Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

How should roles be given out?

Hosts should be forced to ensure some basic balance for their games, such as making sure at least one experienced player is mafia/wolf.
1
2%
The host should have the power to choose whichever method they deem worthy.
10
21%
Hosts should be forced to fully randomize open games, but may choose whichever method they want for closed and semi-closed game.
5
10%
Hosts should always be forced to fully randomize every game, be it open, semi-open or closed.
11
23%
Taco
21
44%
 
Total votes: 48
User avatar
Jumps7yl3r
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:00 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 59 times
Contact:

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by Jumps7yl3r »

I honestly think randomizing is best, the outcome is unexpected and the game is truly meant to be what it is : a game of wits and deduction through investigation. Giving specific roles to specific players might ruin the gameplay.
Image Image
User avatar
HATER
Posts: 2293
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
Location: Behind you.
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Contact:

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by HATER »

Yechh. Okay guys, here's my take on it. I've given a lot of thought to this topic, and I think both parties can reach a simple compromise. So hear me out.


In games with NORMAL VILLAGER MAJORITY involved, aka, most of the players in the game will be normal villagers with no powers, I advocate total randomization, with an option to re-roll once or twice if teams seem unbalanced to the host.

Since power roles are (in general) viewed as more influential and more fun to play (heck, you have power -- it's in the name, right?), I think that everyone should be given equal opportunity to receive such a role. Especially in newbie games, we don't want to have another game like the one where Unownist deliberately withheld power roles from new players.

I also advocate total randomization in any game run for a prize (such as the aforementioned Unownist game).


HOWEVER.


In games (especially experimental and/or chaos games) that have a role madness mechanic, meaning there are no basic villagers, I advocate host choice whether or not to randomize. I think that with a discerning host (and you should hopefully be a discerning host if you've gained enough experience to host WW), the nonrandom distribution of roles allows the host to tailor certain roles to certain people, resulting in many lulz and a deeper quality of game immersion. When I nonrandom roles, it's usually to fit someone's playstyle so that their powers work cohesively with how they play. I also sometimes have tailored roles that expose the weakness in a particular person's playstyle so that they're forced to improve in that area if they are to win.

(I personally love giving broken OP roles to newbies and then laughing my ass off as they revel in their newfound power -- it's pretty funny watching a first time player (with enough power in their role to cripple half the game) run around threatening people like Rain with all of said power.)


Anyways. That's my two cents.

If majority are normal villagers (or if it's for a prize) -- random that shit.

If it's rolemadness or sufficiently close to rolemadness -- host choice whether to randomize or not.


I'd rather err on the side of leniency for complex games, and err on the side of strictness for simple games.
These users thanked the author HATER for the post:
Mendel
You must disregard the statement I am currently making because every statement I make is inherently false.

ImageImage
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:50 pm
Location: In Your Toilet
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by Blaze »

omfg. Someone took 2 options, not choosing taco as one of them.

Ban him
Image
User avatar
Mendel
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 6:33 am
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by Mendel »

Not sure why this is called "ruleset randomizing" as you're randomizing role distribution and not the ruleset, but yeah.

Some suggestions to partial randomizers and re-rollers: you really should think about your restrictions before you start rolling. Aka "player X should not get a power role" or "one of players A,B,C must be in the mafia team" or "mafia team must have at least one player outside of D,E,F" or similar. Write your restrictions down. Then you roll and reroll and take the first roll that satisfies your criteria. It's ok to do some practice roles to try out your restriction set, just be sure to never use one of these. If you do not do it this way, your setup contains unconscious biases, and players able to read you might have an advantage.

I also suggest giving the restriction set to the permamods when the game is over (or before the game if they didn't sign up), so they can ensure that the restrictions are sensible and fair, e.g. that the same player isn't restricted out of certain roles every game if they don't deserve it. Ideally, if the game wouldn't be fun for someone if you published your restriction set at the start of the game, rethink it.

That said, I'm in favor of full randomization. As a mafia host, you should embrace the chaos and not work against it.
no discord as well as you think you can't mate
Bob Vegana
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:28 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by Bob Vegana »

Taco for PRESIDENT, BOOIIIIII
User avatar
Rainboy
Posts: 1923
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainboy
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by Rainboy »

Mendel wrote:Not sure why this is called "ruleset randomizing" as you're randomizing role distribution and not the ruleset, but yeah.

Some suggestions to partial randomizers and re-rollers: you really should think about your restrictions before you start rolling. Aka "player X should not get a power role" or "one of players A,B,C must be in the mafia team" or "mafia team must have at least one player outside of D,E,F" or similar. Write your restrictions down. Then you roll and reroll and take the first roll that satisfies your criteria. It's ok to do some practice roles to try out your restriction set, just be sure to never use one of these. If you do not do it this way, your setup contains unconscious biases, and players able to read you might have an advantage.

