Quintessential

I think they were briefly? But that was like, mostly in the same post where Matrim voted on you, and like maybe one post before that? I still have only skimmed though... I should really go back and read thoroughly shouldn't I...

idk, normally I don't get reads on anything, at all, especially not when skimming, but that stood out to me. I figure that means it must be important, right?

So I just got done watching the 2 hour movie Stardust and only skimmed the thread. Interesting that when Matrim voted Liranil, TUO immediately voted Matrim... and not for anything specific he said, just "Matrim sus" : P Out of curiosity, I'm gonna put my vote on Liranil and see what happens...

A wise move Apart from me and Dannex, do you have any other thoughts on the people who have (or haven't) posted yet?

Okay and? Your vote's already on me why would I care what you think of me?

Oh goody! I'm gonna die today! This is fun Hmmm but I like ties so... Young Bard

Um.

I... huh, it hadn't occurred to me that there's no vote-manip in this game. I guess that's nice? I vote we call them Crewmates and Impostors! It makes sense, right??? I mean, the Imps even sabotage and everything! Would do an actual serious response to Gears' analysis but I'm rly tired rn and burned out so I'm gonna... leave that for tomorrow... or never... whichever comes first.

Isn't Biologist basically the same role that Breaker had in QF50 that he kinda used to get a village read?

Okay sorry ;-;

Actually I can't think of... any? other times when I've voted on myself XD Also shouldn't more people than just me, you, and Illwei have commented by now?

I mean I'm dead in the ongoing game so it's okay to reference my alignment there right? So long as I don't talk about meta knowledge that I have from being dead? Edit: Isn't that show called "Illwei and Quinn's Discord DM"?

So, in preparation for this game I stocked up on some tasty tinfoil! Anyone want some? Edit: @Matrim's Dice This is demonstrably false, in C1 of LG73 I voted on myself right after you voted on me for, and I quote, "reasons"

Ohhhh that pun hurt... Yes, we never learn. Talking in the thread a bunch gets us killed but we do it anyway A. you misspelled Orlok and B. I don't have a character name at all, what does that make me? Right here! Quinn was being boring, so we should kick her out, right? And I, Kwinny, will take her place!

Sorry, should have been clearer--I realize now that I have been subconsciously assuming there would be more than one Doctor. Now that Matrim has brought that assumption to my attention, I'm suspending it pending further evidence.

I was assuming from the phrasing of the rules that there would be more than one Doctor. It says at some point that if the Hospital is sabotaged, Doctors will still be able to talk to each other. Also it definitely wouldn't surprise me if there's an elim Doctor. That way they can keep track of what info flows back from the Hospital doc to the main thread.

Did Matrim just softclaim Doctor? I think 4 is probably the number to stick to for analysis and stuff. Maybe three if they have an Aviar Holder or a Trapper, but better to overestimate than underestimate imo.

Okay, here goes (hopefully I don't end up double-posting). Sorry this took me so long... real life interrupted a couple of times, and there was a lot more than I thought there would be Scadrial: Roshar: Nalthis, Sel, and First of the Sun: Great, my head hurts now lol. My comments got a lot shorter towards the end there... maybe I'd have had more to say about those abilities if I'd started with them, idk. General thoughts: make sure that for each action, you consider not just what it'll do generally, but exactly how it'll do it, whether it's passive or requires an action, who it can and can't target, which other actions it can interact with, how often it can be used, and so on. When writing out an outline of a game, it's fine to just say what you want a role to do, but once you start balancing it you should definitely consider specifics because those can have a big impact on the balance, or otherwise, of the game. Also, not something you necessarily need to change but I don't see the point of coming up with multiple flavors of role that have the same action, or of coming up with roles that won't appear in the actual game. It does make it somewhat harder for players to understand the game (and harder for people to help you balance it! ) after all. But if you want to do that, then I guess that's up to you.

