The Art of Game Creation

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

On 5/24/2023 at 3:32 PM, Szeth_Pancakes said:

Here's a thing.

MR## - The Darkness Stares Back - Google Docs

It's kind of bonkers, but I think it works -- feedback??

I like this. It's very creative!!

I think the limited number of vessels adds a lot of interestingness to the game.

It also has fundamental parallels to body swapping games, which are a whole can of worms.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:33 PM, Archer said:

-there's a lot of village leaning roles, like exorcist, assassin etc. Easy to meta game the distro 

Tbf, exorcist is the sort of role that is strongly village-leaning but which also would be totally okay and balanced to hand to an elim to throw people.

Not to mention, "confirmed village role" is generally just a lot less meaningful in a conversion or bodyswapping game, unless that role happens to have conversion immunity built in to it, which none of these ones do.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:33 PM, Archer said:

-take overs of inactive players are the best way to get a vessel undetected. Village meta hesitance to waste an exe on an inactive may make that game breaking 

I dunno about game breaking I think that's a bit extreme but I agree with the sentiment. What is encouraged by the meta is at odds with what is encouraged by the game.

I am actually more concerned about the elim meta than the village meta.

For the villagers, this game challenges their meta, but I think the correct decision for the village is to recognize that lynching inactives is not as much of a waste in the context, and to make an intelligent decision to sometimes not follow the meta. If the village ultimately lost because they failed to do this, then it would imo be a deserved loss.

For the elims, I am more concerned because the game basically encourages them to take over inactives (who are clearly much easier to impersonate), which therefore encourages them to be inactive (since they are mimicking an inactive player). The problem, as I see it, is that the pragmatic "optimal strategy" encouraged by the mechanics isn't actually very fun. In fact, it's kind of the least fun way to play a game about impersonating people, because it is specifically the option you pick where you are doing the least amount of impersonation possible. While I do think intentionally acting in a way contrary to "optimal strategy" can sometimes be a very valid way to have fun, I also generally feel it is some kind of failure on the game designer's part if meeting your objectives and making the game fun are ever mutually exclusive.

On a more structural level, regardless of what players decide, the ratchet only goes one direction. You only ever really have the option of going from high to low, not the other way around, since it's substantially easier for a highly active player to imitate a more taciturn one than vice versa. So the inevitable effect will always be to decrease overall activity at least somewhat.

I am not sure what the resolution to this is.

But I am pretty sure having mechanical incentives for activity (which AFAIK, no bodyswapping game to date has done, even though other types of game have done this successfully) would not be a bad shout. Especially if whatever incentive there is gets inherited when you steal the account, this directly rewards elims for taking the risk of impersonating a more active player. This seems like a good thing to do.

Varying activity levels between different players is something that is... Kind of always going to be the bane of bodyswapping games  One of the inherent underlying issues I think is that artificially controlling your activity level to match someone else's is just effort that has very little to do with the actual fun parts of impersonation, such as trying to imitate speech patterns and personality.

A solution to a lot of this is also just... Have lots of active players  And that part isn't so much the game designer's responsibility 

On 5/24/2023 at 6:33 PM, Archer said:

-this doesn't allow for assistance from the possessed body. That was a helpful feature of kas' game

Agree.

While I do not think it is a required feature to have by any means, I will second that it is a helpful and good feature and it doesn't have any obvious downsides.

Of course, I was mainly the beneficiary of this mechanic in Kas' game so it would be entirely valid to call me biased.

On 5/24/2023 at 6:33 PM, Archer said:

-puppeting your vessel without revealing your voice, or timezone, will be difficult. I doubt I could manage to hold a conversation as someone else, especially in PMs, where people encourage more fast paced, direct discussion. Preference would be the game has limited/no PMs

Tbf, it may be difficult for the elims to succeed at bodyswapping, but it's also difficult for the village to deal with all of the potential situations created by bodyswapping.

I think there are two questions to ask here.

