[WW] General Game, Rules, and Strategy Discussion

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

I've run one game and yes, exactly what Tomorrow said, silencing dead players essentially removes them from the game completely. I certainly still read the thread (at least the ending), but I am less likely to follow it as thoroughly.

It's also lame since the same players seem to die early repeatedly.

Is there any way we can concurrently have a discussion/brainstorm about participation? Almost every game, people sign up that don't really participate, and it just less fun.

Completely agree about participation. I understand we all have different schedules and different amounts of time we can spend, but I don't get those who sign up and say nothing (except voting).

One of the problems is that's it is hard to regulate. How would we determine
what's not enough?

[-aggie-]

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

I've run one game and yes, exactly what Tomorrow said, silencing dead players essentially removes them from the game completely. I certainly still read the thread (at least the ending), but I am less likely to follow it as thoroughly.

It's also lame since the same players seem to die early repeatedly.

Is there any way we can concurrently have a discussion/brainstorm about participation? Almost every game, people sign up that don't really participate, and it just less fun.

We've talked about participation in other game rule discussions, and whenever we put a rule in like having to vote once a day, it seems like that rule eventually starts getting ignored. I think some of the people actually like to play with very little posting and some just aren't around when a lot of us are.

[Melrose]

There's a difference between posting a little and not posting at all - and we've had both types of players (if you can still call them players). If the game discussion runs long, a player can post once or twice a day and still seem to be a non participant. I understand not posting a lot; but it is bad when someone doesn't post at all.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Completely agree about participation. I understand we all have different schedules and different amounts of time we can spend, but I don't get those who sign up and say nothing (except voting).

One of the problems is that's it is hard to regulate. How would we determine
what's not enough?

Originally Posted by -aggie-

We've talked about participation in other game rule discussions, and whenever we put a rule in like having to vote once a day, it seems like that rule eventually starts getting ignored. I think some of the people actually like to play with very little posting and some just aren't around when a lot of us are.

I am not saying everyone should be posting as much as some of the more prolific posters, but we've had rounds where people have said absolutely nothing. There's been a game recently where one of the wolves, if I recall correctly, was totally silent for the game and because of it, flew way under the radar all the way until the end.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it's boring to play with people that don't say a thing, and it's also much harder to play specials/wolves well when you have to actually participate.

I agree, I don't think a hard rule really solves anything, but I am not thrilled with the current mode of it just being acceptable to sign up and go silent.

Originally Posted by Melrose

There's a difference between posting a little and not posting at all - and we've had both types of players (if you can still call them players). If the game discussion runs long, a player can post once or twice a day and still seem to be a non participant. I understand not posting a lot; but it is bad when someone doesn't post at all.

Yes, exactly. There are players that post less, but participate. Diversity in style is good, and I'm not trying to force people to play outside of their style, except in the cases where that style is saying nothing at all.

[Comeagain?]

I think the lost in the woods approach works, but I would make it so that the post where you vote doesn't count as participation, ie you need to post twice each day.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

Yes, "we" are. However, I made a comment about MBPi5's posting, and I have to admit some people probably thought I was being an a$$ (maybe even you).

BTW, I only made that comment after he had 25 posts out of the latest 40-50 posts. I simply got tired of having all of his dead posts that had absolutely nothing to do with the game (it seems these have since been deleted, so there's no way to see what I mean). Many times, if he didn't get a response he would make another post several minutes later, and double and even triple post. He seemed to do this every game, as well, and I had tried to ignore it, but it wasn't seeming to get any better. So, as long as if we have another MBPi5-type poster in a future game and something is done about it, I have no problem with after dead posts.

Sorry for harping on this, but I really felt he made the game annoying. So much so that I wasn't going to play any more with him in a game, since I found myself tempted to do something that might get me a TO. If I'm in the minority about this, just let me know, and in the future I'll keep my mouth shut.

In complete honesty, prior to his second banning, I thought that it was getting a little over-the-line with being mean to MBP i5. And I can say this without bias because he drove me crazy when he first started, and there were times I wanted to boot him from the game (and I said things to him a few times). However, by the time he got banned, some of the comments to him had begun to make me really uncomfortable. Knowing how young he is, how much he wanted to be accepted and a part of the game. Yes, he was annoying at times, and especially in the beginning, but I thought he probably didn't get much benefit of the doubt when he was really trying - albeit late in his stay. He was contrite about his recent game mistakes. And yeah, I just know that he's a kid, and I'm a 28-year-old woman, so I'm willing to give him more slack and patience. Of course, there is a limit.