I can certainly believe that--a lot of games that I've come up with have ended up nothing like the original idea. Also, probably best to specify that the elims have a kill, just for the sake of clarity (sorry, I know this is super small fine detail stuff : P) So, when you say stealing an ability, do you mean that the person the Hemalurgist targets loses the ability? That would certainly be interesting... also, if you're leaving the Hemalurgist in after they win it might help with balancing to decide that they only have the ability for the cycle after they've taken it? But then, they only have one action per cycle (right? I should have asked this earlier) so it wouldn't be too much of a problem. Also, noting the new scan that they have in the rules doc--is that a passive ability, or do they have to use an action for it? Is it random, or do they choose which player? If you want the Hemalurgist to be able to use all of their new abilities at some point, and if the system is 1-action-per-cycle, I'd suggest you make it passive and random, but feel free to disregard this if you have something else in mind. Point with the survival. That makes sense thematically and I don't think it would break anything, so long as they can't keep killing indefinitely. I still don't think it's necessary for the Monk to gain abilities as they kill, since they already have an incentive to kill in the form of their win-con. But if you want to include it then I have a couple of suggestions on that point: I don't think making a player totally immortal--even as a reward for going above and beyond their win-con--is a good idea. Part of the idea of the game is that anyone can die if you try hard enough to get them killed, at any point in time. It just... I guess the thing with game design is that you don't want to make anyone too powerful, even the most powerful roles? Like, I guess the closest example I can think of would be the Stone Shaman in LG72. Ash made that person invincible at the beginning, but he decided that if another role, the Truthless, died, the Stone Shaman would become vulnerable to NKs. And then he gave the Truthless a win-con that involved dying. Basically, even the most powerful players should have a chink in their armor. I'd say that doesn't require much change to fix, though; just capping kills at 3 and leaving everything else the same would work fine. Roles that are immune to NKs have been done before, as have roles that are immune to the exe, just not both at once. So you can say that they can't kill beyond three players (it's probably a good idea to cap it as low as possible anyway, since the elims have a kill). Also, looking at the distribution of abilities, I'd make it the second kill where they gain non-fatal action immunity and the third kill where they gain NK immunity. : P the problem with doing that is that (unlike in Avalon the Resistance where this exact role works just fine) the village gets to kill people. If the Returned felt like it, they could just announce who the two people were. The village would exe both of them, knowing they were guaranteed to get an elim. And just like that the Returned becomes somewhat useless. Okay, so as this is, I don't think I'd really want to be Returned. Survival win-cons are easy for GMs but they don't give the player much direction. Do they help the elims? Do they help the village? Do they totally check out of the game and stop caring? It's up to them. Actually, if anything a pure survival win-con encourages inactivity since the unfortunate truth is that the most active players (usually) get exed and NKd first, just because being active draws attention to them. The main mechanic of this role seems to be the passive second life and the fact that upon "death" (which I assume means "after losing their first life") they learn the alignment of a random player. Right? So, I would try to build in a win-con and/or set of abilities using those two things. You could do something like the Lord Ruler in MR46, where that person chose which side, village or elim, to win with (but didn't count for parity). You could take the idea of learning alignments a step further and make the Returned an alignment scanner (also like the Lord Ruler from MR46, actually). I mean, the other two neutrals have actions every other turn, so why not? You'd have to account for the possibilities of them aligning with the village and accurately reporting their scans--which would lead to confirmed villagers and confirmed elims, something that's hard(er) to balance I think. I'm not quite sure what I'd do with the Returned, in all honesty, especially since I don't know what you want to do with the Returned, but those would be starting points. I'll post this now and then start looking at the other roles. Those should (hopefully) take me less time lol

Okay, so, here are all of the rules, split into sections and with my comments next to them Basics (most of these comments are just about phrasing): Alignments: I'll look at the individual roles tomorrow, but I don't have time tonight. Hope at least some of that was helpful

I mean, I'm still curious what Day only cycles entail. And I can look at all the roles individually and let you know if I see any breaks, if you want me to?

The reason the AG is capped at 30 is because that's how many anon accounts there are. But this year we only got 27 players, so I'd say a good estimate of the maximum number of players that a rerun of a well-loved game would get is a few lower than that (LG73 had 23 at the start, for example) and a new, never-before-seen game will probably get a little bit lower than that usually? Sorry for the double-post : P

