In post 999, TemporalLich wrote:Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal).
My feelings.
Revealing JOAT abilities is, imo, how the role
should
function.
Players should not be denied that information.
If a rolecop rolecops a JOAT they should see what the JOAT flips as, but the JOAT in my opinion shouldn't flip as just JOAT; they should flip as JOAT (abilities). The latter is what I always use in games I design/mod, so is my preference.
In post 999, TemporalLich wrote:Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal). A "Limited Reveal" role that would redact any abilities from the flip other than "Limited Reveal" itself isn't and shouldn't be Normal.
In post 999, TemporalLich wrote:Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal). A "Limited Reveal" role that would redact any abilities from the flip other than "Limited Reveal" itself isn't and shouldn't be Normal.
Why should it not be normal?
It knowably withholds information that is reasonably expected to be known.
In post 999, TemporalLich wrote:Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal). A "Limited Reveal" role that would redact any abilities from the flip other than "Limited Reveal" itself isn't and shouldn't be Normal.
Why should it not be normal?
It knowably withholds information that is reasonably expected to be known.
That isn't Normal, but it isn't bastard either.
It's only reasonably expected to be known because of how Mafia has evolved on this particular site. Should things have gone differently, it would seem strange to suggest that we would reveal player's roles when they died.
I honestly had no idea that was true of JoAT and am going to just dictate that's not the case and update the wiki. JoAT should just be another name for a multirole of 1-shot roles, arbitrary withholding of info is something that isn't really normal on this site.
In post 1003, Jake The Wolfie wrote:It's only reasonably expected to be known because of how Mafia has evolved on this particular site. Should things have gone differently, it would seem strange to suggest that we would reveal player's roles when they died.
This is true, but this is the normal queue; it's the queue that is based on site norms, which are based on how mafia happens to have evolved. Site norms are that it is unusual to withhold role info when someone dies, excepting cases where there's explicit reason to (e.g. mafia's teammates, neighbors' neighbors, informed roles' info). This isn't an intrinsically better way to play the game but it is how the game is typically played here.
Regarding the unstickying I did agree to it, I think this thread doesn't strictly need to be stickied at all times and I'll resticky it when there are updates. This thread has become a de facto place to discuss normal games but I don't think there's so much demand for that discussion that it needs to be permanently stickied.
In post 1004, implosion wrote:This is true, but this is the normal queue; it's the queue that is based on site norms, which are based on how mafia happens to have evolved. Site norms are that it is unusual to withhold role info when someone dies, excepting cases where there's explicit reason to (e.g. mafia's teammates, neighbors' neighbors, informed roles' info). This isn't an intrinsically better way to play the game but it is how the game is typically played here.
What has been made as normal has changed over the years to accommodate new and innovative ways to play. I can't find any examples off the top of my head, but I'm sure that some of the things that we do now would have been strange to do a few years back. What is considered normal is not defined by something in nature, it's defined by us.
Now, you haven't recently said anything on whether a power role that is self-redacting, so I'm not exactly arguing with you on whether or not it could qualify as normal. If you would be so kind as to offer your thoughts, I would appreciate them.
It is defined by us, and I think the way that normal is currently defined on the site excludes arbitrary redaction of role information post-death. All the other examples of it are non-arbitrary, but denying info about what a JoAT's abilities are is arbitrary in that there's no specific need for it. Role info redaction has the potential for outsized influence on game swing or balance, because it can singlehandedly kill the ability for players to do meaningful setup speculation if that role dies before it can claim.
If there was a demand for that kind of mechanism in the queue, I'd consider it. But (1) I'm doubtful such a demand exists because it contradicts my current understanding of site norms, (2) it'd need to be a pretty large demand and there'd need to fairly little resistance to it from the site/the NRG because of its potential for outsized influence on games, and (3) I'd want to implement it in a more thoughtful way than just saying JoATs in particular have an option of having their abilities redacted, which feels very arbitrary that a setup designer who specifically wants to include information redaction would have to design around the restriction that this is the only way they can implement it. There have been significant changes to normal games over time, but those have been related to either simplifying the review process (e.g. eliminating the greylist) or trying to respond to things that players on the site seem to broadly want (eliminating godfathers, no multiball/sks in minis, adding new roles, etc) and I haven't seen a broad desire for this sort of thing, though people are welcome to say so if they do want it.
