The Forum Games Discussion Thread - Farming RPG Coming Soon

[Vytron]

Thanks maident :D - I'll prepare a PM telling you all about the game and hopefully we can arrange the details and start it soon!

[maident]

Looking forward to it!

[Echo244]

So, first up, hope Vytron's OK, he's not dropped by in a little while.

Second, he was modding/dealing/supporting a few different games, and it'd be a shame to let those drop. In particular, in Texas Hold 'Em 2.0, we're short a dealer. Would anyone help out by taking over, pro tempore at least?

[Sabrar]

I can do it if you want.

[Echo244]

Hooray! Very kind of you, Sabrar!

[emlightened]

I figure this is a good a place as any. After the mod madness, we'll be creating a Forum Games canon topic, which should (hopefully) be updated with all of the forum games canon.

Obviously.

But first, Empress adnapemit, does this have your approval?

[flicky1991]

I was internally debating whether I'd give the thread some sort of voting mechanism by which canonicity is decided, or whether we could just generally post things and then argue about it. I doubt there'd be too much argument as long as we agree that anyone that's the subject of a particular factoid can veto it if they don't like it.

[adnapemit]

But first, Empress adnapemit, does this have your approval?

yes...I think?
Although I am only the empress of Double Post...

[emlightened]

We could declare you empress of the entire forum. All you need to do is win every game.


(Does 'empress' annoy you at all, or is it just something you prefer to be kept in that thread?)

[adnapemit]

Some games are unwinnable.
(It doesn't annoy me, I just find it weird when used in any context not directly related to me winning something)

[flicky1991]

Ooh, meant to say it in here. I made the thread: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=113746

[SDK]

New game up: Merchant's Dilemma.

[emlightened]

Edit: Okay, I just realised that this discussion might not be worth having. (As in, in the general case, not in regards to the specific thread. Again, I could be wrong. ) It doesn't seem to be a common issue, and I was mainly looking for people's opinions on the matter. Full post kept in spoiler, because it's a little lengthy.

Spoiler:

Okay, so Once Upon A Castle just finished due to how one of the players was playing the game, and I think that it would be better to discuss why it ended (how it did) here, instead of in the thread (so more people an see it, and we can discuss what similar things have happened in other games, too).

I generally felt like the game went well; I think that part of why it ended up as it did was that Mike decided to do things expecting that they would always work, and wanted to do things how he thought they should be done. Depending on the game, that can be fine (it can be rather fun in Nomic, for instance), but I don't think that was for the game.

I think that the main reason for this is, in short, different people have different ideas of what they want out of the game, and how it should be played. This, generally, can be fine, as long as different players respect what others want from the game, and try to avoid getting in anyone else's way, or making how they want to play it less meaningful. Problems arise arise when this doesn't happen -- I think it's normally the latter one, which can be harder to prevent due to it not looking like it can cause a problem.

The examples I've seen of this are Mikemk in One Upon a Castle, who took player-to-player 'gift' items from the community chest and destroyed the locked chest, and went against what other players wanted to do in some situations, and Vytron in the first 'everyman version' of the MNiB games, who persistently argued with the mod about his notation, instead of just asking for clarification/explanation, sorting it, and making it easier for everyone else.

I think that in both of these cases, the mod could have put their foot down sooner in response to people skirting around the rules like this. This, I think, can be very difficult. It may be easier to give a formal warning that what they're doing is against the spirit of the thread (i.e. most people would rather what they're doing to be managed/done differently/not done, and that they're making the game less fun for everyone else), although this may not work without some sort of precautionary rules change.

The other answer, and the one I think would be better, would be to ask people what should be done about the situation, and let some sort of result come about through a group descision. This is obviously harder, and I imagine feels much more like a last-resort than it should.

As I have never properly modded a game, I know that this is not likely to be wholly correct, but I want to get to the bottom of this so we don't get any more great games ended prematurely.

Thanks, and corrections/suggestions/opinions are welcome.

[Echo244]

Same discussion, spoilered to match:

Spoiler:

Yep, you can design a co-operative game, but it'll end up being as co-operative as the players that join it... ;-D

There are probably a bunch of potential solutions to this - either something like the Same Page Tool or anything else that comes up on rpg.stackexchange.com with the right tag. But... everything comes with consequences. If a new player joins mid-game, you can't jump on them too much because that's pretty unwelcoming; equally, it's not fair for a very emergent game where all the early players helped create a lot of the gameplay, to suddenly be set in stone. And if you've got an online game without a lot of people, forcing a discussion before any action will slow things down, and holding off on a particular action will make a player feel they're being held back (not fun even if it is sometimes accurate and necessary).