I've never actually run a game, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt obviously, but I do have some thoughts. As a general observation, I'd say that this game has a lot. It's not as complex as the AG, of course, but it's way more than you'd see in your average game. Which--don't get me wrong--is fine and can be fun but it might not be the best idea for a first game (yes I know I'm a hypocrite and all the games I've come up with so far are complicated af but I'm at this point considering running an LG1 rerun as my first game, and then doing the complicated ones, so that I can get some experience. So there. lol). However, I'm not necessarily sure I agree with Straw that taking out the neutrals is the way to streamline it--actually, I think the neutrals are all really interesting. I just don't know whether they'd all fit in the same game. My first suggestion (well, really my only suggestion : P) would be to cut this down to just Scadrial. This is for a couple of reasons. First of all, a bunch of abilities overlap (Steel Allomancy, Pewter Feruchemy, Division, Awakening, and Elantrian can all be used to kill another player, for example). Taking out all the non-Scadrial games would mostly fix that. Second of all, it allows you to focus on those abilities--I think the idea of creating a complete system of Allomancy and Feruchemy is really cool, and I've thought about doing it myself but it's always seemed kind of daunting. And it lets you to keep the Hemalurgist (btw I think the Hemalurgist would make an interesting elim but you'd have to change the role a bit to make that work). I'd say the other two neutrals, and the abilities that would be cut out by just using Scadrial, could easily be used in other games themed to their specific worlds. Assuming you cut it down to just Scadrial, what I'd do next is look closely at the different roles and possibly streamline them a bit. I can give specific suggestions if you want but in general I'd say that A. making Feruchemy somehow distinct from Allomancy--in how often you can use it, in the types of actions, whatever you want--would be really cool, and B. having overlapping actions is... well, probably unavoidable in a setup like this one, but trying to avoid it is probably a good idea since at the point where a Feruchemical role and an Allomantic role do the exact same thing, it's just... not as special? idk. It's redundancy. They're just different flavors of the same thing, so the name ceases to be as meaningful. Also, having two different kill roles is probably not ideal for balancing reasons Alternatively, if you don't want to cut out the other worlds, I'm... less certain what I'd do with this. Especially since I don't know what distribution of roles you'd use (this in response to your most recent post). I'm not used to games where some roles might not be included at all, and I'm... slightly unsure what the point of doing that is unless you plan to run the game multiple times in succession and have different distributions each time. Also, in response to your comment about having cycles be Day only, I guess I'd ask what you mean by that. Typically "Day" implies that the only death that's going to happen is that of the exe, and that is going to be the primary activity--discussion and voting, not action-submitting. What you're suggesting seems more like fused cycles, where Day and Night just kinda... happen at the same time. Which is how MRs and QFs are run. So I guess, could you clarify what you mean by the game being designed to be Day only? (speaking of which, you've inspired me: has anyone ever run a game where it really is only Day? The only roles are vote-manips and people who can passively survive the exe, protect someone else from the exe, maybe PM roles? etc. Obviously the elims would have to be pretty powerful in a setup like that, but it'd be interesting. Most of the ways the village spots elims would still be present, but there would be no kills to go off of. So basically the scenario we were worried about in the LG but on purpose? lol maybe this is a terrible idea but whatever) Anyway, I hope all of that is at least somewhat helpful (well except that last bit which is purely musing on my part XD)

I'm reading it and writing up some suggestions. I would say that this probably has to be an LG if you run it as complex as it is now, and I think it would make sense to split it into Day and Night turns and have some actions belong exclusively to one or the other. Also I would point out that even the AG only gets 30 players (this year only 27) so there's no way you'll be able to have all 43 roles in play, plus the three neutrals, unless you give each person two roles or something. Which, I mean, that's fine. You can give that ruleset as the list of possible roles and then warn that only some of them will appear. But just keep that in mind.

Not exactly to the first question, not exactly to the second question, no to the third. Each House has placed a spy in another House. That person is listed as the Spy in that House's doc. They are the Spy for that House. Each House also knows that one of its other members is a Spy from another House. They want to get rid of the Spy from the other House while keeping the spy for their House alive (presumably). The Houses want to get rid of the Spies in their own House. They don't really care about the other Houses. However, the Houses' win-cons would be set up such that no player wants it publicly known which House their from, because another House might be able to use that information. So publicly, everyone wants to exe the Spies. Privately, they want to exe the Spy that's embedded in their House, keep the Spy they have in another House alive, and let the other Houses deal with their own problems. Basically, the Spies are not elims. There is no elim equivalent in this game. And exeing all the Spies doesn't lead to a win for anyone, either (probably XD maybe I'll make that a House win-con... hmmm). Right, thread activity is the main problem I thought of... I think the win-cons would probably be targeted more at making sure that everyone doesn't just claim what House they're from D1. So I'm not sure how to fix that, but then I'm not sure how faction games normally deal with that either. And yeah, each House has a win-con specific to themselves, but they can't win unless they get rid of the Spy in their ranks, basically.