Negating a mass reveal in a game

Baggly

Hi all,

So Molly, Uri and myself are beavering away on the August game and came up with an idea (just an idea at this stage) about negating any move towards a game breaking mass reveal.

We want to do characters for each player, and could just not reveal the full list of characters, and keep rule 10 as it is.

Don't tell anyone directly who you are although you can hint at it or even copy other players posting styles.

But we arent sure about that wording, as that kind of stops everyone from saying their role on thread, even if they want to reveal (like the seer comes out as the seer, vig as the vig etc etc).

We were throwing around the idea of posting the character list in the OP, but putting in a few extra characters that no player would have, so that a mass reveal would be pointless (as the wolves would have cover and could claim one of the extra characters).

So rule 10 would thus read;

As you may have noticed, there are more characters listed in the OP than actual players. This is to stop game breaking. Please only claim a role if you feel it is necessary.

What do you think?

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

Hi all,

So Molly, Uri and myself are beavering away on the August game and came up with an idea (just an idea at this stage) about negating any move towards a game breaking mass reveal.

We want to do characters for each player, and could just not reveal the full list of characters, and keep rule 10 as it is.



But we arent sure about that wording, as that kind of stops everyone from saying their role on thread, even if they want to reveal (like the seer comes out as the seer, vig as the vig etc etc).

We were throwing around the idea of posting the character list in the OP, but putting in a few extra characters that no player would have, so that a mass reveal would be pointless (as the wolves would have cover and could claim one of the extra characters).

So rule 10 would thus read;



What do you think?

There is a reason you need nrv's
Ie non rolled vanilligers that have absolute nothing to specify i.dentified
Giving them a roll even as a vanilla named player is wrong and will be easily broken
I get the spirit of the game stuff and that we shouldn't angleshokt but coming out as theserr or the priest etc is intergralntonyhe game so it is allowedand should be allowed for anyone to come out as anyone and only by haveinhba large number of nrv's can we have the mechanic work correctly

Baggly

How would you break a game with 25 people playing, but 30 characters in the OP, Tiggs?

Mollyb60

The problem here is that you want the flavour of a theme for a game so you have characters. But if everyone just reveals their characters on day one it breaks the game. I would like to think (not pointing at you tig) that most people want to play the game in good faith and therefore would be happy to play the game as it is and only come out if necessary.
In order to make sure that this doesn't happen though we're trying to think of a way to failsafe it.

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

How would you break a game with 25 people playing, but 30 characters in the OP, Tiggs?

I'd n ed the whole playset and rules but it's would be very biased towards any team with a priest or if roles were revealed on death it would be very hard for the wolves to win
Very

Tigger

Mollyb60 wrote: »

The problem here is that you want the flavour of a theme for a game so you have characters. But if everyone just reveals their characters on day one it breaks the game. I would like to think (not pointing at you tig) that most people want to play the game in good faith and therefore would be happy to play the game as it is and only come out if necessary.
In order to make sure that this doesn't happen though we're trying to think of a way to failsafe it.

Need som epeolle to be nrv's
In game two you could be caught out not knowing you were an ordinary rather than a normal vanilliger
The game is played within its parameters and declaring your role either correctly or incorrectly for fair means or fowl is intrinsic

Necro

No issues with giving all characters a name imo. Just don't be specific about what names you plan to give NRVs within the OP

Take for example a South Park game.

You'd obviously name the roled characters like Stan, Cartman, etc.

But you could assign the role of.. for example Ned (stuttering non important character in the show) to me without telling everyone one else that I'm Ned.

This totally negates a game breaking situation as there are so many characters within the South Park universe that may or may not be included.

Nobody but the mods would know the full character list until after the game.

Naming NRVs will always leave the game open to angle shooting as Tigger said though. But I like it as it gives even the NRVs more immersion in the game universe.

So there's plenty of long grass for wolves to hide in if there isn't a specific list available to the players during the game.

Tigger

Necrominus wrote: »

No issues with giving all characters a name imo. Just don't be specific about what names you plan to give NRVs within the OP

Take for example a South Park game.

You'd obviously name the roled characters like Stan, Cartman, etc.

But you could assign the role of.. for example Ned (stuttering non important character in the show) to me without telling everyone one else that I'm Ned.

This totally negates a game breaking situation as there are so many characters within the South Park universe that may or may not be included.

Nobody but the mods would know the full character list until after the game.

