Theoretical Game Setup Discussion

[Thesp]

This thread is for discussing theoretical games that are not intended to be Open Games. I guess you could discuss Open Games as well, but there's a thread for that, if you like. Have fun!

[Adel]

i've been thinking about a setup with an almost bastard mod. where is the line between crafty and bastard?

[ShadowLurker]

1 Unlynchable Redirector Mafia
1 Mafia Lover

1 Un NKable Survivor

1 Unlynchable Lover
1 Jailkeeper
1 Bodyguard
1 Vigilante
5 Townies

[Primate]

i've been thinking about a setup with an almost bastard mod. where is the line between crafty and bastard?

I'd say that crafty mods screw with the players whilst bastard mods actively lie to them. Not that either are bad things. Stuff like millers being told they are townies and non-sane cops are both bastard mod tricks, though both ones that can and should be planned for. Crafty is making the mafia GF unightkillable when nothing can actually kill him, making him think there is a town vig or an SK, letting his own expectations mislead him.

[Seol]

Was this crafty, or bastard-mod? I consider it crafty, but it's arguable that I was lying to the nonpowered players on death revelation. I don't consider it lying (the cop

was

a cop, but that was flavour not functionality and I didn't specify) but it's pretty borderline.

edit: also, doesn't open discussion of closed setups render them unusable?

[Primate]

I'd say that missing out crucial info in the role reveal in an active attempt to mislead players is probly bastard modding. As I say, though, I don't really consider bastard modding an inherently bad thing.

[Seol]

I'd say that missing out crucial info in the role reveal in an active attempt to mislead players is probly bastard modding. As I say, though, I don't really consider bastard modding an inherently bad thing.

The rule of thumb I've always applied is that if the setup allows a reasonable chance of the town uncovering and understanding the true situation, as opposed to the immediately apparent one, it's fair. There's a difference between the fair/unfair divide and the crafty/bastard divide, but for example an insane (reverse) cop is IMO unfair in a mini but fair (albeit still inadvisable) in a 30-man game, due to the latter allowing enough results that there's a decent chance the cop can derive their own sanity.

Personally I think the fair/unfair divide is the important one and anything unfair is unreasonable in the vast majority of contexts.

[Thesp]

edit: also, doesn't open discussion of closed setups render them unusable?

Possibly, though there's no confirmation of their use, and you can still have an open

setup

that's worth discussing, that doesn't fit as an Open Game.

[Mispeled]

2 mafia, 5 vigilantes.

[Mr. Flay]

Everyone shoots the person below them in the first post N1/N0. One vigilante should live, for a town auto-win.

[MichelSableheart]

Everyone shoots the person below them in the first post N1/N0. One vigilante should live, for a town auto-win.

Unless both mafia are listed immediately behind each other, in which case they can shoot the uppermost vig and win.

[Seol]

Everyone shoots the person below them in the first post N1/N0. One vigilante should live, for a town auto-win.

Not if it's closed setup, they won't.

[Oman]

RE: Crafty V. Bastard.

Calvin and Hobbes mafia was an inadvertent mountainous. I would say that this is a crafty setup. However, there was a no claim rule, and limited reveal. I'd say this pushes the bar to the town having little chance to figure it out, leaving the game in

bastard mod

territory.

[Yosarian2]

Everyone shoots the person below them in the first post N1/N0. One vigilante should live, for a town auto-win.

Not if it's closed setup, they won't.

Shouldn't matter, actually. 2 mafia 5 vigs, the town should figure out day 1 that they're all vigs; the first person to get wagoned claims vig; someone else counterclaims vig; at which point everyone else says "hey, wait a minute...".

[Seol]

RE: Crafty V. Bastard.

Calvin and Hobbes mafia was an inadvertent mountainous. I would say that this is a crafty setup. However, there was a no claim rule, and limited reveal. I'd say this pushes the bar to the town having little chance to figure it out, leaving the game in

bastard mod

territory.

