Mafia/NOTW Survey

[choxorn]

Two days seems a little harsh, a lot of players will go 2 days without voting, and especially if it's an automatic WoG. Don't WoG players while you have replacements, replace them. That's just common sense.

 

[Backwards Logic]

On the topic of WoG'ing: Personally, I feel it should be host's discretion how to handle it. Some hosts are more prolific than others when casting the banhammer, while others (myself for instance) hate WoG'ing with a passion. Nowadays with inactivity (sadly) rampant, WoG rules should probably be stated in the ruleset during sign-ups. I know it can be metagamey when the guy everyone knows is inactive is still alive when others have been WoG'd. Hosts just have to keep things consistent when the inevitable inactive comes around to screw things up.

 

[Earthling]

It's the same thing, a WoG that replaces a player is still a WoG, perhaps different terms could be used but people say it that way all the time.

I simply don't consider it too harsh at all and it's what needs to be done, 2 days is usually about a week of real time and if you can't vote other players must assume you can't send in night orders in only a 24 hour period, so you're simply out of the game. No preferences or favors given to the mafia, replacements strictly in order with no other considerations, and everybody knows in advance so they don't sign up if it's a problem. Perhaps this is a bit stricter than what we'd want for a universal board policy on WoGs, but at the least I still think hosts should state in advance a WoG policy for any individual game.

 

[Zack]

How about a "Get your ass here" PM after 2 days, and WOG/replacement after 3?

 

[Earthling]

Actually purely thinking about what I would do as a host I should say I would probably give a reminder after just the first two days if there aren't lots of replacements (so a WoG would have to kill a character rather than just replace a player). I could see Day One and Day Two being missed at the very start is maybe worth one last reminder. But missing two consecutive votes after that is just too much.

edit - actually I see I didn't make it clear in my original post that I meant two consecutive days. So yeah, that might explain some confusion, that's what I was thinking the whole time but didn't really double check everything in that entire survey answer.

I just don't think I want it to go longer than that, you can always give warnings after one Day after all, highlight the names of people not voting. It's just been really been disappointed in a lot of recent games where people don't post on a thread for like 2 weeks of real time and at least a couple of those games they've been mafia, and I'm not intending to allow that when I'm a host anymore. Abstains and whatnot would still count as votes if they are part of the game.

But really I'm just saying I plan to state a consistent WoG policy in future games I host, it doesn't have to be the same for all other hosts.

I certainly wouldn't be against adjusting my games to account for some universal policy if everyone agrees either. While I'd personally prefer being a bit stricter I'd nevertheless instantly be happy to make my policy 3 days or something that other people prefer, for the sake of an attempt by all hosts out there, because that could cut down on inactivity for everyone in the long term.

 

[Zack]

How about:

- After 2 consecutive Days without a vote, player gets sent a PM
- After 3 consecutive Days without a vote, player gets WOGed/replaced
- After 5 total Days without a vote, player gets sent a PM
- After 6 total Days without a vote, player gets WOGed/replaced
- After 1 week (real-time) without a post, player gets sent a PM
- After 1.5 weeks (real-time) without a post, player gets WOGed/replaced


Sidenote -- Earthling, your usage of WOG confuses me. A replacement is not a WOG.

 

[Takhisis]

Depends on the player to be WoG'd. For example, in my Mars Attacks! game I had a couple characters who had a 'dying shot' ability, basically, when they died they could choose a target and were not listed as Dead, just 'Player X is a Martian!'. What would you have done if you had to kill off one of those players for inactivity?

 

[Earthling]

Sidenote -- Earthling, your usage of WOG confuses me. A replacement is not a WOG.

People say it is all the time though, maybe it's more of an org thing. If you need a new term call it an RWoG, if a replacement is available, you replace the player, if not you kill off the character and reveal its alignment. In either case the original player is removed from the game and reprimanded for inactivity.

Anyway, yes, I'd kill off the character and reveal its alignment if there are no reserves after a set amount of inactivity no matter what the role is. That's the point, that's what a consistent WoG policy is. As for Zack's suggestions, 6 Days is far, far too long to let inactive players go. That's well over halfway through a game.

 

[choxorn]

Not consecutive, total. Like, if they miss Day 1, Day 3, Day 5, Day 7, Day 9, or something.

