|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 6, 2010 8:52:46 GMT -5
See? I told you lynching the wolves was the way to go! Yes. Very good catch that we were down to 2 zombies. I had thought we still had 3. To be honest, Pleonast's 'mistake' really helped the Town on that point. If we thought there were 3 zombies I don't know what we would have done. Not really fair to the Wolves IMO, as I would have pushed to lynch the necromancer with the false threat of lynching wolves if the wolves killed a townie. I was perfectly content with sharing the win with the Wolves, but all the undead messiness screwed that up. If the wolves hadn't killed FlyingCowOfDoom, we would have had enough Townies to keep the wolves in check WITHOUT having to lynch them. We could have kept the Town-Wolf alliance and slowly whittled Red Skeezix down.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 6, 2010 8:58:33 GMT -5
All results could be affected by player powers, except for death reveals. Plus, there is little gameplay difference between a recruited Scotsman and a disguised Cabalist. Actually, there is a big difference. A recruited Scotsman is within the rules as stated. Telling the Town that Idle Thoughts is a Scotsman when he is not is an outright moderator lie. Once it is established that the moderator is willing to lie then the game collapses with no basis for any reasoning or thought. The moderator could have lied! Maybe Captain Pinkies isn't really the Vicar (even though PMs explicitly stated he was!). Maybe the moderator lied about role reveals. Maybe the moderator lied about win conditions. How the hell are we supposed to know what the moderator considers okay and not okay to lie about?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 6, 2010 9:08:06 GMT -5
I will never ask for a role again. Not ready for that type of metagaming. The reason I asked for Alpha Wolf was to make amends for my errors in C3. And, being the Alpha probably cost our team a win in this game. Though we might have handed it to the Undead as well. Sorry about that. Honestly, I was only looking at the previous game to look up what the role distribution was, but in the following post was a list of everyone's preferences from C3. Did the witches investigate Special Ed because of the list?
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 6, 2010 9:24:13 GMT -5
Well done other town... can't say I contributed too much to your success. Every single investigation I did failed. I've yet to read up on why that was, although I'll look through it when I have some time. Same here. I did investigate MHaye's death and got a positive result, but Mental Guy jumped up with a claim first (which despite what I said in game, was a good thing. Leaving undead thinking I was a Vampire was pretty sweet!) Anyway, I needed to criticize Mental Guy because that's what I do and I thought it would make me look less like a Detective. After that first opportunity I never got a positive result again. But at endgame I was mainly checking to see if the Wolves killed a Townie.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 6, 2010 12:26:13 GMT -5
Having finally pieced together the wolf secret power, I have to say, that's a pretty terrible power for the Wolves. They got screwed in the secret power department. Extra-kills, while on the surface looks nice, is really just a recipe for an undead win. Had the Wolves been able to execute an extra kill or two, undead would have had an easier time to win because the extra kill is coupled to a wolf lynch. That's two non-undead dead right there. Add in the 3 Detectives and an early wolf lynch was practically guaranteed.
I'm also shocked that the Town Secret Power holder was not consistently using his power!
On the whole, the necromancer is a mid-game survivor - if he can survive to mid-game, his team wins. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I can see Pleonast's motivation to keep the necromancer from getting killed early, thus removing the undead from the game prematurely, but the powers given basically made it impossible to remove the necromancer mid-game and grinds gameplay (what little remained) to a halt. I just can't see any justification for an unnightkillable/unlynchable player. That's just madness.
From a 'who will win' perspective I can see avenues to win for all factions except for the Wolves. They were screwed in my opinion.
From a 'fun' standpoint, I found the necromancer unlynchability/unkillablility bothersome. I'm also not keen on moderator untruths.