Naming NRVs will always leave the game open to angle shooting as Tigger said though. But I like it as it gives even the NRVs more immersion in the game universe.

So there's plenty of long grass for wolves to hide in if there isn't a specific list available to the players during the game.

In the MU game I was named butvibdidntvkniw till after the game
But if I had been named I could have used that to my advantage

In South Park I could use the name if of nrv's to my advantage easilly
writing clunky rules to try to help won't help some people simply have to be vanilla

Necro

Tigger wrote:

In South Park I could use the name if of nrv's to my advantage easilly writing clunky rules to try to help won't help some people simply have to be vanilla

Fair enough, you have a better grasp on game mechanics than I do.

If you didn't know the names of the other NRVs as per the OP would that make a difference in your opinion? As in only the player and the mods knew until after the game.

Sorry for derailing the thread guys I'm just interested in this topic as it ties into our planned game in October as well.

Baggly

Necrominus wrote:

Sorry for derailing the thread guys I'm just interested in this topic as it ties into our planned game in October as well.

How dare you. I have nothing to do with that game and this is of no interest to me :pac:

andy125

Game mechanics over flavour is the best way to create a good game, don't give yourself any headaches as mods that you will encounter by adding things that will come back to bite you

Good games are remembered for the actual gameplay and moves that the players make rather than character names

Jayop

It's tough. You could really just make a rule that say's "don't be a dick and do a mass reveal".

Probably the best way is to have priests and not allow any player to role claim anything until after a certain turn.

Categories the players in a and b and say a can reveal b cant and modkill for anyone who breaks

Necro

Deleted User wrote:

Categories the players in a and b and say a can reveal b cant and modkill for anyone who breaks

Interesting idea. Also wanted to reply to this comment to say at some point I really wanna mod a game with you Mick! You can have control over the gun locker and everything :P

Tigger

Necrominus wrote: »

Fair enough, you have a better grasp on game mechanics than I do.

If you didn't know the names of the other NRVs as per the OP would that make a difference in your opinion? As in only the player and the mods knew until after the game.

Sorry for derailing the thread guys I'm just interested in this topic as it ties into our planned game in October as well.

There is no need to name everyone
They aren't real none rolls vanilliger if you give them a roll even just by naming them
If I can state that my name is bob and that I'm bob the non rolled person then that's something that can be used
If my name is mister garrison then I'm likely to be a baddie
It adds a level of truth to the claim by bob the nrv that he is bob the nrv and takes away from cartman or garrasion claiming to be bob the nrv
Look in our game
Andy game everyone a roll and then we gave some of them secret rolls on too

Tigger

Deleted User wrote: »

Categories the players in a and b and say a can reveal b cant and modkill for anyone who breaks

When it comes to it modkill sling hurts the game more than anything else
And it's not revealing to say I'm the seer when I'm not but it is to say I'm not the seer when I'm not the seer
I don't see what it adds to be a background charachter from buffy or south park if it means that a clunky rule needs to be used to restrict players from using options

Tigger

andy125 wrote: »

Game mechanics over flavour is the best way to create a good game, don't give yourself any headaches as mods that you will encounter by adding things that will come back to bite you

Good games are remembered for the actual gameplay and moves that the players make rather than character names

Exactly

Baggly

Tigger wrote:

When it comes to it modkill sling hurts the game more than anything else And it's not revealing to say I'm the seer when I'm not but it is to say I'm not the seer when I'm not the seer I don't see what it adds to be a background charachter from buffy or south park if it means that a clunky rule needs to be used to restrict players from using options

What clunky rule?

The replacement rule we are proposing negates a mass reveal and allows everyone to role play and have a character, and gives them an option to reveal if they want to. Or not. Whatever they want.

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

What clunky rule?

The replacement rule we are proposing negates a mass reveal and allows everyone to role play and have a character, and gives them an option to reveal if they want to. Or not. Whatever they want.

