ESPIONAGE: A brand new simple forum game! (Central Rules & Information Topic)

[Iwamoto Yuri]

I have many reasons to object, since forgetting to vote doesn't mean I won't leave some deductions around... I mean, I have, haven't I?
Besides, someone might be more busy than thought and forget all about it... I must admit that I have been busier than I expected, and that sometimes makes me forget I'm currently playing a game on the internet.

[Stopwatch]

There does need to be something in place to prevent inactivity. I can't say the extent until this round is over, but it is a problem that really needs to be solved. I'm not entirely certain how good the self-vote suggestion is, but I'd need to have a think before I could possibly come up with anything better than that or replacements.

[Jd-]

We definitely won't settle on anything until after this round and we gather everyone's thoughts here from the experiences therein. It's become quite exciting and raised some new questions, so let's wait and see.

[Jd-]

OK, so, a few changes/clarifications that I feel should be made:

- Special role players are not required to use their actions on a given day, allowing them to create alibis/confusion as needed. However, this should be used sparingly, as it will be really hard to win if so many civilians stay alive.

- The self-voting rule for weeding out inactivity seems to be a fairly good bet. Let's see what everyone says about it now after the last game ended. We do need to address inactivity in a big way, though. Having people be voted from the lists as a result of inactivity also brings up other questions (such as inadvertently revealing lists as a result, making it harder to form deductions based on votes, etc).

- I want to limit the next game to 18 or so players, and encourage those that are interested in signing up to ensure they can be as active as possible. I think it'll make for a more coherent and interesting game experience that has a more concentrated player base. Of course, if interest is through the roof or some really excited players can't get in for seeing it too late, we can make exceptions.

- Lists should always be 7 players if more than a set number of players are in the game. This is because if there are say, 10, 14, 18, or 24 players, always having a list of 7 is reasonable to help guide your deductions. If the list got any bigger, it'd be really hard to ever have it come down.

- I'm considering the idea of allowing one Informant to make a kill of their own once per game, meaning no matter how many informants there are, only one of them can use it. May call it "Conspire" and ensure that it stands out against Spy kills, by having the GM show that the person who died that way "died in an accident under suspicious circumstances" to set it apart from the Spy's. Just an idea to float around for now, to add that extra element to the game.

- I'll make a special button and link the GM can use to encourage voting/use of actions. That way, people won't have an excuse for having to spend a little extra time to get their votes in. The GM can just include that staple in all of their posts and people can get used to using that if they aren't too accustomed to the normal system. I'll also create some easy go-to links for the rules and such, etc.

- Another special role to aid the Detective is something that I've been thinking about. Depending on the results from last time, I'll decide whether or not to mention it here.

- I'll clarify the amount of Informants that will show up in the first post. We already worked out the ratios before, just haven't posted them.

I'm sure some more will come up as we uncover what went down during Day 2 from that round, etc. I'm not too worried about strictly keeping it really simple so much as just ensuring we have a good game developed here. It still needs to be very approachable and easy to play, but I think the key to that is to ensure that all of the roles/rules are easy to understand, not necessarily that there are more rulings. We'll find a good balance against that, I'm sure.

[Iwamoto Yuri]

Ok, I am still against the vote for yourself rule. It is not a way to motivate people, especially if they miss a phase due to circumstances and end up being eliminated because of it. It's already suspicious enough if you vote the same person multiple times... With me often forgetting the time phase change was that ended up happening two times, even though my first vote on bash was actually my own and not a generated one...
Still, I think we need to find another way to motivate people into voting, but not in this way.

Also, informants should not be able to kill, it would overpower the spy and with us having to guess who it is right now it's simply not fair if we now get eliminated three at a time. I do agree on the idea of a helping hand on the detective's side though, it could help a lot.

Also, as I said, but most of you will disagree on, I think we shouldn't allow players to have the same role twice unless they are civilians and multiple informants/watsons. I'm saying this because I think the main role should switch around more. However, a Spy in one round could still be an informant in the other, which means that no one can be trusted even if they aren't the spy or detective in the other round.
It's also mainly because I really wanted an important role this time and don't think it's fair Raiden got lucky twice, so you can ignore me if you don't agree
*walks away whistling*

[Jd-]

The reasoning for self-voting is pretty simple. Foremost, we do need people to vote no matter what in this game. The classic "no-vote" strategy that emerged in Mafia would make this game really lopsided and not very engaging, so we need to find a way to ensure everyone always votes and, more importantly, always have a reason to vote. We need to avoid revealing the lists through those votes, which is a cornerstone of the game (to avoid revealing your list).

