[WW] MRVille Suggested Guidelines (Discuss)

[Plutonius]

Based on the previous games, I think we should go with the following suggestions / changes.

1) There can be multiple games going but people are only allowed to play in one game at a time. Also, the people running a game should not join a game until their game is over.

2) One of the biggest problems in terms of participation is the current setup for days / nights (turns). Making a turn longer then 24 hours reduces participation since people feel no urgency to post / vote. Also, having a different time for the turn to end causes much confusion and people to miss deadlines. Each day / night should be 24 hours and end on the same time throughout the game (i.e. 9:00pm central every day or whatever time the players agree to). The only exception would be on Saturdays which would be a day off (many people are not available on weekends).

a) Because there is a set time, there is NO majority voting (the day does not end early).

b) It also requirers more from the game master since any narrative has to be pre-written (so it can be edited / posted right after the vote closes). Also, a person should not run a game if they feel that they would be unable to meet the schedule.

3) This is a social game and is the most enjoyable when people participate. As such, it should be required that all the players post something at least once / day (except Saturday). If people will not be available for posting / voting (real life has priority ), let everyone know that you will be busy and when you expect to return. It's up to the game master if the post have to be game related or what penalty (if any) there is for not posting. Private messages to the game master or each other do not count as posting.

4) Voting is also important for participation in the game. I would suggest that people are required to vote even if it's a vote for Nobody. The exception should be people who have posted that they will not be available for posting / voting.

5) Rules: The game master should indicate in the rules for each special, who can be infected / killed and by what.

6) Priest: I highly recommend eliminating the priest role (I know some people like it). It's too much of a crutch and makes the game too RNG (random number generator) dependent. Players refuse to participate until the priest asks his question and generally lose interest in the game if the results are not positive.

7) Inquisitor: I suggest replacing the priest with the inquisitor. Before the game starts, the game master randomly picks the inquisitor from players that want to be the inquisitor. The inquisitor player has to be available to post often and keep the game moving ("Don't Panic" would be great). The inquisitor is known by everyone at the start of the game, has immunity from being killed or WW disease for 3 turns (or TBD by the game master), and is immune to vampire disease for the entire game (he is a special). The inquisitor also doesn't know the roles of any of the other players. The inquisitors role is to direct the investigation and keep the game moving.

8) Hunter: Lots of confusion in the last Jav game on the apprentice hunter. In the complex game, I suggest you have a WW hunter and a Vampire hunter instead of the senior and apprentice hunter. The WW hunter would only be immune to the WW disease while the Vampire hunter would only be immune to the vampire disease. It's up to the game master if the immunity last the entire game and I would have both hunters with no immunity from being killed at night.

 

[appleguy123]

Game participation. Let people play in both games, but keep the participation rules the same. If you do not have time to play in both games, don't.

Priest: I don't like the priest role as it is right now either. I would have it where the priest role is eliminated, but his powers are enhanced in the NW. The NW can chose a yes/no question to ask the gods every (other?) day. It is a balanced role because if they ever reveal themselves, it won't be good. This eliminates all 'I won't vote until the priest reveals himself' and makes the game more fun and secretive. MAy I suggest that if this is adopted into a game that we change NW to cult?

Hunter: I like these possibilities for the hunters
1. Two universal 1x immunity hunters
2. Master and apprentice, but they have a power to scan for the other hunter. If they find each other, they can PM to be a very effective force. Kinda like the old vamps, only in reverse.

 

[Don't panic]

i don't feel there is need for major changes again.
i think the main issues are those of pace and participation.

for pace, i think a 24 hours deadline is fine (but excessive at night, where 12 should be fine). the problem with shorter deadlines is that we have people playing from all-over the places (europe, americas, australia), so you need to give a chance for everyone to be involved.
i do like the majority lock mechanism, because it allows strategic exploitation, and sometimes gets for some very fast-paced action, but we have played games where you wait for the deadline no matter what, and that works fine too.


for participation i think it's fine (and fair) to demand at least one vote/day.
if you don't post from dawn to sunset (based on narration), your character gets lost in the woods and it's assumed dead (with no info on the role given, much less reassignment).
the 80-hours thingy of last game was just too cumbersome. simplicity should be the guiding principle here.

i think the roles are mostly fine as they are.
i do like the priest, but people have to realize that it doesn't have to be used necessarily in the first day, and if it doesn't then the game should move on anyways. mscriv had attempted a different way to play the character. it didn't work as planned, but it was interesting and could have been a game-changer if it worked.

i am not sure about the inquisitor role, since he/she doesn't have any particular inside knowledge, the only leverage for following him/her is that he is guaranteed to be good, at least initially. the priest can fulfill those same shoes, if he/she feel like it.

in the other thread i suggested a guideline-table to link the number of players to the roles, with the goal of maintaining a balanced game at all time. the table also includes some suggestions on how to better clarify the various roles.

