Mafiascum.net

IIRC you can host a Normal game with a modified ruleset (like the Geriatric ruleset), but only if it doesn't cause the game to become not Normal (?). I'm not sure about this, but I feel like the Open Queue is "friendlier" to games with shorter deadlines. This probably isn't true.

Let me ask the List Mods of those Queues.

(this is @alisea)

I just think you were blowing up on the wrong people. The flow of the conversation is something like this: person a: run shorter games, person b: you can already run shorter games.

I think 99% of the person A's haven't read all of the topics they post in to know they are constantly repeating the same thing. If you have constructive ideas about how to get more short games run, share them. But just saying, "oh here are these prolific well respected mods of longer format games and they wont change to a shorter format *crying*" isn't going to resolve anything. Some of the new generation is going to need to be willing to mod the types of games they want to play in. (and there are other things too that have already been discussed at length in terms of reducing the burden on mods, and making mods more likely to run blitz speed games).

Talking about the queues for a moment, I've had a thought recently that we might have fucked up when we introduced the normal guidelines. Before that point, there was this notion that normals were easier to run than themes because its one less thing to think about. So we funneled the newbie mods into the mini normals first. Then we got a bunch of shitty mini normals cause it's where all the first time mods were, so we introduced a bunch of strict rules about what it means to be normal, put together review groups etc. Does it really still make sense to channel the first time mods into them if we are setting that higher standard for them? It might actually make sense to just open up mini themes to first time mods. This would also explicitly let them run blitz speed games.

Does a shorter deadline (lets say 10 or 7 24 hour periods for a singular day length) really change the game that much that it can't be hosted in the Normal or Open Queues?

On the other hand, I can see where running a game where the day length is 5 days or less be considered "Normal", at the very least.

I think the intention of normals as they exist is to offer an extremely uniform experience, and those deadlines definitely change the experience. I don't think that's the goal of the open queue as it exists so personally see no issue with shorter deadlines there. I also think we can question whether that's what the normal queue should be.

Oh, I slightly misread your post. 10 or 7 days is likely fine and I think already allowed.

It's okay. :3

Thanks for your thoughts Chamber!

I'm not completely sure since I can't remember if it's ever said in the rules/opening of those two queues that 10/7 day game Day phases are allowed.

In post 52, chamber wrote:Talking about the queues for a moment, I've had a thought recently that we might have fucked up when we introduced the normal guidelines. Before that point, there was this notion that normals were easier to run than themes because its one less thing to think about. So we funneled the newbie mods into the mini normals first. Then we got a bunch of shitty mini normals cause it's where all the first time mods were, so we introduced a bunch of strict rules about what it means to be normal, put together review groups etc. Does it really still make sense to channel the first time mods into them if we are setting that higher standard for them? It might actually make sense to just open up mini themes to first time mods. This would also explicitly let them run blitz speed games.

This is an interesting point. I wonder if a better plan for first-time mods would be to either require or Strongly Recommend that they use a pre-approved setup the Open Queue, which is where I ran my first game. For my own first game I chose to run an open mostly because I had zero confidence in my ability to design anything close to a good and balanced setup, and there's a good chance I would have run a mini normal instead if I'd had that option.

chamber wrote:I think the intention of normals as they exist is to offer an extremely uniform experience, and those deadlines definitely change the experience. I don't think that's the goal of the open queue as it exists so personally see no issue with shorter deadlines there. I also think we can question whether that's what the normal queue should be.

I think I have a different perspective on what Normals are for, though I'm just some guy so my understanding isn't necessarily any better than anyone else's. When I sign up for a normal game it's because I want a closed setup but also want some assurance that I'm not going to be blindsided by some weird game-altering novelty that I couldn't have possibly anticipated when I signed up. As far as I'm concerned, short deadlines are not a weird novelty as long as they're advertised in advance.

(For that matter I'm less concerned than some about roles and mechanics are allowed, so long as the list of possibilities is enumerable in principle; I'm totally fine with like Godfathers and Janitors and the like as long as everyone understands they're a possibility, though I do draw the line at lying in role PMs unless this is advertised as a possible part of the game. Which I guess proves that my idea of "what Normal is for" differs from the conventional one.)