Also, being online restricts non-verbal communication of "What the hell are you doing?!?" looks that work well IRL.

I think things went about as well as they could in Once Upon a Castle; all the subtle tools were used, but things were just not going to go nicely. and the mod stepping in... would probably have been pretty game-ending in a game that was, at that point, that small. Equally, a group discussion... was pretty much victim vs. transgressor at that point.

I like the idea of there being more talking about things among the players. But... that runs back in to games being as co-operative as the players. ;-D

[heuristically_alone]

Also same discussion, spoiled just cuz

Spoiler:

I haven't gotten a chance yet to be a part of any of this types of modded games via a forum, but in my opinion that in general mods get final say no matter what to anything happening in the game and can reverse anything done by another player. I agree that a game can be fun when a player does something new or not unexpected to a degree bringing the game to the next level. The mod can just disallow anything that he/she believes will take the game in a direction it is not supposed to go or somehow prevent the game from going on.
I think coming up with and being mod for games would be so much fun, though first I want to play a couple to make sure i get the hang of what's going on. On another note. Does anyone know of any other good forums that do as fun games or mafia or things of that nature?

[username5243]

I think the forum is a bit dry of moderated games right now, the only really active one is "Dungeon of Doom". I think that someone should make another one, or if not at least a semi-serious game that requires some thought (such as Ambicioso, Nomic, or a traditional card game). Of course we already have the Texas Hold 'em games, but I still think we need more.

I was thinking about doing a poll where people could vote which game would be started. Unfortunately, I think only the creator of a thread can make a poll, and since the creator of this paqicular thread (Vytron) hasn't been on these forums for quite a while, I couldn't do it here.

It would ask "Which of these games would you most like to ply?" with the following options:

Nomic
Ambicioso
Yahtzee, Deception/Perudo, or some other dice game (feel free to elaborate in thread)
Mao or some other card game (agaq, elaborate)
Blind Quartets
A reboot of some other modded game played here beffore (elaborate if you want)
Do I Feel Lucky (the one where you pick among a series of options and get points)

Any other options, or suggesstions on how to set this up? I think we should play what people actually want to play.

[PsiCubed]

What's this Ambicioso thing?

I know the scores there can be really high, but I've never understood how the game itself works... or why. Any background info about it would be most appreciated.

[emlightened]

Ambicioso looks fun.

[patzer]

Agreed, a new serious game would be nice. In addition to the ones username mentions, some other good games we played in the past are:

Thumbtacks, Hexattack, Seven Spies, Assassins, Dictionary game, Where in the World, Challenge Your Assumptions, Snakes and Ladders Monopoly, Puzzle Showdown, Boxing Chess, Nomaoic, Fantasy Countries.

(these were from a brief look through the last four years of posts... Wow, I've been on these fora for four years now. Time flies.)

I also play chess, if anyone wants a game. here is my chess.com account.

What's this Ambicioso thing?

I know the scores there can be really high, but I've never understood how the game itself works... or why. Any background info about it would be most appreciated.

Here are all the Ambicioso games, and its precursor games, ever played. This should help.

viewtopic.php?t=109802

viewtopic.php?t=109847

viewtopic.php?t=110083

viewtopic.php?t=111520

viewtopic.php?t=112141

viewtopic.php?t=112429

viewtopic.php?t=112513

[username5243]

Basically it's like this:

You start with 1d6. Roll it. (In the above-mentioned Dungeon of Doom game uses a nice application where you can link to specific rolls, so that what I'll be using). Each time, you roll a number of dice equal to the first digit of your score and add the remaining digit(s). Multiply that by the highest power of ten less than your number.

If you reach a power of ten, you score a win and your number resets to one. The number of sides on the dice you roll is equal to 6+(number of wins). (Yes, if you somehow get negative wins, you have to roll dice with less than six sides).

There are also items, which you get when your unmodified dice roll adds up to a certain number. At the start the only item defined is that if you roll a 1, you get a win (in this case the number does not reset but is reset and added normally). Other items may be added after you reach a power of ten, or you roll an item that allows you to make another item.

You could dig up one of the old threads to see the game in action, if you want.

[emlightened]

If you reach a power of ten, you score a win and your number resets to one. The number of sides on the dice you roll is equal to 6+(number of wins). (Yes, if you somehow get negative wins, you have to roll dice with less than six sides).

On the upside, you get one win per turn if you have less than -4 wins!

[username5243]

Okay.

I'll definitely start Ambicioso sometime soon. We have four people potentially interested. (We need three at least because the original has this rule where you must wait before two others have posted before you can post again, and I feel like maintaining this rule because it felt like a deliberate choice on the part of the game's creator.)