I am copying down here because this seems to be a more appropriate thread:

i was mentioning in one of the threads, i think we should move away from the simple/complex game system, and just tailor the game to the number of players. with more players you need more roles, but the sides need to maintain balance.
also it would be important that a role maintain its characteristics across games (even accounting for game tinkering by the 'gods'), for example the hunter role was very differnt from the simple to the complex and from game to game.
this generates confusion.

i put together a table with some suggestions of roles/number of players and as a way to unify how role works.
if we come to an agreement on those, than the host can just select the specific roles that will be used and we are all on the same page, without too many changes.

again, this are only suggestion, but they can work as a start point to foster discussion.

there are no real changes from before, fro example i simply called the 'simple hunter' (no insta-kill, no immunity), 'guard' to make it obvious what the differences are.
so the master hunter has protection, insta-kill and one immunity
the apprentice hunter has protection and insta-kill
the guard has only protection.
(but i think the hunter/guard should be able to also protect himself on alternate nights like any other villager, so he can get some immunity back)


there are a couple more very minor clarifications/proposals to some of the other aspects based on what was unclear/unbalanced in the last couple of games.

the idea of the table is basically that the various characters works consistently from game to game , but the game master decides which set of character are going to be used, and how many of them, in that particular game, plus some game-specific tweaks he/she might fancy

 

[Plutonius]

Apologies for starting a new thread. I never saw the other one.

i think a 24 hours deadline is fine (but excessive at night, where 12 should be fine).

I think the main thing the game needs is to have a set time for the end of all turns for the entire game. That would pretty much mean a 24 hour time for specials (unless you also want the day time to be 12 hours) and an end to majority voting (so all days would end at the same time).

the priest can fulfill those same shoes, if he/she feel like it.

The difference is

a) A person is volunteering for the role knowing that he will be active.
b) The inquisitor will be known at the start.

I agree the priest role would be similar if the priest was an active player and was revealed at the start.

Game participation. Let people play in both games, but keep the participation rules the same. If you do not have time to play in both games, don't.

This killed the last few games. People participated in the game they found most entertaining and ignored their other game. You can tell someone not to play if they don't have time but they will anyways.

 

[appleguy123]

Another way to fix the voting problem is that a sepcial could control all votes that were not cast for the day.

 

[Don't panic]

- i think there should only be one game at the time.

- i really don't think that having deadlines at different times is a problem at all, as long as they are clearly stated, but the way you say would be fine (although in that case a 36+12 split would be better).
for example: day starts around 10 am, voting ends at 10 pm the following day, narration is posted and specials are sent at night, until narration is posted again at 10 am next morning.

- personally i like everybody starting on equal footing, and i'd rather have the priest with an option of behaving like the inquisitor, but also with the option of trying a different approach.

- people have not been posting because the rules allowed for them not to be posting, and it is a viable strategy especially at the beginning. If the rules demand that you post/vote once a day, people will do that and the problem becomes non-existent. No need for complex rules. I really don't think that demanding a one-word post as a minimum for continuing the game is too much to ask from anyone.
again, i think that if the rules are clear, people will easily abide

 

[jimN]

I think the Priest role (or a variation on that) helps move the game away from random selection because there is the possibility for some information to be available to the villagers before the first vote. Otherwise there is literally nothing to go on and people are hounded out on a whim.

People should be compelled to post and then you'd know if people were being quiet as a strategy or just because they have completely forgotten about the game. Those who volunteer to play and then contribute nothing should be placed in a time-out from the next game as they ruin the game for everyone, especially if they have a special role.

Fixed deadlines are preferable to variable ones as I rarely pay attention to the timezone they have been announced in and I don't have sufficient interest in american timezones to consistently recall how far behind you guys are.

Keep the majority as it can be a useful tactical device when 2 wolves/vamps can suddenly swing a vote to off someone.


Only run one game at a time and, as suggested, make the game type dependent on the numbers.

 

[mscriv]

i think the roles are mostly fine as they are.
i do like the priest, but people have to realize that it doesn't have to be used necessarily in the first day, and if it doesn't then the game should move on anyways. mscriv had attempted a different way to play the character. it didn't work as planned, but it was interesting and could have been a game-changer if it worked.

And I succeeded is drawing some fire from the baddies by not immediately outing myself. What good is immunity if you tell everyone about it?

There has been lots of discussion over time about players having the freedom to play a role how they choose. We need to remember this and allow each other this courtesy as long as roles are not abused or played completely contrary to their stated purpose and scope. If we fall into stereotyping roles and only using them one way then the game will get boring quickly.

