The Art of Game Creation

[Straw he/him]

15 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I wrote up a QF ruleset that I'm planning to run with the slot I just signed up for. Looking for feedback on the balancing of the key mechanic.

Rules doc link: QF##: Battle of Traitors

The whole no elim communication thing will be very rough, but I suppose you can balance around that. Just be very very careful when balancing. For the elim kill, to what degree do you intend to have the elims be going for ties as much as possible? Since I pretty much see the elim team just focusing on kill ties so they can get two kills per cycle. It seems a bit swingy to me since if they can figure out how to consistently get ties, they'd have a massive advantage compared to if they didn't figure it out.

[Mat he/him]

2 hours ago, Straw said:

The whole no elim communication thing will be very rough, but I suppose you can balance around that. Just be very very careful when balancing. For the elim kill, to what degree do you intend to have the elims be going for ties as much as possible? Since I pretty much see the elim team just focusing on kill ties so they can get two kills per cycle. It seems a bit swingy to me since if they can figure out how to consistently get ties, they'd have a massive advantage compared to if they didn't figure it out.

I wasn't intending them to go for ties, mainly because I don't see how they could without the village being able to catch on fairly easily. That was my way of buffing them, because the lack of communication weakens their team quite a bit. It's largely supposed to be luck. I'd also probably buff them a bit with roles, but you're right that I'd have to be pretty careful.

[Straw he/him]

42 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I wasn't intending them to go for ties, mainly because I don't see how they could without the village being able to catch on fairly easily. That was my way of buffing them, because the lack of communication weakens their team quite a bit. It's largely supposed to be luck. I'd also probably buff them a bit with roles, but you're right that I'd have to be pretty careful.

If you're not meaning for them to go for ties, then I'd advise just changing it to random on a tie. As it is it seems like it either just randomly gives them a buff, or they manage to get it working consistently and break the game. Maybe buff them with something that helps with their lack of information instead? For example, giving them the vote count from their kill votes would be a minor buff that could help them avoid not having any kill. Letting them know which roles the others have could also help them out a bit.

[Mat he/him]

1 hour ago, Straw said:

If you're not meaning for them to go for ties, then I'd advise just changing it to random on a tie. As it is it seems like it either just randomly gives them a buff, or they manage to get it working consistently and break the game. Maybe buff them with something that helps with their lack of information instead? For example, giving them the vote count from their kill votes would be a minor buff that could help them avoid not having any kill. Letting them know which roles the others have could also help them out a bit.

I was already planning on letting them know their teammates’ roles, but I guess I should clarify that in the rules. When would the vote count be given? The C1 count at the start of C2?

I’ll change the random thing too.

[Straw he/him]

26 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I was already planning on letting them know their teammates’ roles, but I guess I should clarify that in the rules. When would the vote count be given? The C1 count at the start of C2?

Yeah, the cycle after, just like the normal vote count (except not in the writeup). The intent is that elims can get some idea of who their teammates think is dangerous. It's not much of a boost to them, but it helps them a bit.

[Quintessential she/her]

I just put this together in the last hour or so: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RFGvMNhazbccEZJY-U5Y4egsCQw-Z8xhXVVR9n_G69A/edit?usp=sharing. Thoughts?

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

12 hours ago, Ashbringer said:

It's telling me "access denied"... I can't see the doc.

Sorry, I just fixed it. 

Now, Quin.

Is this the game you were talking about? It looks really cool. 

[Quintessential she/her]

10 minutes ago, The Unknown Order said:

Is this the game you were talking about? It looks really cool. 

Thank you  but it isn't exactly the game I was talking about. This is more "I want to do an LG1 rerun but also I don't want to do an LG1 rerun" XD I've been trying to figure out how to put together a Twinborn game with all the Allomantic and Feruchemic abilities, or a Mistborn game with all 16 metals, but it always just ends up really... messy. So I decided something like this would work better. 

[Illwei]

@Quintessential

Quote

 Instead, a random member of the team will be supplied with a vial of steel (by the team’s thieving crew benefactors) at the beginning of each cycle

I assume this was intentional, but this allows for kills to be stored up, right? My question here is about the OOO, and if the grinch comes before or after passing vials?

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, Illwei said:

I assume this was intentional, but this allows for kills to be stored up, right? My question here is about the OOO, and if the grinch comes before or after passing vials?

Yes, they can intentionally store up vials. However, I will probably make Iron quite common, so storing up the vials of steel instead of using them would come at the risk of them being stolen. 

Passing vials comes before the execution, I think. I haven't decided what will happen to vials held by a dead player. I might just say that the Ministry confiscates them. Or I could say the Ministry confiscates vials that executed players had but if a player is coinshotted, the vials go to the killer. Not sure yet.

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

19 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Thank you  but it isn't exactly the game I was talking about. This is more "I want to do an LG1 rerun but also I don't want to do an LG1 rerun" XD I've been trying to figure out how to put together a Twinborn game with all the Allomantic and Feruchemic abilities, or a Mistborn game with all 16 metals, but it always just ends up really... messy. So I decided something like this would work better. 

