Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jul 26, 2012 17:57:22 GMT -5
I think we would need popcorn to watch this game with peeker
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 29, 2012 23:21:12 GMT -5
Somewhere out there Beneath the Gastard light My role's thinking of me And loving me tonight...
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jul 31, 2012 16:44:39 GMT -5
Gastards in the mornin' Gastards in the evenin' Gastards at supper time! When Gastards are in a mafia game, you can have Gastards anytime!
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jul 31, 2012 18:31:43 GMT -5
Dreaming I was only dreaming Of another gastard role For me to have tonight
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 7, 2012 14:37:13 GMT -5
~Doo~Doo~Doo~
So how we doin' everybody? Can I get you a drink while we wait? No? How 'bout a scone? Maybe some little crackers with cheese? Nothing? Okay...
~Doo~Doo~Doo!~
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Aug 7, 2012 14:42:14 GMT -5
marathon mafia....I'd settle for a snickers feels like there hasnt been a game here for aeons
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 7, 2012 16:14:37 GMT -5
I was thinking (dangerous, I know) and since we've had quite a bit of down time here, I figured I'd go ahead and introduce a new rule-ish thing here so we can get questions and maybe a little feedback to help me lock it down. To help with third-parties and other such roles, I've developed a new classification. I'm hesitant to call it alignment since we already use alignment for Town, Scum, etc. but classification feels weird to say. I'll use classification for now, though, and say there are three different types of classifications: Hostile, Nonhostile, and Independent. Hostile: Hostile win conditions are win conditions that, when met, end the game and exclude other parties from winning. If a hostile party/group meets their win condition then the game is over for everybody, and usually results in other hostile parties losing the game. Examples of hostile win conditions include typical town (even though they are the "right" side to be on, if town wins the game is over, thus hostile), scum, and serial killer win conditions. Nonhostile: Nonhostile win conditions are win conditions that can be met without ending the game or can be won alongside other winners. These win conditions don't interfere with hostile parties and are usually regarded as a mislynch or a miskill if they become the target. Examples of nonhostile win conditions include the typical Survivor role (be alive at endgame, regardless of who else wins), a Jester role (if he's lynched Day One he wins, but the game continues for town/scum to see who wins), or more complicated roles like the Sidekick role from the first Super Smash Bros. game (the Sidekick had to boost four people, town had to end up at lynch or lose, and he had to be alive at the end of the game, but he could win with anybody). Independent: Independent win conditions usually exist within their own little bubble and involve a smaller subset of players competing against one another. Different from nonhostile in that between the players competing, there will be a winner and losers from that group regardless of how the rest of the game turns out. Therefore they're classified as independent because while they're a part of the mafia game, when the game ends they'll have their own winners and losers based on their own rules, not the typical town/scum rules. Examples of independent win conditions include the dueling serial killers in Evil Dead (there were two SKs, each trying to get more points than the other based on who they killed, whichever SK had more points when the game ended won and the other lost, regardless of whether both died during the game), the House of Chains in Malazan (members of the House of Chains were trying to get all other members of the House lynched + the Master of the Deck of Dragons, and the last House member standing won independently of the other clans) and the Thief/Mercenary in Undying War (the Thief and Mercenary were trying to make a certain amount of money before the game ended, if the Thief made more money than the Mercenary they won, if the Mercenary made more money than everybody else in the game had they won, regardless of whether scum or town won). --- I think Hostile, Nonhostile, and Independent covers all the win condition types. I also think having people investigate/turn up as Hostile, Nonhostile, Independent instead of Town/Scum/Third-Party will help out those third-parties that get a raw deal because town usually can't reliably find out if they are a threat to their win condition or not. If anybody has any questions on these classifications or has any thoughts on this, feel free to ask or speak about them before the game starts so I can tweak the formula and make the game an optimal experience for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by wombat99 on Aug 7, 2012 16:40:34 GMT -5
Wrapping my head around this.
I.e. investigation results would depend on who was asking... what would be hostile to my win condition would not be hostile to everyone's. Two players could investigate the same player and get different results?
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 7, 2012 16:51:50 GMT -5
No, all investigators would get the same results.
If you get a hostile read, it means they have a win condition that ends the game, no ifs ands or buts. If you get a nonhostile read, it means they can win without ending the game. If you get an independent read, it means they have their own game they're playing independent of the town/scum game.