I like the idea of a set deadline for lynching in the event that a majority is not reached. However, working out this time will be difficult with the variety of time zones represented. I do not like the idea of forcing people to vote. Not voting is a legitimate strategy. The problem is when people are both not voting and not consistently participating. This leads to much confusion as we don't know if those people are even active or wanting to play the game anymore. Thus, I think it's okay to have some sort of posting requirement, but let's not get too hasty and force voting as a part of it.

 

[Plutonius]

I do not like the idea of forcing people to vote. Not voting is a legitimate strategy.

You shouldn't have to vote for someone but you should have to post that you aren't voting for anyone that day (i.e indicate if you are voting or not and for whom). Otherwise, nobody knows if you choose to not vote or are not participating.

I still think that the priest is used as a crutch by the villagers. If you think the villagers really need a question / answer to stir up interest in the game, then give everyone (by majority vote) an initial question to be answered at the start of the game. As a player role, the priest can make or break a game and is not needed.

 

[Don't panic]

i think that the inclusion of the priest, or any specific characters, should be ultimately the decision of the game host.
the priest can be a game changer, but it's not a game breaker, especially if used in large games with 20sh villagers.

 

[mscriv]

You shouldn't have to vote for someone but you should have to post that you aren't voting for anyone that day (i.e indicate if you are voting or not and for whom). Otherwise, nobody knows if you choose to not vote or are not participating.

I disagree. If I'm active in posting and participating, then no one will get confused about my status if I don't vote. Why should I have to say "no vote this round"? If you have to say that you aren't voting then there's no chance at successfully "flying under the radar". As I said before the problem is people that don't post and don't vote. Don't equate the two as several players, myself included, are quite active, but choose not to vote on occasion. If I'm forced to declare a "no vote" at some point then it could potentially draw attention to me that I don't want.

I still think that the priest is used as a crutch by the villagers. If you think the villagers really need a question / answer to stir up interest in the game, then give everyone (by majority vote) an initial question to be answered at the start of the game. As a player role, the priest can make or break a game and is not needed.

I understand. As a veteran of the game I was playing (and winning) before we even had a priest role. The problem you are referencing is the fact that people have a set way of thinking the priest should be used. If the storyteller decides to use the role in the game then allow the player who gets the role the freedom to play it how they see fit.

And in response to using a role to "stir up interest in the game", I hope not. The game itself should be interesting and fun. We're all in trouble if we are relying on specific roles to keep people interested and active.

 

[Intell]

I say don't do any games for a few months. The community needs sometime off. I also like the thought of alternating simple/complex, as it would help keep the ranks full. If the ranks become too full in the simple games, more veteran players could be removed to let new players try.

 

[Don't panic]

I say don't do any games for a few months. The community needs sometime off.

i don't see it that way.
it's not like anyone is forced to play if they want to take a break.

but if a dozen people or so want to play, and someone wants to host, let us roll.

 

[Melkorr]

I agree that everyone should post at least once a day. However you shouldn't be forced to vote or even say "No vote". If people don't want to vote they don't have to or even say so. There are many people that post constantly but don't vote for days sometimes.

For me in another timezone I feel that 24 hours for the day in the simple game is plenty of time. However 36 hours is needed for the complex game as there are so many more roles and an extra set of baddies.

I would like to see a return of the quick nights that ravenvii did when he ran the games. Once all the PMs are in for night the narration is done ASAP then day can begin again otherwise it feels that the game drags too much. The time that is made up with the short night is added to the day so the deadline remains the same for consistency and gives the villager more time for day time discussion which is the heart of the game.

I still don't like the apprentice hunter, both hunters should be universal master hunters. I do like appleguy's suggestion of trying to scan for each other at night.

I think the priest role is too powerful, permanent infection immunity and and can't be attacked until day 4 is too much. This basically guarantees that the priest survives until the end of the game.
If we remove the priest we could allow the whole village to make up a question and vote by majority to ask it to the gods. Without the priest to have the final say on the question it gives the goodies and baddies more possibilities influence the question.

 

[Don't panic]

For me in another timezone I feel that 24 hours for the day in the simple game is plenty of time. However 36 hours is needed for the complex game as there are so many more roles and an extra set of baddies.

