|
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4058113 needs a replacement on day 2.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Town of Salem II is free for the next week on the Epic Game Store.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
Grandicap posted:Here we go, for real this time. Come and join Cookfia 9- Spicy NonAchos. Sign ups will be open for a week and will start with as many players join in that timeframe. Last day to sign up, or maybe second to last, I don't know, depends on how motivated I am.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
CubicalSucrose posted:Town of Salem II is free for the next week on the Epic Game Store. I put an embarrassing amount of hours into Town of Salem. What's new in ToS2? Or is just the first game but made to not run like poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:04
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I put an embarrassing amount of hours into Town of Salem. What's new in ToS2? I don't know. I never played the first one. I played a handful of rounds of the second one months ago on Steam. It seemed neat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
Okay hello I'm here to open a communal melon. Some time ago we proposed the Rule Zeroth that's been incorporated onto a lot of OPs afterwards. I'm gonna paste a version, they're all more or less the same. Rule Zeroth posted:The SA Mafia community takes a lot of pride in being a safe, respectful, inclusive and inviting space. If you ever encounter anything or anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable, threatened, abused, angry, or even unsure of how you feel, there are many people here, both within and outside of the SA Mafia community, who are happily willing to listen, provide support, and enact change to make the community better for everyone. And here's the thing - as someone who's listed there and has listened to some players vent, I kinda think we have a bit of a small hole in that. I feel like a lot of the weight is put on the shoulders of the person being bothered: don't engage, walk away if you are heated, don't join games with this or that. And that's fine up to a point. I feel like venting ongoing issues and privately talking stuff within players also has helped people a lot, mind you. But I also kinda feel that, from the other side, we usually kind of slap a "don't be a jerk" rule, and that's enforced practically never outside of very extreme cases - mostly because this is a game about being a jerk, to some degree, mods don't want to put their finger on the game, we know alignments so it's harder to be impartial, yadda yadda. I've been here, I think anyone who mods has been here, but I also feel like it ends up leading to frustration and snowballs. And that when someone is upset, we sometimes end up putting a lot of weight on "well walk away, you are upset, why are you posting" and not "ok, maybe we should not make this person be more upset". It's a game about accusing people and lying to their face, it's a game where tensions run high and dumb stuff is thrown around, but I feel most of us have been there enough to recognize when someone is genuinely upset and stop engaging with the issue that's making them upset. A sort of inverse approach if you will. Which, don't get me wrong, most of the time it happens organically, and it's great it does, but I think it should be encouraged as a community to be the default behaviour, rather than something that's done because people here are nice to other people. I think a good addenda to rule zeroth would be something like "If someone in a game is having a bad time or talking about their feelings, whatever the reason, don't question them, don't judge them, and try to leave them space. We are all people, and everyone gets emotional during a game sometime. If the situation keeps escalating, feel free to talk to... [people listed there]" The actual wording may vary, I'm kinda spitballing, but I think that may be a good thing to talk about in the mafia thread for discussing mafia things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
I agree with Shell, as someone who has both been an rear end in a top hat and had others be an rear end in a top hat to me, I think in general we need to accept emotional responses as true and valid and, ultimately, alignment-neutral. Everyone who plays these is human (except Votefinder) and we all have bad days, off days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
I think not being a dick is perfectly good and easy rule, but I've been seeing an uptick lately in people who can't seem to handle things like being cased or having votes on them and that's not particularly fun either. We need space for everyone's emotions, but we also need to remember this is just a dumb internet party game on a dead forum and not take things too personally (unless they get personal, which is a seperate issue entirely)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
I think proactively replacing people who are having a bad time should be more common. Both town and scum have meltdowns sometimes for being cased in a way they feel is inaccurate, but you can't just stop casing or voting someone because they get mad about it or getting mad will become a free pass. Edit: yeah what opop said
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:06
|
|
|
Does that mean we should proactively replace lurkers too? Because as it stands, lurkers do a lot more to ruin games than town OR scum getting upset about getting votes on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