What's the difference between a mass reveal and a single reveal
Ye are talking about putting oaths into the game that will be followed and will cause people to be prevented from interesting imaginations and lateral moves just so you can tell me that I am a named nrv but I can't say what my name is ?
What's the point of naming me if I can't say what I'm named and how will it make me feel more submerged
It was a mistake to name all the simpsons charachters and letting half of them die before I revealed that I was the priest and that if we all revealed who we were I'd be able to say who was who and who was lying may seem tonne more true things game by acually it was simply delaying a method of shock and awe attack that could be used to name a pile of wolves straight off Thea bat
Identify the threat and deal with it is the game not as andy said add more and more rules to force the game into a certain story line
What ever role I'm given I will always work out how best that role can be used so telling me I'm called bob and I'm a vanilliger but I cannot use that fact but a rolled villager can come out takes away the very essence of being an nrv which is to be able to do what ever they like
I always come out early whether rolled or non rolled but you want to introduce a rule that says comming out early is not allowed or that klutz only allowed for type a players but not type b players ? I don't know why you would when the tried and tested method of not giving a role to the non rolled villagers is the simplest and most elegant method of playing

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

When it comes to it modkill sling hurts the game more than anything else
And it's not revealing to say I'm the seer when I'm not but it is to say I'm not the seer when I'm not the seer
I don't see what it adds to be a background charachter from buffy or south park if it means that a clunky rule needs to be used to restrict players from using options

People can still do what they want just dont claim the roles your not allowed to. Its simple to me anyways if the mods want to add in characters

Baggly

Tigger wrote:

What's the difference between a mass reveal and a single reveal Ye are talking about putting oaths into the game that will be followed and will cause people to be prevented from interesting imaginations and lateral moves just so you can tell me that I am a named nrv but I can't say what my name is ? What's the point of naming me if I can't say what I'm named and how will it make me feel more submerged It was a mistake to name all the simpsons charachters and letting half of them die before I revealed that I was the priest and that if we all revealed who we were I'd be able to say who was who and who was lying may seem tonne more true things game by acually it was simply delaying a method of shock and awe attack that could be used to name a pile of wolves straight off Thea bat Identify the threat and deal with it is the game not as andy said add more and more rules to force the game into a certain story line What ever role I'm given I will always work out how best that role can be used so telling me I'm called bob and I'm a vanilliger but I cannot use that fact but a rolled villager can come out takes away the very essence of being an nrv which is to be able to do what ever they like I always come out early whether rolled or non rolled but you want to introduce a rule that says comming out early is not allowed or that klutz only allowed for type a players but not type b players ? I don't know why you would when the tried and tested method of not giving a role to the non rolled villagers is the simplest and most elegant method of playing

Tiggs read the op. I'm saying our new plan let's people claim if they want to.

Tigger

Deleted User wrote: »

People can still do what they want just dont claim the roles your not allowed to. Its simple to me anyways if the mods want to add in characters

Why give a role if I can't claim it ?
Can I claim a role I don't have
Is it a role type A I can claim and B I can't or is it if I'm the role myself that I can't claim it
Saying that if the mods want to do it then it's ok is grand when the game is running but when the game is being discussed tsbprobably better to give an opinin

Baggly

Tigger wrote:

I don't know why you would when the tried and tested method of not giving a role to the non rolled villagers is the simplest and most elegant method of playing

I also can't believe that someone who has brought lots of innovation to the forum in the past year is trying to dissuade us from trying something new.

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

Why give a role if I can't claim it ?
Can I claim a role I don't have
Is it a role type A I can claim and B I can't or is it if I'm the role myself that I can't claim it
Saying that if the mods want to do it then it's ok is grand when the game is running but when the game is being discussed tsbprobably better to give an opinin

Your creating a character is all, why call them NRVS why do anything. This is taking a dead philosophical turn

Anyway just giving my thought on a solution to the problem asked and its done now so mick out

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

I also can't believe that someone who has brought lots of innovation to the forum in the past year is trying to dissuade us from trying something new.

i'n not trying to persuade you of anything of the sort
i said that naming 30 and havng 5 npc's doing nopere impersonations would not be a buffer

Pter wrote: »

How would you break a game with 25 people playing, but 30 characters in the OP, Tiggs?

Tigger wrote: »

I'd n ed the whole playset and rules but it's would be very biased towards any team with a priest or if roles were revealed on death it would be very hard for the wolves to win
Very

i'm giving my opinion and i've brought more than innovation ive brought independant touught

andy said it better than me

andy125 wrote: »

Game mechanics over flavour is the best way to create a good game, don't give yourself any headaches as mods that you will encounter by adding things that will come back to bite you

Good games are remembered for the actual gameplay and moves that the players make rather than character names

if youn want to name 30 and play 25 then do so
but dont ask the question and then think i'm being negtitive for nswwrig as best i can

Baggly

Tigger wrote:

if youn want to name 30 and play 25 then do so but dont ask the question and then think i'm being negtitive for nswwrig as best i can

I'm not thinking that but it does feel like you are trying to dissuade us rather than just give your opinion.