Do you want some help working on the game, because it sounds awesome and I could probably get a PM/doc set up to talk in.

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, The Unknown Order said:

Do you want some help working on the game, because it sounds awesome and I could probably get a PM/doc set up to talk in.

I think I might just set it on the back burner for now and come back to it once I've GMd a simpler game or two... for the moment I'm somewhat frustrated with it : P but I'll let you know if I need help once I start working on it again.

[Illwei]

6 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Yes, they can intentionally store up vials. However, I will probably make Iron quite common, so storing up the vials of steel instead of using them would come at the risk of them being stolen. 

Passing vials comes before the execution, I think. I haven't decided what will happen to vials held by a dead player. I might just say that the Ministry confiscates them. Or I could say the Ministry confiscates vials that executed players had but if a player is coinshotted, the vials go to the killer. Not sure yet.

Ok, my thought was- well not sure about iron playing in- but it feels potentially broken with passing coming before- could end up being able to keep all shots in cycle- like arson, but not having to worry about tagged people being killed because there are no tags

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, Illwei said:

Ok, my thought was- well not sure about iron playing in- but it feels potentially broken with passing coming before- could end up being able to keep all shots in cycle- like arson, but not having to worry about tagged people being killed because there are no tags

Ohhh okay that's a good point. I could make the execution happen before passing, I don't think that would break anything... I should probably write up a full order of actions at some point lol

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

12 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

I think I might just set it on the back burner for now and come back to it once I've GMd a simpler game or two... for the moment I'm somewhat frustrated with it : P but I'll let you know if I need help once I start working on it again.

Ok, thank you.

[+Lotus she/her]

Made some edits to my LG game idea

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RbmFDO9KFonreDcBV8vD3bTnhyfaC4o5EaW8iAk-LMo/edit?usp=sharing

Edited February 14, 2021 by Lotus

[The Unknown Medallion he/him]

So, what's everyone's opinions of a action based inactivity filter? Like, if you don't do an action every other cycle, you will be warned, if you don't do one for four consecutive cycles in a row, you will be replaced with a pinch-hitter, unless the inactivity is planned?

[Straw he/him]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Order said:

So, what's everyone's opinions of a action based inactivity filter? Like, if you don't do an action every other cycle, you will be warned, if you don't do one for four consecutive cycles in a row, you will be replaced with a pinch-hitter, unless the inactivity is planned?

Four consecutive cycles is far too long. If someone hasn't done anything for two cycles in a row then they deserve to be replaced.

I personally think an action based inactivity filter is worse than a post based one, since IMO thread participation is more important for fun. A game isn't interesting if someone can just put in actions and refuse to talk in the thread.

[Quintessential she/her]

7 hours ago, Straw said:

I personally think an action based inactivity filter is worse than a post based one, since IMO thread participation is more important for fun. A game isn't interesting if someone can just put in actions and refuse to talk in the thread.

In the aftermath of MR48, someone suggested having a vote-based inactivity filter? Which could obviously result in people just hopping on to randomly vote, but also elims probably aren't going to vote for their teammates unless they can be around to remove that vote later, so that does give us information. It's the idea that I've personally liked most of the ones suggested so far. 

It would need some tweaking, though, because some very active players don't like to vote in the first couple of cycles--so I guess the way it would work would be: either you must post at least x number of times (and the GM may choose to announce that they will not count posts that do nothing more than demonstrate existence) or you must have a vote in the final count. If you don't meet either of those criteria for two consecutive cycles then you're replaced. Or something like that? 

[Straw he/him]

19 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

In the aftermath of MR48, someone suggested having a vote-based inactivity filter? Which could obviously result in people just hopping on to randomly vote, but also elims probably aren't going to vote for their teammates unless they can be around to remove that vote later, so that does give us information. It's the idea that I've personally liked most of the ones suggested so far. 

It would need some tweaking, though, because some very active players don't like to vote in the first couple of cycles--so I guess the way it would work would be: either you must post at least x number of times (and the GM may choose to announce that they will not count posts that do nothing more than demonstrate existence) or you must have a vote in the final count. If you don't meet either of those criteria for two consecutive cycles then you're replaced. Or something like that? 

The big issue with vote based inactivity counts is that you end up with a lot of vote noise so to speak. Basically, people voting just because they have to vote. Also, there's often a lot of bandwagoning, since people who need to place a vote will just vote on the current vote train. I know QF45, MR29, and QF30 all had vote based inactivity filters, if you want to look at how it's gone in the past. I only remember playing QF45, so I can only speak about my experience from there.