We'll see if anyone's interested in any of the games on my or patzer's lists.

[username5243]

Yeah, but you also increase to more dice. So it won't happen all the time.

That probably won't happen though. (I only added that in because in one game there was an item that essentially forced people to give up a win even if they had zero wins or less. There were a few times where someone had -1 wins and was rolling d5s, but that was probably the lowest number because they rolled a 1 or some other win-awarding number.)

[heuristically_alone]

Okay.

I'll definitely start Ambicioso sometime soon. We have four people potentially interested. (We need three at least because the original has this rule where you must wait before two others have posted before you can post again, and I feel like maintaining this rule because it felt like a deliberate choice on the part of the game's creator.)

We'll see if anyone's interested in any of the games on my or patzer's lists.

I'd be interested too. Also, probably interested in getting any serious game going

[PsiCubed]

Answer to Emlightened spoiler'd discussion:

Spoiler:

The examples I've seen of this are Mikemk in One Upon a Castle, who took player-to-player 'gift' items from the community chest and destroyed the locked chest, and went against what other players wanted to do in some situations, and Vytron in the first 'everyman version' of the MNiB games, who persistently argued with the mod about his notation, instead of just asking for clarification/explanation, sorting it, and making it easier for everyone else.

I think that in both of these cases, the mod could have put their foot down sooner in response to people skirting around the rules like this. This, I think, can be very difficult.

In some cases, it is out-right impossible.

Here is the problem:

Game "Mods" at XKCD have exactly zero power. They cannot punish people who disobey the rules. They cannot delete posts or ban players from their thread. They can't even complain to an actual XKCD Mod about the situation, because disrupting games in the manner is not illegal according to the XKCD forum rules.

The only way that a Game-Mod can "put his foot down" against an occasional offender, is if he has the full cooperation of the other players. If the other players actually cooperate with the guy who is disrupting the game, then the Game-Mod can't do anything about it.

Case in point: In my MNiB game, the situation would have been much more manageable if people didn't actually encourage Vytron to keep doing what he's doing. Even after I asked him to stop, and after you all agreed that his behavior was disruptive (and after he began to play really really really dirty, and turned the entire thing into a personal war).

Of-course, my own behavior on that thread was also part of the problem. It was really a classical example of "How to screw up your game" in which the host (me) and the players made - pretty much - the worst decisions possible.

[Earthling on Mars]

I'd be interested in a game of Blind Quartets. Though I think there's still an unfinished one.

[emlightened]

Same. (No, I'm not interested in every modded game. What are you talking about?)

Vytron's gone somewhere, so you could replace him, but it's probably a safer bet to just start a new game, given that people have probably become disinterested in it by now.

[SirGabriel]

Nomaoic

Sounds interesting. What is it?

I'd be interested in a game of Blind Quartets. Though I think there's still an unfinished one.

And it's probably going to remain unfinished. Feel free to start a new one.

[Earthling on Mars]

Blind Quartets 5.0 started.

[flicky1991]

Yes, there's no forum game where you get points for "cleverest response".

...Sounds like a forum version of Cards Against Humanity.

If anyone is looking for something to run... not sure how this would work though.

[heuristically_alone]

I do like apples to apples, not a big fun of cards against humanity. I like clean fun games. One player chooses an adjective (the judge), then other players choose a noun. Players can even give descriptions to their nouns, like the cards do. Judge picks his favorite noun to go with his adjective, and that player gets a point. The only problem is the judge would know which player said what. We could have all players put answers in spoilers, and one player to give noun (say the first) will then in random order post them for judge to see.

[faubiguy]

Would there be any interest in reviving this project of creating a comprehensive list of complex/involved/moderated games that have been played here, either in a thread (with or without gamification) or on a wiki.

I think it would be nice to have a list like that, both for finding games that have been played before and for finding inspiration for new ones, but actually compiling it would probably take a fair bit of effort. A feedback thread for completed games was also discussed around there and might also be useful to create now.

Regardless of that, I'd also like to remind about the Moderated Games List, which is now several months out of date.

[heuristically_alone]

I like vytron's idea of making it into a game of making list of games. The irony is perfect for this forum.

Spoiler:

Faubiguy has by far the coolest avatar and I'm a little jealous of it

[faubiguy]

Such a thread has been created

If it actually gets any significant number of posts I'll probably look into eventually moving the contents to a wiki.

[faubiguy]

Also on the subject of more complex/moderated games, what is the current consensus on having the moderated games thread be stickied below the gender pronouns thread? Right now its easy for these games to get lost in the sea of "Double Post", "Count to a million", "Longest time as last post" and other simple games like that, so ensuring that the list of them remains visible would help prevent people from forgetting both about the list itself and the games in it.