|
|
|
Post by eureka on Sept 6, 2010 16:53:52 GMT -5
I will never ask for a role again. Not ready for that type of metagaming. The reason I asked for Alpha Wolf was to make amends for my errors in C3. And, being the Alpha probably cost our team a win in this game. Though we might have handed it to the Undead as well. Sorry about that. Honestly, I was only looking at the previous game to look up what the role distribution was, but in the following post was a list of everyone's preferences from C3. Did the witches investigate Special Ed because of the list? Not as I recall it. I believe we investigated Special Ed because of his behavior in-game. I believe Nanook was suspicious of Special Ed and Sister Coyote--things might have turned out differently had we chosen to investigate Sister Coyote.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 10:50:27 GMT -5
All results could be affected by player powers, except for death reveals. Plus, there is little gameplay difference between a recruited Scotsman and a disguised Cabalist. Actually, there is a big difference. A recruited Scotsman is within the rules as stated. Telling the Town that Idle Thoughts is a Scotsman when he is not is an outright moderator lie. Once it is established that the moderator is willing to lie then the game collapses with no basis for any reasoning or thought. The moderator could have lied! Maybe Captain Pinkies isn't really the Vicar (even though PMs explicitly stated he was!). Maybe the moderator lied about role reveals. Maybe the moderator lied about win conditions. How the hell are we supposed to know what the moderator considers okay and not okay to lie about? I understand your objection, but it is not unusual for one player's power to affect another player's power. There's no reason in principle for the Scotsman power to be exempt from that. Especially since the rules explicitly stated that the results of powers can be affected by other powers except for the alignment and role reveals of dead players. I can accept criticism that these rules are too complex, but it's unfair to accuse me of not following them.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 7, 2010 11:14:56 GMT -5
Especially since the rules explicitly stated that the results of powers can be affected by other powers except for the alignment and role reveals of dead players. That's boilerplate for a Godfather role. This exception to 'the moderator will not lie' is well-established, well-understood, and most importantly expected. The confounding powers of the Omega Wolf is well-established and frankly, the quoted line looks like it exists simply for the Omega Wolf and nothing else. Moderator lies outside of the established norms is beyond what players can reasonably countenance. How can players discern between "Idle Thoughts is a Scotsman," and "Vicar Captain Pinkies blessed you last night." Which is the lie? Are they both lies? Why should the players assume that the moderator will lie to them at all? Maybe the Seer's results are wrong, maybe sachertorte isn't a Detective but Undead! Maybe the Witches results are wrong too. Maybe the mason handshakes aren't working the way Pleonast said they would. The whole game completely and utterly falls apart. Introduce one lie and the game becomes fact-less. From your moderator point of view you see one small fudging of the facts. From a player standpoint I see a mountain of doubt for any and all established facts. How do you plan to moderate your next game? How are players supposed to deal with supposed evidence from powers? Which ones can be believed and which cannot? How are players supposed to deal with such unknowns? What happens the next time you have a Scotsman in the game? Are players going to believe it? Should they believe it? If the players can't believe what the moderator tells them, I don't see how the game can proceed.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 11:57:33 GMT -5
All information is uncertain, of course. I don't see why that is such a big deal. All the roles and mechanics in a Conspiracy are explicitly and openly defined at the start, except for one secret power per team. That is much more information than is available in a typical closed game. Why is uncertainty so much worse here than there?
A typical closed game may have some customary expectations, but Conspiracy actually spells out exactly what those are. Players know how the roles work and they know that each team will have an exception to that. How players deal with those unknowns is up to them. However, they should be expecting the secret powers to occasionally disrupt the defined mechanisms.
Perhaps this is an issue of our players becoming overly used to closed games. A mostly open game like this one plays differently than the usual closed game. The information available is different.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 7, 2010 12:00:47 GMT -5
I have to agree with Sacher on this, because it was stated that Idle was a Scotsman when he was not a Scotsman. That's not uncertain information, that's simply not true.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 7, 2010 12:12:11 GMT -5
Pleonast,
It's a can of worms. Once you open the door to 'all information is uncertain' then the game collapses. You could have just as easily made me a necromancer who investigates as Town as my secret power. Town would have accepted me as a Detective and undead would have won. In game decisions are based on the facts gleaned from play. Once you allow 'all information is uncertain' then the possibilities are endless. Literally anyone could be scum and no amount of information can discount that. A moderator willing to lie obviates all other powers. No power can be trusted. Heck, nothing can be trusted. So what's the point then?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 12:23:55 GMT -5
It's not a dichotomy between "all information is always correct" and "no information is ever correct". Conspiracy is at the point where "most information is correct, but some may not be".
It's no different than a game where all the roles are secret. The possibilities are endless! The moderator could give out any role at all. And yet, players are happy to play in a closed rules set game.
You have to trust me that a game I run is balanced. I think this game was.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 7, 2010 12:33:30 GMT -5
It's not a dichotomy between "all information is always correct" and "no information is ever correct". Conspiracy is at the point where "most information is correct, but some may not be". You can't be serious. If some information is not correct, then ALL information is suspect. Some will be correct and some will not. That's MY POINT. Players can't trust any information if some of it is not correct. Let's say you have a tool to measure voltage -- sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Is the tool of any use whatsoever? The closed setup is not a valid comparison. The moderator does not have to lie to have a closed setup.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 7, 2010 12:35:08 GMT -5
I think the game was balanced and incredibly fun, don't get me wrong.