I don't think both things are incompatible. As in, a bad reaction shouldn't mean people don't case or vote you, as a person with bad reactions to that particular thing, I absolutely agree, otherwise game sucks to play in general. But there is a difference between casing/voting someone having a bad time, and poking them on something when they say "that particular thing bothers me"; the former can be done without the latter. Also very much agree on subbing as the first option for bad game reactions, it should be encouraged. But let's be realist, if the thing happens on say, Day 5 you aren't finding a sub that's going to read all the backlog and play. EDIT. I guess what I'm trying to (badly) say is - maybe meltdowns shouldn't factor in gameplay, one way or the other? That works better? Shellception fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Apr 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
Sandwolf posted:Does that mean we should proactively replace lurkers too? Yes, 100%
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
I don't know if we should be proactively removing anyone unless absolutely necessary. We shouldn't remove someone for being a dick, but if they are egregious about it and getting mean then yes, just the same as we don't really replace people for lurking but if they've abandoned ship entirely then sure. One thing we could probably do better is be more involved in general as mods though. We have the benefit of impartiality and game omniscience. Even just a simple "Hey, you good?" PM to someone who appears to be losing it
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:One thing we could probably do better is be more involved in general as mods though. We have the benefit of impartiality and game omniscience. Even just a simple "Hey, you good?" PM to someone who appears to be losing it Agreed, and I'm up for it. Another mod-side possibility maybe is to encourage people to reach out to the mod of the game if they are bothered by a particular thing, and maybe tell people in private "hey please drop it". No need for it to be anything game-disturbing, I really don't think things usually get so bad, but also have seen situations where both sides really think the other is being an rear end, and maybe they'd benefit from some light intervention?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
I've only been in 2 recent games, but both have had multiple meltdowns of varying alignments and I don't recall seeing anyone intentionally trying to provoke someone having a bad time
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
This is more than a 2 game issue. I also think the intentionality isn’t the point. I’ve unintentionally said things that pushed peoples emotions and it’s very hard to apologize in game without throwing the game. But I did try to just back off and not continue it further, and then apologize after the game. Like Opop said this is a party game and I think overall I’d rather lose a game than lose a friend trying to win a game regardless of what side I’m on in the situation. There isn’t any exact solution, but I do think just a general reminder to think about how you might be affecting others beyond the game is fair. It’s a game we all get into the game and sometimes forget to pull out of it just for a minute before posting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:I don't know if we should be proactively removing anyone unless absolutely necessary. I think if someone is very obviously having a bad time and their bad time is causing everyone else to have a bad time the mod should at least reach out and say "Hey, you seem to be having a really bad time in this game, would you like me to find a replacement?" It's a dumb party game, nobody should be playing and having a bad time and doing more to normalize just replacing out instead of staying in and being miserable out of a sense of duty to the game or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
proactively replace people having a good time, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
Encouraging people to know replacing out is always a possibility, and that there is nothing bad in bowing out of a game if you don't feel like it's fun, and you're not breaking the game if you do (a real hangup I've seen happen before over subbing out) is good. Not just for people having a bad time, also for people who are for any reason not, or barely, making it over the lurker threshold while not posting anything of substance. Replacing out is also not a fix-all and sometimes not even a possibility. Sometimes replacements take longer than the day to find, mostly because the community isn't so big and there tend to be multiple games running. Sometimes game is way too big in pages or game days for anyone to feasibly replace in. Modkill on demand is a possibility in those cases, and also way better than the "I'll post my role PM" alternative - just talk to mod and we'll do the needful, seriously. But I think both of them (replacement and modkill) should come from the player, only if the player wants them. And that doesn't preclude having mechanisms or at least attitudes in place to prevent situations escalating from both sides if necessary. If someone feels like someone else is being way too aggressive/personal/whatever, is it on them to replace out, and not the player who's causing them to react? What if it's a two-way situation where both are getting to each other in bad ways without anyone intending to? I kind of don't see replacement as a wonder fix, to be honest. Shellception fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Apr 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 08:51
|
|
|