1) Does including PMs in a game make bodyswapping become too risky to justify the potential rewards? I would argue no it doesn't. It's just so darn useful for the elims if it works. Not only can it undo progress that the village has built in past cycles, but sometimes it can even turn that progress into an anchor around their neck. Having what are basically expendable identities also opens up a lot of fun new plays if you don't mind playing aggressively 

2) Regardless of balance considerations, does including PMs in a game make bodyswapping mechanics too demanding on players? This I think is more open-ended. Bodyswapping is already a fairly demanding mechanic (elims need to be very careful to blend in, villagers need to pay very careful attention to wording and activity levels in addition to all the normal SE things, so both teams already have a lot of work that they feel like they at least ought to be doing), so if PMs make things more demanding then it is potentially valid to wonder about it becoming too much.

 

EDIT:

Finally, one last observation about this whole setup, since you've already made it this far :P.

Think about the late game. Suppose all but 1 of the elims are dead.

Even with your edits, in this scenario, I am fairly sure the last elim can replenish lost vessels at the same rate the village can destroy them, unless the village uses a role such as the Assassin or Exorcist, which you were trying to avoid. This is especially relevant since a role like that might well not exist anymore because again late game.

Maybe just add a rule that the same elim can't do corruption two nights in a row?

Edited May 26, 2023 by DrakeMarshall

[Szeth Pancakes he/they]

3 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

I am not sure what the resolution to this is.

My first idea was an inactivity filter that killed both the vessel and the Aspect, but that doesn't really fix anything.

I like your idea better. Maybe: anyone who has 10 or more 100+ word posts gets a vote taken off them the next exe. Something like that.

4 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

1) Does including PMs in a game make bodyswapping become too risky to justify the potential rewards? I would argue no it doesn't. It's just so darn useful for the elims if it works. Not only can it undo progress that the village has built in past cycles, but sometimes it can even turn that progress into an anchor around their neck. Having what are basically expendable identities also opens up a lot of fun new plays if you don't mind playing aggressively 

2) Regardless of balance considerations, does including PMs in a game make bodyswapping mechanics too demanding on players? This I think is more open-ended. Bodyswapping is already a fairly demanding mechanic (elims need to be very careful to blend in, villagers need to pay very careful attention to wording and activity levels in addition to all the normal SE things, so both teams already have a lot of work that they feel like they at least ought to be doing), so if PMs make things more demanding then it is potentially valid to wonder about it becoming too much.

I'm still thinking about this. On the one hand, PMs are fun. On the other hand, the nature of this game puts a ton of pressure on just a few people, and PMs add to that. That said, I think the reward is greater than the risk. Like you said, so many possibilities open up for elim gambits. Also, it's likely that PMs won't be there late game, where people have the most info.

[Experience he/him]

So is there going to be something special for LG 100?

[Aeoryi she/her]

18 minutes ago, Experience said:

So is there going to be something special for LG 100?

60 player game :eyes:

[Experience he/him]

9 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

60 player game :eyes:

That would be awesome, though I don't know how probable or even plausible it would be.

Edit: even having 40 would be remarkable.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Experience

[Aeoryi she/her]

45 minutes ago, Experience said:

That would be awesome, though I don't know how probable or even plausible it would be.

Edit: even having 40 would be remarkable.

Question: has anyone ever done an aether game?

[The Paradoxical Phenomenon he/him]

46 minutes ago, Experience said:

That would be awesome, though I don't know how probable or even plausible it would be.

Edit: even having 40 would be remarkable.

Extremely remarkable.

Hey everyone, at some point I’d love to start GMing, but it would be lovely to have a few games as CoGM under my belt. In the near future if anyone wants one I’d love to help!

[Aeoryi she/her]

3 minutes ago, Labyrinth said:

Extremely remarkable.

Hey everyone, at some point I’d love to start GMing, but it would be lovely to have a few games as CoGM under my belt. In the near future if anyone wants one I’d love to help!

(Same!) I have ideas but no idea how to pull things off. But I want to play more games first, get experience, then try Co-GMing or GMing

[Araris Valerian he/him]

28 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

Question: has anyone ever done an aether game?