The town win condition would probably read something like "you win when all other hostile players are dead." Since scum are hostile, town will want to eliminate all the scum. But town are hostile, too, which means a town investigator who turns up just "hostile" as a reading might have investigated a townsperson or a scum.
The idea of hostile/nonhostile/independent is more for helping town and scum differentiate between third-party win stealers and third-parties who don't steal the win. In that way, it helps balance the game more for third-parties than it is now, because right now third-parties have a tough time claiming to not be dangerous to town.
As an example, take the recent Batman game. Pleonast came forward as the Joker on Day One. The Joker's win condition in that game was kill 10 people by the time the game ended. He didn't have to be alive when the game was over, as long as he'd killed his 10 people. He also didn't interfere with the town or scum win conditions. But town didn't have any reliable way of knowing whether Pleonast could steal the win from them, so they lynched him Day One.
With the idea of hostile/nonhostile/independent, the town could have put off the lynch if they so chose and had an investigator look to see if Pleonast was hostile. In this case, the Joker would have turned up nonhostile because his win condition didn't end the game and didn't interfere with other win conditions, even though he had a killing role.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 8, 2012 11:00:40 GMT -5
To help with third-parties and other such roles, I've developed a new classification. I'm hesitant to call it alignment since we already use alignment for Town, Scum, etc. but classification feels weird to say. I'll use classification for now, though, and say there are three different types of classifications: Hostile, Nonhostile, and Independent. A couple years back, some of us used terms like "exclusive win" and "inclusive win" for what you're calling "hostile" and "nonhostile". I like descriptive terms like these. The term "pfk" for "plays-for-keeps" irks me because it is non-descriptive; everyone should be playing to win. I like the idea of separate investigators for alignment (that is, team) and category (that is, whether a win prevents others from winning). I think "category" is a better term than "classification" for this type of win condition. Of course, this type of distinction is moot in the games I run, since all victory criteria are publicly announced before the game and investigators find out which one a player has. As an example, take the recent Batman game. Pleonast came forward as the Joker on Day One. The Joker's win condition in that game was kill 10 people by the time the game ended. He didn't have to be alive when the game was over, as long as he'd killed his 10 people. He also didn't interfere with the town or scum win conditions. But town didn't have any reliable way of knowing whether Pleonast could steal the win from them, so they lynched him Day One. With the idea of hostile/nonhostile/independent, the town could have put off the lynch if they so chose and had an investigator look to see if Pleonast was hostile. In this case, the Joker would have turned up nonhostile because his win condition didn't end the game and didn't interfere with other win conditions, even though he had a killing role. Actually town did have a reliable way, but scum flamed the town's paranoia so that they didn't give things a chance to develop. There were investigators who could detect a subset of categories of players (town or scum or third-party or pfk). With a little coordination, town could get a good idea of who was what. Potential recruitment made things a little uncertain, but that shouldn't be enough to completely discount investigations. As it turned out, the game was balanced with the assumption that some of third-parties (non-hostiles in your terms) would work with town to win. When town lynched two third-parties in the first two Days, they not only mislynched two power roles who were trying to work with town, they discouraged the remaining third parties from helping town. Town lost. Bottom line: players won't always use the tools they're given, nor play in the game anywhere close to rationally. It makes balancing games a crapshoot.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 8, 2012 18:30:06 GMT -5
I think this is a great evolution/expansion on some of the organic terminology we've clobbered together, like PFK. I will do my best to adopt them.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 9, 2012 16:46:40 GMT -5
To help with third-parties and other such roles, I've developed a new classification. I'm hesitant to call it alignment since we already use alignment for Town, Scum, etc. but classification feels weird to say. I'll use classification for now, though, and say there are three different types of classifications: Hostile, Nonhostile, and Independent. A couple years back, some of us used terms like "exclusive win" and "inclusive win" for what you're calling "hostile" and "nonhostile". I like descriptive terms like these. The term "pfk" for "plays-for-keeps" irks me because it is non-descriptive; everyone should be playing to win. I like the idea of separate investigators for alignment (that is, team) and category (that is, whether a win prevents others from winning). I think "category" is a better term than "classification" for this type of win condition. Of course, this type of distinction is moot in the games I run, since all victory criteria are publicly announced before the game and investigators find out which one a player has. As an example, take the recent Batman game. Pleonast came forward as the Joker on Day One. The Joker's win condition in that game was kill 10 people by the time the game ended. He didn't have to be alive when the game was over, as long as he'd killed his 10 people. He also didn't interfere with the town or scum win conditions. But town didn't have any reliable way of knowing whether Pleonast could steal the win from them, so they lynched him Day One. With the idea of hostile/nonhostile/independent, the town could have put off the lynch if they so chose and had an investigator look to see if Pleonast was hostile. In this case, the Joker would have turned up nonhostile because his win condition didn't end the game and didn't interfere with other win conditions, even though he had a killing role. Actually town did have a reliable way, but scum flamed the town's paranoia so that they didn't give things