After his second banning, which I do think was deserved, it sort of takes care of itself, so I don't know why it keeps getting brought up. I thought he deserved another chance after that banning, and I would have been ignoring my own conscience not to say so. Does his second banning mean that the first was warranted? Absolutely not. I can't see the mods bringing him back again, so it's all kind of moot anyway. No one else in these games has blundered the way he did, so, yeah. Going back to the actual discussion, I don't think MBP i5's mistakes should make it so the dead can't post.

----------

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

I think the lost in the woods approach works, but I would make it so that the post where you vote doesn't count as participation, ie you need to post twice each day.

That might be a solution.

[mscriv]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I won't speak for others, but yes, I'm for real. My curiosity would hover around that level where I might check in from time to time and read the most recent post, but not follow along with all the posts that were made in the meantime. And you're missing my point - it's not only about reading what other dead characters have to say, it's also being able to interact when your character is dead.

Think about it - even in a sport, a player who comes out of the game can still sit on the bench and cheer for his team. Banning "after death" posts sends us to the locker room. There's nothing interesting in that.

I understand and the sports analogy is a good one. I think my concern is that what is seen can't be unseen and players do make mistakes, more often than we like to admit. When I was the storyteller it came down to the wire at the end and there were some more prominent players who made some bad after death posts that easily could have influenced the gameplay. They kindly removed them at my request and didn't have any ill intent, but we'll never know if that influenced things. And, we all know that there's nothing worse than a game getting ruined by a careless post.

Originally Posted by Firestar

I've run two games and I'm in favor of the dead being allowed to post. I think as long as they aren't posting so much (which can be determined by the GG) then they should be allowed.

I agree that each game and each storyteller should run their game as they see fit. I'm not trying to advocate that we come up with a universal set of rules that every game has to go by. I think the variety is helpful.

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

Is there any way we can concurrently have a discussion/brainstorm about participation? Almost every game, people sign up that don't really participate, and it just less fun.

For sure, that's why I created this thread. In here we can discuss anything game related or any concerns that arise. I think one way to remedy this problem is for the group to create a new norm of behavior. Players that don't post get lynched. If this expectation is set and people consistently follow it then players will adjust their posting behavior.

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

No one else in these games has blundered the way he did, so, yeah. Going back to the actual discussion, I don't think MBP i5's mistakes should make it so the dead can't post.

I thought MBPi5 was very annoying and very much a distraction. That being said, it wasn't my game and thus it wasn't my place to step in. My concerns with dead posting have very little to do with MBPi5 because, as you say, no other player has taken it to that level. However, going back to the beginning of these games we have had a great number of problems, distractions, and concerns related to after death posting. Ravenvii even limited after death posting to one single post in his games. Like I said above, I'm not looking for a universal rule, I just wanted to bring up the subject and see what everyone was thinking. In my opinion it's up to each game storyteller to use the rules they see fit for the games they run.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by mscriv

For sure, that's why I created this thread. In here we can discuss anything game related or any concerns that arise. I think one way to remedy this problem is for the group to create a new norm of behavior. Players that don't post get lynched. If this expectation is set and people consistently follow it then players will adjust their posting behavior.

This has happened occasionally, but I think you might be on to something with kind of policing ourselves through our behavior. It's certainly going to be my tactic, especially for first day votes or toss-up votes. Although unless it modifies people's behaviors quickly, being paired with non-posters would be an immediate handicap.

I thought MBPi5 was very annoying and very much a distraction. That being said, it wasn't my game and thus it wasn't my place to step in. My concerns with dead posting have very little to do with MBPi5 because, as you say, no other player has taken it to that level. However, going back to the beginning of these games we have had a great number of problems, distractions, and concerns related to after death posting. Ravenvii even limited after death posting to one single post in his games. Like I said above, I'm not looking for a universal rule, I just wanted to bring up the subject and see what everyone was thinking. In my opinion it's up to each game storyteller to use the rules they see fit for the games they run.

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing that he could be very annoying and very distracting at times. I do think the response to him could be almost as annoying, and often extended beyond his offenses. That said, I think the MBP i5 era is over, so we can probably just move on to relevant matters.

I agree with you in the game god should have final say in his/her game. A hard and fast rule for this kind of thing doesn't seem to be the best solution, as you said, so it might just have to play out based on the GG's tolerance/preference.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

Yes, "we" are. However, I made a comment about MBPi5's posting, and I have to admit some people probably thought I was being an a$$ (maybe even you).

