Forum Games Resources & General Discussion
- Thread starter Machamp The Champion
- Start date
- Status
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
I'm confused; then why not simply forbid mass role claims, or implement and enforce fair play rules, such as paraphrasing GM/player communiques? why do the work for the scum by giving them their false identities? wouldn't be, you know, part of the damn game for them to try their best to make a believable role? and if they fail, too bad, get better,
I've kept myself out of the werewolf here, but this has me honestly baffled; if your entire game can be brought down by people claiming their roles, wouldn't it be better to prevent them from doing that rather than make fake roles? do people want to have fun and play? or just win? how is it that the GM even has to tell them "guys, play the game, don't use the insta-win shortcut".
Athena said:
I'm confused; then why not simply forbid mass role claims, or implement and enforce fair play rules, such as paraphrasing GM/player communiques? why do the work for the scum by giving them their false identities? wouldn't be, you know, part of the damn game for them to try their best to make a believable role? and if they fail, too bad, get better,
I've kept myself out of the werewolf here, but this has me honestly baffled; if your entire game can be brought down by people claiming their roles, wouldn't it be better to prevent them from doing that rather than make fake roles? do people want to have fun and play? or just win? how is it that the GM even has to tell them "guys, play the game, don't use the insta-win shortcut".
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
It's hard to outright prevent mass claiming as a GM because it's difficult to tell where a mass claim starts. Unless you'd rather ban claiming entirely? But then do you still allow people to claim actions and not just say their names? Then you have people hinting at their names and other such nonsense. There are simply a lot of grey areas. As a GM, I do disallow things like direct quoting of GM communications and such (in fact, these rules are basically implied where I usually play games, though this doesn't seem to be the case here), but having some form of being able to claim your role and actions is generally an important part of WW/Mafia games, since it's a valuable scumhunting tool. And providing claim names is just as meta as adding more rules ("GM says no" vs. "GM told me this character isn't an actual town role so it's safe to use their name") while being more clear-cut.
There are also situations where it's unfair to expect the scum team to come up with believable name claims, especially heavy flavour-dependent games. If you design a game based off of a video game with all of the good guys as town and the bad guys as scum, and all of the good guy characters have already been given to the town as roles, how can you expect the scum to make any kind of a decent believable claim? Even if they manage to make up a good one on their own, at best they buy themselves a day because their name can be counterclaimed.
For the record I, myself, typically give safe name claims to scum in flavour-based games (I won't for non-flavour games, or games where affiliation does not have any correlation with the flavour), either as specific names to match specific roles, or as one big list of possible name claims that scum can choose from as they need to. I have never written a full fake claim for a scum member and do not think I ever will, though I have seen the practice used here (mostly for games where GMs do allow copy/pasting of GM communications). I've also seen other practices here that would be considered unfair where I come from, such as metagaming regarding online statuses and timing of day actions and people reading threads, etc. In the end, I feel it's the GMs responsibility to provide a fun and engaging game for their players to the best of their abilities, and some times that does mean accounting for players who will user whatever tactics they have at hand to win.
professorlight said:
It's hard to outright prevent mass claiming as a GM because it's difficult to tell where a mass claim starts. Unless you'd rather ban claiming entirely? But then do you still allow people to claim actions and not just say their names? Then you have people hinting at their names and other such nonsense. There are simply a lot of grey areas. As a GM, I do disallow things like direct quoting of GM communications and such (in fact, these rules are basically implied where I usually play games, though this doesn't seem to be the case here), but having some form of being able to claim your role and actions is generally an important part of WW/Mafia games, since it's a valuable scumhunting tool. And providing claim names is just as meta as adding more rules ("GM says no" vs. "GM told me this character isn't an actual town role so it's safe to use their name") while being more clear-cut.
There are also situations where it's unfair to expect the scum team to come up with believable name claims, especially heavy flavour-dependent games. If you design a game based off of a video game with all of the good guys as town and the bad guys as scum, and all of the good guy characters have already been given to the town as roles, how can you expect the scum to make any kind of a decent believable claim? Even if they manage to make up a good one on their own, at best they buy themselves a day because their name can be counterclaimed.