Inactive players, evil as it may sound, really should be the first ones to be arrested just because they make it really, really easy for the Spy to hide and pick people off one by one until he or she arrives at the Detective.

If inactive players automatically vote for themselves, that is definitely the best possible reason to ensure everyone finds a minute each day to send in a vote. It is possible that things come up and they get busy, but I don't think we can make rules in the game that are centric on allowing people to be inactive. Right now, with the current ruleset, there's not really a protocol in place for the Spy/Informants not sending in a vote. With this, we never have to worry about that again because all of the self-votes would already be decided. Yes, it's sad when things come up in real life, but I don't want to craft the whole game around X, Y, and Z may be busy one day and thus we have to be sure to hold their place in line until they get back.

I think you're right that it may well overpower the Spy's side to have an additional kill, but keep in mind it is only once per game, so the dreaded civilian nightmare of losing three players at once can only happen once per game anyway.

I don't see us implementing a rule about not having a certain role twice in a row, as the chances are already pretty astronomical and is just something that will happen (albeit it extremely rarely). It's of course something that can be discussed in each round's topic, as came up with Raiden this time. It's a genuine statistical concern to have and a fun one to debate, so I think it's a fun angle to leave in.

As for the appeal of special roles, I actually like in this game that being a civilian is important in itself. It's kind of a role that you can make your own--some people will be idea makers, some will be making deductions, some will be carefully examining everything that's said, etc.

[Iwamoto Yuri]

and then the detective dies round one because he votes for himself
If you want to motivate people to vote come up with another idea Jd-

[Raiden]

Ok, I am still against the vote for yourself rule. It is not a way to motivate people, especially if they miss a phase due to circumstances and end up being eliminated because of it. It's already suspicious enough if you vote the same person multiple times... With me often forgetting the time phase change was that ended up happening two times, even though my first vote on bash was actually my own and not a generated one...

@The bolded part:
I see it differently. It actually make it much easier to narrow down who the civilians are when they vote the same person more than once in a round--but maybe that is just me? I think it should be taken into consideration at least. It shouldn't be too easy to narrow down just because some people are inactive a round or two for one reason or another...

At this point I am neither for or against self-votes for inactivity. This may change.

[Jd-]

and then the detective dies round one because he votes for himself
If you want to motivate people to vote come up with another idea Jd-

If the Detective dies Day One because they didn't take the time to send in a vote, then... I can't help but think that's the Detective's fault. Is the Detective in this example going to skate by and not vote for most of the game, or just one phase? If they're going to be that absent, that's probably not going to bode very well for anyone.

Keep in mind that this really does even things out: now, since it doesn't rely on lists, everyone can be absent and have the same result (voting themselves), which was not the case before since not everyone had a list from which the GM could draw a vote from for inactives. Self-votes don't make it so that only civilians can self-vote, either, since there's no reason that the Detective or Spy can't utilize the same tact to hide as a civilian, other than it's dangerous to do so. However, it's dangerous for anyone to do it because many of the votes are random anyway.

[Jd-]

Future Concept Round Proposal: Team Espionage

Everyone signs up as they always have, but once the game begins, you are randomly paired up with a partner. Each team of two live and die together, so if one is arrested, so is the other, and same for kills. You'll have several teams of civilians, one pair of Detectives, and all against one team of Spies. So, as the game progresses, you'll be voting for teams (ie. "We vote for Fujiwara/Stopwatch") instead of voting for one individual member.

Rules about communication aren't set in stone, so maybe it'd be best if each team can freely communicate in PM. Or, maybe not? Maybe it would add a fun wrinkle to not be able to speak to your teammate directly. Not entirely sure what's best at this point, but I think it could make for a really fun and interesting round later on.

Also, for maximum hype, the teams should be gradually revealed every few minutes or something, because... that's hype.