Not to my knowledge, but there have been a lot of games I haven't played. You have thoughts for a story/mechanics for such a game?

[Aeoryi she/her]

2 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

Not to my knowledge, but there have been a lot of games I haven't played. You have thoughts for a story/mechanics for such a game?

sorta yeah. The setting of tress is good for SE type games.

[Kasimir he/him]

5 hours ago, Aeoryi said:

Question: has anyone ever done an aether game?

Aman's signed up to run an aether game based off Tress, and his ruleset looks good so far. But the more rulesets the merrier.

---

Shout-out to Drake's secret ruleset here  It's not aether but I decided to plug Drakebro's Reckoners game since he can't stop me! >:P

Incidentally, something I'm toying with especially in light of the recent player drought is making rulesets targeting low player counts, and I wonder if most GMs should have an emergency game ready to go for small counts. I know we've had at least three large LGs get into screwy territory lately because of the player count issue, and it seems to me like at least in the short-term, it's worth just rolling with the playercount rather than making games for 25+ or 20++.

FWIW, I've been working on a Star Wars LG that reworks the MR I ran, and it's explicitly designed for 9-11 players. It can probably accomodate more, but that number is fine - I describe it as 'low playercount, high power', and have been trying to get extra eyes on it  

[Aeoryi she/her]

2 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Aman's signed up to run an aether game based off Tress, and his ruleset looks good so far. But the more rulesets the merrier.

 

---

Shout-out to Drake's secret ruleset here  It's not aether but I decided to plug Drakebro's Reckoners game since he can't stop me! >:P

Incidentally, something I'm toying with especially in light of the recent player drought is making rulesets targeting low player counts, and I wonder if most GMs should have an emergency game ready to go for small counts. I know we've had at least three large LGs get into screwy territory lately because of the player count issue, and it seems to me like at least in the short-term, it's worth just rolling with the playercount rather than making games for 25+ or 20++.

FWIW, I've been working on a Star Wars LG that reworks the MR I ran, and it's explicitly designed for 9-11 players. It can probably accomodate more, but that number is fine - I describe it as 'low playercount, high power', and have been trying to get extra eyes on it  

Hmmmmm. How does signing up for co-gming work?

I have ideas but they aren't fully fleshed out yet. Plus, I want to play a few more games first. I'll probably just end up co-gming at some point.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

5 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Shout-out to Drake's secret ruleset here  It's not aether but I decided to plug Drakebro's Reckoners game since he can't stop me! >:P

very very technically, it is an Aether game because theres's an epic named Aether

[Kasimir he/him]

1 minute ago, Aeoryi said:

Hmmmmm. How does signing up for co-gming work?

I have ideas but they aren't fully fleshed out yet. Plus, I want to play a few more games first. I'll probably just end up co-gming at some point.

We don't have an explicit list for this, but you mostly just ask whoever's GMing if they're willing to take a co-GM. Sometimes, especially for big games, a GM will ask for a co-GM/co-GMing volunteers. I don't think there's too long a wait - the QF prior to Experience's game asked for a co-GM, same with the last two LGs before Szeth's.

Just now, DrakeMarshall said:

very very technically, it is an Aether game because theres's an epic named Aether

One day u will let me see that ruleset smhhh >:P

[The Paradoxical Phenomenon he/him]

Has someone already signed up for the next QF? I’d be happy to run it. It would be pretty simple, but I’d need some practice. 

[Araris Valerian he/him]

41 minutes ago, Labyrinth said:

Has someone already signed up for the next QF? I’d be happy to run it. It would be pretty simple, but I’d need some practice. 

We have a spreadsheet where you can sign up to run a game, which is linked in the GM Signups and Discussion thread. It looks like there are 8 active players on the list already (though Kas is 3 of those).

[Aeoryi she/her]

2 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

We have a spreadsheet where you can sign up to run a game, which is linked in the GM Signups and Discussion thread. It looks like there are 8 active players on the list already (though Kas is 3 of those).

the same man who made LG92 (which I did read entirely). But how long are the interval between each game (type) on average?

