The Pub: Off-topic chat for forum gamers

[Lex-Kat]

I don't think it's a bad idea. But it should be left as a game-by-game experience, narrators choice. BUt, if someone wants to create a bunch of awards like what Happy has already posted, then I can place them in the OP of Werewolf Central somewhere, perhaps the third post.

And with AtPG's permission, I would like to add The Pub to the OP somewhere as well. Not sure where yet, but somewhere.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And with AtPG's permission, I would like to add The Pub to the OP somewhere as well. Not sure where yet, but somewhere.

By all means. I may have started this thread but it belongs to this whole group. If you have means of utilizing this thread for the purposes of enriching this section please do.

[banjo1985]

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I'd favour some form of yearly WW awards utilising player votes and nominations over an achievement system. I don't think we'd get many players screwing their team over for a little sig picture, so I don't see a huge issue of that nature.

[Cuthalion]

Agreed. Achievements just seem like too much work while not doing much.

[Askthepizzaguy]

To all subscribed and interested parties, Toy Story is open for recruitment and is expected to open in one week from today.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ythings-wanted

If you haven't signed up yet, and I've already played in a game with you before, you might expect an invite via PM. It's certainly very possible.

If not, you might have been inactive in that game (and I'm not sure if you still are or not?) or I haven't played with you before.

I'd like to, but I've only completed 2 games here so far.

[Disc Lorde]

On that note, I'll mention that I will also be inviting players I would like to have to My Little Townie.

Recruitment closes in a little over a week.

[banjo1985]

This seems like a good place to get some advice from WW players here on the forum. Anyone old enough to have played one of the four previous Advent Children games here would probably be best placed to advise, purely from a familiarity standpoint, but I'd welcome suggestions from anybody.

For anyone who isn't aware, the biggest twist away from standard WW in Advent Children is the use of random encounters, rather than a straight lynch. Every day, a random monster from a pool of 8-12 possible creatures attacks the town, and instead of voting for lynch, players vote who should face it, and can vote for themselves. Every player has a list of encounters they can defeat (whether this is 100% or a certain possibility has changed between games), and a defeated encounter can yield a random or not so random item drop to the victorious player.

The exact details have changed between games, but the general twist has remained the same. Two big problems seem to have stemmed from this mechanic, and I'm trying to find a way to solve both before I run another game in that particular series:

The wolves have won every game, twice by a comfortable margin, despite being a frightening small wolf team (typically a 1:7 or 8 wolf/villager ratio)

There is no real reason for the village to want a volunteer to survive an encounter. Even with item drops, the lack of information and loss of a certain lynch makes it preferable to the village for every player that takes on an encounter to snuff it.

Now, the wolves have an intimidating power set, and if they manage to kill the key village Lynchpin role they get even more, but the law of probability would say that in a balanced ruleset, the village should have won at least once by now. The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For all of my random comments and fractured psyche, I am not mad, and I intend to change the game to make things more balanced for everyone. The trouble I'm having is working out how.

The key to balancing the game hinges on the random encounter mechanic, that much is obvious. I need to find a way of making someone volunteering seem like a good thing, and a way for even a defeated encounter to give some information to the village. I have a couple of ideas, but I'm really looking for any options people can think of. These are a few things I've considered:

A village role, that receives a random piece of game information on any player that successfully defeats an encounter (i.e. a full list of encounters they can defeat, general alignment, or any items they have in their possession.)

Injury statuses. Any player that defeats an encounter will become injured, meaning that they'll die to the next encounter they face, whether they can defeat it or not. This is more to prevent Sephiroth tanking four or fives lynches before going down, which would have been possible in previous games.

Random Encounters - Random Kills - If someone is defeated by an encounter, maybe it's only 75% certain that they die. Maybe a random player dies instead, including the wolves and villager power roles. Maybe a bit heavy-handed I feel, but it would make willing volunteers for encounters a more welcome thing.

Maybe only one of those needs implementing, or something else entirely, I just don't know. I think the wolves would need a slight buff, probably getting to pick the encounter each day, to compensate, but that might just swing the balance back in their favour again. The inherent problem with the system is also the main twist of the game, and that's what's made me cancel the fifth iteration twice already, and may well do so again.