a chance to develop. There were investigators who could detect a subset of categories of players (town or scum or third-party or pfk). With a little coordination, town could get a good idea of who was what. Potential recruitment made things a little uncertain, but that shouldn't be enough to completely discount investigations. As it turned out, the game was balanced with the assumption that some of third-parties (non-hostiles in your terms) would work with town to win. When town lynched two third-parties in the first two Days, they not only mislynched two power roles who were trying to work with town, they discouraged the remaining third parties from helping town. Town lost. Bottom line: players won't always use the tools they're given, nor play in the game anywhere close to rationally. It makes balancing games a crapshoot. Sorry, but I think you would have had a very different perspective had you been an unspoiled Town player trying to decide what to do with third parties in that game, and I think it it is smart design not to ever assume that a unspoiled Town player will not be paranoid first.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 9, 2012 21:00:47 GMT -5
Actually town did have a reliable way, but scum flamed the town's paranoia so that they didn't give things a chance to develop. There were investigators who could detect a subset of categories of players (town or scum or third-party or pfk). With a little coordination, town could get a good idea of who was what. Potential recruitment made things a little uncertain, but that shouldn't be enough to completely discount investigations. Actually, when I said reliable I meant from a mechanic standpoint. Yes, in-game there was a third-party detective who could out third parties, but given scum inflammation and town paranoia, the likelihood of the entire group trusting a third-party investigator who investigates third-parties is slim to nil. The obvious problem comes from the fact that town-aligned players like to say third-party isn't town, which means it's not a mislynch. Except in most cases it is a mislynch, because you're lynching somebody who doesn't affect your win condition. Using new categories (I like categories) might lead to the same discussion, i.e. people claiming to be nonhostile and town not trusting and lynching them anyway, but at least this way there's a definite answer when you lynch a person whether it was good or bad for your win condition. I'm nearly certain (and this will be made clear in the rules/information when the game starts) the town win condition will read as: "You win when all hostile parties that are not town-aligned are eliminated." So any town lynch, nonhostile lynch, or independent lynch would be against the town's best interests.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 10, 2012 10:26:55 GMT -5
Actually town did have a reliable way, but scum flamed the town's paranoia so that they didn't give things a chance to develop. There were investigators who could detect a subset of categories of players (town or scum or third-party or pfk). With a little coordination, town could get a good idea of who was what. Potential recruitment made things a little uncertain, but that shouldn't be enough to completely discount investigations. As it turned out, the game was balanced with the assumption that some of third-parties (non-hostiles in your terms) would work with town to win. When town lynched two third-parties in the first two Days, they not only mislynched two power roles who were trying to work with town, they discouraged the remaining third parties from helping town. Town lost. Bottom line: players won't always use the tools they're given, nor play in the game anywhere close to rationally. It makes balancing games a crapshoot. Sorry, but I think you would have had a very different perspective had you been an unspoiled Town player trying to decide what to do with third parties in that game, and I think it it is smart design not to ever assume that a unspoiled Town player will not be paranoid first. I know we have disagreements about that game, but I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me here: * That scum were pushing for third-party lynches? * That with some coordination, that town could figure out who was a threat or not? * That potential recruitment made things harder, but didn't make investigators useless? * That the town needed some third-party help to win? * That third parties didn't help town after two of them were lynched? * That players don't always use the tools they're given, nor always play rationally? * That balancing is difficult? Actually, when I said reliable I meant from a mechanic standpoint. Yes, in-game there was a third-party detective who could out third parties, but given scum inflammation and town paranoia, the likelihood of the entire group trusting a third-party investigator who investigates third-parties is slim to nil. The obvious problem comes from the fact that town-aligned players like to say third-party isn't town, which means it's not a mislynch. Except in most cases it is a mislynch, because you're lynching somebody who doesn't affect your win condition. Using new categories (I like categories) might lead to the same discussion, i.e. people claiming to be nonhostile and town not trusting and lynching them anyway, but at least this way there's a definite answer when you lynch a person whether it was good or bad for your win condition. I'm nearly certain (and this will be made clear in the rules/information when the game starts) the town win condition will read as: "You win when all hostile parties that are not town-aligned are eliminated." So any town lynch, nonhostile lynch, or independent lynch would be against the town's best interests. There was more than just a third party investigator. There was an investigator that could distinguish third parties from pfks. And also a player who'd learn when someone was recruited. So there were means to gather reliable alignment knowledge. But you make a good point that better described victory conditions can lead to better play.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 12, 2012 20:49:13 GMT -5
I'll just be happier knowing that a game is designed with a way for the town to functionally make the confirmable distinction between these proposed role types.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 13, 2012 0:56:21 GMT -5
I'm just hoping all the people that signed up are actually still interested in playing by the time the game rolls around to actually starting.
