hey before i answer casserole (i like this better than cassie), hi Grey! ♡♡
mattblackguy wrote: I don't like fluff too much, and try to avoid it when possible, which is why my post count is so much lower than many others.
also with -grey- in here we're going to have a fuckton of active spammy posters so get excited
In post 406, cassielle wrote:regarding info to get from those questions:
first off, it sets up a baseline and makes sure you know everyones experience level. id have followed it up with an experienced-folks-only question set involving who theyve played with before and what pointers they can give about town/scum metas, but thats just because i would want to level that playing field information-wise -- ses and ic have an advantage in knowing some of their counterparts, noobs are just about completely unaware of everyone.
secondly (less important from a game perspective, more important from a learning perspective) it gives everyone an opening to ask about roles they dont understand to the ic without unintentionally (even unknowingly) softing themselves as that role -- because EVERYONE is doing it and MOST are going to be vt or scum! that gives noobs a leg up that the experienced folks already have, without shifting balance. important later, though not immediately.
third, you can always jump on random peoples questions and request followups. avoid q4 and you avoid looking like youre rolefishing. and by doing this you can grab onto anyones questions list as a thread to tug at if you want more info but dont want to be tugging on the latest discussion threads for whatever reason (cornering a suspicious player into a position, etc). it gives town a powerful tool by forcing everyone to put a bit of themselves up front at the start in a way that rvs doesnt quite do. furthermore, while you cant ask a latecomer to engage in rvs for tells, you can ask them to fill out the standard q&a sheet everyone else has got to drag info out of them. its easy to dodge a "oh whats your reads list" at this stage just coming in, too lazy to do a deep re-read or w/e you want really. it corners the lurkers into making a move that people can latch onto later if necessary, which (as you saw with my predecessor lol) isnt as easy without it.
ill seriously consider rqs 2.0 still, but im gonna wait for your reaction to this post.
p-edit: im ok with shade, but id WAY prefer schadd_, gbT or rask. moreso schadd_ or rask atm, im getting info out of gbT!
and yeah @gbT you totally strike me that way, imo were actually quite a lot alike haha
With the first point, you can usually get a good handle of someone's experience just from their posting. Schadd_ reads like he's played one or two games, you read about as experienced as me, while matt seems like a raw newb for example. It's an OK question I guess if you can't figure out how experienced players are based on how they play, but at least one of the SEs or Creautre should be able to say something.... Wrt to the meta question, it's an interesting point but we even saw in this game that it came up naturally in the discussion with Creature. After all, this is a social game, so if people already know each other it's going to come up in conversation. Plus, I think not forcing it into the discussion into a standardized questionnaire can give players the opportunity to see who actually makes the engagement to understand meta they are unfamiliar with (or even learn how to meta, since there's kind of a learning curve in getting that it's not "Player X does Y in Z situation" but "This is Player X's personality"). I'm reminded of the game where I was scum with one of my IRL friends and when that point came up, one of the townies wanted to know more about our relationship and use it as a baseline to read us due to a past game where the scumteam knew each other irl. That's obvtown as fuck.
The second point is actually a good counter-argument. I'll admit I've only heard one side of the argument and I agreed with it. Don't really have much else to say here other than I'll try to be more open-minded and let future experience decide how I feel about that question.
If I'm understanding the third point correctly, you believe the better play for me was to call out TB for question 4 and suggest something else? I've never really been a fan of RQS (again, it's a gimmick, I did it once, I did it enough times) so that isn't really going to come intuitively to me. I do like your point on how it's something you can force players to engage on, but wouldn't the same player who dodges the readlist question also just answer the RQS and nothing else? And the rest of the table engage with said lurker the same way (via rope or pressure)? Obviously not answering anything but an RQS isn't extremely alignment indicative for newer players as you would know from your predecessor, but still... I guess if you make the RQS more game-relevant (so like a generalized questionnaire about the gamestate?) then using it would be a lot more helpful/AI. If another newbie were to replace in (grey isn't a newb so), I could see asking a player to read for specific things while catching up or giving basic info about themselves (since once there's AI content it is a bit unnatural to just give that away since people want to jump straight into the game most of the time).
basically if it's not clear from what i wrote here i'd be down for RQS 2.0 if it weren't an RQS. but then i feel like that defeats the purpose of asking it at this point of the game since we have enough to go off of to ask specific questions to specific people, which gets more info than something generalized.
i'm like 90% sure i answered this the scum way
but honestly the fact that you seem to have an elaborate idea of how i should be answering this already thought up of is so town lmfao, i just hate disappointing people
also i saw during pedits...
@Matt, when did Rask become your top scumread??
going to read up now