HALP! I'm going round in circles and I'm dizzy and I want to get off and the big boys won't let me!

Ahem,

Any help or ideas would be gratefully received.

[Legato Endless]

I haven't played Advent, and I haven't yet looked over any of the games, so this is based purely on reading the above post.

Two initial suggestions. First, scrap the random unknown part of item drops. Unless the town has a power role with kill potential, the lynch is the only way the town can make progress in the game. To give up a lynch requires a really good reason. A blank drop is never going to be particularly persuasive. The players need to be able to make informed risk assessment. Is the item worth it?

Now, maybe adding that knowledge in means changing things a little. Perhaps a player with 100% kill potential can't pick up items against a foe. You have to have a 80% chance of victory or less, which makes the process still a gamble if you like. Although this may tilt things too far against items again.

Add an item inventory role. Giving a powerful item to a player you don't know is pretty problematic. Instead of items go to an established power role. Who, to maintain ambiguity, can't use the items. After all, he's the inventory. He has to give them to someone else. Makes inventroy weak st the start and stronger later. Perhaps you wouldn't include a baner in the game then, to prevent the inventory from networking instantly with a role claim.

Two possible encounters instead of one to choose between. If every player has a percentage against various creature types, the wolves will have safer days where the town doesn't have a good chance to kill them. With two encounters that render everyone semi lynchable , that problem is mostly alleviated but not completely to maintain flavor. So maybe one day a person has only 35% and 65% odds, but every other day of the week there's something with a good chance of killing them at 80%. This also adds another form of interaction to the game and information, if the town has to decide which encounter as well as the lynch. Or more likely, a bit more flavoring to what you intend when you vote for someone.

Anyways random sleep addled thoughts. Deconstruction welcome.

[banjo1985]

I haven't played Advent, and I haven't yet looked over any of the games, so this is based purely on reading the above post.

Thanks for the thoughts. In a way, it's really useful to get a perspective which is completely unbiased by actually participating in any of the previous games.

Two initial suggestions. First, scrap the random unknown part of item drops. Unless the town has a power role with kill potential, the lynch is the only way the town can make progress in the game. To give up a lynch requires a really good reason. A blank drop is never going to be particularly persuasive. The players need to be able to make informed risk assessment. Is the item worth it?

I toyed last game with using specific item drop lists i.e. each encounter had a common, uncommon, and rare item that they could drop a predetermined proportion of the time. This seemed to work better than a completely random drop, and could easily be taken further to thin each list down to two or even just one possible item. Still, the items themselves need to be desirable, and equally so by both sides, which isn't easy to achieve.

Now, maybe adding that knowledge in means changing things a little. Perhaps a player with 100% kill potential can't pick up items against a foe. You have to have a 80% chance of victory or less, which makes the process still a gamble if you like. Although this may tilt things too far against items again.

I can see your point, but I think this falls into the box of unnecessary complication for little gain. I did do percentage chances against encounter in ACII, but it didn't seem to add much, and is vulnerable to freak dice rolling, which happened that game. Players defeating 5% chance encounters, players dying to 90% encounters etc. The general consensus of players was that while the weapon choice (which is how encounter percentages were determined) was an interesting addition, it seemed to make people more survivable.

Add an item inventory role. Giving a powerful item to a player you don't know is pretty problematic. Instead of items go to an established power role. Who, to maintain ambiguity, can't use the items. After all, he's the inventory. He has to give them to someone else. Makes inventroy weak st the start and stronger later. Perhaps you wouldn't include a baner in the game then, to prevent the inventory from networking instantly with a role claim.

Now this, I like a lot. A neutral role who receives the item from a defeated encounter, and then has to pass it on to another player of their choice that night or lose the item altogether. I'd have to choose their win conditions carefully to prevent them from siding too much one way or the other, but I really like it. As a neutral, the baner could then remain. The question is, what happens when the inventory is killed?

Permission to potentially pinch this idea?

