Changes to Normal Games (update September 2022)

[Jake The Wolfie]

Question:

Would forcing a player to take an action (via a power role capable of doing so) when they otherwise wouldn't take an action be a normal role?

[Jake The Wolfie]

Question:

Would forcing a player to take an action (via a power role capable of doing so) when they otherwise wouldn't take an action be a normal role?

That’s basically what Captain does, unless you’re talking about a role that could even make VT’s do something.

They’re not Normal and it’s probably best to keep it that way so people can be in control of their own actions. Theme games could make them work in a fun way though.

I mean, are redirectors normal?
Are roleblockers/jailkeepers normal?

Also, I was thinking that the role could force a player to take an action if they did no action, and could choose the target since there would be no target. (Any role which has no night action would become a 1-shot visitor for that night.)

[Jake The Wolfie]

So let’s say there’s an Even-Night Tracker. Would this new role be able to make them Track someone on Odd Nights? What if the other role is x-shot and has no more shots?

Then they would have no night action, and would be a visitor.

Would there be any practical use for that interaction with the VTs?

Maybe, maybe not.

[Jake The Wolfie]

What about targets with multiple abilities if you already covered this tldr.

That should be up to better designers than me.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Would it be possible to make the persoanl modifier only apply to certain factions?

[Jake The Wolfie]

How would the Cult Faction have to change in order to be normal?

[Jake The Wolfie]

What would a backup Traitor even be? The word backup means that if a traitor dies, it will become the next traitor, which means that whatever alignment the traitor is must necessarily be mafia aligned (to avoid alignment changing) but how does a backup traitor differ from an actual traitor?

[Jake The Wolfie]

So a goon that loses communication with their teammates when the traitor (that they know if they exist or not) dies?

[Jake The Wolfie]

Suggestion:

Split Weak off into 2 different categories

Loyal Weak - You will die if you target a member of a differing faction
Disloyal Weak - You will die if you target a member of your faction

[Jake The Wolfie]

I think this is all just semantics which can, and should, be clarified within the rolecard text itself.

[Jake The Wolfie]

The term you're looking for is Death-Godfather

[Jake The Wolfie]

Concept: Roles that implicitly lie to the players (eg. A Jailkeeper-finder when there is no Jailkeeper, which is functionally a Named Visitor) should not be allowed in Normal Games.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Concept: Roles that implicitly lie to the players (eg. A Jailkeeper-finder when there is no Jailkeeper, which is functionally a Named Visitor) should not be allowed in Normal Games.

Why not?

If we named roles in normal games, then we would just allow named roles in normal games.
In addition, a moderator should not be forced to lie to their players under any circunstance.

[Jake The Wolfie]

It's not as explicit of a lie of an informed being told theire is a cop when none exists, but it is still implicitly a lie.
If you wanted red herrings, then you would include redirectors and bus drivers. Technically the moderator isn't lying when they say you got a redcheck on player A when in reality you were redirected to player B and got a redcheck on them, but the moderator is still implicitly lying to you.

[Jake The Wolfie]

That is not my stance. My stance is that the moderator should not be forced to lie or misdirect the players (which actually excludes Miller, a role which in a twist of irony forces the moderator to lie to a player about another's alignment, from being normal) because that directly influences the game, because that is direct moderator influence.

P-edit: @SS If you check player A, but were redirected to player B, a moderator isn't lying when they say that you got a Redcheck, but they are misleading you on who the Redcheck was on.
P-edit2: That is the opinion of one user. A user who knows what they are talking about, sure, but still the opinion of one user.

[Jake The Wolfie]

P.S. the redirector investigation alteration is bastard if you are told "Player A is Not Town." except you actually targeted Player B.

That is not something that happens in most games, normal or otherwise. You aren't told who you targetted, who you ended up targetting, etc.

WIFOMy things like Back-ups without their main role, millers without cops etc... have been around forever. They're a perfectly reasonable thing to expect in a standard game

They are reasonable to expect because they have been around forever. If we wanted to normalize False roles, then we'd just need to make it blaringly obvious for the first, say, 25 games that False roles are indeed possible. That would not make them any less bastard or abnormal.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I don't care how much harder it would make to review a game. If the eNeRGy needs more resources because they suddenly have an uptake in Mods making their own games instead of using prefabricated games, the solution is not to reduce what qualifies as normal, and bar any new qualifications from being enteted.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Define "All Games"

If "All Games" includes "Bastard Games", then I disagree with you heavily.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Yeah, I'd agree that if you got rid of X, it'd be good practice to remove X.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Paranoid Fruit Vendor

During the night, you may use your ability. Assuming no interference with your action, any player that visits you will be given a fruit.