In post 1010, Gamma Emerald wrote:oh yeah, x-result would be very good as a x-shot that gets refunded shots if it's blocked
tbh I think it should just be whitelisted?
X-Result as literally X-Result would only count successful investigations. Adding the Recharged modifier which can work for any role and also works for JoATs is better if you just want shots to be refunded to an x-shot role (as well as making the role a pseudo Checker).
e.g. Recharged 1-shot Cop may cop check until not roleblocked.
(Sidenote, I still find it weird how roleblocks do have the inconsistency between what they do to an x-shot role, and what they do to a role that'd be seen by any action-investigating role.
If a roleblocker prevents the action from being taken, logically, an x-shot role should retain their shot, but not be seen visiting by action-investigation roles. Think of this like a vigilante with a single bullet, if they're knocked out in their house before they can visit, logically they should still have that bullet since they were unconscious and thus, never pulled the trigger.
If a roleblocker causes the action taken to fail, then logically, the x-shot role should lose their shot, because they attempted the action unsuccessfully. They should thus also show up to an action-investigation role.
Back to the vigilante, this would be a situation where the vig visits the target and takes the shot, but something like a misfire causes it to fail. Defective bullet, missed the target due to being distracted, etc.
But by Normal standards, we have half of one and half of the other, in spite of the logical inconsistency of having a shot disappear in spite of no visit.
I understand the reason WHY we have it that way; we don't want X-shot roles to know that they were explicitly roleblocked by telling them that they have their shot still; we don't want to leave an X-shot role not knowing how many shots they have left; we don't want to have the role visit but have their action fail.
These three things are evolved, but now expected, standards. It was considered too much information to let x-shot roles know that they had been blocked; it was considered too little/bastard to leave the X-shot roles not knowing how many shots they have. So the only option was making the shots be consumed regardless.
And at some point, roles visiting in spite of being blocked got deemed not normal.
But by semantics, it still makes no sense, dammit.
It's imo still the best standard to use, but logically by wording it's inconsistent as fuck.)
It doesn't really matter how this gets resolved either way, but it not being resolved is a little horrifying. At the very least, announce it as intended behaviour, and require moderators to announce how this interaction will resolve, although really the best fix is to just choose a side here. We don't need a new section for each normal game's ruleset entitled "Role Interaction Resolution.")
Is it strange I don't see a logical problem with X-shot losing shots due to failed actions and action investigators not seeing blocked actions?
X-shot really means you can attempt that action X times, and if an action failed you still attempted that action.
as for action investigators, they are currently in something I'd consider their own layer of complexity - due to flavor reasons they care if a role "connects". A role "connects" if it isn't blocked, but failing due to protection still counts as "connecting". Commuting would be yet another layer of complexity, and I don't think it's worth changing how all action investigators work to remove that layer of complexity as it would be a sudden and sweeping change.
also, I slightly prefer action investigators being able to see attempted actions as opposed to just successful actions, as it's easier to resolve action investigators if they check for attempted actions. (the only way an action isn't attempted is if a non-Compulsive role doesn't submit their action)
In post 1012, mastina wrote:we don't want to have the role visit but have their action fail.
Is that not how kills work if stopped by protection though?
Or doctors targetting a macho player?
A lot of actions make more sense doing this instead of not visiting.
Hello everyone! For the first time in years, I'm updating the rules and guidelines for normal games. Feel free to discuss any of it in this thread.
Spoiler: Public setup complexity ratings
As a new optional feature of the queue, mods may elect to have me publicly declare their game as "simple" or "complex" when it goes into signups. This is not mandatory for any setup, though reviewers may choose to suggest or request them. Reviewers may not require them - a mod is always allowed to run a game with no complexity tag.
Complexity tags serve a few purposes. First, they allow a new player to know what they're getting themself into, and potentially sign up for a different game (such as a newbie or open) if they want to avoid something too complex. Second, they give players in general a better sense of what they're signing up for to their preferences. The normal queue has long been a place for a few different "flavors" of game: it's been a place for relatively simple closed setups with basic mechanics, but also a place where many mods have used the maxim of restriction breeding creativity as a means to innovate and push the bounds of "normal". This is also an attempt to acknowledge that duality.
Complexity is defined by the following collection of characteristics. The more of them that a game has, the more likely it should be labeled complex rather than simple. The reverse is true as well: the fewer of these are applicable, the more likely the setup ought to be labeled as simple rather than complex.
