Updates to Bastard Tags

[TemporalLich]

addendum to my scale: If you don't know that information is missing (e.g. Hidden Role, or a Janitor that can't be distinguished from mod error), it counts as a lie. Super-injunctions are equivalent to lies.

[TemporalLich]

imo, arbitrary investigation interference (not stuff like Miller, Godfather, Gravedigger, or Ninja, but more like Framer, Lawyer, Jammer, and Fogger) really toes the line.

Is it mechanically bastard or not? If it isn't, is it strategically bastard?

[TemporalLich]

strategically bastard is not what most people (including me) would consider bastard, but I am including it in my proposal anyway because a strategically bastard game might have you do strategies that would normally be considered obviously bad (such as voting for Town, or claiming scum with partners)

Maybe you can make the mod disclose what they consider bastard as well as whether such things will occur in the game, when signing up to mod. Then, the players can know whether what the mod finds bastard is similar to they themselves find bastard. This can help the players better decide whether they want to play or not.

This can be abused to state that nothing is bastard, the queue needs to be objective when having a bastard tag so it is something everyone can agree on

[TemporalLich]

To be fair, I would consider Hammerer Bastard because Hammerer makes Town unable to put anybody at E-1 without the risk of unintentionally eliminating them, especially in a Closed game.

This is a good example of a strategically bastard role.

If you're particularly generous with what is considered bastard, it might even be mechanically bastard but you'd have to justify it with something like "Hammerer makes vote thresholds a lie".

But in that case you'd have to explain why Hated is mechanically bastard, because Hammerer and Hated are bastard in the same exact way (it's just more prevalent with Hammerer).

[TemporalLich]

Reviving this because there's been quite a controversy in the Mafia Rule Updates Discussion Thread around divulged non-randomness being declared bastard via new mafia moderator rules.

Should divulged non-randomness be considered bastard? I would assume no or at least have it be its own tag.

Divulged non-randomness is any form of nonrandom or semi-random methods of role and alignment assignment as long as it is known in signups and to setup reviewers. A uPick that explicitly advertises itself as a uPick is divulged non-randomness.

The relevant new rule: 16. Game moderators may not use nonrandom methods of role and alignment assignment at the start of the game. The use of nonrandom methods

must be indicated by declaring a game as bastard when queueing the game

and must be included in the setup review.

Imo, I don't think uPicks are inherently bastard on the same level that mod influence is.

[TemporalLich]

If you're in a uPick you're agreeing to play a game in which the moderator derives role from flavor. It is the logical extreme of "flavor matters".

Direct mod influence could mean the mod has an agenda or wants a specific user to win, it also covers the area of "modkilling players for fun".

[TemporalLich]

If you're not able to tell if the uPick you want to join may have direct mod influence or not, there are serious problems with how Bastard is being defined nowadays.

Direct mod influence is considered the worst of the worst when it comes to Bastard, equating uPicks with it is like equating beer to Everclear

[TemporalLich]

If you're not able to tell if the uPick you want to join may have direct mod influence or not, there are serious problems with how Bastard is being defined nowadays.

Direct mod influence is considered the worst of the worst when it comes to Bastard, equating uPicks with it is like equating beer to Everclear

Upicks by definition have direct moderator influence on the game, just like GI mod discretion roles. Whether said influence is benevolent (in favor of a good game) or selfish (in favor of the mod's desires) is a function of whether the mod is shitty at their job, but by definition designing roles for people after you know who they are IS direct mod influence.

They are mod influence technically, but it's nowhere near the same caliber of bastardy as modkilling for fun, the mod having a vigilante shot for some reason, the mod surreptitiously altering night action submissions, the mod playing the game, or the mod giving unwanted advice.

I don't want the two conflated as people do enjoy uPicks and mid-game moderator influence is usually considered heretical.

[TemporalLich]

The point I am trying to make is that I wouldn't want to play a game billed as a uPick and end up playing "mid game moderator influence underworld".

[TemporalLich]

Wanted moderator advice would actually be very bad for the game as well. Especially something like a mod answering "who should I target". It belongs on the same caliber of unwanted moderator advice as they are both mid game direct moderator influence. Not considering wanted moderator advice was an oversight on my part.

Yeah, bastardy does have a few holes in it, and I particularly am against angleshooting it (e.g. Death Miller in no reveal game).

My controversial opinion is that things can be "strategically bastard" such as RNG, known holes in information that should be known (e.g. Mysterious Conduit), action redirection, arbitrary results interference such as Framer, divulged non-randomness.

I'd consider lying about who you targeted "mechanically bastard" (e.g. a Redirector that lets affected Cops believe they targeted who they attempted to target)

[TemporalLich]

I don't consider Godfather to be arbitrary results interference as results are only interfered concerning the Godfather. It isn't Normal, but it isn't strategically bastard.

Investigatives not being self-aware of their targets is something I consider strategically bastard as that basically makes every redirection role also an arbitrary results interference role.

Strategically bastard games can make bad strategies winning ones, however strategically bastard likely won't have a toggle as it's nebulous and idk the demand for Themes that are specifically not strategically bastard.