Doublepost, sorry, didn't want to edit it in.Shellception posted:Agreed, and I'm up for it. Another mod-side possibility maybe is to encourage people to reach out to the mod of the game if they are bothered by a particular thing, and maybe tell people in private "hey please drop it". No need for it to be anything game-disturbing, I really don't think things usually get so bad, but also have seen situations where both sides really think the other is being an rear end, and maybe they'd benefit from some light intervention? I really think this may be a solution, even though it'd require a bit of a change for the mods: to make it so people who are starting to get badly bothered by something, instead of blowing up in thread, get used to reach out to the game mods first, because nowadays it seems like it only happens when the person is already heated to hell and wants to either vent or quit, instead of a preventive measure. We aren't used to complaining. Most of us have been around the block and back a bit, I think we can identify "this person is bothered because they are bad with pressure, but that's no one's fault" vs "this person is heated because there is an argument in thread that could cool down a bit". And even in the former case, when there isn't anything that can be done, we can always let the person vent, offer a replacement or whatever other thing is fitting the issue. It might help reduce the number of bad game blowups, IMO. As Opop said, being proactive on reaching out to players will also help, and I think normalizing looking for an escape valve that's not threadside might be a fix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 10:59
|
|
|
Counterargument, not one that I necessarily agree with: Starting with: - Over the past year or so of (quite a few) games with (quite number) of total and unique players, roughly how many times has this been an issue? I think it's something like fewer than 10 times (very open to correction). Which is maybe like, one in every 7 to 10 games or so, and around less than once per month. On the low end, once per 7 games, at smallel-medium games of like 14 players each, that's like 1 "blowup" issue per 100 player-games. It's unclear to me if a 1% blowup rate is "that bad" or what the medium-long-term consequences are of having such a rate. Given the "resurgence" of games in the past year or so, it actually doesn't seem like there are material issues with how things generally are today. I think the issues, if any, would be "people stop playing" or maybe "stop playing as often." People take breaks all the time and rotate in and out of playing/modding, so although overall playing rate changes could be measured through VF history parsing, it's hard to actually isolate "stopped playing SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF 'bad community vibes' or whatever better label makes sense" (at least without doing specific outreach to all players about why they're playing less). Suppose we actually are able to "do better." What would that actually mean? I suppose it would mean a reduction in the blowup rate. If today's rate is "too high" (which it might be), what would be an acceptable rate? How low do we reasonably think we could get it? Do we think enacting (some of the suggestions people have cited already) would get us closer to there? --- Personally, I think I'll try and be more proactive while modding if I or others see things heating up a bit, taking a cue from what I'd seen Shwinn do in the space game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
gdi cube is tryna spreadsheet this one too
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 22:14
|
|
|
We should implement a big game queue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
merk posted:We should implement a big game queue.  I think that would solve most issues
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 01:02
|
|
|
You joke, but it would relieve a lot of stress for there to be less "pressure" to be in multiple games at once. I know nobody is forcing me to sign up for so many games but FOMO is a thing when there are lots of cool games in signups at the same time. I'm sure I'm not the only one who suffers from this. A limit of one "large" game at a time might also encourage more active spectating of games and widen the pool of players who can replace into games later and later (if they were already following along unspoiled). It could also encourage more small, short games to be designed and fill up more quickly. I wonder what number would be the healthiest cut-off point, though. Looking right now (if we pretend Tarot Mafia is also still going) the 2nd largest game is 17 players so there would be no difference right now if the cut-off were higher than 17. It feels like a lot of 15 player games would be a lot too so I guess I'd suggest 13 as the magic number. As in anything above 13 is "large". Some systems would surely beed to be added in the change, like giving preference to signups who've gotten to participate in fewer large games recently, but we're smart enough to handle that, right? On the other hand I'm just talking out of my rear end
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
I'll just say my little piece and float away for another long while. I'm not proud of the attitude I copped in the recent game I played, but I was trying to get my feet back wet and while I was trying to get a handle of things on D1/2 I felt like I was getting attacked and interrogated and after a while it was difficult not to let emotions get involved. I fully understand that that is the nature of the game, which is why I've backed away, but I want to try and play which is why I've come back over the years. There's a deep player roster with deep meta here, though. I can't take my cute little precious attitude as something to be considered over that. The closest thing I can think of is the odd newbie game here or there which is really nice but beyond that I can't think of a great solution. Cheers and good luck and go cook some epic meals over that current game for internet cash and prizes, you goons~