---

Essentially, a Fruit Vendor that doesn't move. It can't confirm itself by visiting other players, but it instead has to potentially waste the town's time by having other players visit them.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Well, you aren't passively using your power, it has to be activated.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Should Reflexive be a Normal modifier?

[Jake The Wolfie]

I don't see how complexity could make something non-normal. We aren't workshopping a Newbie Setup here, we're (partly) trying to create fair and balanced roles to aid in the creation of Normal setups for all (mostly veteran) users to play in.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I doubt that the NRG would allow for setups with roles that are not fun to play with (such as a Reflexive Vigilante or a 0-Shot Fruit Vendor).
Regardless, I do think it would be wise to consider how the player base might react to Reflexive being added, and how Reflexive would interact with the role it's attached to.

I feel like Reflexive should be applied like the following:

Reflexive [Role, such as Cop]

During the night, if you are targeted, you will perform your role's action on all players that target you.
Your role's action is [role action, such as Investigation].

[Jake The Wolfie]

One of the main powers that an investigative would have over any other role type with Reflexive is that you not only know how many people visited you, but also investigation results.

If a Non-Town player visited you, then it's likely that the Mafia either have non-killing abilities or that a Protective role also targeted you.

There are some roles that it wouldn't pair with well, but that's counteracted by the fact that it probably won't show up because it doesn't pair well.

pedit:

I agree with points 1 and 2 ( NightTREE(3) ), and I should probably restate how I understand Reflexive to include this as well.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I'd say #2. If I went with #1, then it would essentially make every role (investigative or not) a self-watcher, which is not a desirable effect.
Even just knowing how many players targeted you can be useful, as it allows you to gauge how many Power Roles are in the game (as Vanilla players naturally cannot target.)

[Jake The Wolfie]

it would require literally building Normal from the ground up again so I doubt the NRG would do that

maybe an intermediate solution would work in outlining the expectations players have for a Normal game?

I don't understand point 1. I thought the NRG was just for overseeing and judging incoming Normal suggestions as well as reviewing Proposed Normal Setups.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I still don't see why they couldn't review a proposed restructuring of Normal and choose whether or not to enact it. Just because they didn't make it doesn't mean they don't have the power to enforce it, right?

[Jake The Wolfie]

yeah I think Reflexive Vigilante (Sentry / PGO) is enough to consider Reflexive AbNormal

it is meta warping like Supersaint is, it punishes something that would normally be good play and the possibility of such a role existing is undue influence on the meta

I don't understand this idea of why the idea of "Punishing what would normally be good play" is respected here, but not in other places:

Protectors explicitly punish going for the best kill target possible on any given night, as one clear cut example.
Ninja- punishes a good Followatcher for (usually) going to the correct player
Strongman-Mafioso again punishes good play from protectors/roleblockstoppers.
Diametrically, a Bad play would be a Vigilante shooting a player who was protected, but who is also anti-town (in favor of a non-protected anti-town, or not shooting at all)

[Jake The Wolfie]

I don't see how complexity could make something non-normal. We aren't workshopping a Newbie Setup here, we're (partly) trying to create fair and balanced roles to aid in the creation of Normal setups for all (mostly veteran) users to play in.

Complexity is a relevant factor because a normal game should generally be something that a player new to the site or fresh off a newbie game could sign up for and understand without having to go out of their way too far. They should not be at a disadvantage compared to an experienced player by virtue of the experienced player better understanding, e.g., what kinds of interactions they may need to avoid or what kinds of motivations a more complex role might have. This is an argument against reflexive because, for instance, PGOs punish mafia players for what would normally be good play (killing a townie who is acting very aggressively) more than is reasonable.

It seems to me like you want to have a more restricted and simple Normal role pool for the benefit of players who would like playing more chillaxed games. Alright, you have have that. You are a moderator after all. Even if you weren't, you could still ask the NRG to align Normalcy with your view.
However, what about players who want to know what to expect, but at the same time want a more complex game? Your position seems to exclude them from playing in Normal games, which means they either move to Theme games (which means they might not always know what to expect, and they might not want to play a themed game), go to Mishmash (HaaH), or to go offsite completely (where Normalcy might vary wildly, or where none might exist.)