Well, one thing about something being a bastard setup is that if you don't guess what the setup is, it has to hurt you some way. How does not realising the game is mountainous hurt you?

[Kelly Chen]

Arguably it hurts the scum, all things being equal. Scum have more options when they know there are no power roles to be mindful of.

[Oman]

Agreed, kelly.

So on that point a standard mountainous is 2:10 would you accept inadvertent being 3:9 (I think they're both night starts).

[Seol]

Well, my point being that you shouldn't be making assumptions like that about the setup - there's no implied contract there are power roles in a game not advertised as being mountainous. It'd be interesting to have more closed mountainous games or even games where the town have nothing but drawback roles being run, but the metagame supports the assumptions that the town will have at least one investigative role, at least one protective role, and no duplicated roles as overwhelmingly safe assumptions in minis.

[Oman]

I agree seol, fight the system.

[Mr. Flay]

It'd be interesting to have more closed mountainous games or even games where the town have nothing but drawback roles being run, but the metagame supports the assumptions that the town will have at least one investigative role, at least one protective role, and no duplicated roles as overwhelmingly safe assumptions in minis.

And the metagame gets worse if only

certain

mods are bucking the system...

[Seol]

It'd be interesting to have more closed mountainous games or even games where the town have nothing but drawback roles being run, but the metagame supports the assumptions that the town will have at least one investigative role, at least one protective role, and no duplicated roles as overwhelmingly safe assumptions in minis.

And the metagame gets worse if only

certain

mods are bucking the system...

Do you think those

should

be safe assumptions?

I quite agree however that if the intention is to decrease the predictability of setups, then if only a subset of mods act it doesn't address the issue on a global basis. That doesn't mean that subset of mods are acting inappropriately in running a greater variance of setups, especially if they have a reputation for doing so, as long as they can run them well. For them to run setups which are predictable in their variance (eg running lots of stealth vanilla setups) is possibly counterproductive though.

Trouble is, nonstandard setups are harder to do right than standard setups (obviously, the standard setups are proven) and thus run a greater risk of being broken. So there's two sides to the story there.

[Mr. Flay]

I think you misunderstand me. I

am

one of the mods who doesn't subscribe to the "at least one investigative role, at least one protective role, and no duplicated roles" model - but once that gets out, players begin to metagame you as moderator, and some of the advantage (in cancelling assumptions) gets taken away...

[Seol]

I think you misunderstand me. I

am

one of the mods who doesn't subscribe to the "at least one investigative role, at least one protective role, and no duplicated roles" model - but once that gets out, players begin to metagame you as moderator, and some of the advantage (in cancelling assumptions) gets taken away...

Well, I'm one too - but yes, if you're looking to

punish

people for assumptions, then you're undermined. If you're trying to make people open-minded about the setup, it works well. The latter is the objective - the former is only desirable as a step towards achieving the latter in future.

The trick then is keeping the games fresh and unpredictable and not just running, say, three copless games in a row.

[Oman]

I think you misunderstand me. I

am

one of the mods who doesn't subscribe to the "at least one investigative role, at least one protective role, and no duplicated roles" model - but once that gets out, players begin to metagame you as moderator, and some of the advantage (in cancelling assumptions) gets taken away...

But Flay, when you mod enough different setups without a common throughline, surely your metagame will become "Unpredictable". Like Seol said, the trick is to run different setups without running three of the same different setups in a row.

[Mr. Flay]

Yes, but that doesn't help the "minis have become predictable". It just becomes "minis modded by someone other than Seol, Flay, or X are predictable". And I don't really mod Mini Normals anyway, so it's kind of moot...

I don't

know

what the answer is. But the crippling assumption that you will have a sane cop and an effective protective role in a mini game should go, IMO. I guess the only way to do that is to discuss the possibility for other balance mechanisms for the game (which is what we're doing), so that newer mods are aware that there's another way.