|
|
|
Post by crys on Aug 13, 2012 14:19:50 GMT -5
Don't worry about me I'm still interested Sent from my SCH-I405 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on Aug 14, 2012 0:28:47 GMT -5
Still interested
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2012 1:01:59 GMT -5
Looks like the Marathon game is down to 4 living players? And one of them is Meeko?
|
|
|
Post by crys on Aug 14, 2012 6:50:16 GMT -5
Looks like the Marathon game is down to 4 living players? And one of them is Meeko? There are more than 4 players but that is about how many of us are active Sent from my SCH-I405 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Aug 14, 2012 16:58:25 GMT -5
What's this about a game afoot? Is the offer still up?
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 14, 2012 16:58:30 GMT -5
So I got an automated PM blast that piqued my interest. First, I didn't know Pollux had access to automated PM blasts, where did he get that kind of power? Second, I like getting (semi) personally invited to play in games. I am far too narcissistic to turn down an offer like that.
So, on the contingency that the game gets going in full swing before the 20th, I am in.
So, fair warning. I have school, work, and an internship starting in September. I have free time now, but when it goes away it will go away really hard. Hopefully I will have kept up well enough that it won't matter at that point.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Aug 14, 2012 18:35:55 GMT -5
Yeah.... Don't think that is going to happen unless scum just gives up...
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 14, 2012 18:46:31 GMT -5
Well, get scum on that then. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2012 19:09:54 GMT -5
Whoops. I was just counting the not-struckthru names. I don't think it is going to end in a week, but I do think that NAF should still play.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Aug 14, 2012 19:14:25 GMT -5
So I got an automated PM blast that piqued my interest. First, I didn't know Pollux had access to automated PM blasts, where did he get that kind of power? I think he was joking. Sadly, I don't have time to join in this game.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 14, 2012 19:47:55 GMT -5
What's this about a game afoot? Is the offer still up? Yes it's still available! I think Idle's game is going to be over soon. I mean, I've been in a holding pattern for about two months now, so...we have to be starting soon! So I got an automated PM blast that piqued my interest. First, I didn't know Pollux had access to automated PM blasts, where did he get that kind of power? Second, I like getting (semi) personally invited to play in games. I am far too narcissistic to turn down an offer like that. So, on the contingency that the game gets going in full swing before the 20th, I am in. Woo! Score one for narcissism! I'm hoping to get started soon but it all depends on when Idle's game is finishing (they have to be close) and when I get admin powers. I think he was joking. Sadly, I don't have time to join in this game. Shhhhhhh he doesn't need to know that! I am Pollux the all-powerful! I figured some people would be too busy to play but I thought it wouldn't hurt to try and reach out some feelers.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 14, 2012 19:57:22 GMT -5
So I got an automated PM blast that piqued my interest. First, I didn't know Pollux had access to automated PM blasts, where did he get that kind of power? I think he was joking. Sadly, I don't have time to join in this game. What! How dare joke about something as serious as mafia...or PM blasts? Also when was the last time you actually played? O
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Aug 15, 2012 11:00:13 GMT -5
Heh. I'm actually kind-a busy right now (even more in a month and a half or so: baby on the way!) On the busy front: check this out! And this!
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Aug 15, 2012 20:07:49 GMT -5
Seems like most everybody I've sent messages to are busy. Oh well! I tried!
|
|