[Kleene Onigiri]

OK, so, a few changes/clarifications that I feel should be made:

- Special role players are not required to use their actions on a given day, allowing them to create alibis/confusion as needed. However, this should be used sparingly, as it will be really hard to win if so many civilians stay alive.

I think that's good. Since killing are revealing lists, if the spy doesn't want to reveal too many lists at once, he should be able to do so

- The self-voting rule for weeding out inactivity seems to be a fairly good bet. Let's see what everyone says about it now after the last game ended. We do need to address inactivity in a big way, though. Having people be voted from the lists as a result of inactivity also brings up other questions (such as inadvertently revealing lists as a result, making it harder to form deductions based on votes, etc).

I'm fine with the self-voting rule. Yuris counter argument was, that the detective could get voted because of that. But I think it's more likely that inactive people get to vote the detective more likely with the current system of voting for the one on the first place on the list (or something like that).
Because if you get the role of detective, you're usually more eager and less likely to go inactive.
While inactive people could have the same person they vote when inactive, adding to that some random votes from active people, the detective could suddenly get voted out

And if you just happen to be inactive 1 or 2 phases, the self-voting won't get you arrested immediately on it's own. Just when others are also voting for the inactive one, then the self-voting would just add more fuel into the voting and getting kicked out XD

But someone else also wanted to say something about the self-voting. So let's wait for their opinion too

- I want to limit the next game to 18 or so players, and encourage those that are interested in signing up to ensure they can be as active as possible. I think it'll make for a more coherent and interesting game experience that has a more concentrated player base. Of course, if interest is through the roof or some really excited players can't get in for seeing it too late, we can make exceptions.

I'm against that. Mainly because I don't think that this will ensure people to be active. From Mafia experience (GMing and not GMing), I know that people that were always active in the past, happen to become inactive too sometimes (especially when you put them up as BO... XD) And there could also be just internet issues, that people can't prevent either.
Also, I think that will scare people and especially new people away. Once you arrive at the limit of 18 people, the people that also want to join probably won't apply, because they will think that it's full anyway. So it'll hinder the game to expand and will shoo away new people
The problem in Mafia is also, that there are all "old Mafia players", and you just know how they act and when they lie etc. So the game is not so exciting as it was with "new players" :x

So if it's for the sake of getting inactive players out, I don't think that method is effective
Instead I have a different idea: People that were inactive in round 3 aren't allowed to join the next round, aka round 4 (but later on they can join again). You gotta define what inactive means tho: like being inactive for 2-3 phases, meaning no voting and no talking at all. Being inactive for one phase or forgetting to vote once or twice shouldn't get punished immediately imo :3
Because I think when people are inactive in one round, they don't care much about that round. But they could care about joining the next one, maybe because they have more time then etc.

- Lists should always be 7 players if more than a set number of players are in the game. This is because if there are say, 10, 14, 18, or 24 players, always having a list of 7 is reasonable to help guide your deductions. If the list got any bigger, it'd be really hard to ever have it come down.

That's fine I think. Since my list didn't get reduced at all till day 5 D: Because no one that was on my list was arrested or killed :x XD
I shouldn't play Bingo...

- I'm considering the idea of allowing one Informant to make a kill of their own once per game, meaning no matter how many informants there are, only one of them can use it. May call it "Conspire" and ensure that it stands out against Spy kills, by having the GM show that the person who died that way "died in an accident under suspicious circumstances" to set it apart from the Spy's. Just an idea to float around for now, to add that extra element to the game.

Not sure about that... wouldn't that make the Informant too much like the spy? Since the spy's main ability is the killing :V Not sure about that yet D:

A different idea: The informant can reveal a list of someone the spy killed completely and get the info for himself?
Like, he sees that Jd- died and revealed a list where the spy isn't listed. So he wants that list to be revealed completely to him.
With that, the outcome could be that the remaining names contain: only spy, only detective or both.
Since the Informant can't talk directly to the spy, he'd have to hint it to him through the thread. Which would also make the Informant more important and also make people more wary about the Informant (no one cared about the Informant in round 2 imo :x). And people could also try to figure out the informants hints too

- I'll make a special button and link the GM can use to encourage voting/use of actions. That way, people won't have an excuse for having to spend a little extra time to get their votes in. The GM can just include that staple in all of their posts and people can get used to using that if they aren't too accustomed to the normal system. I'll also create some easy go-to links for the rules and such, etc.