I'll go on record - I agree with you on mbpi5 whole-heartedly. Not only was he annoying, but he seemed to take great delight in being annoying ("Isn't it great how I'm not posting so much anymore?!?"). He flaunted his lack of maturity, he rubbed our faces in our lack of patience with him. There are other game players, MR users in general, Twitter followers, etc. who are teenagers and they're nowhere near as annoying as him.

Some have said they're sad that he's gone. I'm not.

As for dead posting - yes, we all need to take the spirit of the game into account. It was driving me absolutely nuts to watch Sythas and Moyank24 getting away with their deception while I knew about it, knowing it would ruin the game for everyone if I said anything. You have to understand that there are several users I keep up with on Twitter/Facebook/whatever, it would be terrifyingly easy to have dropped a hint - but it would also completely violate the sport. As long as the integrity of the game is preserved, I don't have a problem with dead posting.

[mscriv]

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing that he could be very annoying and very distracting at times. I do think the response to him could be almost as annoying, and often extended beyond his offenses.

I'm glad you mentioned this because I think it's another illustration of how quickly after death posts can get out of hand. Often it seems to be a domino effect where things go from bad to worse very quickly. Dead players tend to interact with each other because they know they aren't supposed to interfere with the game. So, when one person comments from beyond the grave others tend to follow.

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

As long as the integrity of the game is preserved, I don't have a problem with dead posting.

Well said. The integrity of the game is my primary concern and at this point I'm just not sure the best way to preserve that when it comes to after death posts. I'm still considering how I will choose to run my next game in regards to this area.

[-aggie-]

Originally Posted by mscriv

For sure, that's why I created this thread. In here we can discuss anything game related or any concerns that arise. I think one way to remedy this problem is for the group to create a new norm of behavior. Players that don't post get lynched. If this expectation is set and people consistently follow it then players will adjust their posting behavior.

The problem with this is that it would put the village at a distinct disadvantage to vote these jokers off. So, I think the village would have a hard time maintaining the discipline to do this too many times. TTYTT, I sometimes think people don't post when they're just a villager. Also, from what I recall, you are known for not posting on the first day or so. So, IDK what to say, since if we all did that.....

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing that he could be very annoying and very distracting at times. I do think the response to him could be almost as annoying, and often extended beyond his offenses. That said, I think the MBP i5 era is over, so we can probably just move on to relevant matters.

I totally agree. However, my point is (IF we ever have another new player like that) that something is done about it by SOMEONE other than me. I don't want to be the Dad. If anything, the GG should step in.

----------

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I'll go on record - I agree with you on mbpi5 whole-heartedly. Not only was he annoying, but he seemed to take great delight in being annoying ("Isn't it great how I'm not posting so much anymore?!?"). He flaunted his lack of maturity, he rubbed our faces in our lack of patience with him. There are other game players, MR users in general, Twitter followers, etc. who are teenagers and they're nowhere near as annoying as him.

Some have said they're sad that he's gone. I'm not.

Snip.

Thanks, it's good to know I wasn't alone. I'm also not sad he is gone.

[mscriv]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

The problem with this is that it would put the village at a distinct disadvantage to vote these jokers off. So, I think the village would have a hard time maintaining the discipline to do this too many times. TTYTT, I sometimes think people don't post when they're just a villager. Also, from what I recall, you are known for not posting on the first day or so. So, IDK what to say, since if we all did that.....

Valid points good sir. But, let's get one thing straight. I'm known for not voting on the first day. I'm generally quite a prolific poster. In fact, I think you've even been known to tease me a bit for being longwinded.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

The problem with this is that it would put the village at a distinct disadvantage to vote these jokers off. So, I think the village would have a hard time maintaining the discipline to do this too many times. TTYTT, I sometimes think people don't post when they're just a villager. Also, from what I recall, you are known for not posting on the first day or so. So, IDK what to say, since if we all did that.....

It would, at least in the beginning, although I'm assuming mscriv is hoping it helps change the behavior to the point where it wouldn't be necessary forever. Otherwise, I agree, and it'd be unfair to people that get paired with the Silent Bobs. I think we all know it's much harder to be duplicitous when you have to actually talk.

I totally agree. However, my point is (IF we ever have another new player like that) that something is done about it by SOMEONE other than me. I don't want to be the Dad. If anything, the GG should step in.

I agree, I think it should be the GG. Otherwise, it's open to discussion, and obviously not everyone will agree. Hopefully we've had enough asshattery to last awhile.

[-aggie-]

Originally Posted by mscriv

Valid points good sir. But, let's get one thing straight. I'm known for not voting on the first day. I'm generally quite a prolific poster. In fact, I think you've even been known to tease me a bit for being longwinded.

