a Kandra the same turn they die, that play’s win goal changes to ensuring your survival. They win if you survive.