In post 56, chamber wrote:Oh, I slightly misread your post. 10 or 7 days is likely fine and I think already allowed.

If someone tried to run a Blitz Normal, I wouldn't stop them (although I would ask them to make sure there were big signup warnings explaining the deadline rules).

I talked to Implosion. He said that 7 day deadlines would be the shortest he'd accept in the Normal Queue ATM.

Only loosely related point, don't really have a particular post to quote to associate with this:
As a mod, when I mod a game, I am explicitly modding a game that I, as a player, would love to play in. I don't design games that I wouldn't personally enjoy on the other side of the equation. And that's also one of the reasons why I use the archaic 3-week deadlines, 72-hour prod rules, etc. I'm designing a game which is suited to what I, personally, would do and like as a player. (I taking my time, I like having flexibility, I like having times where I am allowed to not post and have it not kill the game, so my games allow this of players.)

And this is honestly what I expect of all moderators. If they're not designing a game they themselves would play, why are they designing it in the first place? If it wouldn't be fun , it increases the odds that the players themselves won't have fun because the mod had a disconnect in the design process.

I'd expect the same, then, of those who want there to be shorter games. If they want to play in a game of that type, moderating a game of that type is a good way to get started.

In post 56, chamber wrote:Oh, I slightly misread your post. 10 or 7 days is likely fine and I think already allowed.

Explicitly so, yes, though the shorter the deadline, the more it needs to be noted in signups.

For instance, I recall a game with either 4 or 5-day deadlines; it was allowed, but players had to be told of the rule going into signups so they knew what they were signing up for.

Which is, as mentioned, one of the modifications which is allowed, similar to how mods can run Geriatric ruleset games. Something that is allowed, but people need to know about in advance so they're not blindsided by it.

I've been wondering if it makes sense for moderators to run games that they wouldn't want to play in simply to increase demand. If the game is one which the moderator would normally play in, now you have an extra slot to fill because the moderator can't play in their own game.

In post 61, mastina wrote:As a mod, when I mod a game, I am explicitly modding a game that I, as a player, would love to play in.

I agree.

I rarely mod games that I would personally want to play in.

I don't like role madness.

In post 62, callforjudgement wrote:I've been wondering if it makes sense for moderators to run games that they wouldn't want to play in simply to increase demand. If the game is one which the moderator would normally play in, now you have an extra slot to fill because the moderator can't play in their own game.

I would totally do this... if I didn't have to design the game first. I'm not going to try and design a game for the sort of player I'm not because I'll have no sense for whether I've done a good job or not.

But for example I would totally run an open or variable-open for someone who designed it and wants to play in the inaugural run.

For me, I can reliably spend time on a mafia game about once a day. Posting more then once a day might be possible on some days, but can't happen reliably.

Given that, shortening deadlines will greatly reduce the number of posts I can make in a single day. Because of this, I'm unlikely to play in anything that has a deadline shorter then 10 days, and would prefer a 3 week over a 2 week deadline. I even would prefer games without a deadline at all (a lynch occurs when a decision has been reached) if they had mechanics that prevent stagnancy, though this has less to do with the fact that I can only post once a day, and more with the fact that deadline lynches have a tendency of creating a game pattern where things are stagnant for a large period of time, and only reach a flurry of activity when deadline approaches.

We're getting off topic, but it's semi-related.

@Michel - I think "the point" of shorter deadlines is to reduce the stagnancy that's "plaguing" (emphasis on the quotation marks!) the average two week games. One proposed solution is to reduce the deadline length. Now whether or not this change will have reduced the amount of stagnancy in a game is clearly up in the air ATM. In most games nowadays, it's almost a matter of extremes regarding activity. (at least, FMPOV)

There are times when more than a handful of people will be online and will all be reacting to each other at the same time, generating five or maybe ten pages in that period of time. And then there are other times when the thread's slow and subdued and other people are catching up and maybe the game increases by a page. That's what today's game climate is like - a land of (let's just call it) extremes -, but the problem isn't the climate itself, but rather that there's an imbalance in the climate aka too much of that subdued time from what people are saying.