For the record I, myself, typically give safe name claims to scum in flavour-based games (I won't for non-flavour games, or games where affiliation does not have any correlation with the flavour), either as specific names to match specific roles, or as one big list of possible name claims that scum can choose from as they need to. I have never written a full fake claim for a scum member and do not think I ever will, though I have seen the practice used here (mostly for games where GMs do allow copy/pasting of GM communications). I've also seen other practices here that would be considered unfair where I come from, such as metagaming regarding online statuses and timing of day actions and people reading threads, etc. In the end, I feel it's the GMs responsibility to provide a fun and engaging game for their players to the best of their abilities, and some times that does mean accounting for players who will user whatever tactics they have at hand to win.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
It doesn't need to be an outright ban, really; it's fine for a player to give away a role, the problem is when other people start doing en masse; the problem with mass role claim is that it is an inherent flaw of the game; in a game based on never being sure of the events that happens around you, mass claims provide a foolproof way to be sure about things, same as metagaming; that's just against the spirit of the game, not competition.
And yes, providing false claims means that you can never be sure about a particular role, but it also means that you can be absolutely sure about everything else; with 30 players and what? 6 scum? that means every role has a 4/5 chance of being correct; that's very close to being certain, and it can only get higher with each scum the players catch.
I have the same experience you do with fair play rules, which is why I find it so strange when people here use that kind of game-breaking techniques and metagaming. But in any case, a GM executive decision is more balanced than fake roles, because A) in the event of a public or private role claim, then the onus is on the player to survive, you're not giving him the believable role on a silver platter and B) it's a rule of the game, of the game the GM made; since it's the GM's job to provide an entertaining and fair experience for the players, it comes to reason they would do whatever they can from their part to prevent the game from becoming based off of certainties rather than suspicions.
Why is it unfair? aren't you punishing them if they play wrong and rewarding them if they play right? overall, using "it's an unbelievable role" as an excuse to drive a lynch it's a metagaming reason justifying a game-affecting decision, and that's the kind of thing that as a GM I ban from my games.
And even then, it's also the GM's job to be unpredictable and affect the player's perception of the game on the meta level; when a metagame becomes predictable enough that you can catch a scum with certainty if he makes up a name, then there's something wrong with that metagame.
As for how can I expect the scum to make decent claims on their own, well, that's their job; if they want to win, they must work for it, and take the risks; I get that players here are so aggressive that it might be better to just give the scum fake claims, but that's also a metagaming problem; these games must evolve, and their players evolve with them, otherwise, it becomes stale and predictable.
I agree with all of that, but I also think that a better way to counter players that use whatever tactics they can use is to force them to not use those tactics, rather than to give in and enable them.
To be fully honest myself, I have the same experience you do; in the forum I play, fair play rules and the honour system are so ingrained we can even use multiple-person docs without fear of impersonations, and the one time an experienced "regular" mafia player played, he ended up leading to a scum win as a town assassin (yes, it was as embarrassing as it sounds). We follow the fair play rules and the honour system because we understand that if we don't, the game goes to hell really quick, and the game evolves, as do the players; first three games were won by follow the cop; the fourth game made following the cop impossible; then they won another way. Next game they couldn't win in the same way; we haven't had a follow the cop strategy in... 17 games, I think, and the players have only grown more expert, and always respecting the rules.
The onus to respect the GM, the game and each other is on the players, and that kind of tactics only hurt them.
Athena said:
It doesn't need to be an outright ban, really; it's fine for a player to give away a role, the problem is when other people start doing en masse; the problem with mass role claim is that it is an inherent flaw of the game; in a game based on never being sure of the events that happens around you, mass claims provide a foolproof way to be sure about things, same as metagaming; that's just against the spirit of the game, not competition.
And yes, providing false claims means that you can never be sure about a particular role, but it also means that you can be absolutely sure about everything else; with 30 players and what? 6 scum? that means every role has a 4/5 chance of being correct; that's very close to being certain, and it can only get higher with each scum the players catch.
I have the same experience you do with fair play rules, which is why I find it so strange when people here use that kind of game-breaking techniques and metagaming. But in any case, a GM executive decision is more balanced than fake roles, because A) in the event of a public or private role claim, then the onus is on the player to survive, you're not giving him the believable role on a silver platter and B) it's a rule of the game, of the game the GM made; since it's the GM's job to provide an entertaining and fair experience for the players, it comes to reason they would do whatever they can from their part to prevent the game from becoming based off of certainties rather than suspicions.
