Updates to Bastard Tags

[Jingle]

This has been a popular topic for the last few days in the discord, so I thought I might as well make a forum post for it.

Currently, these are the proposals (Feel free to poke me if you'd like your proposal included/edited):

Jingle

Ideally I'd actually like 3 toggles. 1 would be Mafia Mutations (Vote for town, Double Day, Nonstandard phases). 1 would be a revision of what is now [bastard roles] (cult, jester, redirector, etc) Basically, the toolbox shea wants available to him. the third would be bastard modding (everything is a lie or mod is mafia: things where the might telling you you're a doc and you're a vig is a legitimate concern or games with hidden reliability statuses)
And that the third toggle be the only one with the label of bastard, because that's the thing most people think of when they think bastard

Cook

split it into Lies, Mech, and Rules
"does your game feature any directly untrue moderator statements?"
for instance, false role pm's or false flips.
"does your game feature alignment-changing or non-standard mechanics?"
for instance, cults or strange mechanics
"does your game mess with the expectations of how a game is run?"
for instance, non-random role generation, allowing discussion of the game outside of threads, unwarranted (e.g: force-replacing or modkilling someone because of rule violations is not "unwarranted" according to this.) moderator influence

TLich

mine would be a sliding scale:

1 (strategically bastard) - Is it possible your game has roles or mechanics that drastically alter how the game should be played (e.g. Jester), important information knowingly withheld (e.g. Janitor), random elements (e.g. Percentage), divulged non-random role assignment (e.g. uPicks), or individual post restrictions?
2 (mechanically bastard) - Is it possible your game has mid-game alignment changes (e.g. Cult), roles that cause the moderator to lie (e.g. Death Miller), lies in role PMs (e.g. non-reliable Cop), or secret win conditions?
3 (fundamentally bastard) - Is it possible your game has un-divulged non-random role assignment, direct moderator influence during the game, ways to discuss the game outside its threads, adding players midgame, or non-players directly influencing the game?

*Note, any lies by omission would still be considered lies.

If I had to take a crack at it, I would say maybe:
- Curveballs (I would call jester and janitor this. Not an explicit lie, but these break unspoken rules such as "nobody wants to be executed" or "alignments of dead players will always be known". Unsure if redirector belongs in here, but framer definitely would)
- Alignment changes
- Mod lies (I would group these two together, but it seems like there's some support to keep them separate. This is like unreliable cops, any sort of false/hidden roles or mechanics, incorrect flips, or mod-provided information that's wrong outside of reasonable expectations like ninja)
- Outside influence (Nonrandom role assignment, direct mod interference in the game, etc) - If this box is ticked then the mod should disclose exactly what's going on; I really struggle to imagine a game that would benefit from having this but not having the players know what exactly

Current System

Is it possible your game has any mechanically bastard roles or mechanics? cults and other mid-game alignment changes, roles that cause moderator dishonesty that cannot be reasonably anticipated (for example, Godfather, Tailor, Miller, Ninja, and mechanics like that are generally fine. Telling someone they are a reflexive doctor when they're actually a PGO is not), post restrictions, secret win conditions.
Is it possible your game has any procedurally bastard dynamics? nonrandom role assignment, direct moderator influence during the game, allowing your game to be discussed outside the game thread and its own PTs, adding players midgame

Please note that any actual changes to this would be at the discretion of the Listmods responsible for the Micro, Mini Theme, and Large Theme queues.

Edit to include recent relevant rules changes:

Game moderators may not unduly influence the game - this includes, but is not limited to:
Giving game advice to players in private threads
Excessively bantering with players
Providing information about the setup that players should not have, or refusing to provide information about the setup that players should have
Providing setup information only to some players and not others when this is not directly necessitated by the game setup/mechanics/roles (more information about this specific clause is included here)
Addressing misunderstandings of the setup without being directly asked
In general, it is recommended that game moderators refrain from posting in their game threads unless it is directly related to a game moderator task (votecounts, flips, replacement posts, and other game-related announcements) or unless directly asked about the game by a player. In particular, responding to posts unprompted can influence the game if players speculate on why some posts were responded to but not others.

The exception to this rule is if a game is declared bastard when queueing the game. The setup reviewer must be aware of and approve of any ways in which the game moderator will influence the game.
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.
Game moderators may not lie to players unless it can be reasonably anticipated or is necessitated by the game setup, mechanics, or roles. The presence of lies that cannot be reasonably anticipated must be indicated by declaring a game as bastard when queueing the game and must be included in the setup review.

