I am not trying to single anyone out. I am not suggesting that anyone is cheating or lying or anything like that. I am also not advocating that anyone tell players not to play.

I was reacting to a couple of things. I heard this thing said in the Discord thread:

in the past I do things kinda strangely. I wont divulge too much but there is still RNG. and then I decide if the RNG is gonna be worth going with, and make an adjustment or two. or maybe I dont really do that and im just making things up

That surprised me, and I felt like there should be a rule that role assignments are random for the reasons I've said here.

I've heard a lot of extreme edge cases that some people say come up only every few years and some people may think come up more often. I'd say that is a different issue than having a GM, as a default, "make an adjustment or two." But because there is such a variety of perspectives on what the edge cases are, I think it's best to have a bright line rule: role allocations are random.

If there are extreme cases where somebody thinks a random role allocation won't work, I think that could be something for the Kouncil to look at, but honestly it's hard for me to imagine.

All that said, I've never GMed a game, and I have much respect and gratitude for everyone who has done that even once, let alone many times. I am not trying to discredit anyone who has engaged in the very generous act of GMing a game. I am just making a pitch for what I think would be the best rule on this subject.

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 4:38 pm

Im gonna keep replying to you repeating yourself until you finally actually address my statements. I feel like no matter what anyone says to you, youre just going to keep pushing this all automation agenda, regardless of if there are actually games that make alot of sense for the GM to handpick. theme games, role madness or item madness where balancing cannot possibly be limited to dice rolls.

Is this directed at me?

If you would like to sign up to play in a game where the rand will be a 1 shot 100% random and the roles chosen for the setup will also be random here you go:


https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5443

Baldurs Gate Mafia signups are posted.

I'd again like to stress this is a rare occurrence.

You can safely assume that any given game has not been randed for any special reason.

Ive never rerolled or removed a sample because I felt the mafia team might fight with each other.

Ive never rerolled or altered something because a mafia team was too new, and frankly I think if you just went and looked at any game ive run, there are countless examples of where new players were PR or mafia.

Ive never adopted one of those hard and fast policies for a rand, but yes, there was a person who I knew from outside of webdip who had problems in other forums who actively wanted to play. and yes. I was not going to let them be a PR or Mafia. I was also not in a position to hop onto the forum and call someone out, and say they couldnt play, when there is a kouncil who could impose bans on players, who can tell players they must sit out.

I think if you sub out of a game you should probably sit out the next game regardless of WHY. but if a kouncil isnt willing to impose bans, then why should the GMs have to tell players who arent even sanctioned that they cant play. that will create a favoritism and cronyist culture that will make new people or casual observers see unecessary toxic drama happening.

The only player to my knowledge to ever try to sign up and be told No was chippeerock. Who is by far the most toxic and most extreme example.

Many veteran players, durga, jamie, myself, and many others have stated in signups that they would not play if some other person plays. And the GM usually tries to calm those fights down because the GM just wants players.
--
Im gonna keep replying to you repeating yourself until you finally actually address my statements. I feel like no matter what anyone says to you, youre just going to keep pushing this all automation agenda, regardless of if there are actually games that make alot of sense for the GM to handpick. theme games, role madness or item madness where balancing cannot possibly be limited to dice rolls. we run alot of games on here not just mostly vanilla.

people have already supplied tons of solutions to this and you arent doing anything other than just repeating the same argument over and over and over. We get it. you want to rally an army into strongarming the GMS into fully automating setups. most of the people you are pushing are kouncil members who have GMed since M1 or the early M10's. Whatever perceived impropriety you are striving to expose and denounce, we all have explained ourselves thoroughly. Situations you hadnt even begun to consider.

If you wanna create barriers for people to signup that rule already does exist. any gm for any reason can exclude any player they dont want in their game. This is already a thing. Nobody uses it because its pretty mean spirited and if we do this we will be doing harm to our image more than we would by just simply ensuring there isnt damage done.