Baggly

Tigger wrote:

i'm giving my opinion and i've brought more than innovation ive brought independant touught

Well I didn't say otherwise but I'm not here to list everything you have brought. I named the thing relevant to what we are proposing as well.

Also, is proposing the new way not independent thought too?

Baggly

Anyway look me arguing is silly because I value your opinion and am glad you gave it. So thanks

I just don't necessarily agree

Guffy

I was thinking not to allow anyone reveal their charactor until turn x but there are a couple of issues.

1. Rolled player cant claim a role if they are under threat of a lynch.

2. Rolled player cant reveal their role if they believe it is in the best interest of their team (hi mick, i wonder why dr doom didn't try to claim jessica?)


The only thing i can think of is that an organised reveal cant take place before turn x, ie. No one may lead a mass reveal on day 1.

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

I'm not thinking that but it does feel like you are trying to dissuade us rather than just give your opinion.

No I'm just saying Words
Sorry if you feeel I'm being to whatever it is I'm being too

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

Anyway look me arguing is silly because I value your opinion and am glad you gave it. So thanks

I just don't necessarily agree

Me neither

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

Anyway look me arguing is silly because I value your opinion and am glad you gave it. So thanks

I just don't necessarily agree

Your welcome and tanks

Tigger

Ok
I think that if we are going down the route of naming everyone then it becomes a form of role playing
So a more complex role should be written up for each role and the player must try to play that charachter as they feel it should be played

So Jessica , for ex, should have been (privately ) told that she is hunting the puppet guy and she would d anything to kill him including (insert flaw here ) but not including sacraficing herself as that would let him win.

This would give a reason fo naming everyone like you could say Tigger you are John and you have no specific role but you have are a farmer and you think that seers are heritics and you cannot believe them in the first day they reveal for the first seer reveal
Or something
Again I m just brainstorming here

Necrominus

Necrominus wrote: »

Interesting idea. Also wanted to reply to this comment to say at some point I really wanna mod a game with you Mick! You can have control over the gun locker and everything :P

Ha nice dude Im a ****e mod mind dont have the organisation skills to do it properly but I'd happily jump in a modding team with you, if you want someone with crazy ideas. I reckon I could reduce a normal game down to popcorn speed with the amount of guns id put in play.

Mollyb60

Guffy wrote: »

I was thinking not to allow anyone reveal their charactor until turn x but there are a couple of issues.

1. Rolled player cant claim a role if they are under threat of a lynch.

2. Rolled player cant reveal their role if they believe it is in the best interest of their team (hi mick, i wonder why dr doom didn't try to claim jessica?)


The only thing i can think of is that an organised reveal cant take place before turn x, ie. No one may lead a mass reveal on day 1.

Point 2 here was my initial problem with the original rule. (not sure which game Pter took it from tbh) It seemed to suggest that players shouldn't EVER declare their role on thread. It's why I changed the rule to say that you should only come out on thread if you feel it's necessary.

I like the idea of giving characters names (even if they're NRV's) because I believe it increases the fun. But I'm saying that as a desktop RPG gamer. I enjoy playing the role. It doesn't matter to me that I might not want to come out blatently on the thread and say 'hey guys, I'm Batman' and say a load of Batman stuff. I can subtly hint at it if I so choose. The ideal thing for me would be to have new tailored accounts for every game but that's an impossibility so we work with what we've got.

All we're trying to stop is a mass reveal which would break the game. I didn't like the rule as written so we wanted to brainstorm a way to write a better one.
I totally get what Andy was saying about a simple game being the most elegant but I do also enjoy the flavour. It draws in new players and allows people to have some banter and jokes.

Necro

Mollyb60 wrote:

All we're trying to stop is a mass reveal which would break the game. I didn't like the rule as written so we wanted to brainstorm a way to write a better one. I totally get what Andy was saying about a simple game being the most elegant but I do also enjoy the flavour. It draws in new players and allows people to have some banter and jokes.

Yeah I think this part is probably the most important. But Andy's point is valid too. Where there are rules there will always be someone (eventually) who will find a loophole.

As I said beforehand, the only way I see it working in the future if you want to name NRV's is not to specifically name them all in the game OP.