Two possible encounters instead of one to choose between. If every player has a percentage against various creature types, the wolves will have safer days where the town doesn't have a good chance to kill them. With two encounters that render everyone semi lynchable , that problem is mostly alleviated but not completely to maintain flavor. So maybe one day a person has only 35% and 65% odds, but every other day of the week there's something with a good chance of killing them at 80%. This also adds another form of interaction to the game and information, if the town has to decide which encounter as well as the lynch. Or more likely, a bit more flavoring to what you intend when you vote for someone.

I'm not against this idea, but I need to think on it more. The first issue is how to use this narratively - I've always tried to give the AC games a strong narrative theme, and if players can vote on the encounter as well as the lynch, this could change the setting significantly. Having said that, something like:

"An Adamanchield is on the rampage on the Archlyte Steppe, while a C'ieth lingers near the edge of the crash-site. Which threat will you neutralise, and who will you choose to do it?"

Is damn easy to do. The decision could also feed into the narrative of the game quite well. Didn't take out the C'ieth at the camp site? Maybe the C'ieth has infected another player and there are now two of them or something. Maybe you can't go back to the crash site now to heal up your injuries. There's some real possibilities there if I have enough imagination.

Actually this idea could be way to make people want encounters to be defeated. While that C'ieth is at the crash site, the baner can't use the secure core of the airship to protect a player...hmmm.

[BourgeoisJerry]

When a player fights a monster, is the outcome binary (either the player wins or the monster wins,) or is there some possibility of both dying or both surviving? If the items are going to the inventory anyway, then a player doesn't necessarily need to survive an encounter for their sacrifice to be worth it.

[banjo1985]

When a player fights a monster, is the outcome binary (either the player wins or the monster wins,) or is there some possibility of both dying or both surviving? If the items are going to the inventory anyway, then a player doesn't necessarily need to survive an encounter for their sacrifice to be worth it.

The outcome has typically been binary - either the player wins and defeats the monster, or the player loses, dies, and the monster either slinks away, is killed in the fight, or whatever. There was never a time where both could survive, but double deaths were the most common outcome. It was always a narrative compromise - player is killed by the encounter, so what do you do with the encounter, as another one is coming in the morning?

Of course, the inventory is a new idea (thanks Legato ), so things would need to work differently to how they have. Previously, a defeated encounter has often led to an item , whilst an undefeated encounter has often yielded a possible item for the wolves, through a scavenger role.

[Saposhiente]

For benefits to surviving encounters, I would recommend having some encounters tend to be very dangerous and with little reward, while other encounters are likely to drop a good item, so that the village can make an informed decision on whether to try to kill someone or get a good item without leaving it up to "just hope it's not one of the monsters they can defeat"
To compensate for the reduced ability of the village to lynch people, I would recommend adding villager roles or items that kill people. In the case of the item, if you really want the item to be pro-village, make the item only able to kill people on the enemy team (If you shoot an ally, it just fails as if the person was baned). That can be a great asset to village that the wolves can't use as well. Wolves get the option to fake-shoot their friend, but that's quite risky.

[TFT]

Actually, I thought of an idea that might work to give a proper reward to team village:

If the village defeats an encounter, the masons get a night kill along with the item going out through the neutral role.

This means that the village doesn't lose their most powerful tool to defeating an encounter (And in fact, gives an incentive for it), while not seeming overly strong.


Just a random thought I had while reading through the thread quickly to procrastinate last minute studying for finals, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Lex-Kat]

So as to not post again after the soft stop in Typical...

I hate to end the day when there's nice roleplaying activity, but I must.

((Wait, has the night not ensued then? I interpreted this as a soft stop before the lynch reveal, but apparently no one else did.))

That meant the day is over, stop posting. >_<

I thought a soft stop equalled "No More Votes Accepted". Not "No More Posting, Period." Especially how RPing isn't even allowed at night. It makes it hard to finish a scene, and then continue the next day.... how? You either continue the scene as if Night never happened, or you start a new day. Which leaves me confused and baffled as to where I am, and how to RP.

Penny follows her mother. While still in her arms. Somehow. Look, the world is strange when you're inebriated.

The idea I was trying to give was that Penny either allowed herself to be picked up by Alexia, or if she didn't, Alexia would still expect her to follow along. So she's either in Alexia's arms, or not. Even though this isn't FreeFormRolePlay, I still try to follow the No God-modding Rule.