In the case of Perplexity, I was a kouncil member. I had pushed for bans on alot of players as a kouncil member. Fights between durga, ghug, worcej back then I pushed for a ban on all of them for one game. The kouncil always rules against my stricter line of bans. When lfishcl got modkilled several times I called for a 6 game ban and it got voted down.

The kouncil wants players to PLAY
The GM needs players who want to PLAY
telling people no is going to drive away more people than just the people being told they cant play. its always been this way, and it leads to alot of negativity and toxicity.

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:43 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

I fundamentally disagree that GMs should tell players they shouldnt sign up.
[snip]

I don’t think there are many occasions when a player should not be allowed in the game either. Y’all are bringing up edge cases where there are players who are new, or who have extremely low participation, or who cause fights. I think it is admirable that y’all deal with those issues, but I don’t think the answer is to let those players in the game, but only if they are assigned certain roles or if the right people are on or not on their team.

in M28 ND was the GM with me. This was my first game as a co gm, and after the drama and fallout from M20 where I was banned, my ability to be the GM was controversial. ND and I would do video chats to balance the setup and when it came time to rand the setup we had both items and roles to rand. allowing items to stack with certain roles would have created too much imbalance, so the items in play we were forced to handpick who would get them so that one team wasnt getting too many kill powers, or too many imbalances. Here handpicking was essential to the balance of the distrubtion and balance of the setup itself.

In the end we had a role that was a third party ghost, and one of its mechanics was to be able to control a player with an item called a pitchfork. if the ghost haunted the person with the pitchfork then the ghost could control that player and make them suicide.

As weirdness turned out, we couldnt rand because we had to remove the possibility of the ghost having the pitchfork as it was an integral part of what we thought would be part of the setup itself.

instead, day 1, stupid fighter had been given the pitchfork, and he was a vt. the item was optional you could legally kill yourself with the item if you wanted too. And in a totally wacky twist he got under some pressure and just decided to kill himself instead. So any thoughts the GM had of how the item would get used were thrown out when this occurred, and hey thats part of the game.

Damian ended up winning without the need for that item. and as far as who was randed PR or Mafia, we just did one roll. it was the items we handpicked to ensure balance. And I dont think given the setup and its intricacies that this should be disallowed.

foodcoats wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 4:15 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:41 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

So essentially you think it would be better to cap the number of new players that can join a game rather than throw out the roll and re-roll in the exceedingly rare event all 3-4 new players roll mafia?

Just to throw another bit of devilry in here… when I first joined a Mafia game here I asked if there was some kind of newb game I should start with and was told no, don’t worry about it, you’ll figure it out, and I did. I really don’t think it is necessary to wear kid gloves for newbs. But if this is a principle you hold to, just make that clear in your setup.

I don't believe a new player cannot be assigned mafia. KOTP did very well in the game I just ran, and it's very rare we have a game with so many new players.

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 4:14 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:41 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

So essentially you think it would be better to cap the number of new players that can join a game rather than throw out the roll and re-roll in the exceedingly rare event all 3-4 new players roll mafia?

No. I don’t actually think it’s a problem to have a mafia team entirely filled by new players or by lurkers or by any other extreme randomization result. I don’t think there is a problem with having players who have failed to get along be on the same team. I’m just saying that if you think there is a problem so severe, then here are better ways to solve it than making the role assignments non random.

That’s my opinion. I don’t really want to spend any time in a game thinking about “would the GM allow this person to be this role or allow these two players to be on the same team?”

I think "failing to get along" is a severe understatement of the issue I was avoiding.

Your example of "these two players to be on the same team" is exceedingly rare and I can safely say there are not currently any players who come close to the threshold that was necessary to re-roll the prior example.

foodcoats wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 4:17 pm

This whole debate is pro-town amirite

This is probably a t v t interaction

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm

I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

I will say, this is generally a good idea, although GMs should not adhere to a strict ruleset, and if they do, should not share it. That prevents meta gaming via who the GM is

This whole debate is pro-town amirite

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:41 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).

For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

So essentially you think it would be better to cap the number of new players that can join a game rather than throw out the roll and re-roll in the exceedingly rare event all 3-4 new players roll mafia?

