Conditional Idol Plays

[Searl]

Been far too long since we had some rules discussion! Especially over a very niche edge case. I'm in the process of designing a game (it's a secret don't tell anyone) and was reading through previous game rulesets.

In recent Survivor ORGs, conditional idol plays have been explicitly allowed by the rules. This means you're allowed to post something like 'play my idol on myself if someone plays an idol on Searl'.

This reflects how the real gameshow works - in actual TC, idol plays are public, and people have the chance to respond with their own idol plays after they see them.

However, it feels like a bit of an odd thing to try to replicate in a non-live game. In actual survivor, you're responding to something that you've seen happen. In non-live Survivor, you give a set of circumstances in which you'll respond in advance - which seems okay when you're responding to idols with standard known mechanics, but what about responding to items that aren't known? What about if multiple things happen that make the situation much more complex? How vague can your description of the circumstances be? It leads to an odd position where you want to describe as many different circumstances as possible if you really want to cover your bases, a lot of which can't easily be predicted.

Obviously, most people won't bother doing that. But the fact that conditional plays *kind of* replicate how the show works but not really - allowing you to respond to some things but not others - doesn't sit all that well with me. It feels like we're forcing in an alien mechanic that doesn't really fit with our format, with the sole goal being to bring our format a bit closer to that of the show.

I could understand it if there were other solid advantages to having conditional plays, but if anything I think it makes the game a little worse. IMO, the best thing about idols is their ability to disrupt the power structure of a game, which happens primarily when someone at the bottom of that power structure plays an idol. This is basically never going to be a conditional play, since the player on the bottom is the one who has to make the first move to prevent themselves (or an ally) going home.

The conditional idol play generally happens in response to this - so generally gives the side currently in power a chance to shut down the counterplay and keep the power structure as is. And it costs them nothing to do it, because they don't use up their idol unless their opponent idols.

As should be apparent, I dislike conditional idol plays. I'm interested to see what the general opinion of the LSG community is on it - particularly whether there are advantages to it that I'm not seeing.

[Searl]

Firstly I disagree that replicate the show is necessarily the goal with conditional item plays, but rather the fact that they occur in the show inspire the potential use in forum games. After all, there are plenty of things new to the show that tend not to happen by and large in our games. We still have variations in the FTC formats and relatively few games have used automatic firemaking at final 4. So it's clear that just because the show does something, we don't just do it in our games.

Def agree that for the most part we don't just directly emulate everything the show does here, which is a good thing imo. And I think it's fine to experiment with things from the show too. It's just that this one has become a mainstay and I'm not sure why. The whole 'react to things' phase doesn't exist in nonlive, and I don't see a reason to try to emulate that phase, especially when the mechanic we use to emulate it only half-works.
Touching on your next paragraph here, I'd agree that half-emulation > no emulation

if

the mechanic is a good one. But I don't think it is in this format, and the half-emulation just makes it even worse.

I will say that anything that can only be used effectively by a majority is a bad item. However I disagree in fact that this is true of conditional item plays.

In cases where there is a clear power structure, and the bottom of that structure has an idol, and they choose to use it, and the majority have an idol as well, that idol can be saved if the bottom plays their item incorrectly. But I actually, think that is better. After all, in cases where the minority plays their item correctly, both items are out of the game, same as a theoretical other world without conditional plays. However, a world where the minority plays it incorrectly and that majority still has an item, means that item will still be around when the power structure changes. That also means that item has a higher chance of being used correctly, which I also think is a good thing, like what's the point of items if they aren't going to be used to do something?

I also think in a game with a lockstep power structure, the items won't end up mattering long term, they might save a player for a vote, but if there's no chance of the game changing, that just delays the inevitable.