Athena said:
Why is it unfair? aren't you punishing them if they play wrong and rewarding them if they play right? overall, using "it's an unbelievable role" as an excuse to drive a lynch it's a metagaming reason justifying a game-affecting decision, and that's the kind of thing that as a GM I ban from my games.
And even then, it's also the GM's job to be unpredictable and affect the player's perception of the game on the meta level; when a metagame becomes predictable enough that you can catch a scum with certainty if he makes up a name, then there's something wrong with that metagame.
As for how can I expect the scum to make decent claims on their own, well, that's their job; if they want to win, they must work for it, and take the risks; I get that players here are so aggressive that it might be better to just give the scum fake claims, but that's also a metagaming problem; these games must evolve, and their players evolve with them, otherwise, it becomes stale and predictable.
Athena said:
I agree with all of that, but I also think that a better way to counter players that use whatever tactics they can use is to force them to not use those tactics, rather than to give in and enable them.
To be fully honest myself, I have the same experience you do; in the forum I play, fair play rules and the honour system are so ingrained we can even use multiple-person docs without fear of impersonations, and the one time an experienced "regular" mafia player played, he ended up leading to a scum win as a town assassin (yes, it was as embarrassing as it sounds). We follow the fair play rules and the honour system because we understand that if we don't, the game goes to hell really quick, and the game evolves, as do the players; first three games were won by follow the cop; the fourth game made following the cop impossible; then they won another way. Next game they couldn't win in the same way; we haven't had a follow the cop strategy in... 17 games, I think, and the players have only grown more expert, and always respecting the rules.
The onus to respect the GM, the game and each other is on the players, and that kind of tactics only hurt them.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
Mass claims have never been a problem here, so there is no need for ruling them even if they did break the game (they shouldn't). Mass claims early-game are generally hurtful for the town, as it exposes power roles unless they fake too, and scum can quite easily fake their roles too (as long as they aren't bad players) so massclaims don't even happen until maybe very lategame. And then scum should have an even easier time faking their roles. (Unless there are only bad players left.)
Athena said NAME-claims. Name. Not role.<__>
It IS unfair if there is a game with Batman, Superman, Spiderman as town and The Joker as scum. The Joker doesn't know what superhero he could claim, and he obviously can't claim the Joker. So it would be fair to tell him, hey, this superhero X isn't in the game. That's all. A name. The wolf still has to fake the role himself.
Mass claims have never been a problem here, so there is no need for ruling them even if they did break the game (they shouldn't). Mass claims early-game are generally hurtful for the town, as it exposes power roles unless they fake too, and scum can quite easily fake their roles too (as long as they aren't bad players) so massclaims don't even happen until maybe very lategame. And then scum should have an even easier time faking their roles. (Unless there are only bad players left.)
Athena said NAME-claims. Name. Not role.<__>
It IS unfair if there is a game with Batman, Superman, Spiderman as town and The Joker as scum. The Joker doesn't know what superhero he could claim, and he obviously can't claim the Joker. So it would be fair to tell him, hey, this superhero X isn't in the game. That's all. A name. The wolf still has to fake the role himself.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
It is not fair, it is easy.
And the GM's job isn't to make things easy for their players, it's quite the opposite actually, it is to challenge them, make them grow, find more about themselves; as I said, if a player can't make a believable role (or name, it doesn't matter) then he loses. It's that simple. He failed.
If he doesn't think he can do it, he has other people on his team to help him, that's the point of the informed minority. If none of them is smart enough to come up with a minimal-risk name/role, then they have to find another way to get out of the claim; manipulate players, events, being unpredictable, vote for the doomed doofus to gain credibility, whatever, they're the bad guys, their job is to trick town and being fair about it, while town's job is to not be tricked by the wolves, and be fair about it.
Giving the wolves a list of available names is not fair to town, and town using mass claims is not fair to the wolves. And ensuring fairness is both the GM's job, and the players themselves's.
It is not fair, it is easy.
And the GM's job isn't to make things easy for their players, it's quite the opposite actually, it is to challenge them, make them grow, find more about themselves; as I said, if a player can't make a believable role (or name, it doesn't matter) then he loses. It's that simple. He failed.