[Jingle]

Outdated game, but this is what that question brings to mind:

Subject: Micro 756: Extra Communication Mafia GAME OVER!

I FUCKED UP NOT JOINING SOME OF THOSE ROLES HAD SO MUCH MEME-TENTIAL

Recently: Shea's Neighborhood viewtopic.php?f=23&t=87738

Anecdotally without hunting down the conversations: I've had a lot of discussions over the years about what is/isn't bastard and in bastard games there seems to be this expectation that the game itself isn't balanced. Which is why I think divorcing the concept of cults or janitors with the concept of "The mod might actually just maliciously be lying to you" in nomenclature is a valuable thing.

[Jingle]

I feel like most people don't answer the bastard question with "yes" unless it's something like EIAL. But it seems fine to codify the different things that mods should disclose.

If I had to take a crack at it, I would say maybe:
- Curveballs (I would call jester and janitor this. Not an explicit lie, but these break unspoken rules such as "nobody wants to be executed" or "alignments of dead players will always be known". Unsure if redirector belongs in here, but framer definitely would)
- Alignment changes
- Mod lies (I would group these two together, but it seems like there's some support to keep them separate. This is like unreliable cops, any sort of false/hidden roles or mechanics, incorrect flips, or mod-provided information that's wrong outside of reasonable expectations like ninja)
- Outside influence (Nonrandom role assignment, direct mod interference in the game, etc) - If this box is ticked then the mod should disclose exactly what's going on; I really struggle to imagine a game that would benefit from having this but not having the players know what exactly

I kind of lumped Curveballs and Alignment changes into flag two in mine although I'm not particularly against separating them if there's value to that. Mod lies would be split between 2 and 3, in that known-to-be unreliable cops would be 2 and cops who don't know their reliability is suspect would be both flag 2 and 3. Outside influence would fall under flags one or three depending on case. A game where non players could post would be a mutation, for example, while a game where the mod could edit player's posts would check flag 3.

[Jingle]

I liked the change that was made to the micro and I think mini theme queue not too long ago and would support further steps in that direction. I haven't looked over any of these suggestions really in detail.

That's basically what all of the suggestions are. A refinement of that system.

[Jingle]

Everyone has slightly different ideas of what exactly counts as bastard.

Fixing the ambiguity is kind of important though

[Jingle]

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.

It’s really not about litigating what individuals want to consider bastard, imo. Bastard is just a poorly defined class of mechanics.

It’s about determining what mechanics/roles should come with forewarning when they are used. Do we as a site think there should be some level of forewarning if there are cults in a game? Yes. Janitors? Maybe. Tailors? Maybe. Death Millers? Yes.

The flag system is to give that warning without a questionnaire or writing an essay every time you in to mod a game.

[Jingle]

Hammerer is like the least bastard role imo, btw. It says that the player will always hammer when someone is put to E-1. They know that. They can tell the town that. Even if they don’t, someone hammering when you put someone to E-1 should be something you expect is possible.

[Jingle]

As a mod, can't you already communicate more if you want to?

It seems like this would be more about how much information players can expect from all mods.

Like you can already just post some version of that paragraph stating your goals during sign ups for your games right?

This, 100%, is my aim.

I’ve long been a proponent of setting up reasonable expectations for what your players can expect. I absolutely don’t want to get rid of the description blurb potential at the end of the questionnaire. I do think that mods don’t do that as often as they could and players don’t read that as often as they should, which is why I think the flag system is valuable in the first place.

[Jingle]

I think its basically that the toggle currently asks like 3 different questions at once, all of which create wildly different dynamics. So why not just ask 3 different questions?

Also, this.

I think a lot of people see a toggle hit and go “Oh, it’s gonna be one of those games.” then just skip it. I think a clearer system could reduce that.

I am of course operating based on impressions and have nothing to base these beliefs on.

[Jingle]

FWIW within the framework of my suggestions I think Nonrandom role assignment would either fall under the flag of mutation (divulged) or the flag of direct mod influence (bastardry) (nondivulged). I don’t particularly think removing the distinction between disclosed non randomness and non disclosed non randomness is a positive move as it is a disclosure of something that was already being disclosed. I don’t really think it’s a damaging move either, just one that won’t really have any effect overall.