As for better defining normals in general/restructuring from the ground up, while there's no intrinsic reason not to do that (other than it being a lot of work) it isn't something I'd do unless I heard a lot of feedback from players that the queue was broken. The problem with some all-encompassing definition is that they serve a variety of purposes. Roughly and in no particular order:

-Normals provide an option for first-time mods other than open games.
-Normals provide an option for players who want to play closed setups where they can reasonably expect what kinds of things to see and won't typically be wildly surprised. They also provide closed games with a reasonable expectation of balance.
-They provide new players a kind of game with the kinds of mechanics that they might expect to see in any game on the site, acclimating them to what is "normal" for MS, rather than mechanics that might be more peculiar to a single game
-They provide constraints on the design process in the hope that constraints breed creativity, but enough freedom so that mods still enjoy designing them on the hopes that mod supply isn't a problem (it has been at various points in the queue's history, but not for quite a while; pre-designed setups helped a lot).
-They provide some amount of stability so that returning players or players from sites with different norms won't be confused by having a wildly different experience from what they're used to.

On the whole, they're supposed to provide a happy medium between open games (where you know exactly what you're playing) and theme games (where you could get absolutely anything) for players that don't like those extremes as much.

As I said above, there is a player who would indeed be interested in a Simple Game. That is true. However, there are other players who want to play a Normal game (with all of its' benefits) but also want a more complex game.
Now, I don't see any obvious solutions to this other than "Add more complexity" or "Split the Queue into Simple and Complex", both of which have very real and very fundamental problems which would need to be addressed before either was implemented. However, I still think it's important to expose the incompleteness of "Complexity is bad for people who don't like Complexity" because it shows a blind spot in where you might be looking. I'm not saying that it's a flawed or even incorrect statement, all I'm saying is that it's incomplete, and a more complete view of reality will help us discuss further.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I mean, The Mini Theme Queue ain't exactly poppin'

[Jake The Wolfie]

Booneytoonz exists you guys >:(

?

[Jake The Wolfie]

I mean, The Mini Theme Queue ain't exactly poppin'

My suggestion would if anything help with that problem I think.

Although as Gamma points out it's not really my suggestion this is a thing that has been tried before with success.

I'm just saying, the Moderator Queue is Empty, the only game that's in sign ups right now is Cook's Pick your

Poison

Policy game, and the latest to fire off (SCP UPick) took ~9 days to fill, and that's a proper themed game.

Although, now that I think about it, I should probably run a UPick of my own
Maybe call it "Saltoon UPick"

[Jake The Wolfie]

I'm just not the person to run that type of game. I prefer running Theme games (and maybe Themed games) rather than Normalesque games.

no this is not trama from the first time i ran a mini normal

[Jake The Wolfie]

In any case, I feel like running a game soon, but I doubt I'll get anyone to come join it without drumming up some hype

[Jake The Wolfie]

I'd like to bring up a perversion not known to the ancient ones

To start off, in Large Theme Games it is allowed to have exactly 2 different Mafia factions.[1] What this means is that you are allowed to have 2 scum factions which are both fully equipped to win.

A mason, adhering to the Normal Requirements, is defined as the following:

A Mason group is a set of players who can communicate (via a shared Private Topic), and who know that every member of the group is Town. In Normal games, Masons are absolutely 100% Town...

[2]

This definition is strict, there are to be no Mafia members inside any masonry. However, I would like to point out something else on the wiki page for Mason:

A Monk is a faction-flipped version of a Mason, giving absolutely confirmation that there are no Werewolves in the monastery, but potentially allowing the possibility of Mafia.

[3]

This, of course is currently not accepted as normal. For one, "Monk" and "Monastery" do not mean anything to the Normal Guidelines, and in fact would be rejected if applied to roles, as it would violate one of the guidelines for Flavor.[4] For another, the Normal Guidelines are quite clear that

Mafia are not allowed inside of a Masony.

However, I do have one proposition to make, which would naturally and only apply to Large Theme games:
Separate Masonries into 2 different categories, Pure Masonries and Exclusionary Masonries.

A Pure Masonry is what we currently have now, with no Mafia factions allowed inside of them what-so-ever. This is the equivalent of what we currently have now.
An Exclusionary Masonry excludes one or more factions from existing inside of the Masonry (such as how a Monastery excludes Werewolves from existing inside of them.)