[Kasimir he/him]

On 10/2/2023 at 9:50 AM, Labyrinth said:

Has someone already signed up for the next QF? I’d be happy to run it. It would be pretty simple, but I’d need some practice. 

You let this thread know you want to be added to the list, and then we add you. The list of players who are signed up to run a game can be found in the first post of the same thread. 

On 10/2/2023 at 10:35 AM, Araris Valerian said:

We have a spreadsheet where you can sign up to run a game, which is linked in the GM Signups and Discussion thread. It looks like there are 8 active players on the list already (though Kas is 3 of those).

It's likely between Archer and me, but I see no hurry at present. I do have simple and less simple rulesets for the three slots so it will depend on my mood and I believe the committee already pre-approved one QF ruleset so that one's okay  Need to recheck how many people pre-approved it.

On 10/2/2023 at 1:23 PM, Aeoryi said:

the same man who made LG92 (which I did read entirely). But how long are the interval between each game (type) on average?

I'd normally say a week, but it can stretch longer depending. Generally when a LG/MR is about to finish, it's time to prod the next GM. But if there's difficulty getting a ruleset approved, or people are passing down the list/taking a while to refine rules, then it'll take longer. In this case, I don't think any prospective QF will start until the LG is several cycles in, to avoid overt playerbase cannibalism.

To say nothing about the BTs as there are four queued but I think most people aren't in a position to be running it.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Kasimir

[Araris Valerian he/him]

Some time back I pitched the idea of a faction mega-arson game with minimal GM feedback. I finished a draft of the rules today, and am looking for feedback. The game should run with 12 players minimum, and may or may not interact with prime numbers of players poorly. Was also wondering whether people think it would be more fun as an anonymous.

Rules:

Spoiler

MR ##: A Reckoning for the Rest

Rumor has it, the Reckoners are in town. Luck has it, so are your enemies. 

 

Welcome to Idaho! MR ##: A Reckoning for the Rest occurs across the state prior to the events of Steelheart. Your faction of Epics seeks to provide the Reckoners with enough information to take down your rivals while you avoid a similar fate.

 

General Rules:

• Cycles are 48 hours long, and are not split.
• Throughout the game players may become Marked, meaning that the Reckoners know their weakness and have a plan to take them down
• There is a majority vote during each cycle, where the player with the most votes is Marked. Tied votes Mark all tied players.
  • A vote count will be posted each cycle but it will not reflect any vote manipulation nor reveal the Marked player(s)
• PMs are closed unless opened with actions.
• Each player* will belong to a faction of 4-5 Epics and will share a doc with the members of their faction
  • *Depending on player counts, some players may be Independent Epics
• When every player in a faction is Marked at the same time, all of those players lose and are removed from the game
• Players win if their faction is the last one remaining

 

Actions:

• Each faction has access to the following actions once each per cycle:
  • Roleblock a player (they will not be notified)
  • Move a vote while canceling your own (will not be reflected in the VC)
  • Mark a player
  • Protect a player from the Mark action (a faction cannot protect the same player twice back-to-back)
  • Redirect a player’s action (cannot redirect other redirects, cancels other redirects on the same target)
  • Scan a player in your faction and a player out of it,  checking if either is Marked
  • Create a PM (can contain any group of players, not necessarily yourself)
• Each player can perform 1 action per cycle

 

Order of Actions:

• PM
• Redirect
• Roleblock
• Protect
• Mark
• Vote manip
• Vote Mark
• Scan

 

Independent Epics:

• Some players may be Independent Epics
• They will not be Marked the first time they would be otherwise
• Each cycle can either take the Mark action, or 3 other actions 
• An Independent Epic wins and leaves the game if they Mark an unMarked player the turn their target’s faction is removed

 

Doc form

Edited October 3, 2023 by Araris Valerian

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

Preliminary thoughts are that I approve of the approach to faction games where everything is based on factional powers instead of individual role powers, and I approve that the number of people alive in a faction still matters a decent amount due to action economy and voting. Overall I like this take on faction games.