I think there's a big difference between having a closed setup and having the moderator "reveal" incorrect information via a mechanism that is accepted to always provide correct information. Dusk/dawn reveals are accepted to provide correct information 100% of the time, yet Idle was not a Scotsman.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 12:57:20 GMT -5
Let's say you have a tool to measure voltage -- sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Is the tool of any use whatsoever? Yes, it is of use, because it is providing information. Think of the investigator roles that have a N% chance of revealing a true result and (100-N)% chance of revealing a false result. How high does N have to be before you will not ignore the result? Even uncertain information is information. It is a useful comparison because it highlights how information uncertainty differs between games. In a closed setup there is high uncertainty in the role distribution, but low uncertainty in investigation results. In Conspiracy, there is low uncertainty in the role distribution, but more uncertainty in investigation results. Both games provide enough information to be playable. I think there's a big difference between having a closed setup and having the moderator "reveal" incorrect information via a mechanism that is accepted to always provide correct information. Dusk/dawn reveals are accepted to provide correct information 100% of the time, yet Idle was not a Scotsman. I guess I should have stressed more that players read the rules, because I explicitly stated that only the alignment and roles reveals would be absolutely accurate and that all power results could be modified by other powers. Again, it seems like players are too accustomed to closed rules sets, if they don't even read the rules when its an open rules set.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 7, 2010 13:09:01 GMT -5
I think what FCoD is saying is that Idle's reveal wasn't a "power result," It was part of the Dusk Post. While I take the hardline stance that all lying is bad. FCoD is stating that lying in a Dusk Post is unprecedented. Let's say you have a tool to measure voltage -- sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Is the tool of any use whatsoever? Yes, it is of use, because it is providing information. Think of the investigator roles that have a N% chance of revealing a true result and (100-N)% chance of revealing a false result. How high does N have to be before you will not ignore the result? Even uncertain information is information. If that is how you truly feel, then we have nothing more to discuss. Personally, I'm not going to do any wiring with a tool that I don't have confidence is telling me whether or not I'm going to get electrocuted. If people want to play in games where "information is uncertain" then they are welcome to. I think it is a bad idea and will actively avoid such games.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 13:43:32 GMT -5
I think what FCoD is saying is that Idle's reveal wasn't a "power result," It was part of the Dusk Post. While I take the hardline stance that all lying is bad. FCoD is stating that lying in a Dusk Post is unprecedented. I know "death millers" (townies that both investigate as scum and are revealed on death to be scum) have been used with our group. Faulty investigators have certainly been used with our group. I respect not wanting to play games with rules one doesn't like. I cannot tolerate post restrictions and actively avoid games that include them (sorry, Mr Blockey). Warnings were given in the rules; I apologize that they were not clear enough that you didn't realize my intent.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Sept 7, 2010 14:19:53 GMT -5
As far as I know, a Death Miller was used once. And the moderator was rightly and soundly lambasted for it. Death Millers are bastard, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 7, 2010 14:49:59 GMT -5
I respect not wanting to play games with rules one doesn't like. I cannot tolerate post restrictions and actively avoid games that include them (sorry, Mr Blockey). Warnings were given in the rules; I apologize that they were not clear enough that you didn't realize my intent. Please don't misunderstand me. The mechanism as it played out did not affect my enjoyment of the game. I mainly am pointing out that your notion of equivalence between "recruitment" and "fake Scotsman" is not true. Recruitment fell squarely in the realm of expectation. That is why when Idle was revealed to be Cabal no one in the game made a big deal about it. We all assumed he had been recruited. What I am trying to say, but have failed utterly, is that since Idle was Cabal from the start, a line has been crossed. You seem fine with the idea that a Scotsman will never be believed to be confirmed Town ever again. If that is how you feel, fine. I disagree. I see a host of problems with such a policy and for what benefit? What do we gain from having the moderator lie to the players?
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Sept 7, 2010 15:17:01 GMT -5
Ok. As usual I have some pretty strong views on this whole topic. This whole thing about a mod overtly lying to the players is some serious business. I for one, even though I thought Idle was Cabal early on, never suspected that he might be after the Scotsman reveal. But can this kind of thing ever be justifiable? Or is it a plain case of setting a precedent that really shouldn't be set?
I've reflected long and hard on the problem at hand, and I've come to a definite conclusion here. Many of you probably won't like it, but I've never been one to let controversy get in the way of telling it how it is. Sometimes you just have to give it to people straight.
My conclusion is that clearly Pleonast needs a hug.