That's a different type of stagnancy then what I'm talking about, though. I'm not talking about pure activity, but about impetus towards a lynch.

In my experience, lynches well before deadline are extremely rare. In fact, bandwagons that could viably lead to a lynch seem to almost only happen when deadline is close by. Players are willing to compromise to prevent a no lynch at deadline, but they seem to be unwilling to compromise on a lynch when deadline isn't looming.

As a mechanic to prevent that kind of stagnancy, deadlines work, kind of, but they are an extremely crude tool for the job. Most of the game remains stagnant, with a flurry to reach a lynch in the last 24-48 hours. If a mechanic could be found to encourage players to compromise throughout the game, I would much prefer that.

I'm not entirely sure what such a mechanic would need to be. I'm thinking perhaps something like prods for players on vanity wagons? "You're the only one voting player X. Noone has joined you in the past 72 hours. You have 48 hours to convince someone to join you or to change your vote" (times dependent on desired game speed, obviously).

If there's a lack of impetus towards obtaining a lynch, I don't think there's anything mod or game mechanic related that can fix that because lynches are in the hands of the players. All we can do as mods is prod players to ensure that they're posting, the rest is up to them because otherwise it begins to sound like the Mod, rather than the players, is playing the game.

If the players aren't proactive enough and have to bum rush the lynch, then they're clearly punished for it by having to compromise on a wagon that will more than likely hit a town player for bad reasons. Beyond that, it's up to the players to come to the realization of "hey, let's not do this again," and keep up the activity, otherwise again they'll be punished for it and if they keep continuing that pattern of bum rushing the lynch, then it's more than likely they'll lose the game.

I think prodding players on vanity wagons is a little extreme, especially when you consider whether or not that counts as a "strike" against them (three prods = replacement). Gameplay wise, players who sit on vanity wagons are punished by virtue of being on a vanity wagon (especially if they're voting for someone they think is scum) by virtue of that vanity wagon not getting lynched.

Additionally, I think that prodding a vanity wagon player would be equivalent to punishing them by virtue of factors that may or may not be out of their control (play style, maybe the other players aren't listening, etc.) is a bit unfair.

In post 52, chamber wrote:Talking about the queues for a moment, I've had a thought recently that we might have fucked up when we introduced the normal guidelines. Before that point, there was this notion that normals were easier to run than themes because its one less thing to think about. So we funneled the newbie mods into the mini normals first. Then we got a bunch of shitty mini normals cause it's where all the first time mods were, so we introduced a bunch of strict rules about what it means to be normal, put together review groups etc. Does it really still make sense to channel the first time mods into them if we are setting that higher standard for them? It might actually make sense to just open up mini themes to first time mods. This would also explicitly let them run blitz speed games.

I'd say require a first time mod to mod a micro first. Then open up all mini games for the 2nd game of experience. Then Large games at 3 games or more games of experience. That order of experience makes sense to me. (Though I think the size of the game you maintain is the biggest determiner in the degree of difficulty... not necessarily the setup you run or whether it's a theme or normal.)

I can actually comment on why we went with micro's needing more experience. (whether it was ultimately right or not). Designing balanced small setups is actually much harder than large setups. In large setups there is a lot more room for fudge factor because there are so many moving pieces. In a smaller game 1 OP role or w/e and the whole game's f'ed. On the other hand actually running a micro is easiest, and running a large game is hardest. That's why mini's are the entry point with micros and larges both requiring experience. (as the system is).

I question how much value we are actually getting from this at the moment though.

I just tend to see things from the perspective of size. The larger a game is the greater the investment and the greater the number of people you screw over when you get it wrong. We probably shouldn't be emphasizing a need for perfection as much in a micro game as we do for a mini or a large. That's just how I see it.

The difficulty of designing a micro also likely rests on how original you are trying to be with the game. If you stick with something that is known to be relatively balanced and works well, it's not that hard at all. If you're trying to reinvent the wheel and do something new... well... there's not a lot you're going to be able to do in a micro with that.