I don't recall how much agreement there was on that idea when it was last proposed, but in any case I think it's worth bringing up again.

[flicky1991]

Commenting on Hurt and Heal:

Posting after flicky:

- 10
- -1 --
- 8 ++

Evil smiley leaves.

I like both the remaining options equally, so I'll leave that thread till the next round unless it goes inactive.

[flicky1991]

RE Sniper's Signature Game - it might be better if you had to give the previous person some smaller block of text, e.g. around 100 characters max, to include in their signature. A lot of people have things they like to keep in their signature regardless of the current content - pronouns, avatar credits, etc. This game would probably be more successful if you aren't forcing people to replace their entire signature.

Quoting Sniper so he'll get a notification:

Like the Avatar game, except with sigs.

[The Snide Sniper]

RE Sniper's Signature Game - it might be better if you had to give the previous person some smaller block of text, e.g. around 100 characters max, to include in their signature. A lot of people have things they like to keep in their signature regardless of the current content - pronouns, avatar credits, etc. This game would probably be more successful if you aren't forcing people to replace their entire signature.

Quoting Sniper so he'll get a notification:

Like the Avatar game, except with sigs.

Sure. I'll do that.

[12obin]

To preserve said duplicity, perhaps every message post in the thread should be made from one secondary account, which all players would have access to.

This account could serve that purpose; you may send a private message to discover its password. Use this information as you wish.

i was mindy once but i forget the password

[heuristically_alone]

Idea for a game, but I doubt it would get enough players. Still would like some feedback. Here are the rules I have thus far.

Spoiler:

This is a essentially a nomic within a nomic. Here is the wikipedia article on Nomic

Basic Concept:
Players are split evenly into nations in a "war" against each other. Within each nation, players are playing a nomic within itself to build their nation/government/plot against other nations. Each nation will have their own thread. Members of a nation may not read the thread of another nation. When the game initiates, a nation will vote on a Leader of its nation. The Leader may then create the thread for their nation or assign someone to do so. That player will have the responsibility of maintaining the laws their nation passes. The main thread will represent the World. Nations may make proposals of laws/actions they'd like to make, and if a majority of the nations vote in agreement with the proposal, it passes. When a nation makes a proposal on the World thread, all nations will need to make a vote within itself whether or not they want to pass it. Only the Leader of a nation may post in the World thread, but all may players may read in the World thread. The starting win condition would be: Your nation loses if there is no leader.
After the games starts new players may post in the World thread to request to join a nation. A nation may decide to add them to their nation.


WORLD META LAWS (Laws that cannot be changed or ammended)
i. No deleting/editing posts in any thread
ii. All players may view the World Thread at any time
iii. Nations cannot make rules within itself that involves another nation (example=creating a spy role in which that player can enter any other nations thread
iv. Each nation must keep an updated list of their passed proposals and a list of their living players
v. Dangerous Parallel Nations is considered the only World Thread (tentative title)
vi. No nation may make a proposal in any thread that would make it impossible for them to lose (example=no player in our nation can ever die)

WORLD LAWS (WL)
1. If your nation has no leader, your nation and its members are removed from the game
2. Any nation can make a new proposal (creating new laws, changing old laws, repealing old laws, ect) in the World Thread
3. If a majority of the nations vote in agreement of a proposal, (nation that made proposal is assumed as voting:yea) then that proposal is passed.
4. A nation may not make another proposal until one other nation has made a proposal.
5. There may not be more than 2 unresolved proposals in the World Thread (This is to ensure that a proposals aren't ignored and nations must resolve them if they wish to make a proposal)
6. No player make look at another nation's thread than its own
7. You can not send PMs to another player in a different nation than your own
8. Anyone wishing to join the game may post in the World Thread requesting to join a nation
9. Anyone wishing to join the game may not join if they have read any of the nation's thread.

ALL NATION'S STARTING LAWS
1. Only your Leader may post in the World Thread.
2. Any player can make a new proposal (creating new laws, changing old laws, repealing old laws, ect)
3. If a majority of the players vote in agreement to a proposal, then the proposal is passed.

Suggestions:
To prevent a nation from making a proposal of something like "Our nation kills all members in nation X" that other nations for some reason may agree to, I suggest making laws within your nation to prevent it.
Also, technically nothing can stop a Leader of ignoring his nation and do what he wants in the World threads, so nations might want to create some checks balances system, or simply give title of Leader to another player if it happens.

Really I think you would need at least 4 nations with 4 members each as a bare minimum