**I huggle Pleo... and cop a quick feel while I'm at it...**
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 15:49:05 GMT -5
I think I see what you're saying and it doesn't concern me. In terms of the players in the game, there's no game-play difference between a recruited Scotsman and a Cabal disguised as a Scotsman. With recruitment explicitly stated as possible, all alignment information is suspect. In either case, players know that the revealed alignment may be (or become) wrong, and can act based on that.
In terms of player trust of the moderator, I consider fairness and balance paramount. In other words, as a player I can accept possibly false results, provided that the game is fairly balanced. Evaluating information is a part of the game, just like evaluating player motives. I do not see a problem with forcing players to suspect the accuracy of each piece of information.
There's no fundamental reason why I couldn't reveal the distribution of roles and the secret powers of each side before a game starts. The game would still be playable, but it would be less of a puzzle. Should I poll players before assigning roles if they'd prefer a completely open rules set, or a rules set with unknown roles and secret powers?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 15:50:13 GMT -5
Keep your hands to yourself, Moley. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Sept 7, 2010 16:00:10 GMT -5
I do not see a problem with forcing players to suspect the accuracy of each piece of information. I suggest you make sure everyone who plays is okay with that. I disagree strongly. I have no idea what everyone else thinks. Some might agree with you, others may not. My personal feeling is that the game is complex enough without having to "what if" every piece of information for falsehood. Frankly, I would find that far too time-consuming and ultimately pointless. Also there is a difference between a game balance for "who wins" and game balance for "gameplay." What you suggest is okay for the former, but completely neglects the latter. What you suggest is, to me, the opposite of fun.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 16:16:07 GMT -5
I do not see a problem with forcing players to suspect the accuracy of each piece of information. I suggest you make sure everyone who plays is okay with that. I did post my rules set at about the same time as the sign-up sheet, so potential players could see what they would be getting into. As always, I am interested in what other players think.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Sept 7, 2010 18:39:49 GMT -5
Clearly, you are not going to be swayed on this point. Then I strongly suggest you remove the Scotsman role from the basic set up, or at least move it to another faction. No Town will ever let a revealed Scotsman live in any Conspiracy game again. And as such, the role is completely worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 7, 2010 18:51:12 GMT -5
So is this going to be referred to, forever after now, as Cabalgate? Scotsmangate? Hahah. My two cents: It was Pleo's game so, really, he could do what he wants. I did have misgivings myself that others, when they found out what I really was, wouldn't like it and would think it was bastard, but eh. *shrugs* I think people would be more pissed if we had won As it was, yeah, it was misleading and I think it will raise the suspicion bar in future Conspiracy games. Nothing like making them more intense than they already are!
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 7, 2010 19:08:47 GMT -5
Clearly, you are not going to be swayed on this point. Then I strongly suggest you remove the Scotsman role from the basic set up, or at least move it to another faction. No Town will ever let a revealed Scotsman live in any Conspiracy game again. And as such, the role is completely worthless. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because an investigation result may be false doesn't mean it is worthless. Like the faulty investigator example, how how high must N be before you do not ignore the result? In this game, there was something like 30 results given to players, and I think only 2 were inaccurate. That's about a 95% accuracy. In any game with possible recruitment (which seems to be standard these days, see Mahaloth's SDMB game, for example), no alignment result can be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Sept 7, 2010 21:02:16 GMT -5
I know "death millers" (townies that both investigate as scum and are revealed on death to be scum) have been used with our group. Actually, the time it was used (pedescribe's Screamers mafia) the Death Miller would have investigated as town. But false flips are gastard, plain and simple. Though they can make for an amusing Gastard game when handled with skill and panache.
|
|
|
Post by stanislaus on Sept 8, 2010 3:39:33 GMT -5
I was very uneasy about Idle's Scotsman "reveal". The problem is that when an attempted lynch of a Scotsman fails, and is announced as such by a mod, that is a "death reveal". Obviously, it's technically not, but it's a mod pronouncement about the result of a lynch. Of course town are going to take it on faith. How else would a Scotsman lynch go down? Why would a mod publicly declare x to be a Scotsman if that wasn't the case?
The problem is that while it's fine for Idle to lie about being a Scotsman, even to temporarily steal his powers, it's quite another for the mod to become complicit in the lie. It would probably have been better had Pleo described the failed lynch - "A mob gathers around Idle. Despite their best efforts to string him up, it soon becomes apparent that he is just too tough to kill. Idle has survived the lynch." without explicitly saying that Idle was a Scotsman.
Yes, at any later point in the game, Idle may have been recruited. But at the time the mod announced he was Scotsman, that was bad information. And the mod shouldn't be giving bad information.
|
|