I‘ve been told that several people are planning to host games, so to avoid any problems like people cutting into each other‘s game signups and other things we may need a schedule of games.
For anyone who plans to host a game, you can either write in this thread for what month/day you‘re planning a game or edit it in the schedule yourself if you can.
Note that there‘s no limit to how many games can be had per month, but try not to have 2 games running at the same time.
Sign-ups!
To everyone who usually plays MG or those that don‘t want to miss signups, we‘re testing a new way to alert everyone to a new game instead of mass tags before each game.
All you have to do is go to>>this thread<<and press Watch on the top corner of the thread. I or a host will post there and notify everyone like this whenever a new game starts.
While hosting overall isn't necessarily hard, it's very easy to mess things up as we have seen plenty of times already. This naturally happens more often with newer hosts.
In order to get these new hosts familiar with how the game works behind the scenes and make it a smoother experience for everyone (no one wants a cancelled game!), we are establishing these sets of rules that follow the methods that have been used in the last 50 games:
-If it's your first time hosting, it's MANDATORY to have the help of someone that has hosted before. As long as they aren't banned, it doesn't matter if this person hosted twenty times or just once. This experienced host will be the "Main Host", while the new one assumes the role of "co-host".
-Tasks will be split in a rather equal manner so that the Main Host can keep things in check while the Co-host gets hands-on experience to learn properly.
-The Main Host has the final say when it comes to decisions (ideally, this won't need to be enforced heavily, it's mostly to avoid possible issues).
Once the game is over, the co-host can host on their own and even take the role of "experienced host" for a new host in need!
First of all, it ain't 100 roles and you all know it. Even if we were to count all roles suggestions I made over the years we wouldn't get to 50.
Second of all, Quantity and Quality have nothing to do with each other. If there is a role that's good, it is good, no matter by how many other roles it is surrounded, it will stick out. Plus "quality" is objective, there are still plenty players who found the BK role interesting or fun, same goes for the roles suggested, some like, some don't, some make it after testing, others don't. You cannot know what role is 100% a keeper until you suggest it and either face the heat and ridicule of everyone or until it makes it into a couple games to be tested out.
Third, if you don't want me to make any role suggestions anymore then just say so and I stop. And I stop playing Mafia. And I stop the game for November as well. Alright? Good.
Just counted our review sheet and it has 111 roles, not all made by you but it‘s a lot regardless. That’s why the suggestion thread is staying closed until it‘s sorted, because it‘s gotten out of hand and there‘s too much as it is.
It is a quantity problem for sure. Like Farf said you‘re obscuring the good one with other roles because it‘s impossible to even get anyone to care enough to review everything, and like this the good one will never even be seen.
I don‘t mind suggestions but you shouldn‘t disregard the time and effort it takes to review everything, to get everyone else to do it so there‘s a consensus, to discuss many technicalities of the role if it‘s wanted or if there‘s splits in opinion, to update everything and so on.
Then just add more rules as how to suggest things. We now have a stickie and 3 ways council members can say they feel about a role with yes no and i don't give a f-. Just write that from now on you can make at most one suggestion per person per day and that after ten new roles have been proposed the thread is closed for the council to review on the ten roles. That way we cannot just blindly suggest things and there is a circle of how many roles in total can even make it to the review before it gets overwhelming.
Given you said 111 roles I assume you are talking about all roles in the entire thread from the past couple years that either didn't got shut down or weren't already implemented into the game? Because I can't remember over a 100 roles being submitted in the weeks before the role suggestion thread was closed.
The 111 roles up to discussion are a backlog of about 4-5 years, which is frustrating, because some of the roles could have been live for that period already and added value to some games.
Couple notes from my side to further suggestion process.
For further suggestions what I noticed, a lot lack general idea of how they would integrate in the existing role pool already. Like one suggested role and description read as followed: "Kaneki (Third Party) Has the ability to eat people and transform into their role each night." What the hell does that even mean? We don't have an eat mechanic. The submitter needs to define it, needs to as well suggest how it would be with certain existing roles, and give a full picture of functionality. Instead here everything is left up for interpretation.
Furthermore, there has been role suggestions and then five reworked versions submitted. Usually, if the role sounds unappealing in general, makes hardly sense tweaking one little mechanic/interaction and expect much better acceptance. Can't turn shit into gold, that's not how it work.
