Post
Post #44 (isolation #4) » Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:17 am
Postby MegAzumarill »
DG shots
Spoiler:
Death - Target player reveives messages from dead players that night
Pestilence - Roleblock
Famine - Next night, target becomes staving, and dies the night after if they do not receive fruit
War- Redirects the 2 targets into each other.
Post
Post #51 (isolation #7) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 3:22 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
I think the best move for arsonists would have been dousing another townie, for more mislim options today, and 3 dead town after an ignite tonight would mean an arsonist win.
In post 61, TemporalLich wrote:
you were caught in an associative and I was confident you were co-aligned with kokichi, but the flips say otherwise so I'm proven wrong lol
you really need to rework on your associative tells / work on not having tunnel visions like that
it was why you got miselimed
pedit: we really had to town side during day cause we would loose on an end game scum win scenario if we didn't have time to leave game. All my play - claiming and then helping town to catch arsons was to give us enough time to actually leave the game or end game with town
For the record pirates would've lost endgaming with town.
Post
Post #79 (isolation #12) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:11 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
Which is not how it is phrased in your role PM. Notably the "still alive" part is absent.
I did want to intervene at some point but that's really overstepping running the game impartially so there wasn't much I could do, but this may be better discussed postgame.
Post
Post #83 (isolation #13) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:36 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
@Kyoko
It's covered under thread accuracy section, where it says roles and alignments aren't translated verbatim.
Pirates in particular are supposed to be hunting for scum and town, and hindering both as they do so. In running abloaf as a large, the still living means they don't auto lose if the 3p dies early. In a mini, it would mean pirates translates into basically just easier town with extra abilities on most player hits, which really isn't needed when there's a high probability of just winning night 2 outright. A more faithful translation of the win condition would at least need to hit both factions to win, so that's what it was.
Definitely people misunderstanding their own abilities is one of the most feel bad moments as a moderator, particularly if it is to their detriment in a major way. Thankfully it didn't end up being a huge deal (I still think everything outside of the kokichi hammer was greatly working in your favor for relations with both town and scum)
I also didn't think the change needed highliting because I figured the first source of a wincon someone would look to would be their role pm rather than the abloaf thread though if I ran it again I'd definitely highlight the changes more and make it explicit, or otherwise use some other metric for making sure people understand their role.
Post
Post #87 (isolation #15) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:17 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
To be fair, the setup is not an open. Various elements are explicitly up to moderator choice (mysterious energy, fae bauble, dreaming god), others implicitly (if someone cannot use a "role" is that meant to mean they also cannot use a factional ability? As written it wouldn't but some roles by the same name may be worded to block both, should the two roles of the same name and same intended effect work differently based purely on the author's wording. What happens when someone unstoppable protection is hit by an unstoppable kill? What if a role name of an existing role is posted with no ability, some posts are written as if they are themselves the role pm the player receives, so do they just receive a blank PM? These cases have to be decided case by case by a moderator, mostly using common sense and while if the moderator was the sole creator of the setup these could be consistently defined, this isn't true for collaborative decks.)
Additionally, specifically for pirates, edge cases exist such as stuff like witches, a faction rolling all vanilla, ALL non-pirate players rolling vanilla means that any definition of a win con for pirates that is explicitly unchanging can cause a pirate win mechanically impossible in some scenarios without explicitly defining it recursively with the rolled roles. Extend this outward for the 40+ alignments in the thread and that isn't a realistic ask of information to give to players, especially if you start defining this philosophy outwards it quickly becomes unmanagable for anyone for larger collaborative decks. So it's incredibly ineffective and at times actively harmful to the game to take the approach of it being verbatim from the thread.
In the case of a moderator lie, I don't see how it is a lie. It is mentioned in the rules that alignments are translated this way, and that the Abloaf thread may not be exactly accurate. If a player inquired about it, I would give a truthful answer. In fact, the example is of a similar case, of a groupscum wincon being worded in a way that doesn't make sense for that faction in the context of abloaf.
The way the situation presented to me was as follows:
A: Allow a game with a faction skewed to win at the expense of another faction to go through.
B: Itemize a list of all 40+ possible alignments, win conditions, and abilities in style and how they could interact with each other alongside all the edge case clauses for role combinations that could break alignments.
C: The effected players to the change immediately know, all players having already been informed explicitly of the possibility of groupscum's win conditions being altered otherwise the change stay's silent until inquired, which is encouraged to do by the rules anyway.
I stand by my decision to do C. You can argue perhaps there is an option D or ecen E I didn't consider, but the above 3 are the best ones I can come up with.
Post
Post #90 (isolation #16) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:27 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
I would be more frustrated if I was a player who's win chance was heavily skewed in either direction by a refusal of the moderator to address balance issues in translating roles over.
Post
Post #91 (isolation #17) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:30 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
Especially considering in this instance
A: Effected players were informed
B: Every player was informed of the possibility of exactly this happening
C: It made no significant impact on anyone outside of those that directly received the updated information.
In post 90, MegAzumarill wrote:
I would be more frustrated if I was a player who's win chance was heavily skewed in either direction by a refusal of the moderator to address balance issues in translating roles over.
You can consider balance when you design setup
lying about a group wincondition (and then saying since I could change stuff for balance it was fine) is not ok
simply consider all these issues that might happen for all factions say their wincondition will be one of the following there and say mod is allowed to choose whichever for balance purposes
or not include the wincons there and add what you want for balance purposes
you cant say the wincon is this but I decided to change it for this run of game
I fail to see a point within this game where any misinformation has been stated on my part.
I frankly fail to see your point at all.
The rules say, the roles and alignments are taken from the abloaf thread.
It says that the roles and alignments will not be taken verbatim, (i.e. that the orginal thread might be inaccurate) but translating the spirit of how the roles and alignments are intended to function, e.g. like a benign groupscum's exact win con wording.
A benign groupscum's exact win con wording was altered in the exact way the rules said might happen.
(Surprised Pikachu Face)
I made an effort to see if there was a way to make consistency within the deck itself, and it isn't there.
To define a crosscompatible system to handle it qould take looking at almost a thousand cases, mostly east to resolve, but many nonetheless. This number would not remain in any degree of sustainability if abloaf would keep growing, of which it is always intended to be open to do.
It also is a setup I do not have full control over. It is a setup that is, as previously stated, implictly and explicitly up to moderator interperetation and influence. and I do not have the liberty to conclusively define how a moderator should handle a pirate/witch/town split or similar unplayable as written setup if someone else were to roll it. There are numerous ways to handle such an event but that's up to the person running. This is doubly true since the setup is using TAR, so a definition would be explicitly worthless since basically any other mod using this setup would have half the roles and abilities work slightly different. You basically are asking me to physically change how something works for other players based on how I personally interperet what it says which is far worse than anything I've done imo.
Post
Post #96 (isolation #19) » Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:02 pm
Postby MegAzumarill »
Additionally the while alive clause isn't an intrinsic part of pirates, far from it. It's pulled from DoAR where it doesn't have that ability, in fact the only reason it exists is for the edge case of a 3p existing.