I also suggest giving the restriction set to the permamods when the game is over (or before the game if they didn't sign up), so they can ensure that the restrictions are sensible and fair, e.g. that the same player isn't restricted out of certain roles every game if they don't deserve it. Ideally, if the game wouldn't be fun for someone if you published your restriction set at the start of the game, rethink it.

That said, I'm in favor of full randomization. As a mafia host, you should embrace the chaos and not work against it.
Thoughtful suggestion. Personally, I pretty much follow Hater's formula, but I think I'll begin using yours in the future. That said, I believe that hosts should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are up front about whether or not they intend to mess with the randomness by rerolling or manually selecting things. I would be in favor of a policy that forced hosts to disclose whether or not a given game would be totally random. I don't really like forcing hosts to disclose in what way it will be non-random, but if the host chooses to disclose that, they should be held to it.

Just my two cents. I don't think we currently have any policy whatsoever on this subject, so hosts are currently free to do whatever they want (including lie to their players).
Sense? What fun is there in making sense...?
User avatar
Mendel
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 6:33 am
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by Mendel »

From the poll: "Hosts should be forced to ensure some basic balance for their games, such as making sure at least one experienced player is mafia/wolf. "

Let's assume a two-player mafia team.

"Divide and roll" strategy: If you want everyone to have an equal chance at playing either faction, you can divide the player base in two equal groups (one more experienced, the other less), and assign a random player from each group to the mafia team. That way, every player has the same chance of becoming mafia, and you have assured an experienced player on the mafia team.

If you do the "roll until we get an experienced player" strategy, then the first roll you'll accept is either exp/exp, exp/newb or newb/exp (with equal probability), which gives experienced players double the chance of playing a mafia role.

It gets better with bigger mafia teams (50% experienced: 2 mafia: 2x as likely to be chosen, 3 mafia: <1.33 times as likely, 4 players <1.14 times (1.07 for a 4:12 setup)), assuming half the players count as "experienced". But if you assume only a quarter of the players are experienced enough to lead a mafia team, then on a 4-player team, you still get equal chances with the "divide into groups" strategy (you choose 1 player from the experienced 25%, and the other 3 from the rest), but "reroll until it looks fine" means, with a 4 mafia 12 town setup, an experienced player has a 34% chance to be on the mafia team while the others are at 22%.

This means that in non-randomized games, the proper strategy for town is to lynch the experienced players, since they're more likely to be mafia. (They're also more likely to have a town power role, which they could claim.) And of course that's just going to kill the game, because it ends up with those players removed who usually carry the game.

So there are really only two good options:

* if biased, play with Alternate Ghost Etiquette: Zombies! (Players are still allowed to post, join IRC, and PM after death. They have all the powers of communication that living players have.), so that dead players can continue to play (and win with their faction)

* randomize all roles properly

Or, you know, keep playing the usual way, and Emziek wondering if he's ever making it to round 3. It'll still be fun.
no discord as well as you think you can't mate
User avatar
HATER
Posts: 2293
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
Location: Behind you.
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 70 times
Contact:

Re: Ruleset Randomizing - Discussion / Vote

Post by HATER »

Woo, topics from 2014.


If it helps, my stance is generally that all games I host now are completely randomized, save for a couple closed WW games where it would be explicitly stated that roles would be pseudoranded or handedpicked.


I do now advocate that if you're going to randomize, just smack that rand button and roll with whatever the results are.
Honestly, the skill gaps now aren't quite as large as they were back in 2014 (skill in the community is much more spread out along a spectrum now, in my opinion), and therefore in the modern day it's less gamebreaking to have a mafia team with the only 4 or 5 "veterans" in the game all on one side than it was back in 2014. Hence, the option to re-roll is rarely needed.


There used to be an unwritten rule that any setup that put Rainboy and I on the same mafia team would be re-rolled (consequently, there's been like one game over the course of the community where we've wound up as mafia together, even though we each have participated in a great many games). I am glad that seems to have generally fallen out of favor in the past year or two.



Anyways, I do still stand by my "open games = rand, closed games = host choice", but with the caveat now that in 90% of my games I random (and will always state it publicly if otherwise).


I personally like the Normal Villager role now a lot more than I did when I wrote the 2014 post, so this has made me much more indifferent to being a power role -- which probably accounts for my slight change in stance.
You must disregard the statement I am currently making because every statement I make is inherently false.

ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Community Discussion”