Changes to Normal Games (update September 2022)

[TemporalLich]

Reflexive would warp the Normal meta I feel like by adding roles that hurt you if you target.

Also there's the question of Reflexive investigative roles - you'd either have to state who the Reflexive investigative targeted to have it be what most people would except or you'd have a role that is pretty useless and confusing

Normality really needs to be defined or else it's just a cloudy "plays like a typical Mafia game" that leads to the Normal role list being bottom up (like it is now) instead of top down.

[TemporalLich]

if you are a Reflexive Cop these two result formats are

very different

in the information that they provide to the player.

Target is known:

"X is Town."

"Y is Not Town."

The Reflexive Cop would then have a clear and a guilty (and also know that X and Y targeted the Reflexive Cop).

Target is unknown:

"Your target is Town."

"Your target is Not Town."

The Reflexive Cop would only know that a Townie and a scum (or miller) targeted them.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I doubt that the NRG would allow for setups with roles that are not fun to play with (such as a Reflexive Vigilante or a 0-Shot Fruit Vendor).
Regardless, I do think it would be wise to consider how the player base might react to Reflexive being added, and how Reflexive would interact with the role it's attached to.

I feel like Reflexive should be applied like the following:

Reflexive [Role, such as Cop]

During the night, if you are targeted, you will perform your role's action on all players that target you.
Your role's action is [role action, such as Investigation].

[TemporalLich]

0-Shot Fruit Vendor is almost the same thing as Named in a Normal.

Something like Night 999, Night 1e100, or even Night 10↑↑10 would also be almost the same thing as Named.

It is very important to state that Reflexive turns an active role into a passive role, and you can even have an Activated Reflexive role to bring it back to active (but zero target), so a Reflexive role can't be blocked but an Activated Reflexive role theoretically could.

[Jake The Wolfie]

One of the main powers that an investigative would have over any other role type with Reflexive is that you not only know how many people visited you, but also investigation results.

If a Non-Town player visited you, then it's likely that the Mafia either have non-killing abilities or that a Protective role also targeted you.

There are some roles that it wouldn't pair with well, but that's counteracted by the fact that it probably won't show up because it doesn't pair well.

pedit:

I agree with points 1 and 2 ( NightTREE(3) ), and I should probably restate how I understand Reflexive to include this as well.

[TemporalLich]

Consider how you think a Reflexive Checker should work.

If targets are known you're a Self Watcher, if not you're just someone who knows how many people targeted you.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I'd say #2. If I went with #1, then it would essentially make every role (investigative or not) a self-watcher, which is not a desirable effect.
Even just knowing how many players targeted you can be useful, as it allows you to gauge how many Power Roles are in the game (as Vanilla players naturally cannot target.)

[TemporalLich]

I was asking if Reflexive investigatives should have their targets in their results PMs or not - if so literally every Reflexive investigative would be a Self Watcher but the investigatives would actually work like Normal targeted investigatives instead of giving some nebulous info cloud that at the very least tells you how many people targeted you.

A Sentry (Reflexive Vig) or a Reflexive Doc doesn't have results PMs and having them know who they targeted, while an idea worth considering, is not equivalent to Reflexive investigatives as they will work like their Normal targeted counterparts without needing to know their targets.

[TemporalLich]

Consider this condensed info cloud for a Reflexive Watcher who doesn't know their targets:

"You were targeted by someone who wasn't targeted by anyone, by someone who was targeted by X, and by someone who was targeted by Y and Z."

You'd probably intuit that you were targeted by 3 players and there are a lot of Power Roles. Not quite the power you'd expect from a Watcher, which is commonly considered to be equivalent in power to a Cop.

[Ythan]

Normality really needs to be defined or else it's just a cloudy "plays like a typical Mafia game" that leads to the Normal role list being bottom up (like it is now) instead of top down.

If there was some way we could do this it would be wonderful.

[TemporalLich]

Normality really needs to be defined or else it's just a cloudy "plays like a typical Mafia game" that leads to the Normal role list being bottom up (like it is now) instead of top down.

If there was some way we could do this it would be wonderful.

it would require literally building Normal from the ground up again so I doubt the NRG would do that

maybe an intermediate solution would work in outlining the expectations players have for a Normal game?

[Ythan]

Normality really needs to be defined or else it's just a cloudy "plays like a typical Mafia game" that leads to the Normal role list being bottom up (like it is now) instead of top down.

If there was some way we could do this it would be wonderful.

it would require literally building Normal from the ground up again so I doubt the NRG would do that

maybe an intermediate solution would work in outlining the expectations players have for a Normal game?