[Kasimir he/him]

43 minutes ago, Straw said:

The big issue with vote based inactivity counts is that you end up with a lot of vote noise so to speak. Basically, people voting just because they have to vote. Also, there's often a lot of bandwagoning, since people who need to place a vote will just vote on the current vote train. I know QF45, MR29, and QF30 all had vote based inactivity filters, if you want to look at how it's gone in the past. I only remember playing QF45, so I can only speak about my experience from there.

QF2 had the opposite, with vote-based incentives. Definitely a lot of noise, and Team Evil voted for each other the most -.- Also worth looking at.

[Quintessential she/her]

52 minutes ago, Straw said:

The big issue with vote based inactivity counts is that you end up with a lot of vote noise so to speak. Basically, people voting just because they have to vote. Also, there's often a lot of bandwagoning, since people who need to place a vote will just vote on the current vote train.

Right, that makes sense : P

8 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

QF2 had the opposite, with vote-based incentives. Definitely a lot of noise, and Team Evil voted for each other the most -.- Also worth looking at.

I mean, if it required you to have a final vote at the end of the cycle, I doubt the elims would vote for each other as much. But yeah, there are still problems with it.

What about the second part, though? If the GM could decide not to count posts that do nothing more than announce existence towards the inactivity filter? I can still see potential flaws with that, I suppose... like, would someone saying "I exist" and placing a random vote count, or not? would someone saying "I exist but don't have time to catch up until next cycle" count? idk

[Kasimir he/him]

1 minute ago, Quintessential said:

I mean, if it required you to have a final vote at the end of the cycle, I doubt the elims would vote for each other as much. But yeah, there are still problems with it.

 

1. They did. It did. Also, building games on anything but dead obvious player behavioural assumptions is nicht gut. Case in point: MR7.

1 minute ago, Quintessential said:

What about the second part, though? If the GM could decide not to count posts that do nothing more than announce existence towards the inactivity filter? I can still see potential flaws with that, I suppose... like, would someone saying "I exist" and placing a random vote count, or not? would someone saying "I exist but don't have time to catch up until next cycle" count? idk

2. Yes and no - I'm not really comfortable with introducing too much subjective GM judgement. As a GM, I feel like the most important thing is for me to make consistent judgements. If players don't see consistency, they can feel I'm being unfair, and I wouldn't think that's wrong either. Some games did have this and were fun - MR1's Nightwatcher mechanic basically was the GM's judgement on the player's submitted RP. It was broken for many, many reasons, but the moment your subjective judgement can give - or concretely, ends up giving one faction an advantage over another, you're going to get avoidable drama.

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, Kasimir said:

1. They did. It did. Also, building games on anything but dead obvious player behavioural assumptions is nicht gut. Case in point: MR7.

Huh. Now I'm trying to figure out what it is about requiring everyone to vote that would make elims more likely to vote each other than otherwise--apart from just the fact that everyone's voting? But if that's the case then would a game where everyone votes every cycle just because they all happen to like playing that way have just as many e/e votes? 

3 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

2. Yes and no - I'm not really comfortable with introducing too much subjective GM judgement. As a GM, I feel like the most important thing is for me to make consistent judgements. If players don't see consistency, they can feel I'm being unfair, and I wouldn't think that's wrong either. Some games did have this and were fun - MR1's Nightwatcher mechanic basically was the GM's judgement on the player's submitted RP. It was broken for many, many reasons, but the moment your subjective judgement can give - or concretely, ends up giving one faction an advantage over another, you're going to get avoidable drama.

Also makes sense. Idk why I'm trying to figure out a way to fix this problem, seeing as I've never GMd and have basically zero idea how that works. : P

[Kasimir he/him]

8 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Huh. Now I'm trying to figure out what it is about requiring everyone to vote that would make elims more likely to vote each other than otherwise--apart from just the fact that everyone's voting? But if that's the case then would a game where everyone votes every cycle just because they all happen to like playing that way have just as many e/e votes? 

I don't think it's necessarily more likely, just that that particular team was like that. As it was, it was good because they kind of skated by while we started cutting each other's throats. I could easily see such a game playing differently but part of good game design is anticipating where player behaviour that isn't outright gamethrowing could break your design, i.e. what your starting assumptions are. (I don't think it would break a vote incentive design, but it's just one of those 'check your parameters' cases.) MR7 was a clusterchull and I've never forgiven myself for building and running that mess, but I think the lesson on the need to build a game that is robust for player behaviour is fairly solid.

8 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Also makes sense. Idk why I'm trying to figure out a way to fix this problem, seeing as I've never GMd and have basically zero idea how that works. : P

I don't think subjectivity is bad per se: look at KKC where the GMs might end up judging your submissions before the game. But I do think it's important to be careful with it because once a game is won or lost or a faction gains or loses a significant advantage based on an inconsistency in judgement, there will be player unhappiness. And that's something to decide if you wanna just caveat emptor it, or back off.

You'll GM eventually and you'll get there, and probably work out your own GMing philosophy while you're at it  

I'm just here to data-mine my memory for the incentives/occasions we've tried and what the results were.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Kasimir