[EmeraldRose]

I agree that it has been difficult to keep up an RP flow when you are in mid-scene, and suddenly you have to stop right there because there's no posting at night. No one voted after Penguinator posted, but several of us were able to wrap up the scenes we were in the middle of, which I feel was a nice endofdaywrapup. Hopefully Penguinator won't be too upset that we kept going...

[TFT]

Hmm, potential problem with my idea after thinking:

Masons would know for sure whether someone who defeated the encounter was village or not. Slight adjustment:

If a neutral or town defeats an encounter, the person who defeated it gets a night kill. If team evil kills it, then they get a random ability, with a chance(Like 25%?) of getting a kill for that player. (This is what I'm not sure of: there needs to be a chance for team evil to get 2 kills for defeating an encounter because otherwise it's telling if they are evil or not, but 2 kills would be really strong off defeating an encounter. I'm not sure.)

Same reasoning as before, but without the extra knowledge masons get from it.

[Fortuna]

On the Advent Children, my own random outsider's ideas are these.

I strongly suggest taking some of the tables, or derived data, public. Maybe the win rates/conditions for power roles on both sides are all known, or maybe with each encounter the village can assess how likely it is to kill a randomly selected player (that is, the average probability of defeating it, or if there aren't probabilities (probably better, dice are freaky) the fraction of living players who can defeat it), or perhaps whether living town or living wolves have the better chance of a win, or something. Some level of threat assessment, so that villagers have data to go on. If village has no information, they're shooting blind, and the wolves can cruise to a win - the best way to turn the game in village's favour is to give village more information to work with.

[Saposhiente]

the best way to turn the game in village's favour is to give village more information to work with.

Up to a point. Lack of knowledge reduces perceived complexity, increasing the potential size of the game, and at a certain point people are unable to process all of the information in order to use it well.

[Legato Endless]

@Banjo: You're welcome.

@Lex-Kat: I didn't actually know soft stop was in mafia parlance, though it makes sense given similar context. I meant that penguin had wanted to stop the day phase but not actually resolve the vote and start the night. As for RP, oh I totally got what you were implying and I appreciate a lack of god-moding but the conflicting imagery was amusing so I made a flippant joke. I apologize if this was offensive, it was not intended to disparage you.

@Lex-Kat and Emerald Rose: I would agree with this. While ceasing any game activity once night falls, being allowed to rp would help smooth things over, especially since a limited window exacerbates the differing availability time for posting and making an interaction. Still, its Penguinator's game, and I wouldnt want to wreck the ambiance or anything else.

[Lex-Kat]

Not offended. I just wasn't sure if you understood what I was trying for.

[Ramsus]

@Banjo: I think a town sided roll that got some information on lynches would be good. Doesn't have to get tons of info though if you're doing other things too. I just think in general it would be a nice addition.

[Penguinator]

I thought a soft stop equalled "No More Votes Accepted". Not "No More Posting, Period." Especially how RPing isn't even allowed at night. It makes it hard to finish a scene, and then continue the next day.... how? You either continue the scene as if Night never happened, or you start a new day. Which leaves me confused and baffled as to where I am, and how to RP.

Because I said I was on a trip and had no idea when there would be an actual narration, the "soft-stop" should have equalled a "hard stop." The fact that there's a rule against posting at night should help clue in not to. I should have clarified, yes, but basically, if you have to ask, like Legato did, if that means no more posting, then don't post.

I wasn't particularly annoyed with it... until ER kept posting after I said to stop. That, that was just... no.

I would have been perfectly fine if, say, people had asked me permission to keep roleplaying. I would have said, "yeah, okay, do that." But just blatantly ignoring the rules and continuing to post after I've said to stop posting? Don't do that.

It boils down to - if it would break the rules, but not hurt the game, ask me first. I've allowed a couple roleplaying-based PMs. I would have been okay if you'd asked to keep roleplaying before just posting. But don't do things, then tell me about it later. I can say yes or no before, I can't always change things after.

[Helgraf]

Because I said I was on a trip and had no idea when there would be an actual narration, the "soft-stop" should have equalled a "hard stop." The fact that there's a rule against posting at night should help clue in not to. I should have clarified, yes, but basically, if you have to ask, like Legato did, if that means no more posting, then don't post.