Agreed and agreed.

[Jake The Wolfie]

it would require literally building Normal from the ground up again so I doubt the NRG would do that

maybe an intermediate solution would work in outlining the expectations players have for a Normal game?

I don't understand point 1. I thought the NRG was just for overseeing and judging incoming Normal suggestions as well as reviewing Proposed Normal Setups.

[TemporalLich]

the NRG and Normal listmod would be the ones with the power to actually build Normal from the ground up again instead of making a proposal.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I still don't see why they couldn't review a proposed restructuring of Normal and choose whether or not to enact it. Just because they didn't make it doesn't mean they don't have the power to enforce it, right?

[implosion]

I don't see how complexity could make something non-normal. We aren't workshopping a Newbie Setup here, we're (partly) trying to create fair and balanced roles to aid in the creation of Normal setups for all (mostly veteran) users to play in.

Complexity is a relevant factor because a normal game should generally be something that a player new to the site or fresh off a newbie game could sign up for and understand without having to go out of their way too far. They should not be at a disadvantage compared to an experienced player by virtue of the experienced player better understanding, e.g., what kinds of interactions they may need to avoid or what kinds of motivations a more complex role might have. This is an argument against reflexive because, for instance, PGOs punish mafia players for what would normally be good play (killing a townie who is acting very aggressively) more than is reasonable.

Another example of a complexity issue with the role is in 833; a new player who gets a result PM like that will have no idea how to interpret or use it.

I'm not as strongly against reflexive as I am against some other more complex things but it has some problems. I think there might be some others that aren't coming to mind atm as well.

As for better defining normals in general/restructuring from the ground up, while there's no intrinsic reason not to do that (other than it being a lot of work) it isn't something I'd do unless I heard a lot of feedback from players that the queue was broken. The problem with some all-encompassing definition is that they serve a variety of purposes. Roughly and in no particular order:

-Normals provide an option for first-time mods other than open games.
-Normals provide an option for players who want to play closed setups where they can reasonably expect what kinds of things to see and won't typically be wildly surprised. They also provide closed games with a reasonable expectation of balance.
-They provide new players a kind of game with the kinds of mechanics that they might expect to see in any game on the site, acclimating them to what is "normal" for MS, rather than mechanics that might be more peculiar to a single game
-They provide constraints on the design process in the hope that constraints breed creativity, but enough freedom so that mods still enjoy designing them on the hopes that mod supply isn't a problem (it has been at various points in the queue's history, but not for quite a while; pre-designed setups helped a lot).
-They provide some amount of stability so that returning players or players from sites with different norms won't be confused by having a wildly different experience from what they're used to.

On the whole, they're supposed to provide a happy medium between open games (where you know exactly what you're playing) and theme games (where you could get absolutely anything) for players that don't like those extremes as much.

[Ythan]

Wow good feedback.

[TemporalLich]

yeah I think Reflexive Vigilante (Sentry / PGO) is enough to consider Reflexive AbNormal

it is meta warping like Supersaint is, it punishes something that would normally be good play and the possibility of such a role existing is undue influence on the meta

[Wake1]

I don't think a Neighborhood with a Night Action built into it would be too complex or difficult to understand. It's fairly simple and could be explained in 3-5 sentences.

[TemporalLich]

all in all I'm hoping to see new roles such as Shield get Normalized and the arcane complexity of Reflexive is a point against it (seriously, how would you resolve a Reflexive Bodyguard?! or a Reflexive Babysitter?!) being Normalized but meta warping is a more severe concern imo and PGO is meta warping to the point I don't want Reflexive to be Normalized (even if PGO itself is banned, consider how Reflexive Cop is almost as warping).

pedit: a "factional" neighborhood action is a new mechanic and Normal should just be Normal. Especially considering that the towny and scummy neighbor will fight over the action, it would require an additional new mechanic of voting for actions (Not Normal at all). Sorry, but neighborhood actions aren't Normal in my eyes.

[Jake The Wolfie]

yeah I think Reflexive Vigilante (Sentry / PGO) is enough to consider Reflexive AbNormal

it is meta warping like Supersaint is, it punishes something that would normally be good play and the possibility of such a role existing is undue influence on the meta

I don't understand this idea of why the idea of "Punishing what would normally be good play" is respected here, but not in other places:

Protectors explicitly punish going for the best kill target possible on any given night, as one clear cut example.
Ninja- punishes a good Followatcher for (usually) going to the correct player
Strongman-Mafioso again punishes good play from protectors/roleblockstoppers.
Diametrically, a Bad play would be a Vigilante shooting a player who was protected, but who is also anti-town (in favor of a non-protected anti-town, or not shooting at all)

[implosion]

It's partially because of the genetic fallacy, except that it's not actually a fallacy because the point is literally that - that normal games are normal. Mechanics like protection and counter-roles (i.e. ninja) are normal because they're currently normalized; they reflect mechanics seen across the site, and across social deception games very broadly.