An other point being, some roles submitted become too complex and feel like being games-in-a-game-in-a-game sort of thing that "mafia" game become unrecognizabel just because of this pair of roles. Like also think of the impact on the game as a whole when doing a suggestion. It's not gonna work. It will be a role used once in a game and everybody will remember it as the game with this role, and then never used again. This kind of shenanigan are best done when you host a game yourself and do it in the setting of "special mechanic" for this game.
Reviewing process should also be optimized, to never again make it as frustrating. It is not favourable to anyone if roles lie around for 5 years and then everyone has to review 111 roles plus variations, but neither is the submitter tagging all reviewers every time there's a new updated variation online. I suggest to either collect all roles for a time period of no longer than half year and then do the batch reviews, or until a certain amount is reach, like 20 roles. Quick review, discussion, bääähm, done. Go use them.
I hope following this broad guideline should give a better idea of what is acceptable suggestion process, as well as outlook on reviewing and implementing of these.
The only flavor text I'd like to see would be stuff like in MtG cards. You know, the stuff that stands below in cursive which then adds something to it, either a quote or like a saying, stuff like that. Though ofc it ain't really needed.^^
A backlog of 4 - 5 years is rather... excessive and that's likely in part due to there just not being as many people to care before, but regardless, there's things suggest-ers can do to make the processing easier and improve overall suggestion quality and council opinion of the suggest-er. Things posted to the role suggestion thread get formally submitted to the council, so before that just just shoot another player a PM and ask for some critique and, better yet, play out your own council by thinking about what you would say if you got that suggestion and what the actual council members might say. This requires a bit more effort on the part of the suggest-ers, but putting in that effort disperses the work required and, due to the reduction of the number of repeats in the council's backlog, gets roles in and approved quicker.
The 111 roles up to discussion are a backlog of about 4-5 years, which is frustrating, because some of the roles could have been live for that period already and added value to some games.
Couple notes from my side to further suggestion process.
For further suggestions what I noticed, a lot lack general idea of how they would integrate in the existing role pool already. Like one suggested role and description read as followed: "Kaneki (Third Party) Has the ability to eat people and transform into their role each night." What the hell does that even mean? We don't have an eat mechanic. The submitter needs to define it, needs to as well suggest how it would be with certain existing roles, and give a full picture of functionality. Instead here everything is left up for interpretation.
Furthermore, there has been role suggestions and then five reworked versions submitted. Usually, if the role sounds unappealing in general, makes hardly sense tweaking one little mechanic/interaction and expect much better acceptance. Can't turn shit into gold, that's not how it work.
An other point being, some roles submitted become too complex and feel like being games-in-a-game-in-a-game sort of thing that "mafia" game become unrecognizabel just because of this pair of roles. Like also think of the impact on the game as a whole when doing a suggestion. It's not gonna work. It will be a role used once in a game and everybody will remember it as the game with this role, and then never used again. This kind of shenanigan are best done when you host a game yourself and do it in the setting of "special mechanic" for this game.
Reviewing process should also be optimized, to never again make it as frustrating. It is not favourable to anyone if roles lie around for 5 years and then everyone has to review 111 roles plus variations, but neither is the submitter tagging all reviewers every time there's a new updated variation online. I suggest to either collect all roles for a time period of no longer than half year and then do the batch reviews, or until a certain amount is reach, like 20 roles. Quick review, discussion, bääähm, done. Go use them.
I hope following this broad guideline should give a better idea of what is acceptable suggestion process, as well as outlook on reviewing and implementing of these.
Of the two review process changes, the set time period of no longer than a year seems smarter. More routine means less mess and less stress for everyone. Plus, if all it takes to start a review process is a certain number of roles, then that might encourage flooding the suggestion thread with roles to get a couple looked at.
lel we knew Hardy didn't want to play, so we could talk about all the details of the game with him. I was actually going to message some tempered hosts later for general tips and advice though.
lel we knew Hardy didn't want to play, so we could talk about all the details of the game with him. I was actually going to message some tempted hosts later for general tips and advice though.
Oh mark me pending pliz, but i should make it.
but giiiiive me the same role i had last Snk game !! @scav !!
Mouhahahaha
..............................................
Btw wanted to ask for future hosts...
it would be great to get a One Piece game as celebration, Op is close to 1000 chaps, there's enough characters and material for mechanics and maybe we could attract some new players and force Bob and Ace to play !