Happily Ever After - Revisited Again?

[Rob14]

Newbie 1507 has ended in a draw.

So, it's happened again.

If you're newish and not familiar with this concept, then check out this Wiki page on the concept itself and this Wiki page on some of the moderator theory behind it.

I'd like to revisit this and try to develop a consensus on what should happen in the case of Happily Ever After situations, since this has always been a "fear" of mine as a moderator. While I've long since determined how I would handle the situation, I have a feeling that many people would disagree with my method.

My thoughts on the matter are that both sides should lose, and this stems from the win conditions as I write them. My "standard" win conditions for town and scum are something to the effect of:

Town: You win when no threats to the town remain.
Scum: You win when you are the only remaining faction, or nothing can prevent this from happening.

If both sides remain at the end, then there are still threats to the town AND scum is not the only remaining faction, so they both have failed to achieve their win conditions as I've written them. This also makes the most sense flavor-wise, to me. It isn't really happily ever after if both sides are constantly living under threat of the other side initiating a kill again. It has the additional benefit that it would make it playing against your win condition if you were to intentionally allow a "Happily Ever After" situation to occur, which is a good side effect in my opinion. These scenarios aren't satisfying to anyone (moderator or players), so they should be discouraged.

Another option that is somewhat appealing to me, although not as much, is the idea that the side who initiated the "No lynch/no kill" cycle is required to break it or lose, while the other side wins. This at least puts the onus on the side that initiated the cycle rather than having a set rule on "X faction loses in this scenario".

[Not_Mafia]

Personally I think both sides lose as no one has fulfilled their win condition. You could say neither side won but that neither side lost either, but I'd say a lose condition is implied in failing to fulfill your wincon.

I was in that game and neither side seemed able or even willing to get a lynch on anyone after d1 and I thought everyone losing would be the fair outcome.

[Maestro]

To me, "Happily Ever After" doesn't mean "oh both sides just agree to end the game even though neither has actually fulfilled their wincon", it meant "Scum can't Kill without what they see as a substantial risk to their wincon and Town refuse to Lynch on the chance that they get it wrong; neither side will act so game completely stagnates and must be ended by Moderator intervention".

That's what it's always meant when I've seen it happen or participated in it happening.

Why did this require another discussion...? There've been several topics already on this, as you yourself admit.

Another option that is somewhat appealing to me, although not as much, is the idea that the side who initiated the "No lynch/no kill" cycle is required to break it or lose, while the other side wins. This at least puts the onus on the side that initiated the cycle rather than having a set rule on "X faction loses in this scenario".

I find this potential "solution" obnoxious and would rage at / report any Moderator who forced it upon me, as Scum or Town. It is not your right to intervene in a game to achieve an ending you see fit. The "Happily Ever After" reflects nothing on you as a Moderator, so stay out of how the players want their game to end: a win for neither side and a loss for neither side.

[Maestro]

Why is this a "fear" of yours as a Mod, Rob? It reflects absolutely nothing on you as a Moderator and not even (necessarily) anything on a setup you may've designed. It's a game state that is very rarely achieved and is usually quickly broken by one side wanting to win more than they mind taking a risk.

[mathbandit]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a Town win. There is clearly no threat remaining to the Town if the Mafia will no longer be killing.

[Not_Mafia]

It should be noted in this game the mafia never intentionally no killed, they were JK'd one night and hit the 1-shot BP the other and 2 of the no lynches were purely down to inactivity and in the final one 3 townies and 1 scum intentionally voted no lynch in order to take the 'draw'.

[Rob14]

It's a fear because it results in a deeply unsatisfying game for myself and the players in the game. It may not reflect on anything I did wrong, but it does prevent me from achieving my goal as a mod, which is to run a game that people find fun.

If that rule you take issue with is in the initial rule set, it is not arbitrary at all. Both sides understand what it means to nl/nk.

And this needs to be discussed, IMO, because there is still no consensus, as evidenced by your disagreement with me and the PM I got from NS thanking me for making this thread. Evidently, he also wasn't satisfied with the ending.

[zoraster]

If it's actually a fear you have, insert a rule that says if no player dies for 3 day/night cycles, X side wins. It almost doesn't matter which side that is (though it has a slight effect on overall win rate), you just want to make one side have an incentive to do something to force a kill.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

If it's actually a fear you have, insert a rule that says if no player dies for 3 day/night cycles, X side wins. It almost doesn't matter which side that is (though it has a slight effect on overall win rate), you just want to make one side have an incentive to do something to force a kill.