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Getting emotional is both inevitable and kinda part of the draw of mafia. It's a confrontation sim as much as it is a deceit sim. I don't think that there's any hard and fast rule for separating the emotions that are part of the game from the ones that aren't, and that it's ultimately on people to monitor themselves and not be afraid to disengage for a while or replace out if the latter is bleeding into the former. People reading emotionality as alignment indicative is a problem in itself, because it encourages players to be emotional manipulatively. Worse is when shows of emotion, performative or real, are used to emotionally blackmail the thread away from pushing certain cases or votes by making the thread unpleasant when they are pursued. I think when that's happing mods should proactively ask players if they need to replace out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
Going back to Shells' original post, though, we currently put responsibility on keeping the games fun and healthy on: (1) the player who is getting emotional to be self conscious of the recognize and maybe chill or replace or walk away whatever, and (2) the mod to try to help in a healthy way without destroying the game I read her post as saying maybe we should add a third category: (3) all of the other players to try and recognize if their own posts are accelerating the situation, intentionally or not, and just try to recognize if slightly altering your future posts might help the game overall. I think most people do this naturally, and we are also all capable of not noticing how our own posts are coming off sometimes (if we did we would never get caught as scum). So I don't think it would be much to try to more formally stress all three of these ways for everyone to try and make the game fun for everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:06
|
|
|
Yes, Voodoo said what I was trying to say way more succinctly. Thanks.fool of sound posted:People reading emotionality as alignment indicative is a problem in itself, because it encourages players to be emotional manipulatively. Worse is when shows of emotion, performative or real, are used to emotionally blackmail the thread away from pushing certain cases or votes by making the thread unpleasant when they are pursued. I think when that's happing mods should proactively ask players if they need to replace out. Fully agreed that emotion should not be used as alignment indicative. Full stop there, no notes. That sucks. This said, I think you're hitting in the problem. Almost everyone seems to be working out off the player who melts down, unprovoked and from pressure or votes, through no fault of anyone's own, really. Or even more, fakes it to make the thread awkward and get out of an accusation. I'm gonna ask - how often do those happen versus the thread engaging in (intentional or not, I'm not going to go into that) button pushing on someone? How often do people, because they are too involved in the argument or whatever, not realize they should pull back when it's obvious someone is bothered? How often do meltdowns happen in a vaccuum where they are that player and only that player's fault, and they clearly should not play, because they can't handle the game? 'cause if it's more than zero then we do have something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:35
|
|
|
Like, really, Voodoo said it all. I think the paradigm where it's only the person's fault they are having a bad time is bad for the community and it ends up driving people away. This doesn't even mean a concrete change in how games are played, just that getting some collective responsibility for everyone having a good game is IMO a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 07:48
|
|
|
Shellception posted:I'm gonna ask - how often do those happen versus the thread engaging in (intentional or not, I'm not going to go into that) button pushing on someone? How often do people, because they are too involved in the argument or whatever, not realize they should pull back when it's obvious someone is bothered? How often do meltdowns happen in a vaccuum where they are that player and only that player's fault, and they clearly should not play, because they can't handle the game? my impression from the few games i've played has been that the answer is to this is more than zero, but that the problem comes from both sides. i've seen people have bad reactions to being cased without anyone else really seeming to do anything wrong, but then others also not knowing when to leave things be when that bad reaction happens which is where there is an additional problem. obviously we should encourage resilience and for people to just take a step back (and replace out if necessary) if they're having a bad time with the game, but i agree that we should also encourage people to be proactive in reaching out to the mod if they're having a bad time, and also for the mod to privately tell people to back off a bit if they see someone having a bad time. i also agree that people should try to have some awareness of when someone else is having a bad time and take a step back themselves if necessary - this doesn't mean stop voting for someone having a bad time, just that if things have gotten to that point it's not really going to help anyone to keep pressing them for having a bad time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 10:42
|
|
|