Maybe 4 total days/5 total days makes more sense.

 

[Zack]

People say it is all the time though, maybe it's more of an org thing.

I don't think I've ever heard it used like that.

 

[Earthling]

Hosts will often put a list of WoG'd players in the list of total players and that includes people who got replaced so the actual character is still alive in the game :shrug:

But at any rate, there isn't any disagreement in that if you have replacements, sure, replace somebody first, though I would do that strictly chronologically. (First inactive WoG'd is first replaced, not wait and try to use the replacements on scum or any more important roles as is sometimes done for attempted balance, again I'd prefer to focus on cutting down the inactivity). Honestly this is taking up a bit much of the thread so I won't bother more about it unless a lot of hosts really think it's interesting, just a plan for future games I'd host and ideas for others to think about perhaps.

 

[Takhisis]

I think what you mean is that hosts say 'behave or I'll WoG/replace you'.

 

[Jarrema]

Depends on the player to be WoG'd. For example, in my Mars Attacks! game I had a couple characters who had a 'dying shot' ability, basically, when they died they could choose a target and were not listed as Dead, just 'Player X is a Martian!'. What would you have done if you had to kill off one of those players for inactivity?

It is one game. In every game you could not use some of standard rules.

I think that WoGing/replacing after 3 consecutive days should become a part of "standard rules". I am not sure about thing with total number of days, and about posts.

 

[Takhisis]

No it shouldn't. Sometimes people have good reasons for inactivity. Once I did it on purpose and told the GM not to WoG me. It works on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Zack]

There's never an excuse for inactivity. If you don't have time to play the game, don't sign up.

 

[Takhisis]

There never is? Really? What happened to someone who just went on a rant and quit the game he was hosting?

 

[Zack]

I don't see where you're going with that, besides just throwing a potshot at me, as that's completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. I don't excuse myself from my previous statement, obviously.

Maybe I should have clarified. I was speaking of signing up for a game, then never showing up in the game thread or explaining anything.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes you should have clarified. Sarcasm was to drive the point home No offense meant.

 

[Tolis]

And I'll move this one out of the spoiler:



I would have said improving the queue and hosting schedules when this survey first was out but it's been good to see some recent adjustments.

There is one thing I'd strongly recommend hosts consider though. I think it would be great to try to move towards a universal WoG policy followed by a lot of hosts. Players would get to know the default and we really need to cut down on inactivity somehow. At the very least, even if not consistent with other hosts, I think hosts should spell out a WoG policy in the rules of their games. Only small, basic, quick games where a replacement could just be pulled in are happy with arbitrary WoGs. I'm thinking I would aim for something like two days without posting a lynch vote is an automatic WoG, replacement players available in sequence or no. Certainly some things adjustable depending on the game but as a host I intend to at least let players know there is a consistent WoG policy in future games I host, and not favor townies or mafia or anyone. No hard feelings or consequences for the future, just a WoG in said game. Over time I think this could lead to improvements in both player and host expectations of activity.

This i personally object to simply because it removed the game strategy of not doing anything. Especially for high value targets in NOTW, all it takes is a few fingers pointed at some random mistake you made in the past 5 days ago to get the bandwagon rolling against almost anyone. It also lowers your value as a target. I remember in the first SnF game, i ran this strat sucessfully from day one, and as soon as i went active, we built a block, and i was almost single handedly able to win the game for the innocents, tho i was killed about 3 days before the end of the game. And it is even more powerful used on a guilty party member. Who is gonna suspect the guy who doesnt say anything?

Strategic inaction should be viable imo, but its hard to distinguish for a gm or other players from true inaction, and if people left and right around you are getting replaced or dropped, and someone is trying this strat and it gets oked, it will look mighty suspicious for them. I dislike the idea of removing options for a very useful and effective strategy. At least early in the game, most games tend to cull the inactive first as well, this leaves those who are more active a little bit more breathing room.

 

[Zack]

Strategic inaction is a bad, bad, bad thing.

If you employ that strategy, you're playing the game wrong. You really care so much about winning that you're not even going to play the game in hopes that doing so will increase your chance at victory? Really?

What if everyone decided to use "strategic inaction", huh? Then there wouldn't be a game.