Negating a mass reveal in a game

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?

Uriel.

Tigger wrote: »

is barney a jew?

?

Tigger

Uriel. wrote: »

?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo

Whys he always in the well

Triceratops Ballet

I think nrv's are just nrv's they're pawns, cannon fodder etc. Naming them and not allowing them to name themselves is jus creating checkovs villager.

What's the point? To break your own little mod heart?

I miss checkov , maybe name all nrvs checkov

sKeith

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?

You can give everybody a character name. Even name them all in the OP. Just make sure you rand the rolls. That is, every character has same chance of being the seer or priest. It has nothing to do with your percieved notions of any character. In southpark, stan could be a wolf, and kenny could be the priest and chef could be a hero. everyonce has a character, but also, anybody can say, i'm an nrv, cause the rolls were randed, not attached to characters.

Was rule 10 not wrote to stop players outting their boards names, not rolls. The rules should not get in the way of gameplay, and revealing your role when you think is best should not be interferred with.
In anon games, i do not mind a rule stopping you from outting yourself as whatever boards ID, but i don't want a rule telling me how to or not play the game, revealing rolls is part of gameplay.

tritium

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think nrv's are just nrv's they're pawns, cannon fodder etc. Naming them and not allowing them to name themselves is jus creating checkovs villager.

What's the point? To break your own little mod heart?

Hey, who ya calling cannon fodder!

Triceratops Ballet

tritium wrote: »

Hey, who ya calling cannon fodder!

every last stinkin one of ye!!

Baggly

Thanks everyone. We are taking all of your feedback on board and disregarding it.

Everyone will have the role of seer. Its gonna be a wild Night 1.

Triceratops Ballet

Pter wrote: »

Everyone will have the role of seer.

Max will be delighted!

beakerjoe

Pter wrote: »

Thanks everyone. We are taking all of your feedback on board and disregarding it.

Everyone will have the role of seer. Its gonna be a wild Night 1.

Ill still fcuk it up!