Debating a new rules setup...

[Semaj]

OK... Now I'm one of those very bored individuals who once dead from a game sits around the house idly wishing he was in one so he has something to do other than play wow and read books. yes yes I know, it sounds sadder than it is, but you get the gist for this forum...

_anyways_

What do we do with the very bored players who are out early/middle of a game who have a week or 5 of time to kill before the next one starts?

As such, why not make a game where a few people start in it, and every "day" a new person is added. Perhaps a Wrestling Royal Rumble style event for one and all.

Yes some people would get powers, randomly pulled from a hat. I know some people hate randomness, but how else would you make it interesting?

My thoughts (this is all on the fly, sorry if jumps around):

4 people to start, as such you need a 3 person majority.

Everytime someone dies in a game they are playing in, they get added to this, if they want in of course or if somehow this seems to be popular we could just have a waiting list of people who want in who get brought in every RL day or two. Eventually we run out of people coming in and it's every man for himself (in theory) until there is only 1.



Power listing (Updated as I (or you) think of new ones:
Wily Veteran - The ability to negate Any power of an attacking player (On you, or on someone else)
Quick Toss - The ability to throw any Non-Super Heavy out of the ring.
Super Heavy - You need at least (x) people to throw you out, where X is a number larger than the current majority.
Super Strong - You counts as 2-3 people for tossing someone out.
Take someone with you - You can take one of the tossing players with you when they throw you out of the ring.
Hold onto the ropes - You can avoid a normal lynching by holding onto the ropes and crawling back in under the bottom, cannot be the target of the next lynch/toss unless there are less than 4 people).
Eye Poke - The ability to negate Any power of an defending player.
Misdirection - negate someone else's votes from the lynch...
Tag Team (with 1 other person) - the ability to communicate (Pm's) without others knowing what you are doing. If both people vote on the same person, it counts as 3 votes.

Added since original post:
Mastermind - Make someone else try to throw (x) out of the ring.
Head for the game - Able to "scan" someone and know their powers/alignment
Rallying Cry - Able to "Defend" someone as such your votes count as negative votes against someone being tossed.
Hulking Up - Ignore any abilities of any attacking players, can only be used once, and afterwards you count as "gassed" and cannot use any powers for a day.
Work the Knees - negate the power of one person against you permanently (but only against you).
Cheat to Win - You gain the use of someone elses votes for one throw out. They will be told they are gone, but not who has them.

I'd probably need way more powers... And to limit how often they can be used based on strength of power. Like quick toss could be a once ever type power, while wily veteran could be used against any single player only once.

Is this just silly or what?

[Grundbegriff]

Has potential. I like the idea of the SuperHeavy as a semi-Dennis.

[Semaj]

Design questions:

1) Do I rate powers, as such a Super Heavy, a Super Strong and Quick toss would be A Rank 1 Power, while Misdirection might only be a rank 2 power.

You get 1 rank 1 and 1 rank 2, randomly. Or do I let some people get lucky and be super heavy and Super strong.

2) Do I give alignments? Some people would be Heel, Some neutral, some face. Each alignment has specific powers it can and cant use....

3) How many powers do I give people? Is 1 enough, or how about 2? Or make it 3 for insanity... but make sure to rate the powers so that you get one funny power, one useful power and one very important power?

4) Should we require everyone who enters makes a wrestling name?

thats it for the moment, lol....

[Austin]

To clarify, as far as I am concerned random is okay; I hate chance powers. For example, If the wolves attack the hunter, the hunter has a 50% chance of killing a wolf. Who is a wolf and who is a hunter should be random.

[Grundbegriff]

To clarify, as far as I am concerned random is okay; I hate chance powers. For example, If the wolves attack the hunter, the hunter has a 50% chance of killing a wolf. Who is a wolf and who is a hunter should be random.

I don't quite understand the distinction you're drawing.

How is If Bubba is attacked, he has a 50% chance of killing an attacker different from If Bubba robs the artifact-bearer and Sue robs the artifact-bearer, then Bubba has a 50% chance of stealing the artifact?

And how is either of them different from Bubba has a (3/20 =) 15% chance of drawing an Evil role?

How are "random" and "chance" not synonyms in this context?

[Austin]

To clarify, as far as I am concerned random is okay; I hate chance powers. For example, If the wolves attack the hunter, the hunter has a 50% chance of killing a wolf. Who is a wolf and who is a hunter should be random.

I don't quite understand the distinction you're drawing.

How is If Bubba is attacked, he has a 50% chance of killing an attacker different from If Bubba robs the artifact-bearer and Sue robs the artifact-bearer, then Bubba has a 50% chance of stealing the artifact?

And how is either of them different from Bubba has a (3/20 =) 15% chance of drawing an Evil role?

How are "random" and "chance" not synonyms in this context?

Are we being argumentative today or are you really missing the distinction? You don't see the difference in having a rule where a hunter has a set 50% chance of killing a wolf if attacked and people raiding the same tent all having an equal chance of finding a relic? It's really not that subtle of a difference.