Sometimes there are competing interests here, and the obvious piece of history to point to is godfather being blacklisted after previously being whitelisted, partially because it punished players for using their ability (though also other reasons). But in the current normal meta there's an expectation that results from many roles can be incorrect if certain conditions are met, like the existence of a ninja or a mafia doctor for gunsmiths and so on.

Reflexive vigilantes or bombs also punish this "good play" a lot harder than a doctor does or a ninja does; abilities that kill are extremely powerful. I don't think this is the strongest argument against reflexive as a modifier tbf (one could argue it could be normalized but that the NRG should never allow a reflexive vigilante, similar to how right now they should never allow a multitasking cop vigilante gunsmith even though it's technically normal). The other arguments cover the modifier more broadly.

[Wake1]

OK so what ARE you guys able to allow, because so far all you're doing is shooting ideas down.

[Ythan]

Only just noticed that this thread does not actually seem to be for recommending changes. Or has that changed since the op, and that not been updated?

[Jake The Wolfie]

I don't see how complexity could make something non-normal. We aren't workshopping a Newbie Setup here, we're (partly) trying to create fair and balanced roles to aid in the creation of Normal setups for all (mostly veteran) users to play in.

Complexity is a relevant factor because a normal game should generally be something that a player new to the site or fresh off a newbie game could sign up for and understand without having to go out of their way too far. They should not be at a disadvantage compared to an experienced player by virtue of the experienced player better understanding, e.g., what kinds of interactions they may need to avoid or what kinds of motivations a more complex role might have. This is an argument against reflexive because, for instance, PGOs punish mafia players for what would normally be good play (killing a townie who is acting very aggressively) more than is reasonable.

It seems to me like you want to have a more restricted and simple Normal role pool for the benefit of players who would like playing more chillaxed games. Alright, you have have that. You are a moderator after all. Even if you weren't, you could still ask the NRG to align Normalcy with your view.
However, what about players who want to know what to expect, but at the same time want a more complex game? Your position seems to exclude them from playing in Normal games, which means they either move to Theme games (which means they might not always know what to expect, and they might not want to play a themed game), go to Mishmash (HaaH), or to go offsite completely (where Normalcy might vary wildly, or where none might exist.)

As for better defining normals in general/restructuring from the ground up, while there's no intrinsic reason not to do that (other than it being a lot of work) it isn't something I'd do unless I heard a lot of feedback from players that the queue was broken. The problem with some all-encompassing definition is that they serve a variety of purposes. Roughly and in no particular order:

-Normals provide an option for first-time mods other than open games.
-Normals provide an option for players who want to play closed setups where they can reasonably expect what kinds of things to see and won't typically be wildly surprised. They also provide closed games with a reasonable expectation of balance.
-They provide new players a kind of game with the kinds of mechanics that they might expect to see in any game on the site, acclimating them to what is "normal" for MS, rather than mechanics that might be more peculiar to a single game
-They provide constraints on the design process in the hope that constraints breed creativity, but enough freedom so that mods still enjoy designing them on the hopes that mod supply isn't a problem (it has been at various points in the queue's history, but not for quite a while; pre-designed setups helped a lot).
-They provide some amount of stability so that returning players or players from sites with different norms won't be confused by having a wildly different experience from what they're used to.

On the whole, they're supposed to provide a happy medium between open games (where you know exactly what you're playing) and theme games (where you could get absolutely anything) for players that don't like those extremes as much.

As I said above, there is a player who would indeed be interested in a Simple Game. That is true. However, there are other players who want to play a Normal game (with all of its' benefits) but also want a more complex game.
Now, I don't see any obvious solutions to this other than "Add more complexity" or "Split the Queue into Simple and Complex", both of which have very real and very fundamental problems which would need to be addressed before either was implemented. However, I still think it's important to expose the incompleteness of "Complexity is bad for people who don't like Complexity" because it shows a blind spot in where you might be looking. I'm not saying that it's a flawed or even incorrect statement, all I'm saying is that it's incomplete, and a more complete view of reality will help us discuss further.