Having several roles with modifiers, especially modifiers that affect targeting (e.g. simple, loyal) or fundamentally affect the way one would play the role (e.g. announcing, weak)
Having some roles with several modifiers
Having a large proportion of non-vanilla roles in general
Having anything that could be construed as a red herring (e.g., two of the same town role, a backup or enabler without a main role, a neighborhood with only mafia, a miller without a cop, etc.)
Having complicated interactions between roles (e.g. multiple blocking roles that may affect each other, generally anything that might make a reviewer need to think twice about how it would work)
Having many roles that aren't seen as frequently in normal games
Anything else that would potentially defy the expectations of a player who's played normal games before
These labels are optional. If a mod does want to use a label, a reviewer needs to approve it. The only labels are "simple" and "complex"; there is no in-between. This is an attempt to minimize the amount of information about the setup that is leaked by applying the labels - anything more granular risks players being able to evaluate claims in the context of the game's complexity rating with potentially high precision. There may be setups where neither label is appropriate to use; in this case, simply don't use a label. Unlabeled setups, as before, may fall anywhere on the complexity spectrum.
Spoiler: Mod messages' sources must be explicit
As a new rule, all mod messages that are being sent to players must explicitly specify where they come from. If a player is not sure why they were sent a message, they have a right to ask the mod, and the mod must tell them.
For example: a mailman's message should include something at the top that says, e.g., "The following message is being sent to you by a mailman:". If a friendly neighbor targets you, the message should be explicit that it's being sent because of a friendly neighbor role. If a loud player targets someone, the message should make it clear that it's because of a loud role. Etcetera.
Normal games should not be a place for players to try to cheese wins by sending a mailman message that's designed to look like a friendly neighbor message; this is an attempt to formalize that.
Spoiler: Modular roles
This is not a change so much as an attempt to clarify one of the nightmare areas of normal games. There are a few roles that it currently applies to: the most important is enabler, but it also applies to role-finder and JoAT (see below under aliases). This is simply an acknowledgement that these roles are not simply roles or modifiers: they are roles that need to include another role's name to be syntactically valid as a role name.
Specifically: previously, enabler was listed as a modifier. Now, it is not a modifier: it is a modular role, meaning "enabler" is not a valid role, but e.g. cop enabler is. However, since it's not a modifier, a cop enabler is not a cop: it will not show as having a gun to a gunsmith, its death will not turn a backup cop into a cop, and so on.
A modular role can be backed up; e.g., you can have a backup finder (who would become a cop-finder if a cop-finder dies) or a backup JoAT (who would become a JoAT whenever any JoAT dies, with the abilities of whatever JoAT died).
Spoiler: Role aliases
A few roles now have official aliases. You can use either name in any context.
The first two are to avoid forced gendered language:
Strongman: Unstoppable.
Mailman: Messenger.
The third is simply an explicit formalization: Jack of All Trades is explicitly an alias for a multirole where all roles have one shot. E.g., the following two roles are identical in every way:
Jack of All Trades (1x Doctor, 1x Roleblocker)
1-shot Doctor 1-shot Roleblocker
It can also be thought of as a modular role (where the thing you need to specify is the list of 1-shot abilities). There must be at least two abilities. A role counts as a Jack of All Trades (for the purposes of e.g. a backup JoAT or a JoAT enabler) if it is a multirole of at least two 1-shot active abilities.
Spoiler: New whitelisted roles
The following roles are now officially whitelisted. There are no new modifiers.
Reporter: each night, target a player. You will learn a yes/no answer for whether or not they targeted another player.
Inspector: each night, target a player. You will learn a yes/no answer for whether or not they were targeted by any other players.
Shield: each night, target a player. If that player performs a kill, the kill fails and the shield dies instead. This has essentially the same mechanics as bodyguard.
Security Guard: each night, target a player. That player is told who else (other than the security guard) targeted them. Note the above info box about mod messages: it should be clear that this information is coming from a Security Guard.
Visionary: each night, target a player. That player is told a list of what other ability types (same rules as voyeur) targeted them. Note the above info box about mod messages: it should be clear that this information is coming from a Visionary.
Credit to TemporalLich for making me aware of all of these roles (I don't know if they came up with them).