I wasn't particularly annoyed with it... until ER kept posting after I said to stop. That, that was just... no.

I would have been perfectly fine if, say, people had asked me permission to keep roleplaying. I would have said, "yeah, okay, do that." But just blatantly ignoring the rules and continuing to post after I've said to stop posting? Don't do that.

It boils down to - if it would break the rules, but not hurt the game, ask me first. I've allowed a couple roleplaying-based PMs. I would have been okay if you'd asked to keep roleplaying before just posting. But don't do things, then tell me about it later. I can say yes or no before, I can't always change things after.

Couple of things:
I came in as an AL replacement. I've posted at night at least once every night since I joined - this is the first time I've seen any issue made of it at all. And I didn't think there was a problem for the simple reason of it's never been an issue in any other game I've played in Structured Games.

So I kinda have to ask how roleplaying at night going to impact the game?

In this particular case, if I'm seeing it correctly, part of the problem is that your way of doing it goes against the grain of the way it's been done in this subforum, so people aren't used to the fact that their RP during the night might matter. (Assuming it does. If RP doesn't impact how the mechanics of the game play out, then I have to ask why it matters whether or not one RPs at night.)

[Aric Kale]

Couple of things:
I came in as an AL replacement. I've posted at night at least once every night since I joined - this is the first time I've seen any issue made of it at all. And I didn't think there was a problem for the simple reason of it's never been an issue in any other game I've played in Structured Games.

So I kinda have to ask how roleplaying at night going to impact the game?

In this particular case, if I'm seeing it correctly, part of the problem is that your way of doing it goes against the grain of the way it's been done in this subforum, so people aren't used to the fact that their RP during the night might matter. (Assuming it does. If RP doesn't impact how the mechanics of the game play out, then I have to ask why it matters whether or not one RPs at night.)

The issue is that someone is always going to die, and if you roleplay all night long, at what point does your character die.

[Saposhiente]

The no posting at night rule is a rule Penguinator uses on many of his games, and I've seen it used elsewhere for gameplay and/or flavor reasons: Posting at night can sometimes be a useful tactic, but according to flavor the town has dispersed to their homes and you can't actually talk to people.

[EmeraldRose]

As I said before, it galls me to leave things basically mid-sentence. Especially since I wound up losing an entire day phase. People forgot they were in the middle of talking to me and moved on to other stuff. In this particular instance, when the day hadn't "ended" I attempted to place my character in an ending point. This not posting at night is tricky when our time zones are so completely different.

I mean, is there some sort or reset where it's assumed the entire town stops whatever they are doing and returns home? Is it assumed that whatever interactions were going on were finished?

This was the first time I have posted at night in your game Penguinator, and there have been people making posts just about every other night phase. If you feel the need to kill off my character for breaking your game rules, feel free, I won't be upset by it, it's your rule.

[Murska]

Okay, it doesn't seem like any harm was done or intended. Let's leave it at that, and be more careful next time.

[Helgraf]

The issue is that someone is always going to die, and if you roleplay all night long, at what point does your character die.

We accept a certain level of vague time. We're found dead in the morning. It hasn't proven itself a problem that I can see; and it's not like you can RP staying up all night to foil wolf kills.

If the rules say you died in the night, then you died in the night. The exact moment it happened is entirely irrelevant. If I died in the night while I was carving a geode, then I'm dead no matter how far along I was in my last posting. The character *is* dead - and nothing I'm RPing changes that fact. Ever.

I don't know. I'm seeing this thing and frankly, I'm not seeing where the juxtaposition of RP and night actions is actually an issue.

[Lex-Kat]

I wasn't expecting this to become a thing of discussion. I understand that these are his rules, and I do try to work within them. Again, I just misunderstood the Soft Stop (Legato, your name for this was the first time I'd ever seen it called such ) as also a "Stop all RP". In future, I do plan to stop all roleplay until the day phase begins.

[Penguinator]

@Helgraf: I left it the first time because you were new.

There are, however, subtle mechanical effects based on roleplaying for this game.

And let's leave it with what Murska said.