Of course you're a prolific poster (at least for amount of words in a post). You and SS could have a competition (or even DP). However, I'm talking about the first day. The hardest day for all of us. So, do we let the n00bs know that you and Melrose don't say much the first day, but if they exhibit this same behavior we're voting them off??

[Sythas]

If the participation is not enough, by a general guidline stated by the GG in the introduction, or simply because posters are posting too much unrelated stuff they could be transform into a Zombie. No more posting, just vote. Can still do the speciality, like scan and werewolf kill, but can't post, just vote.. A punishement, and if they got 3 votes against them, even if they are not in the lead to be lynch, we kill them...

[mscriv]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

Of course you're a prolific poster (at least for amount of words in a post). You and SS could have a competition (or even DP). However, I'm talking about the first day. The hardest day for all of us. So, do we let the n00bs know that you and Melrose don't say much the first day, but if they exhibit this same behavior we're voting them off??

Are you asking if I think I should get special treatment? Hmm... that's a tough one...

Survey Says...

Yes, I definitely deserve special treatment!

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

Of course you're a prolific poster (at least for amount of words in a post). You and SS could have a competition (or even DP). However, I'm talking about the first day. The hardest day for all of us. So, do we let the n00bs know that you and Melrose don't say much the first day, but if they exhibit this same behavior we're voting them off??

Yeah, couldn't agree more here.

I think mscriv should get a pass, as long as he promises to never vote for me.

[Melrose]

Originally Posted by -aggie-

Of course you're a prolific poster (at least for amount of words in a post). You and SS could have a competition (or even DP). However, I'm talking about the first day. The hardest day for all of us. So, do we let the n00bs know that you and Melrose don't say much the first day, but if they exhibit this same behavior we're voting them off??

I don't want special treatment, no. You can buy me a drink, though.

A few players take a bit to get into the spirit of the game - we've all played with each more than once and know each other's style.

Newbies generally don't garner enough influence - no offense to newbies - to really have a bearing on it, I think. Enough experienced players still have to sign the petition as it were.

If a game had that many newbies, I wouldn't be playing.

[abijnk]

Okay, well I've drafted the rules to the game I would like to host and will be posting it shortly for signups.

I have not tried to tackle the issue of promoting active participation. People kept referencing a "lost in the woods rule" but I didn't see it in any of the old games I was looking through.

The rules will be up for discussion until we have enough people to start.

[Plutonius]

Originally Posted by Sythas

If the participation is not enough, by a general guidline stated by the GG in the introduction, or simply because posters are posting too much unrelated stuff they could be transform into a Zombie. No more posting, just vote. Can still do the speciality, like scan and werewolf kill, but can't post, just vote.. A punishement, and if they got 3 votes against them, even if they are not in the lead to be lynch, we kill them...

1) Everyone should be required to vote for someone on day 1.
2) After the first turn, everyone should be required to post a vote but that vote could be a vote for No Vote.
3) Everyone should be required to post a certain number of post each turn (minimum of one preferably more). The post shouldn't necessarily be required to be game related (i.e you have to show that you are playing the game but you should be able to try and stay in the background). It's a social game so post.

[abijnk]

Here is the thread.

[rick snagwell]

what happen to SS...everything ok?

[abijnk]

I wonder if there wouldn't be a way to incentivize active posting without encouraging people to be over the top. IMO too many negative rules or forcing people to post isn't going to really help that much; making people want to post more would be ideal. Chris and I have been brainstorming ways to encourage or reward active posting, but so far all of them have been rather crap ideas.

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by abijnk

Okay, well I've drafted the rules to the game I would like to host and will be posting it shortly for signups.

I have not tried to tackle the issue of promoting active participation. People kept referencing a "lost in the woods rule" but I didn't see it in any of the old games I was looking through.

The rules will be up for discussion until we have enough people to start.

we have played many games with the "lost in woods" rule.
I think it works and I don't really see any drawback to it, but i know other differ in their opinion.
the rule is simple. if you don't vote, you are "lost in the woods" and out of the game. a no-vote is a valid vote.
if a person is 'lost in the woods, no information is given about their role.
if there is an undertaker, they can find out who they were.
i think it should be implemented.

it's simple, clear and unbiased. and easy to enforce.

the problem with with incentivize posting in a concrete way is that it would probably lead to some level of spamming. for example you could have a weighted lottery each night, with the chances of winning a game-related 'prize', (e.g an item for the next day, like a double vote) based on the ranking of post number for the day. people with more post have a higher chance of of winning (like the NBA lottery), but it obviously might lead to spam issues.

[Comeagain?]

Have you considered cookies?


Yes, I stool the line from skunk.