[Jingle]

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.

[Jingle]

I decided yes so I had to declare the game as bastard -- which just feels like an outdated system, maybe moderators used to torture players with false sanities and lying and alignment changes and they weren't announcing at signups.

Addressing this is pretty much the reason for this thread in the first place, tbh.

[Jingle]

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.

Also, the mod fudging the rand because "RC is good at scum and I want a more balanced lobby" or "Mastina really likes playing as a mason and this flavor she submitted works well as a mason so that's a good fit" or "Nancy doesn't like playing scum, so I should use this mod discretion role to give her town". These are all inherently terrible for the game. It's not impossible to have a fun game utilizing say, the ability for the mod to edit posts for the benefit of the mafia (see: The Mod is Mafia) but all of those options are 100% bastard and in a situation where they are not explicitly allowed they are all horrible breaches of power that should rightfully result in a mod ban.

[Jingle]

I think I made it clear that I don't particularly think divulged nonrandomness (UPicks) should be treated the same way as nondivulged nonrandomness, but I felt given your specific exclusion of wanted moderator advice (which is baffling to me) from your list of bastardry deserved the quote fix and that examples of things that might sound reasonable but definitely aren't and should not be considered as such could be valuable.

We pretty clearly agree that the definitions of bastardry are insufficient though, given the thread existing in the first place.

[Jingle]

I would say that lying about who someone targeted would be explicitly bastard, but formatting results PMs to not confirm targets is explicitly not.

So "TemporalLich is town" when you were redirected and "Your target was town" are inherently different statements, the former giving more information than the latter. Which you use is always a balance issue that should be addressed in the review of a game.

My loose definition of "Bastard" as it is is: Anything that causes moderator influence in the game post randomization, anything that changes the wincondition of a player during the game, anything that directly contradicts information that should be inherently reliable (Role PMs, Moderator Communications, VC's, etc.), and anything that meaningfully changes the core mechanics of the game (flips, eliminations, standard winconditions, communication restrictions, standard phases). All of these are things that should at the very least come with a warning before anyone signs up for the game.

I think breaking that into it's separate parts and adding a category of "This game might be designed to require more mechanical deduction than the general game" to indicate things like godfather/redirector/bus driver/lightning rod/excessive use of red herrings, etc. is a positive step for setup clarity, which was my whole goal here to start with. Tricking someone into playing a game they didn't really want to play isn't going to make them or anyone in the game happy. It's just going to make them not want to play the game and kill the momentum for everyone, leading to poor quality games.

On the topic of moderator influence: If the answer to the question you're asked could not have been provided before any player signed up for the game you shouldn't be answering the question. (Slight caveat: I would consider clarifying a role to be something that falls under the acceptable answer provided you could have answered that question prior to anyone signing up for the game specifically for the person in that player slot. A cop asking how their results PM is formatted would be answerable, for example, but a non cop asking how a cop's results PM would be formatted would not.)

[Jingle]

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.

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.)

[Jingle]

I think it's more my point that what we currently define as bastard isn't inherently accurate in what we should be warning people they might encounter. I don't label any of my categories past direct moderator influence within the game as bastard for that reason. It's not about what makes a game good or bad. It's about what kind of game you're playing in the first place.

Like, I enjoy me some Mario Kart, but if I show up to a Guitar Hero party and there's 30 copies of Mario Kart 64, I'm gonna be a little pissed.

[Jingle]

why not just leave these sections undefined?

Because the actual issue I'm attempting to solve is the nebulous taxonomy of bastardry?

For example, is a Janitor inherently bastard? There are conflicting views, and depending on who you talk to bastard can mean very different things. As it is, seeing something labeled as bastard could mean "There's a way for scum to send you private messages through the mod that might lie." or it could mean "Your posts will be deleted 12 hours after you make them." The whole point is to pin down a definition and then use that definition to actually give people relevant information on what they're signing up for.

[Jingle]

A setup where setup spec is required to play well.

I don't necessarily see a difference between this and "requires more mechanical thought than a general game". Like both encompass the concept of a moderator including roles that can actively hurt you for using them as a balancing feature or redirection roles/roles that call into question the veracity of other roles' results. If a player ever has to ask the question "Can I really trust my result to be meaningful?" then they should know that going into the game. And I'm not saying that only games that feature a ninja should have that tag, but also games where there is no ninja, but the designer wants the players to have to consider whether there could be one.