As an aside, it’s interesting to see the contrasts between this and a certain other Reckoners game that shan’t be named.

I do not personally see a particular need for it to be anonymous except just if you like anonymous games in which case fair play. (Disclaimer: The Reckoners game that shan’t be named is in fact anonymous.)

Edited October 6, 2023 by DrakeMarshall

[Araris Valerian he/him]

Just now, DrakeMarshall said:

the number of people alive in a faction still matter a decent amount due to action economy and voting

This is sort of irrelevant because players only die when their entire faction is gone. Though I think there is some merit to those ideas for a more "standard" faction game.

[DrakeMarshall he/him]

14 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

This is sort of irrelevant because players only die when their entire faction is gone. Though I think there is some merit to those ideas for a more "standard" faction game.

Oh oop forgot about that part.

Yeah so the good thing about that is that means this is an unusually unswingy faction game and it works well with lower player counts because people aren’t getting removed for longer.

Might not always feel that way to the players since they can’t easily tell who’s marked, so on the ground they’ll just be seeing whole factions suddenly get wiped, but.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

they do have tools at their disposal to check if a player is marked

Edited October 6, 2023 by DrakeMarshall

[CRichardThrone]

On 04/10/2023 at 8:09 AM, Araris Valerian said:

Some time back I pitched the idea of a faction mega-arson game with minimal GM feedback. I finished a draft of the rules today, and am looking for feedback. The game should run with 12 players minimum, and may or may not interact with prime numbers of players poorly. Was also wondering whether people think it would be more fun as an anonymous.

Rules:

  Reveal hidden contents

MR ##: A Reckoning for the Rest

Rumor has it, the Reckoners are in town. Luck has it, so are your enemies. 

 

Welcome to Idaho! MR ##: A Reckoning for the Rest occurs across the state prior to the events of Steelheart. Your faction of Epics seeks to provide the Reckoners with enough information to take down your rivals while you avoid a similar fate.

 

General Rules:

• Cycles are 48 hours long, and are not split.
• Throughout the game players may become Marked, meaning that the Reckoners know their weakness and have a plan to take them down
• There is a majority vote during each cycle, where the player with the most votes is Marked. Tied votes Mark all tied players.
  • A vote count will be posted each cycle but it will not reflect any vote manipulation nor reveal the Marked player(s)
• PMs are closed unless opened with actions.
• Each player* will belong to a faction of 4-5 Epics and will share a doc with the members of their faction
  • *Depending on player counts, some players may be Independent Epics
• When every player in a faction is Marked at the same time, all of those players lose and are removed from the game
• Players win if their faction is the last one remaining

 

Actions:

• Each faction has access to the following actions once each per cycle:
  • Roleblock a player (they will not be notified)
  • Move a vote while canceling your own (will not be reflected in the VC)
  • Mark a player
  • Protect a player from the Mark action (a faction cannot protect the same player twice back-to-back)
  • Redirect a player’s action (cannot redirect other redirects, cancels other redirects on the same target)
  • Scan a player in your faction and a player out of it,  checking if either is Marked
  • Create a PM (can contain any group of players, not necessarily yourself)
• Each player can perform 1 action per cycle

 

Order of Actions:

• PM
• Redirect
• Roleblock
• Protect
• Mark
• Vote manip
• Vote Mark
• Scan

 

Independent Epics:

• Some players may be Independent Epics
• They will not be Marked the first time they would be otherwise
• Each cycle can either take the Mark action, or 3 other actions 
• An Independent Epic wins and leaves the game if they Mark an unMarked player the turn their target’s faction is removed

 

Doc form

I've played in a Things game on MU. Though I'm not sure if it would work here.

[Araris Valerian he/him]

3 hours ago, CRichardThrone said:

I've played in a Things game on MU. Though I'm not sure if it would work here.

Not sure what you mean by "Things".

[Stick. she/her]

it's a mafia variant, similar mechanic to being Marked