Are you really trying to draw a distinction between a rule set that includes my hunter example above and how the roles are chosen? I'd like to buy an argument.

[Grundbegriff]

To clarify, as far as I am concerned random is okay; I hate chance powers. For example, If the wolves attack the hunter, the hunter has a 50% chance of killing a wolf. Who is a wolf and who is a hunter should be random.

I don't quite understand the distinction you're drawing.

How is If Bubba is attacked, he has a 50% chance of killing an attacker different from If Bubba robs the artifact-bearer and Sue robs the artifact-bearer, then Bubba has a 50% chance of stealing the artifact?

And how is either of them different from Bubba has a (3/20 =) 15% chance of drawing an Evil role?

How are "random" and "chance" not synonyms in this context?

Are we being argumentative today or are you really missing the distinction?

I'm really missing the distinction. I sincerely want to understand.

You don't see the difference in having a rule where a hunter has a set 50% chance of killing a wolf if attacked and people raiding the same tent all having an equal chance of finding a relic? It's really not that subtle of a difference.

Uhm... In one case, you're talking about having a 50% chance of a desired outcome. In the other case, you're talking about having an X% chance of a desired outcome (where X = 100 / numberOfCompetitors).

How is having an X% chance different in kind from having a Y% chance? I assume you're not just talking about the actual numbers (say, "50").

[Austin]

In one you have a set rule which directly affects the power being used or not. The other you have a bunch of people making choices. You can effect a change in your odds by choosing to search the chest, or Austin's or Grundbegriff's chest. In one you have a power that may or may not work, depending on the dice so you cannot deduce what gives you the greatest chance of success. You just hope the roll comes out in your favor. As mentioned earlier the other you have control over how much risk reward and can actually strategize. I see the parallel between the chance of getting a ter'arngrial and the hunter scenario but they aren't the same thing unless you want to get into semantics and the meaning of random verse chance.

[Austin]

Would you enjoy a game where as the seer you had a 50% chance for your power to work each night? The bad guys had a 45% chance to make a conversion and a 60% chance of making a kill? If attacked the hunter has a 35% chance to kill his attacker while there is a 25% chance the lynch victim survives?

Or how about good v evil and there is a 50% chance that good wins. Just roll the dice and ignore long night 1's.

[Grundbegriff]

In one you have a set rule which directly affects the power being used or not. The other you have a bunch of people making choices. You can effect a change in your odds by choosing to search the chest, or Austin's or Grundbegriff's chest. In one you have a power that may or may not work, depending on the dice so you cannot deduce what gives you the greatest chance of success. You just hope the roll comes out in your favor. As mentioned earlier the other you have control over how much risk reward and can actually strategize. I see the parallel between the chance of getting a ter'arngrial and the hunter scenario but they aren't the same thing unless you want to get into semantics and the meaning of random verse chance.

On a 50/50 roll to slay attacking wolf, you have no control. You're at the mercy of the dice.
On a 1/5 chance to steal the artifact, you have no control over the number of competitors who will also try to steal the artifact.

On the other hand, you can at least choose which artifact to try to steal, whereas you cannot choose whether or not the Werewolves attack you.

So what you really appear to dislike isn't "chance versus random" (whatever that may mean), but the intersection of random chance and passivity. You're OK with random chance when it intersects active choice-making, but you dislike it when random chance intersects passive states that leave no room for choice.

Is that the right distinction?

[Grundbegriff]

Or maybe you're saying you like randomness up to the point at which the game begins, and then player-driven outcomes only from that point forward....

[Semaj]

I think he is saying: he prefers randomness only for the creation of the game, but the players to determine who wins and loses rather than a roll of the dice.

[Austin]

I think I made the point of my preference. Perhaps the over-erudite won't pick it up though.

[Grundbegriff]

I think he is saying: he prefers randomness only for the creation of the game, but the players to determine who wins and loses rather than a roll of the dice.

Is that not what this says?

The problem with what he has said is that it's no good to say Austin tolerates random.org only up to the moment of game-creation, but insists on player-driven stuff afterward. He has said he's ok with the idea of a random allocation of loot to the competitors.

[Grundbegriff]

I think I made the point of my preference. Perhaps the over-erudite won't pick it up though.

Anyone who thinks about it clearly won't pick it up.

[Semaj]

back on topic?

[Grundbegriff]

back on topic?

Run it. They will come.

[Semaj]

I was looking for feedback along the lines of: How I would break this game is:

Or: Thats too op'd... You know.. this is very UN-WW-like in that as quicly as you can in theory vote people out, more can show up.

[Semaj]

OK spent some time debating when I realized the WoT game had stalled.

Upfront stuff:
1) you cant only have 2 people to start, while it's funny to me... too easy for someone who is broken early to mess up the woodwork. As such we will start off with 4. You need 3 votes to send someone over the first time. it of course will change as the game does, lol.

2) I wont be announcing everyones powers, you know they have others, you just wont know til they use em. You will know 1, the one freeebie everyone knows. But they will have tricks up thier sleeves.