I think there isn't a case stated here where the people at the bottom aren't at more of a disadvantage for conditional idol plays being a thing. Is there an example where the minority can use a conditional idol play effectively?
"in cases where the minority plays their item correctly, both items are out of the game, same as a theoretical other world without conditional plays" - this is

not

identical to a world without conditional plays. In a world without them, the player in the majority holding the idol could have been sent home with it in their pocket, whereas in the world with conditional plays (and where they are using said conditional play) they are guaranteed not to be. There is also zero chance of baiting out the idol with an idol bluff in the world where conditional plays exist.
I don't think whether or not the item is still there after the power structure changes is relevant to this; it could definitely help or hurt the remaining minority players (if there are any) after that point, but prior to that it has still just been assisting in making sure the power structure is harder for the minority to knock down. Overall I'd say it definitely hurts the minority far more than it helps them in that case.
"That also means that item has a higher chance of being used correctly, which I also think is a good thing, like what's the point of items if they aren't going to be used to do something?" - this is an opinion I seriously disagree with - idols are really, really powerful items and don't need buffing for the sake of having more of them be used correctly. The downside to an idol is that it's difficult to use at the right time, and imo it needs that downside. This does sound like it's just a difference in game design philosophy for the two of us though.

On that last point, I think there are a lot of situations where you can massively disrupt the power structure in a lockstep power structure game by taking out one key player. I think those kind of games often happen because there's one particularly strong player directing the flow of the game, and a lot of people deciding to go along with it in order to use them as a shield.

However, in games where there isn't a clear power structure, or at least the exact status of the power structure is in flux, I think it's at the very least a huge quality of life improvement. It allows people to think more about what items might be played, and will reward players who have a good idea of what might be in play. To write an effective conditional, you have to already be thinking about what other people are doing. If someone writes something too vague to enforce, it just...won't be? And if it's vague and can be enforced, that vagueness would probably end up making them play an item when they shouldn't, not further secure an item. Once again, it means fewer items get played to no effect, which is a good thing unless you already don't want items in the game. Also, as a player, I love the idea of more options than just a blank, "play item or no", it allows nuance into an area where there wasn't, especially when the correct thing to do depends on so many moving parts.

I agree that it gives the player more to think about, but in a way it also gives the player less to think about. You do have to be more specific in your thoughts about what could happen in order to write the conditionals (the vagueness I was talking about was the potential solution for the half-implementation of this mechanic... but I agree that it doesn't make sense to allow). At the same time, it takes away your need to actually come to a conclusion on what is most likely to happen in the phase.

Still at the end of the day, mods get to do what they want so long as it isn't too broken, and as players, we play within the rules that the mods determined.

This is definitely true. I'm not raising this topic to try to ban mods from using it, I'm raising it because I think it's implemented by default right now just because previous mods did, and I'd prefer future mods to think about whether that rule should be used or not.

[Searl]

Xof raised the accomodating players not around at deadline point too, in Discord yesterday - but I'm still not sure I see how it relates. A conditional play isn't conditional on anything that happens during the phase itself, it's conditional on things that happen in the reveal. With or without conditionals, someone who is present right up until deadline has no greater ability to react to an idol/item play than someone who left 2 hours beforehand.

I'm guessing you're instead referring to the possibility that someone claims to have an idol/item in the last few minutes of the phase? I don't disagree that it helps out people who can't be around at deadline in that case. But you can't conditionally vote based on what someone says after you leave - I can't put down 'vote for john if peter claims to have an idol, vote peter otherwise' or 'vote for whoever my ally Mist tells me to vote for in their last message of the phase'. I can't even condition idols on what people say - "If I get messages that outright tell me I'm in danger, play the idol" would (presumably) not be permitted, despite that being a far more important thing to allow if you wanted to give people who aren't around at deadline the same footing as those who are, and that would actually benefit players at the bottom instead of just those at the top.

...that paragraph sounds like an argument for allowing conditionals on messages received, aha. It's very much the opposite. I think those are changes that *actually* help players not around at deadline, and I still think the game would be far worse for them - saying this as a Euro who generally has to leave at least 2 hours prior to deadline since I graduated and had to fix my sleep for my job. Conditional idol plays barely help those kind of players at all, instead being primarily used to react to things that are being deliberately kept secret from the player no matter how late they stay up - and they still make the game slightly worse.

[Searl]

Revoking Conditional Idol plays just feels like you're trying to turn Tribal Council into a live event specifically for that player that has an idol and no one else.

It's my view that tribal is always a live event that takes place over the course of a day, for everyone. The situation develops as people come to decisions and discover/share information. It's a damned shame that people can't be there for the whole thing, and it's even more of a damned shame when you can't be there for the end part because that's when stuff *always* happens - but that's just part of how the game works.