Question about handling priorities

[mole]

We could make it like Diplomacy!

"Yes, I promise to support your convoy of the mafia to the police station. I just hope the SK doesn't bounce us there."

[Azkar]

Hmm .. what if you had two roleblockers, A & B, and say a mafia, C. A targets B, and B targets C. Who's roleblock would go through, then? They couldn't really go through simultaneously, since you can't really be blocked from acting and act at the same time .

Just a pure hypothetical ..

[Seol]

You think there could be a way to 'rate' players based on what happens in the game? This might be aprtially based on some of GL's roles in his last PR3 game, which got benefits from posting a certain thing certain times... and you wouldn't want a system to be biased, but I would think that people who are more involved in the game (People who initiate busses, who cast hammering votes, or whatnot) could be 'rewarded' appropriately. Or even just give each person a private 'number' before the gae starts and base it off that, like initiative.

My question on this is, what about 'bus drivers' or target switchers and compllicated stuff like that.

Check out the League at WIFOM.net, where they're trying to implement this. Now, I have a number of issues with the whole concept, but if you want a starting point that's as good as any.

Hmm .. what if you had two roleblockers, A & B, and say a mafia, C. A targets B, and B targets C. Who's roleblock would go through, then? They couldn't really go through simultaneously, since you can't really be blocked from acting and act at the same time...

Just a pure hypothetical ..

Three possible solutions:

1 - Give roleblockers a pre-set priority listing (eg roleblocker 1 acts first, then roleblocker 2)
2 - The blocker blocking a blocker blocks the blocker not blocking a blocker. Flavourwise, this is where the blocker watches their target and forcibly stops them from taking any action.
3 - Both blocks go through. Flavourwise, this is where the blocker has a stun-gun, and they both shoot their target early - it's too late to block the second blocker as he's already taken his shot.

I haven't had to deal with it in the past but I think I favour 2. 1 is arbitrary and clunky and 3 is unintuitive.

[Kelly Chen]

I prefer 3. "Blockers can't be blocked." Simple to explain.

EDIT oh oops, I guess I prefer 2 then.

EDIT or do I? I like the interpretation which says blockers can't be blocked. Whichever.

[Fiasco]

2 is the only logical option in the absence of unusual special rules, and I don't see the need to have any. The one blocker's block doesn't go through, because he's blocked by someone who isn't himself blocked by anyone.

[mith]

I prefer 2. I don't see why people get hung up on this any more than the idea of killers killing each other. The blocker role is well defined - it prevents the target from using his/her ability. How does adding in "unless the target is a blocker" make things more simple?

[mole]

But what if there are three SKs (A, B, and C) with both a kill ability and a roleblock ability, and A kills D and blocks C, B kills E and blocks A, and C kills F and blocks B? What

then

, mith?

I do agree with 2, by the way.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

They all block each other and noone dies. Blocks are resolved before kills.

[Fiasco]

CES, isn't that just another way to say you don't allow blockers to block each other's blocking ability? As long as you avoid pathological cases like mole's, there should be no problem with having everything resolve at the same time.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I suppose I should've said I go with option 3. I resolve all blocks at the same time. So a roleblocker can't block a block.

[mole]

As long as you avoid pathological cases like mole's, there should be no problem with having everything resolve at the same time.

We have a winner! :)

The correct answer to my question was "

Three

roleblocking SKs? Why? Do you hate the town that much?"

[Fiasco]

Actually I'm not sure... the problem occurs whenever there are at least two roles with a blocking ability, and at least one of those roles also has another ability. A town roleblocker and a mafia roleblocker making the kill would work. Maybe I'd rule that everything resolves at the same time, and in the special case of a Roleblocking Paradox Loop all non-roleblocking abilities in the loop (e.g. mafia kill) get sucked in a hole in spacetime (i.e. don't work). But if you need a special rule like that, I can see the appeal of just using a special rule that blockers can't block blockers, too.

[Mr. Flay]

This is an interesting one. A blocks B because there's no one to stop A. Does B get to act anyway because they sent their choice in first? Do they get to act because flavorwise, your blockers don't prevent certain types of actions? It would depend on the setup, and while I'm leaning toward B, it creates a paradoxical situation where Z blocking A prevents A from blocking B, which means B does in fact block killer C. I don't like that (it's like a Condorcet loop). So I'd probably resolve in favor of "blockers block anyone except other blockers, unless they block each other, in which case you Reboot the Universe due to an Out of Cheese error."

[Glork]

unless they block each other, in which case you Reboot the Universe due to an Out of Cheese error.

...I fully intend on using this somewhere in a future game.

[Zindaras]

Hypothetical situations like mole's are pretty easy to avoid and thus should never actually occur. If they do, well, sucks to be the GO.

I'd go for 2 in Seol's thing, by the way. It's most intuitive.

[Fircoal]

I'd say 2 is the best.

[Ancalagon]

But about priorities...

1- Roleblockers
2- Doctors
3- Everyone Else

Does everyone else include Bus Drivers/Switchers?

[MightyFireball]

I'd think that Bus Drivers would go before everyone else because they affect the outcome of the NC of whoever they choose, no matter who that person is. I would probably put role resolutions in this order:

1. Role Switchers (Bus Drivers)
2. Role Blockers
3. Protective Roles
4. Killing Roles
5. Investigative Roles
6. Anything else.

[Skruffs]

maybe there should be layers of orders. What if a roleblocker blocks A, and a busdriver switches A and themself? THey'd put themself into a situation where they would be blocked. >.>
I guess you clean up the loose ends first and work towards the more complicated things next. If a doctor protects a person and isn't blocked or killed or role switched, that should go through first. resolve everything that doesn't potentially have conflicts involved with other roles, and then determine the conflicts last?

[Karo]

This is confusing.

I'd go with option no 1, as it seems the simplest. Just give the players some flavour as justification (i.e. a 'roleblocker' and an 'excellent roleblocker').