|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 9, 2008 9:55:20 GMT -5
OK, so here we go. The goal of this effort is to develop a coherent, playable, sensible game with really bizarre and goofy color, and a few unusual elements that don't throw the balance out of whack.
The basic outline of the color will be as follows:
The Town is a bunch of college students, gathered for a weekend getaway at an old, abandoned Cabin in the Woods. Hidden among them will be power roles. The "power roles" will all be classic B-horror movie archetypes: The Inquisitive Fool; The Hero's Chaste Girlfriend; The Hero's Eavesdropping Sister; The Slumming B-List Actor; and so on.
The Town will vote, lynch, and so on as usual. Ties will have a specific method of resolution (the Masons will be Sorority Girls. The President of the Sorority will wield absolute tiebreaking power; if she dies, the power passes to her VP; if she dies, to the Treasurer. If all three Sorority Girls are dead, tiebreaking power adheres to the highest ranking living scum player).
The Scum are the Deadites, Demons/Zombies from the pits of Hell who take over the bodies of those they kill. They will have power roles, too.
There will be third-party agents. So far I know of only one for certain: Freddy Krueger, who has wandered into the wrong horror movie.
There will also be a unique player, the aforementioned Slumming B-List Actor. The idea behind this character is that when a Slumming B-List Actor appears in a D-list horror movie, no matter how insignificant his role may appear early in the film, he will turn out to be important later - he may be revealed as a Bad Guy, or an unusually powerful Good Guy, or as a third-party agent. My idea is to have this character's alignment AND powers be indeterminate at the outset of the game. By some mechanism, and I don't know what, he'll become aligned with one of the factions or become self-aligned, and gain powers via that same mechanism. More on this later.
So that's the setup. Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Guy with the Gun on Jul 10, 2008 12:53:52 GMT -5
There will also be a unique player, the aforementioned Slumming B-List Actor. My idea is to have this character's alignment AND powers be indeterminate at the outset of the game. Hmmm...  Sounds familiar. Can't put my finger on it though. Glad I'm not playing, as if I was this everyone would just lynch me outright. |
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 10, 2008 15:47:45 GMT -5
Indeterminate alignments and fluidity are very difficult to balance. I had this discussion with NAF and Kat during Firefly. If a character could swing either way, then you have to somehow balance for BOTH possibilities. Not an easy task.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 10, 2008 15:58:23 GMT -5
Indeterminate alignments and fluidity are very difficult to balance. I had this discussion with NAF and Kat during Firefly. If a character could swing either way, then you have to somehow balance for BOTH possibilities. Not an easy task. Well, here's a fairly simple possibility. At some point in the game, the Actor selects another player. He doesn't know why, or what will happen to that player. When he does, that player is killed; the Actor takes over his role. Net effect on balance would be close to, but not quite, zero. If the Actor selects a Demon, presto, he's a Demon. No net reduction in Demon numbers. If the Actor selects a Townie, presto, he's a Townie. Now, we could refine this, but it's an idea, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 10, 2008 15:59:13 GMT -5
Oh, and hi sach, welcome aboard! In case you couldn't tell, I (storyteller) am Bruce Campbell this go-around, and Roosh is Guy With the Gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Guy with the Gun on Jul 10, 2008 20:52:34 GMT -5
Here's another way to make it easier. Just give the Actor a KNOWN Role from the Start. (ie: The Full Amnesiac Treatment). Balance the game and everything as such. BUT DONT TELL HIM. So we know his final role, alignment and everything. But he doesn't. And let him pretend to think his actions actually determine his fate. It's crueler, but that's what being a Gastard is all about. Let him THINK it's indeterminate, but only we know the better there.  That or just have the "triggers" outlined from the start, and balance the game that way. Ie: Have there be only 3 triggers, one for each choice, and use that to balance the game. I'm in favor of unbalanced games, because of the fact that players will otherwise tend to use the formulas and figure things out- ie: JSexton's formula. I hate having games that are perfectly balanced for that reason (which i know is directly opposite of your views on how to play games). But remember- you're not PLAYING this game. You're HOSTING it. make em suffer! |
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 11, 2008 8:58:31 GMT -5
I was thinking about this more, and IF the indeterminate role is vanilla Town vs vanilla scum, then perhaps the balancing won't be as bad as I thought. It's essentially equivalent to a recruitment. on a Point system we're talking a 5.5 point swing (+1 Town vs +4.5 scum). So if you balanced it perfectly, the game should be +3 scum if the role turns scum, and +2.5 town if the role turns Town. Which isn't too terrible, but will be more difficult to balance. Also, using recruitment as a reasoning probably isn't my best reason since I hate recruitment for the very reason of imbalance.
Oh and it not "imbalance" in the sense of fairness, but imbalance in the idea that I don't want the game to hinge on a single character. That is, if X turns Town then Town wins easily vs if X turns Scum then Scum wins easily; imbalance affects the playability of the game. fluiddruid's recruitment game is an example of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 11, 2008 9:15:37 GMT -5
I'm in favor of unbalanced games, because of the fact that players will otherwise tend to use the formulas and figure things out- ie: JSexton's formula. I hate having games that are perfectly balanced for that reason (which i know is directly opposite of your views on how to play games). But remember- you're not PLAYING this game. You're HOSTING it. make em suffer! As a host, my concern with developing an unbalanced game, apart from making it unfun for the person on the ugly side of the imbalance, is that unbalanced games tend to lead to a less active mid- and endgame, because the players on the one side figure they have it made and the players on the other side start feeling like the deck is stacked against them, so why even try? I'm beginning to think maybe this role isn't such a good idea. sach's thoughts below your post notwithstanding, what I'm going for here is a twisty, interesting game - but one where the analytical skills, strategic thinking, and choices made by the players determine the outcome, rather than random chance. This role, it seems, no matter how we set it up, will eventually end up swinging the game in one direction or the other. Unless, again, we do what I said. The Actor picks another player at any point, and that player dies, and the Actor takes over his role. Technically, that wouldn't affect the balance at all. I'm just not sure there's very much of a point to it. |
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Jul 11, 2008 9:31:13 GMT -5
If you want an indeterminate role, then you can pull it off by pairing. Two indeterminate roles where one will turn scum and one will turn Town. The balance is maintained because you know that one will go one way and the other the other. We just don't know which way they will swing until later in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Guy with the Gun on Jul 11, 2008 14:12:40 GMT -5
If you want an indeterminate role, then you can pull it off by pairing. Two indeterminate roles where one will turn scum and one will turn Town. The balance is maintained because you know that one will go one way and the other the other. We just don't know which way they will swing until later in the game. I like this one! |
|
Sounds familiar. Can't put my finger on it though.
