The usual voting system just involves players voting for each other and taking as long as required until either a majority is reached (at which point day ends immediately) or day has gone on so long or discussion has stalled to the point that a deadline is enforced (often with a reduced number required for lynching).
There's nothing particularly special about this; the main reason we do it this way is by convention from the first couple games on the GL (with more rules later, such as bolding, unvoting, and so on, to make things easier for the Mod).
Now, I'm not advocating that we replace the "standard" with something new. However, I am always looking for ways to improve the game, and I certainly think there is potential for the nomination/fixed deadline method to do just that.
A few pros:
No more super-long or stalled days. Personally, I don't mind days lasting a month or more, because I like to argue and as long as anyone else is posting I'll have something to say. However, I don't think it's good for the game that this is standard in most of our games.
No more annoying deadline rules. Players will always know in advance when they need to get a majority by, and the nomination phase helps streamline the process, narrowing the field of potential lynches. If there are three candidates, and none of them can get a majority, I think a no lynch is a much more accurate picture of the town's feelings than a lynch with a quarter/third/whatever of the vote.
Particularly for games with a low number of information roles, this would help focus discussion. With three (or two, or four, or whatever) nominations, the players can be a bit more free with their suspicions, and then once the block is set, they focus on a few players to determine who is the
most
suspicious. I think this would help a lot in, for example, a vanilla game on day 1.and cons:
Some days have more discussion than others; it's just natural. Occasionally players will be ready to lynch immediately; this could be taken care of by an "End Day" rule. On the other hand, sometimes players will have so much to discuss that with different time zones or players posting irregularly that they can't get it all in. While this is more realistic from a flavor standpoint (the sun isn't going to stand still because I'm not finished arguing with Antrax), and while this is often the players' fault, it's still not necessarily optimal, and extensions defeat the purpose to some degree.
Ties in nominations can be a problem, though again this is avoidable by the players.
Anyway, thoughts? Would you like to see more games run with this (or a similar) system? What changes would you make?