Just to throw another bit of devilry in here… when I first joined a Mafia game here I asked if there was some kind of newb game I should start with and was told no, don’t worry about it, you’ll figure it out, and I did. I really don’t think it is necessary to wear kid gloves for newbs. But if this is a principle you hold to, just make that clear in your setup.

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:41 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).

For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

So essentially you think it would be better to cap the number of new players that can join a game rather than throw out the roll and re-roll in the exceedingly rare event all 3-4 new players roll mafia?

No. I don’t actually think it’s a problem to have a mafia team entirely filled by new players or by lurkers or by any other extreme randomization result. I don’t think there is a problem with having players who have failed to get along be on the same team. I’m just saying that if you think there is a problem so severe, then here are better ways to solve it than making the role assignments non random.

That’s my opinion. I don’t really want to spend any time in a game thinking about “would the GM allow this person to be this role or allow these two players to be on the same team?”

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:46 pm

if a gm wants to run a game where they hand pick roles and there is no RNG that should absolutely be allowed if its part of the games theme. like an all stars game or something unique. Or a role madness or a upick. I think if you force a must always be 100% RNG rule you eliminate tons of game concepts and water everything down to just being a robot doing it all.

I will hard defend to the death the right to have unique setups with unique randing options. and as long as the GM announces it, and lets people know, this should never be illegal at all

If that is made clear as a part of the setup, it would be for the Council to approve, so it would be acceptable if they ruled it to be so.

if a gm wants to run a game where they hand pick roles and there is no RNG that should absolutely be allowed if its part of the games theme. like an all stars game or something unique. Or a role madness or a upick. I think if you force a must always be 100% RNG rule you eliminate tons of game concepts and water everything down to just being a robot doing it all.

I will hard defend to the death the right to have unique setups with unique randing options. and as long as the GM announces it, and lets people know, this should never be illegal at all

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

I fundamentally disagree that GMs should tell players they shouldnt sign up. As a GM you want players. and you also want to give benefit of the doubt. but at the end of the day you DO want players and you dont want to create a rule set that excludes certain players you dont trust as far as lurking. Just because you think someone might flake, doesnt mean they will. you have to give people a chance, and being able to maintain game integrity in my example above means keeping a short leash on a situation. The fundamental aspect of the game is that the players expect the game to not be totally obliterated by some psycho.

I recall this issue happening unexpectedly with a mafia team where a disgruntled player wanted out of the game with sabi and others, and started naming off their mafia teammates and outting specific people they had beef with from mafia chat. I think demonRHK had to suffer through this.

The gm should be allowed to protect their games. We wait literal fucking months in a queue to get to run a game. we go through relentless oversight to approve our setups. we make tireless write ups of flavour and rules documents. We strive to consider every role interaction some role in the game may have. We are protective of OUR games. they are not some ROBOTS game, they are OUR games. We will defend them from anything that might just ruin the game and even when we do strive to protect them, people still can cause damage.

I have never told a person they cant play. new or old. er actually I surely told jamie he couldnt play once because he was annoying me. But the point is, you can sign up but im not gonna let you ruin my game if I think I can mitigate possiblity of damage. bear in mind only under most extreme of circumstances have I ever done this in this way, and perplexity I stand by that decision especially seeing that my judgement was right.

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm

I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).

For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

So essentially you think it would be better to cap the number of new players that can join a game rather than throw out the roll and re-roll in the exceedingly rare event all 3-4 new players roll mafia?

@brain I don't think you should do 3 rands and pick one. This brings in an element of choice.

Rand once and if deemed unsatisfactory (like you cited), reroll, repeat.

reviewing the game itself, lfischl as an example, who ALSO had subbed out alot, and had been a serial lurker who had even been sanctioned was randed as PR and no alteration was made to that. This should serve as evidence that the GM would only make a reroll or adjustment or throw out a sample in the most extreme of cases.

There was no handpicking or anything else that happened in M67.

Just one final note on that,

Perplexity
Profile Information

Banned

this person is also banned from webdip as well so please trust my judgement!