lih posted:others also not knowing when to leave things be when that bad reaction happens which is where there is an additional problem. obviously we should encourage resilience This is exactly the emotional blackmail that I'm talking about though. Having a meltdown should not be a method of getting people off your case. That create the perverse incentives to be emotionally manipulative. If someone is reaching that point they need to not be in the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is exactly the emotional blackmail that I'm talking about though. Having a meltdown should not be a method of getting people off your case. That create the perverse incentives to be emotionally manipulative. If someone is reaching that point they need to not be in the game. Calling people having an emotional reaction to the game of having reactions, however motivated or not, "emotional blackmail" and "emotional manipulation" is harsh as hell and an example of the problem I've been arguing for. Also, literally no one is arguing meltdowns should be a reason to get off a vote. Lih themselves hasn't. lih posted:i also agree that people should try to have some awareness of when someone else is having a bad time and take a step back themselves if necessary - this doesn't mean stop voting for someone having a bad time, just that if things have gotten to that point it's not really going to help anyone to keep pressing them for having a bad time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
Shellception posted:Calling people having an emotional reaction to the game of having reactions, however motivated or not, "emotional blackmail" and "emotional manipulation" is harsh as hell and an example of the problem I've been arguing for. There's a difference between having an emotional reaction and having a meltdown that instantly stops discussion about the game and makes people disengage or ask if we need to have an out of game discussion. It's difficult to discuss this while beating around the bush so as for emotional blackmail, I have to note that the incident that stated this discussion ended with "vote him or me or I replace out".
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
This is a tricky topic to really discuss without specific examples and pointing out specific examples is tricky as well without consent from everyone involved in them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
Like far be it from me to tell people that you shouldn't be emotional when you're engaged in a lengthy argument and are getting frustrated. I certainly do. That happens in every game and with almost every player at some time or another. It's immediately obvious that isn't the behavior we need to be discussing. Like I said before there isn't a hard and fast line to point to but somewhere on the spectrum of in-game emotionality it stops being about the game and breaks the magic circle. It's a problem when that happens no matter what and it's particularly a problem when it's then turned around to try to compel people to play the game in a way you'd prefer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:There's a difference between having an emotional reaction and having a meltdown that instantly stops discussion about the game and makes people disengage or ask if we need to have an out of game discussion. It's difficult to discuss this while beating around the bush so as for emotional blackmail, I have to note that the incident that stated this discussion ended with "vote him or me or I replace out". I'm not particularly discussing that case. Nor, tbh, am I discussing any particular others, I don't think names and receipts are going to help the discussion here. It's not a question of what happened when or who said what or if so and so was an rear end in a top hat in that game back then. We all have had a bad reaction or another at some point and we all have contributed to making a situation worse. If someone is having a bad time, mod reaching out and them reaching out to mod before things escalate further (two things that we tend to not do, for one reason or another, but probably because it's just not done; communities tend to move as a block) are ways it doesn't become worse and that should be encouraged. As should "try to not make a situation worse". It isn't contradictory with what you are arguing for. It also isn't a one side issue, and it has never been. Shellception fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:This is a tricky topic to really discuss without specific examples and pointing out specific examples is tricky as well without consent from everyone involved in them. I guess some of the responses do make way more sense in the light of this. But no, really, I'm not trying to be cute on discussing a particular game, apologies if I've come across as that. I think this isn't an issue that's limited to one game or happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
I've been reading this discussion carefully, as a non-mafia player but it's important that we run safe games here on SA. With tabletop RPGs we can have safety tools that allow a player to redirect the current scene and everyone can agree without needing to particularly interrogate the reasons why, and that works because of the cooperative/collaborative nature of the game. It is not "bad" or "wrong" to just retcon a scene or situation when someone's in trouble. The example I always use is a person with arachnophobia doesn't have to discuss why they are being triggered by the giant spider that just dropped on them, but the GM can quickly agree to change the monster in the room and everyone else really shouldn't have a problem with it. But Mafia is a competitive game with winners and losers, the players are trying to get something from one another, and that layers on top of the social construct of the "game between friends" and adds complexity. The boardgame thread just got done having a longish discussion about the validity of resigning in various games, spawned from an earlier discussion that popped up in the Magic thread, and in both cases the question interrogates the