BUTTONS! \o/

- Another special role to aid the Detective is something that I've been thinking about. Depending on the results from last time, I'll decide whether or not to mention it here.

Hmmm~ Maybe? \o/

- I'll clarify the amount of Informants that will show up in the first post. We already worked out the ratios before, just haven't posted them.

More than 2? :V

I'm sure some more will come up as we uncover what went down during Day 2 from that round, etc. I'm not too worried about strictly keeping it really simple so much as just ensuring we have a good game developed here. It still needs to be very approachable and easy to play, but I think the key to that is to ensure that all of the roles/rules are easy to understand, not necessarily that there are more rulings. We'll find a good balance against that, I'm sure.

Let's put math into the rulings so everyone get's scared! \o/ *flees*

@Team Espionage:
Call it Lovers Espionage! XD
I find that idea funny! We should try it at least once! If it good, maybe make turns, like one game normal, one game Team, one game normal etc.
Not being able to communicate sounds also funny! :3 Maybe just being able to talk through orders? Although that would mean a lot of work for GMs
No, no revealing teams! :V *gives anti-hype pills to Jd* XD

[Jd-]

Throwing caution to the wind, let's get this going immediately! Round 3 sign-ups are open... NOW! And it's full-on Team Espionage! We still need a GM, so whoever's up for it and can do it beginning on Sunday--!

[Jd-]

---

Variants Thus Far

Team Espionage Variant (BEING USED FOR ROUND THREE NOW)

An all-new variant of the game known as Team Espionage operates very much so like the original game but with a twist: players are now randomly assigned a partner at the start of the game. In this variant, there is one team of Detectives, one team of Spies, and several pairs of civilians. Unlike in the normal game of Espionage, in Team Espionage, you are allowed to communicate in private messages but ONLY WITH YOUR TEAMMATE. All votes and actions (such as Investigate and Execute) target a team, not an individual player. Teammates must work together to decide on actions and votes, with only one member of the team being required to send their actions to the GM. If both players send in actions to the GM, whichever arrived the latest will be taken as their action for a given phase.

As of this iteration, Informants are not incorporated into this version of the game.

Secret Team Espionage Variant (ALTERNATE TAKE FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE ROUND)

Another concept based on Team Espionage with players again being randomly assigned teammates at the start of the game from the pool of players, but with the added facet of other players not knowing who your teammate is. In this variant, only you are privy to the identity of your partner and you may still communicate privately. However, actions and votes in general are not shared, with players living and dying separately.

[Iwamoto Yuri]

Still willing to be gm here o/

[Fujiwara]

Future Concept Round Proposal: Team Espionage

Everyone signs up as they always have, but once the game begins, you are randomly paired up with a partner. Each team of two live and die together, so if one is arrested, so is the other, and same for kills. You'll have several teams of civilians, one pair of Detectives, and all against one team of Spies. So, as the game progresses, you'll be voting for teams (ie. "We vote for Fujiwara/Stopwatch") instead of voting for one individual member.

Don't vote for Fujiwara/Stopwatch :v We're totally innocent! *glances sideways*
Seriously though, this sounds like a lot of fun.

A different idea: The informant can reveal a list of someone the spy killed completely and get the info for himself?
Like, he sees that Jd- died and revealed a list where the spy isn't listed. So he wants that list to be revealed completely to him.

*nods* This sounds like a really good idea.

With that, the outcome could be that the remaining names contain: only spy, only detective or both.
Since the Informant can't talk directly to the spy, he'd have to hint it to him through the thread. Which would also make the Informant more important and also make people more wary about the Informant (no one cared about the Informant in round 2 imo :x). And people could also try to figure out the informants hints too

I actually cared a lot about the informant, in case that wasn't obvious.
Just the fact that there was still an informant out there made me trust no one and regard everyone with suspicion, even though I was able to rule certain people out from being the spy. I didn't really try to get the informant arrested though for 2 reasons:
1. The people I suspected of maybe being the informant were people I certainly didn't want to lost if they were innocent.
2. The people I suspected were at the same time not on my list of spy suspects, so arresting them wouldn't have narrowed down my suspects list at all. It was much better for me to arrest potentially innocent civilians (Sorry Meme!) that would help me reduce my list.