Now, to properly and strictly make it clear to the player whether they are in a Pure Masonry or Exclusionary Masonry, it would be required that Exclusionary Masonries make it absolutely clear that there is a possibility that there exists a Mafia or Werewolf member inside of the Masonry, while doing the reverse for a Pure Masonry, requiring that they make it clear that no Mafia members can exist within the Masonry.


[1] Normal Game, Setup, Requirement 2
[2] Mason, excerpt from Normal Version
[3] Mason, Variations, Variation 3.
[4] Normal Game, Flavor, Requirement 2.1

[Jake The Wolfie]

That may be true, however I feel like standardization where possible is key to having a more streamlined process in both creating and playing Normal Games.

You could argue that Masons are redundant because you could unveil them for what they really are, Informed Neighbors. We use the convention Masons for better understanding of each other when we talk.
Sure, my proposed naming convention probably isn't the best, however the idea behind them should be reduced and simplified.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Informed Neighbors

Nope!
With Masons and Informed Neighbors are not the same.
Informed gets redacted upon flip.
Mason does not.
(the identity of the other Mason(s) is/are redacted, but not what the mason was informed of)

So an Informed Townie would just flip as Vanilla Townie? That doesn't seem to make sense.

And anyway, this is a minor nitpick. Functionally, Masons and Informed Neighbors are identical.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Ah, alright. That makes more sense.

[Jake The Wolfie]

For a pure mountainous, [https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?ti ... 3P:_31_-_2]31 - 2][/url]

[Jake The Wolfie]

Then again, there is an interesting idea here.

The scum's winrate will typically go up exponentially for each additiobal player.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Speaking of JOATs, it should be clarified whether a JOAT can have multiple copies of an ability (such as 3 copies of a 1-shot cop) or not, because as it stands this is ambiguous.

In fact there seems to be a minor problem here, mainly that there isn't any mechanical reason why a JOAT couldn't have X-shot abilities rather than just 1-shot abilities, other than "That's how the role works." This should be cleared up as well, or perhaps (and this idea I do not like) this Greater JOAT should be its' own role.

Thoughts?

[Jake The Wolfie]

Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal). A "Limited Reveal" role that would redact any abilities from the flip other than "Limited Reveal" itself isn't and shouldn't be Normal.

Why should it not be normal?

[Jake The Wolfie]

Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal). A "Limited Reveal" role that would redact any abilities from the flip other than "Limited Reveal" itself isn't and shouldn't be Normal.

Why should it not be normal?

It knowably withholds information that is reasonably expected to be known.

That isn't Normal, but it isn't bastard either.

It's only reasonably expected to be known because of how Mafia has evolved on this particular site. Should things have gone differently, it would seem strange to suggest that we would reveal player's roles when they died.

[Jake The Wolfie]

This is true, but this is the normal queue; it's the queue that is based on site norms, which are based on how mafia happens to have evolved. Site norms are that it is unusual to withhold role info when someone dies, excepting cases where there's explicit reason to (e.g. mafia's teammates, neighbors' neighbors, informed roles' info). This isn't an intrinsically better way to play the game but it is how the game is typically played here.

What has been made as normal has changed over the years to accommodate new and innovative ways to play. I can't find any examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure that some of the things that we do now would have been strange to do a few years back. What is considered normal is not defined by something in nature, it's defined by us.
Now, you haven't recently said anything on whether a power role that is self-redacting, so I'm not exactly arguing with you on whether or not it could qualify as normal. If you would be so kind as to offer your thoughts, I would appreciate them.

[Jake The Wolfie]

imo I'd want the greylist back in some capacity

however that would require writing some formal definition of Normal to avoid just having reviewers to also review if roles are Normal

otherwise, I kinda would want the greylist to still exist as an "experimental roles list" of roles that could make it to the Normal allowlist

What implementation did you have in mind?

[Jake The Wolfie]

(re: above

It doesn't really matter how this gets resolved either way, but it not being resolved is a little horrifying. At the very least, announce it as intended behaviour, and require moderators to announce how this interaction will resolve, although really the best fix is to just choose a side here. We don't need a new section for each normal game's ruleset entitled "Role Interaction Resolution.")

[Jake The Wolfie]

If you target a player who meets the following criterion, then you will unavoidably die:

• Is Alive
  
• Has the ability to use an action that can kill
  
• Has used said ability that can kill
  
• Said ability may or may not have succeeded