Strategically bastard usually isn't considered bastard.

There is zero overlap between strategically bastard and Normal. Nothing Normal is strategically bastard, and if there is, something needs to be done about it.

Things that probably are strategically bastard:

Arbitrary results interference (roles like Framer, Jammer, and Psychotrooper that can alter results not concerning that player.)
Action redirection (even if investigatives are self-aware of their actual targets, this still can cause massive WIFOM)
Random resolution / RNG (having to rely on luck isn't a good strategy)
Anything which significantly affects the core mechanic of majority/plurality eliminations (such as Governor, Kingmaker, or Diplomat)
Divulged non-randomness (if a game is a uPick for example, it is strategically bastard)
Known holes in information that should be known (Janitor and Mysterious Conduit are examples)
Heavy "Flavor Matters" (you need to know the flavor to play well type deals)
Roles/Mechanics that punish normally good play (the heart of strategic bastardy imo. This includes stuff like Jester, Beloved Princess, and Super Saint)

Mechanically bastard is when the game starts to not be trustworthy. Forget not trusting "playing Mafia like you normally would", a mechanically bastard game will make you not trust even the frame work of the game. Mechanically bastard also includes mechanics that are widely considered to be unfair to the players. A sure sign of a game being mechanically bastard is when you start to doubt the moderator's trustworthiness or fairness.

The only thing you can trust in a mechanically bastard game is that the moderator follows their script, so to speak.

Things that probably are mechanically bastard:

Mid-game alignment changes (Cults for example)
Moderator dishonesty (Non-Reliable anything, Death Miller, false Role PMs, false setup info, you name it)
Anything which significantly affects the core mechanic of posting (post restrictions, lie detectors, and "posting matters" roles)
Secret win conditions (even if it's a known hole in information, the wincon is needed to play properly)
Game-ending otherwise benign 3Ps (losing because of a Jester is bad, and it counts as a secret win con to not let the Jester get eliminated)

Fundamentally bastard is when the moderator crosses the red line. The moderator is no longer a neutral arbiter and facilitator of the game, but now has their hands in the game. Never trust anything in a fundamentally bastard game.

A fundamentally bastard game takes the basic expectation of trust and smashes it with a hammer. Fundamentally bastard games are ruled entirely by a moderator's whims.

Things that are fundamentally bastard:

Direct mod influence (this is when the moderator exerts undue influence on the game. Stuff like giving players advice, fudging night action resolution, the mod acting as a player, the mod giving info that shouldn't be given out, the mod abusing moderator tools, etc.)
Undivulged non-randomness (is equivalent to direct mod influence)
Ways to discuss the game outside its threads (violates the basic expectation that you aren't allowed to discuss ongoing games)
Adding players midgame (if mod picks players, this is equivalent to direct mod influence)
Non-players directly influencing the game (violates the basic expectation that people are not to affect games they aren't in)

[TemporalLich]

tl;dr

strategically bastard is when the meta isn't to be trusted
mechanically bastard is when the game isn't to be trusted
fundamentally bastard is when the moderator isn't to be trusted

[TemporalLich]

I dislike this definition immensely, FWIW.

Watcher is a completely reasonable role, for example, that punishes scum for making a nk on a strong, widely townread player, which I'd assume basically everyone would agree would be considered solid play. FTC is an interaction where what is normally bad play (a cop claiming early) is instead rewarded. Neither of these are anywhere near bastard imo, or even nonnormal. Even ignoring these cases and ones like it, 'bad strategies' is such a nebulous concept that it's incredibly difficult to nail down, as you admit. Is slayer's gambit a bad strategy? Is faking a guilty a bad strategy? Is active lurking a bad strategy? Is page 1 lolhammering a bad strategy? Is hipfiring a dayvig a bad strategy? Is D1 massclaim a bad strategy? I certainly have opinions on all of these, but none of them are objectively facts.

And for what it's worth, I think most of what you're describing as strategic bastardry falls under my label of "requiring more mechanical thought than a general game". Should I as a cop have a reason to doubt that my cop result is actually an inno/guilty? Should I as a tracker assume I saw the NK? Should I as a neighbor assume that there isn't a way for someone in the thread to access the neighborhood later or that there isn't someone with access that I'm simply unaware of? These are the kinds of considerations that don't happen in every game, but definitely have their place in some games. (Hell, I prefer games where you can't rule out weird roles like PT spies or redirectors, because they make mechanical solving less reliable and unfun.)

so what you're saying is that "strategic bastardy" is so nebulous it isn't worth the effort to pin it down?

The intent is for stuff that either makes objectively terrible strategies good or good strategies objectively terrible. A setup where setup spec is required to play well.

and stuff like RNG, known holes in information that should be known, divulged non-randomness, and heavy flavor matters need to have a bastard toggle.

"requires more mechanical thought than a general game" doesn't seem like a good bastardy toggle to me - the stuff I wanted to be marked as "strategically bastard" would be stuff that you never want to see in a Normal game because it would make the game play very unlike a Normal game.