ideas of the social meta, the individual's right or responsibility to choose not to continue to participate in something that isn't or has stopped being fun for them, in conflict with their responsibility not to ruin or end a game that requires them to stay in in order to run to completion and provide the fun for the other players. I've seen this in another context with complaints about games with "kingmaking" features. You're not going to win, you know it, but you can still strongly influence which of 2+ other players will win, and how do you decide whether to do that, is it OK, is it expected, how does that feel? One of the key aspects of those conversations that stand out to me is the different ways these different games do or don't explicitly provide tools. In some games, players get eliminated as part of the expected structure, and that means resignation is partially or completely supported within the rules. You can scoop and walk in a multiplayer magic game, there are some very specific gamestates/steps where you can't, and the tournament rules as they stand today specify that in order to minimize the disruption caused by a player resignation. But you "can't" (supposedly) scoop and walk in a lot of different board games, because there's no rules for what to do with, say, the territory you have on the board, your cards, things you have on the table affecting the other players in various ways. When players do that anyway, other players can get mad about it. Online. There's lots of people posting about how that sucks and others talking about how the obligation to keep a game fun for other people doesn't outweigh their desire to not have a bad time for maybe an hour+ more as a cost. So what doesn't get discussed as much, but ought to, is the responsibility the other players have or the group has collectively for the happiness and well-being of all the players within the game. If someone's having a bad time, even if that's caused by the rules - they rolled poorly, or got attacked by three other players because they have a resource they all want, whatever - where does the spirit of competition get limited by the social expectations that our casual boardgame night is supposed to be a fun time between friends? I've been at a table where we realized Lars was annoyed and not having a good time, Cris was probably going to win, and we just agree the game's done now, let's do something we'll all enjoy. That can feel very unsatisfactory if you were 80% to getting your engine going and thought you were gonna come from behind and especially if you just invested 2.5 hours into this game. But sometimes Jan and Ben need to go home now and we're out of time, too. It happens. It also happens that Lars just hasn't got the temperament to play Diplomacy. Gets upset every time, ruins the game, man. We love Lars, he's our pal, the other five of us want to play Diplomacy, we don't wanna exclude Lars, but we gotta somehow. Sucks. In fact, sucks more than ruining one game of Diplomacy by either insisting he play it out, or putting a ton of pressure on him to resign, or swap out, or otherwise just having the whole room focused on Lars while he feels angry and embarrassed. Yeah. It's challenging to hash that out and figure out what to do but it's not OK for the fun that the other five of us are having to come at the expense of our friendship or Lars' wellbeing. This isn't a chess tournament where the expectation is that every player plays as hard as possible and if you can't hack that you don't belong here. Right? What I'm getting around to here is that there can be explicit in-game tools, either built into the structure of the game (in poker you are supposed to fold a lot) or into the group's social contract (at our boardgame weekends you can just say you're having a bad time and we'll play something else). For the latter, inspiration can be had from RPG safety tools. You've been discussing the open door idea: a player can get up and leave, at any time, for any reason, and by making this explicit up front you can destigmatize it and reduce the emotional load from doing so. But that shouldn't be the only remedy.You can and should also have the X-card, tone conversation, and pre-game lines and veils conversations if you want. You should allow for a pause: we can stop tonight's session and pick it back up next week to give the GM and the players a chance to talk, emotions to cool, and time to figure out if any restructuring needs to be done to make the game continue to work for everyone. I gather there's pressure not to "break kayfabe" for want of a better term - as you engage in arguments and interrogations in advance of a vote, you want all the players to stay within their roles. But you can see that someone's getting maybe IRL upset, not just roleplaying as being upset, and that should invoke safety tools that take precedence over immersion. You can pause a game. You can put a thread on timeout. You can step in and say, out of character, "OK this is getting a bit too intense here: regardless of the in-game imperatives to uncover the scum and/or not let anyone figure out you're scum, we have another imperative to protect players and that one is more important." I don't play Mafia so I'm providing generalities, but perhaps those of you that do can figure out structural options to help protect players from excessively unpleasant and unfun situations in-game. Open door shouldn't be the only option. Anyway please continue to figure this stuff out in the spirit of collaborative competition. We want mafia games that are challenging and satisfying and fun and safe. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
if I’m mad you 100% need to stop voting me, I have never been mad tho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 22:49
|
|