Bastard vs "low blow"

[KittyTacky]

I have been thinking about it for a few days now. As we know, roles like Jester, Judas, Medium (doesn't seem to be a common role, it's used in Discord Mafia, can see and talk in the dead channel/thread) are considered bastard when unannounced (and sometimes when they are).

But to me, "bastard modding" is strictly lying to the players. Those roles, unless disguised as other roles or when there's something like "the mod said there's no jester in the game but there actually is", are not bastard even when unannounced. They're just dubious design-- a "low blow" so to speak. It's no different from there being, say, two exactly duplicate roles when you wouldn't expect there to be; you don't expect it to hit you, and it can screw the town over really bad. This is not to say unannounced jesters or Judases(?) are good setup design, quite the opposite.

Do you agree? Am I reading too much into this?

[Something_Smart]

I think this is on the right track, for sure. "Bastard" is a tricky thing to pin down, since it means different things to different people, but there definitely is a gap between "bastard" and "good design" and I think "low blow" is a pretty good thing to call it.

Basically, you put something in the setup that doesn't trigger a bastard warning but nonetheless violates people's expectations, to the point where they wouldn't seriously consider the truth. This is a pretty hard thing to predict; I think experience is really the only way.

I personally feel like bastard is confined to moderator lies, but I'm pretty generous about what counts as a lie. For instance, cults are bastard because a cult recruit's former role PM is a lie, and a jester that ends the game on victory is bastard because the other players' wincons are lies.

[chamber]

It really all just comes down to violation of expectations. That can come through explicit lies, but it can also come through things like your win con changing unexpectedly(cults), or being punished for something that is a standard action for your faction (ie things that punish eliminations as the town, or nightkills as the mafia, though nightkills is probably a bit more normal). I don't think there is much utility in defining a separate term for things you consider bad design but not bastard, because different people are just going to put that line in different places.

[Something_Smart]

Well, the site makes you specify whether your game is bastard when you /in to mod so it does draw a pretty clear distinction. And what's a low blow can depend on the context (a chaotic role madness large with tons of mechanics has far more leeway than a simple themed micro), whereas what's bastard generally doesn't.

So I think it is worth thinking about them as different categories.

[KittyTacky]

What about "this game may or may not have a jester"? Is it a low blow if you say this and flip a coin before starting the game and use one of two setups you designed, one with a jester and one without?

I say no, you still end up playing around the potential jester thus it's decent design IMO assuming the setup is balanced around the jester.

[Something_Smart]

That seems perfectly fine; since you're setting the expectations explicitly, they can't be violated.

Incidentally, this is why I like to give town as much public information as I possibly can in my games, and I tend to avoid red herrings unless it's a specific theme of the setup.

[chamber]

Well, the site makes you specify whether your game is bastard when you /in to mod so it does draw a pretty clear distinction. And what's a low blow can depend on the context (a chaotic role madness large with tons of mechanics has far more leeway than a simple themed micro), whereas what's bastard generally doesn't.

So I think it is worth thinking about them as different categories.

I haven't looked recently, but I thought mods tended to enumerate the kinds of things that would make it bastard when checking that box, which seems like the better practice given the different standards different people will have.

[T3]

What if we have a new category basically saying "everything in the game happens for a reason game related"

[Awoo]

I don't follow. Could you give an example of a game where something happens in the game for a non game related reason?

[vonflare]

I don't follow. Could you give an example of a game where something happens in the game for a non game related reason?

I think what he means is 'everything that happens is knowable by the players', for example, a player who randomly kills one person each night, but nothing in their role specifies that, so no one could know. that's how I'm interpreting it anyway. but wouldn't that just be a bastard game then? idk