Sure, someone could suggest a mass reveal but only the mods know the full character list so there's always that element of doubt. A seer character could claim an NPC not in the game, a wolf could accidentally claim an NRV actually in the game.

You're not creating a hard and steadfast rule this way that may or may not be exploited within the game.

All you're doing is creating enough doubt so that imo a mass reveal doesn't necessarily work in favour of the village

Necro

Necrominus wrote:

As I said beforehand, the only way I see it working in the future if you want to name NRV's is not to specifically name them all in the game OP.

Actually sorry, there's one other way and it's to play the full game on the other site which Tigger has already mentioned. Forgot that point.

beakerjoe

Im still new but ill throw my (probably worthless) 2 cents here.

The last game I was a wolf and it was very difficult to claim I was an NRV with every character named. I couldnt claim to say be the Flash as with that roll being specific to one NRV had more chance to be found out by a counter claim.

However if all the NRV werent named, it would be easier for a wolf to claim to be an NRV without being counter claimed.

Id prefer all NRVs just not to be named and as Jayop said, just have a rule that says dont be a Dick and no Mass reveal.

crosstownk

Having looked down the barrel of a potential mass reveal in the Simpsons game, I'd be inclined to just leave NRVs as NRVs. Anything else just complicates the rules. Yes, a rule can be put in place to prevent it but if NRVs are left vanilla then the problem doesn't exist in the first place. Like chess, NRVs are pawns. By all means have a name for each player but no need to tell the player. The name can be announced in the kill notice or revealed to the priest depending on the game set up.

In the Simpsons game, myself and mahama wanted to give each player a name to enhance the overall 'theme experience' and maybe it did but the potential for disaster that almost happened was something we (or at least I) didn't envisage.

That said, I'm sure if a rule is written that all players here would respect it so it shouldn't be an issue.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

Guffy

Tbh i think it comes under the dont be a dick rule. It can be used as a balancing act come end game as it has a small minor advantage for village players

Jayop

Who the Jesus is Guffy? I'm lost around here.

Baggly

Gufc

Jayop

Ah at least that one will be easy to remember

tritium

Im sort of with cross and tigger to an extent here. Nrv is a very spefific role in the game and one key aspect is theyre essentially powerless, which both limits their focused influence but also gives them huge scope to break the board with the right play (fichealls false seer claim in game 1 was a super example of this, it basically closed the game out straight away by forcing two wolves to react to being named).

Name assignment essentially gives nrvs a real power in the game since it removes one hiding place for wolves, and would require significant rebalancing i think.

I do like the mu approach of having a role assigned to players that can be built into lynch and munch flavour though.

beakerjoe

tritium wrote: »

I do like the mu approach of having a role assigned to players that can be built into lynch and munch flavour though.

Im havent been on MU (Access blocked at work), what do they do over there Trit?

Necro

beakerjoe wrote:

Im havent been on MU (Access blocked at work), what do they do over there Trit?

Basically they name the NRVs but it's only revealed in the flavour on their death. The actual players don't know they have a name other than villager

beakerjoe

Necrominus wrote: »

Basically they name the NRVs but it's only revealed in the flavour on their death. The actual players don't know they have a name other than villager

Kind of pointless naming them in the first place then no?

tritium

beakerjoe wrote: »

Kind of pointless naming them in the first place then no?

It seems to be more about building the flavour than anything else. It also obviously is less viable if theres a priest role. Overall its a nice touch but since they dont seem to go anonymous much there the amount of meta they use seems to take a bit away from the contained element of games anyway- i think a few people commented on this when watching the championship

Barney92

I think it was nice that everyone did get a name, even the NRVs, but I reckon that it would only work if they weren't in the OP or listed out. It would mean that a wolf could make up a NRV name that fit with the theme and could blend in that way.

I don't mind being called a bog standard NRV or having a name like Superman and still being an NRV. It didn't change a huge amount for me.

Uriel.

Barney92 wrote: »

I think it was nice that everyone did get a name, even the NRVs, but I reckon that it would only work if they weren't in the OP or listed out. It would mean that a wolf could make up a NRV name that fit with the theme and could blend in that way.

I don't mind being called a bog standard NRV or having a name like Superman and still being an NRV. It didn't change a huge amount for me.

Tigger

Pter wrote: »

How would you break a game with 25 people playing, but 30 characters in the OP, Tiggs?

Uriel. wrote: »

is barney a jew?