3) When a person gets tossed out, there will be a pause before the next person can. One would argue this is Mic time, when the announcers shill whomever tossed him out and whatever. I would argue a good lynch group would quickly wipe out everyone in the ring if I dont give people time to form new alliances and backstab

4) I will be keeping random stats: Longest in the ring, person who went the farthest, most toss outs, etc. And probably do a cute little write up of every throw out. I figure it'll add ot the ambiance.

5)I want Entrance music and a wrestling name/style. It'll be fun, dont worry about being someone else, this is strictly to be fun, not determine something.

6) The time for a new person to enter is set in stone, as such, you cannot stall. If you have a deadlock, eventually someone new will come down to the ring and end it. If he doesnt, the next person makes it more difficult.

7) I will roll up everyones "Powers" randomly before we start and allow those who have the team mate power to know who their team mate is. If there is an odd number of team mates, the solo teamer will gain a specific as of yet unknown power to make him life less annoying.

8) only the last person in the ring wins. When you are down to two, if both have no way to throw the other out, a tie-breaking vote will be made, by everyone who played as to who should win. Yes this sucks, but can you think of any other way when it's down to two?

9)When you place a vote on someone phrase it as : "I attempt to throw X" out. Because you are attempting to, not doing. This is how you end up with 3 guys holding onto the ropes for dear life in a royal rumble. People are trying to get em to go.

10) When you attempt to use a special, Announce it, unless it's a "Silent Special" The person you are using it on, will get a chance to respond to stop it (Some powers negate, others have ways to turn it around, etc.) and if they don't in a specific time limit, or they cannot do anything and no one else does, the game will continue. This is one of the main reason I want a pause before.after someone is tossed, to make certain they had a chance to do something.

I do have a few questions. How do you feel about the ability to negate someone else's vote by "defending the person they are trying to throw out." Should that be a power, or a ability everyone has? I am leaning toward random and rare power, but if we all like it, we could make the game very very interesting.

Also, How about "Mitigating factors" For instance, Rivalries/feuds/friendships. A rival is someone you always compete against, a feud is someone you will or should go after and a friendship is someone you back up. You get brownie/bonus points for completing these mitigating factors, and in theory they could help determine who wins any ties (like at 1 vs 1).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we are at: 4 lads start out in a ring, looking at each other eyes darting back and forth, a timer standing in the background counting down until the next person enters the ring. The fans are rabid and the wrestlers are ready for a violent and brutal chance to cause mayhem and punish others.

Wrestling powers:
Wily Veteran - The ability to negate Any power of an attacking player (On you, or on someone else)
Quick Toss - The ability to throw any Non-Super Heavy out of the ring.
Super Heavy(y) - You need at least (x+y) people to throw you out, where X is the current majority and y is the Super Heavy number, y will not be announced unless someone likes to share his coolness after getting it.
Super Strong - You counts as 2-3 people for tossing someone out.
Take someone with you - You can take one of the tossing players with you when they throw you out of the ring.
Hold onto the ropes - You can avoid a normal lynching by holding onto the ropes and crawling back in under the bottom (cannot be the target of the next lynch/toss unless there are less than 4 people).
Eye Poke - The ability to negate Any power of an defending player.
Misdirection - negate someone else's votes from the lynch...
Tag Team (with 1 other person) - the ability to communicate (Pm's) without others knowing what you are doing. If both people vote on the same person, it counts as 3 votes.
Mastermind - Make someone else try to throw (x) out of the ring.
Head for the game - Able to "scan" someone and know their powers/alignment
Ring General - reverse any one power being used against you.
Rallying Cry - Able to "Defend" someone as such your votes count as negative votes against someone being tossed.
Hulking Up - Ignore any abilities of any attacking players, can only be used once, and afterwards you count as "gassed" and cannot use any powers for a day.
Work the Knees - negate the power of one person against you permanently (but only against you).
Cheat to Win - You gain the use of someone else's votes for one throw out. They will be told they are gone, but not who has them.
World Champ*(Only given once) - Power is unknown, but be assured it's spicy)
Tag Champs*(Only given to one team) - Extra power given to said team)
IC Champ*(Only given once) - Power is unknown, blah blah blah spicy)

There will be a few more as I think of them and all powers will have limits to amount of uses and most will average 1 use.

Any questions/comments now?

[Semaj]

One other thing I want mentioned:

1) I want it wacky
2) I want it zany
3) I want it to move quickly

This is what I figure should be run when people get vaulted from games early and spend 3 weeks on the sidelines bored.

Something to keep em occupied

[stessier]

Misdirection - negate someone else's votes from the lynch...

Cheat to Win - You gain the use of someone else's votes for one throw out. They will be told they are gone, but not who has them.

These are very interesting powers for WW games as well. I especially like the Cheat to Win - would be interesting to go to vote and find out you're shooting blanks.

[Semaj]

So I take it no one else has any thoughts on this at all?

[RevHempus71]

nope no thoughts. I would play it though, sounds fun.