Yes but if you wrote that as a town win then in the exact scenario of this game in question you're going into night with six players, two scum, three VT, and a one-shot BP and basically the best scum play of "shoot the one shot BP and make the town NL again or act in MYLO instead of LYLO" is taken away from them.

Whatever the rule is, it needs to be written so that an unwillingness or inability to kill by both sides ends the game but something like this game where the town NLed due to passiveness, scum intentionally shoot a 1-shot BP to be able to eliminate the last "confirmed" town player the next night, town NL out of fear of a loss doesn't "reward" them with a draw.

[OkaPoka]

Oops.

I didn't really know this rule. So I wasn't expecting the draw...

If there was this rule I probably would've played differently. I think it should be stated whenever there is a NL.

[Bins]

It should be noted in this game the mafia never intentionally no killed, they were JK'd one night and hit the 1-shot BP the other and 2 of the no lynches were purely down to inactivity and in the final one 3 townies and 1 scum intentionally voted no lynch in order to take the 'draw'.

If the mafia never intentionally no killed... why did the game end in a draw? Why did the game end at all...

[OkaPoka]

It should be a both sides lose, people should be in to win. Not draw/lose.


Actually Bins has a point. We should've continued the game.

[Bins]

I don't think the game should have ended at all. Scum was still playing. Scum was still trying to kill. It wasn't for the "happily ever after" reasoning.

Unless I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

[quadz08]

I personally like Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies (no one wins) rather than Happily Ever After (everyone wins).

And if there were no intentional no kills, then the game

definitely

should have continued.

[Maestro]

I find this potential "solution" obnoxious and would rage at / report any Moderator who forced it upon me, as Scum or Town. It is not your right to intervene in a game to achieve an ending you see fit.

Regardless of whether a rule is in a ruleset or not from game start, this point still stands IMO. The "solution" Rob cited in the OP is one that would persuade me to replace out if I saw it in an opening ruleset. It's absurdly unnecessary Moderator intervention.

PEDIT: If Not_Mafia is right then I agree with Bins: NS is at fault for stopping the game prematurely. I think DDDP's rule should only be considered if it's conditional on an

UNWILLINGNESS

to Kill - an

INABILITY

to Kill should eventually just result in a Scum loss. If Scum just get unlucky, if there's no

UNWILLINGNESS

and if there's no

INABILITY

, as in this recent Newbie Game, then the game should've continued.

PEDIT: lolyeah Quadz solution A+

I guess I'm in a minority that thinks of "nobody wins" = "nobody loses" but if it needs to be explicitly stated then I'm all for that taking the place of "Happily Ever After".

[Bins]

Yeah. What you said. It was an inability (JK, bulletproof) to kill, not an unwillingness.

[Maestro]

Scum getting unlucky or making bad choices =/= Happily Ever After. It's a Scum loss waiting to happen and should've been allowed to run its course.

[mathbandit]

Wait. So the game was declared a Draw when Scum tried to kill each Night? That's insane.

[Maestro]

I'm more concerned with the fact that it seems it was just 2 Nights of failed kills...
How often does that happen in a game? I'd say it's rare but not

THAT

rare.

[Bins]

They also had a kill in between the two nights IIRC. Might be wrong.

[zoraster]

If it's actually a fear you have, insert a rule that says if no player dies for 3 day/night cycles, X side wins. It almost doesn't matter which side that is (though it has a slight effect on overall win rate), you just want to make one side have an incentive to do something to force a kill.

Yes but if you wrote that as a town win then in the exact scenario of this game in question you're going into night with six players, two scum, three VT, and a one-shot BP and basically the best scum play of "shoot the one shot BP and make the town NL again or act in MYLO instead of LYLO" is taken away from them.

sure. don't get the problem here. as long as one side has a reason to make a kill happen, the game can progress. as long as the rule is clear and in the rules list, there's not really a problem.

[Le Cupcake]

Game should not have ended. This isn't 'happily ever after'.

[ZZZX]

Well I am against that draw

but if anything failing to kill/lynch should be a mafia's win flavor wise as they end up "escaping" and thus surviving to end game.

[OkaPoka]

Maybe when this happens. A neutral third party should decide the outcome.

Since BOTH scum players were alive. Jailkeeper was dead. Bp was almost dead. And scum were successfully submitting NK's each night. Mainly it was town's fault as scum was pushing for the end.

But I was a scum player, so there is a lot of bias in my response.

[zoraster]

ew