I would like to see a return of the quick nights that ravenvii did when he ran the games. Once all the PMs are in for night the narration is done ASAP then day can begin again otherwise it feels that the game drags too much. The time that is made up with the short night is added to the day so the deadline remains the same for consistency and gives the villager more time for day time discussion which is the heart of the game.

do you, and other people in separate timezones, think a deadline of 12 hours for the night special is too short?

i also like when the night or the day are short (because of quick PMming or quick majority) it gives the game a nice boost in pace and a cool urgency.

however i don't get why there should be a difference in day-length: if 24 hours is enough to discuss issues in one game (from a time-zone perspective) it should also be enough in any other. the level of discussion was always comparable in the various games, and a 'late' complex game can be simpler than an 'early' simple game

 

[Melkorr]

do you, and other people in separate timezones, think a deadline of 12 hours for the night special is too short?

i also like when the night or the day are short (because of quick PMming or quick majority) it gives the game a nice boost in pace and a cool urgency.

however i don't get why there should be a difference in day-length: if 24 hours is enough to discuss issues in one game (from a time-zone perspective) it should also be enough in any other. the level of discussion was always comparable in the various games, and a 'late' complex game can be simpler than an 'early' simple game

I have only been a special (WW) once so far and haven't had a problem yet as you can PM actions in advance. 12 hours is fine I think. Once all the PMs are in I think narration should follow ASAP as I said above.

I disagree I think the complex game requires more thought and discussion as well as there is more people in the complex games. I feel that 24 hours for the complex game would be too rushed with all the extra roles and increased players because of the timezone difference. By the time I wake up and get online it is already mid afternoon central US time and it will be night time when daylight savings swaps around in autumn.

 

[Don't panic]

I have only been a special (WW) once so far and haven't had a problem yet as you can PM actions in advance. 12 hours is fine I think. Once all the PMs are in I think narration should follow ASAP as I said above.

I disagree I think the complex game requires more thought and discussion as well as there is more people in the complex games. I feel that 24 hours for the complex game would be too rushed with all the extra roles and increased players because of the timezone difference. By the time I wake up and get online it is already mid afternoon central US time and it will be night time when daylight savings swaps around in autumn.

fair enough.
than 36+12 seems an optimal compromise.

 

[iBlue]

do you, and other people in separate timezones, think a deadline of 12 hours for the night special is too short? ...

Yes. What goes on in the daytime affects what happens in the night time and sometimes players need to communicate with someone else and that is not always easy in a short time frame. Say the "night" starts at 6pm, when I (and I'm sure many others) are not really online; I have to figure out what to do in prime evening time before bed and hoping to have a PM response by early morning so I can wake up, sign into MR by 6am to send a PM? Screw THAT! This is why I haven't played recent simple games. If I get a special role where I have to communicate, probably with someone who is not in my own time zone, it could be difficult to work that out in 12 hours.


Geography can be more frustrating in these games than many may realize and that's the main reason I'm not wanting to play at the moment. There is a lot of thread activity in the evenings (GMT) and it takes over too much of my time with my husband. "Oh great, now I have to sign onto MR to defend myself because some yutz is accusing me and others are following along." Then of course the thread is dead when I am around and happy to post. It's kind of a nuisance.


Though if my thoughts as a veteran to this game still count - I like having two general hunters rather than one for vamps and one for wolves. Though if you want to distinguish them from one another so that WW hunter is vulnerable to turning into a vampire and Buffy™ is vulnerable to WW infection, that would be interesting. I think that's difficult for the village though. Having hunters both totally uninfectable gives the village someone they can trust, if they decide to out themselves. Hunters scanning to find each other is a cool idea too, particularly in a game with a lot of players and thus more baddies.

I think wolves and vampires should be more equal in abilities, with both being active from night one. If player numbers are lower, maybe just have the alpha wolf and head vampire, both with one chance to turn ANYONE (except for hunters / the one applicable hunter) and if it fails, it fails. If player numbers are higher, have a kamikaze wolf and a kamikaze vamp. ... OR, if that doesn't work into the storytelling, maybe the "kamikaze" vampire can silently turn another player upon their death - they send in a PM just as the kamikaze wolf does "in the event of my death I'd like to turn ____ into a vampire."

I like the majority locking rule as it is. Though sometimes it caters to mob voting and gets the wrong people, it does move the game along. If 36 or 48 hours passes and no majority is reached, the person with the most votes goes.

I don't know about forcing people to vote. People should be able to play how they want. However, I don't think silence for days on end should be allowed. After 48 or 72 hours that player should be "lost to the woods" unless they've specifically stated why they cannot post. I know things happen sometimes but it's a rotten move to sign up only to not participate. It ruins it for everyone else.

Damn this is a long post.

 

[Don't panic]

haha, ok then we are back to 24+24.
in that case, though, i would keep that as a maximum time. if the PMs do come in early and the game host is ready, he/she should cut it short and start the day right away.
of course that would mean that you wouldn't have dawn and sunset always at the same time, but i really don't think that would be a problem.
same when lynching majority is reached mid-day.