Spoiler: Normal role tier list
This is a new guideline to help moderators and reviewers assess balance and come up with ideas for changing a setup. For instance, often in a review, a reviewer might say that a setup is scumsided and needs another moderate town power role to be balanced. Often, reviewers and prospective mods will have very different ideas of how much adding a role will affect game balance. This guideline is intended to help people estimate how much adding a role might affect balance.
There are some caveats: this is not a substitute for a proper review. There are many factors of balance that it does not account for. Most importantly: 1) interactions between roles, for instance, a gunsmith becomes weaker if the mafia have a doctor. 2) interactions with modifiers, which depend on what role is being modified (for instance, a loyal cop is not much different from a cop, but a loyal roleblocker is drastically weaker than a roleblocker). 3) setup-wide considerations like the number of power roles on each side and how players might speculate about the setup. 4) other setup-wide design considerations, like what a role's purpose within a setup is, how likely its claim is to be believable, and so on.
This is more of a thought-spurring thing, where if you think "hm, i could use a weak investigative role", you can look at this list and get some ideas. Also note that this is only for town roles - mafia roles' utility generally depends largely on what the town has (for instance, a roleblocker is more useful the more things it can block). There are generally different strengths to mafia roles, but it's more common for balance adjustments in setup design to be made by modifying the town side. Also, beware that roles within a tier are not equal in power (for instance, cop and gunsmith are in the same tier, but of course the former is stronger). Roles are listed very roughly in order within tiers.
Spoiler: Newly released reviews
I've released a huge backlog of well over 50 normal reviews, for interested parties. I still have a backlog of pre-designed setups, which I'll release at some point this week (if you're interested in them and I forget to do this, feel free to shoot me a PM).
Reviews marked with a (*) were already public (most likely because the mod PMed me asking to release it), but I'm listing them anyway to make this list complete for at least roughly early 2020 to now (at least, all reviews that can be released now).
I've updated the wiki to reflect the new Normal changes.
Reporter and Inspector weren't my ideas, though Inspector might be an original name for the binary Watcher. Reporter however is an old name for what used to be a historical role, my proposal was for it to be the name of the binary Tracker. mastina is actually the first person to mention the Reporter in this thread specifically.
I did come up with Shield, Security Guard, and Visionary however.
(p.s. my name for the Role Watcher equivalent to Security Guard and Visionary is Role Guard.)
(p.p.s. I disagree with Shield being so low on the tier list, a Shield that crumbs its targets is quite powerful)
Last edited by TemporalLich on Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
In post 1017, TemporalLich wrote:(p.p.s. I disagree with Shield being so low on the tier list, a Shield that crumbs its targets is quite powerful)
Yes, this was considered. The role has a lot of potential to be swingy with how well the shield plays - if they crumb too obviously scum might shoot them (or have someone other than their target make the kill). If they crumb too non-obviously then they give no info when they die. And they won't be alive to explain their crumb when it matters, and people are
going
to look for a crumb, which means there's potential for misinterpretation. If they claim, then they no longer give any info when they die. But they do have potential to be very impactful - it just requires them to play really well.
In post 1017, TemporalLich wrote:(p.p.s. I disagree with Shield being so low on the tier list, a Shield that crumbs its targets is quite powerful)
Yes, this was considered. The role has a lot of potential to be swingy with how well the shield plays - if they crumb too obviously scum might shoot them (or have someone other than their target make the kill). If they crumb too non-obviously then they give no info when they die. And they won't be alive to explain their crumb when it matters, and people are
going
to look for a crumb, which means there's potential for misinterpretation. If they claim, then they no longer give any info when they die. But they do have potential to be very impactful - it just requires them to play really well.
Okay that's a very fair point. Shield seems to be a very interesting role though most of it is hidden in strategy.
(p.s. I made Shield as the Roleblocker equivalent to Bodyguard, though it more properly is equivalent to a role that blocks kill actions, which I'd call a Defender or Wall for now (though ToS players might be confused by the name Defender - it is more elegant than "Killblocker" however.).)
In post 1022, MegAzumarill wrote:I've always been partial to calling a killblocker a missionary.
(Was there a role called defender in ToS, I wasn't aware)
there is not a role called defender in ToS. Defense is the term that ToS uses for protection or immunity against kill actions (which are called Attacks).
Loud and Announcing have also been updated to reflect the new "Mod messages' sources must be explicit" rule.
(p.s. Announcing's wiki page implies you can modify factional kills with Announcing - modified factional kills are something that needs to be looked at closely for Normality imo -