If he doesn't think he can do it, he has other people on his team to help him, that's the point of the informed minority. If none of them is smart enough to come up with a minimal-risk name/role, then they have to find another way to get out of the claim; manipulate players, events, being unpredictable, vote for the doomed doofus to gain credibility, whatever, they're the bad guys, their job is to trick town and being fair about it, while town's job is to not be tricked by the wolves, and be fair about it.
Giving the wolves a list of available names is not fair to town, and town using mass claims is not fair to the wolves. And ensuring fairness is both the GM's job, and the players themselves's.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
I don't like the idea of giving wolves straight up fake roles, because it makes them feel like they have less options. When they don't have a fake claim made for them, they feel more encouraged to make a helpful role depending on the situation. They could claim to have their own roles, make up new ones, or even pretend to have an ability another scum member has. However, I do like giving them fake names, if the flavor calls for it. Getting caught if your fake name is too unbelievable, or if someone else has that name is just lame to be honest. It also requires players to research the theme the game is based on if they don't already know it, which is unnecessary and easily avoidable. Getting caught because your role is unbelievable is mostly your fault. Getting caught if your name is unbelievable/counter claimed is not (usually). But of course, this is up to the host, and what they think will be most enjoyable and fair for players.
I don't like the idea of giving wolves straight up fake roles, because it makes them feel like they have less options. When they don't have a fake claim made for them, they feel more encouraged to make a helpful role depending on the situation. They could claim to have their own roles, make up new ones, or even pretend to have an ability another scum member has. However, I do like giving them fake names, if the flavor calls for it. Getting caught if your fake name is too unbelievable, or if someone else has that name is just lame to be honest. It also requires players to research the theme the game is based on if they don't already know it, which is unnecessary and easily avoidable. Getting caught because your role is unbelievable is mostly your fault. Getting caught if your name is unbelievable/counter claimed is not (usually). But of course, this is up to the host, and what they think will be most enjoyable and fair for players.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
You don't need to be condescending, kid, that's just rude.
But actually, I have been counterclaimed; a friend was a scanner, and he had caught a bad guy, Loki, the norse trickster god, who I had scanned that turn as well; however, that player claimed Vali, avenger of Baldr, as her role, a credible claim.
Incidentally, I must add; paranoia in that game was running high respect to loki's powers, because we all were aware of his possible powers as a trickster god. In the end, the role was much simpler than we thought.
Since we didn't learn role from that particular lynch, the other scanner was killed at night, his reputation tarnished, while I was the only one supporting him even after his death. That night I also found Fenris, the only (literal) wolf with a night kill, and the most important enemy of the Aesir at the moment; I tried to lynch her subtly, but a third party scanner (who was secretly allied with the Vanir) counterclaimed my scan as fake, and fenris counterclaimed my role as Frigg; I encouraged all the Aesir to lynch me, a lynch I would survive if enough Aesir voted for me, but alas, only two of them did, while on the other side I had a greek and a Vanir vote, making my lynch inevitable.
I learned a lot about how I handle pressure that day, about crowd psychology on mafia games (a game based on crowd psychology, in case you didn't know) and I would have definitely done differently, were that to happen again.
I learned. I grew as a GM, as a player and as a person.
Now pray tell... what have you learned by getting names served to you by the GM?
Teal said:
You don't need to be condescending, kid, that's just rude.
But actually, I have been counterclaimed; a friend was a scanner, and he had caught a bad guy, Loki, the norse trickster god, who I had scanned that turn as well; however, that player claimed Vali, avenger of Baldr, as her role, a credible claim.
Incidentally, I must add; paranoia in that game was running high respect to loki's powers, because we all were aware of his possible powers as a trickster god. In the end, the role was much simpler than we thought.
Since we didn't learn role from that particular lynch, the other scanner was killed at night, his reputation tarnished, while I was the only one supporting him even after his death. That night I also found Fenris, the only (literal) wolf with a night kill, and the most important enemy of the Aesir at the moment; I tried to lynch her subtly, but a third party scanner (who was secretly allied with the Vanir) counterclaimed my scan as fake, and fenris counterclaimed my role as Frigg; I encouraged all the Aesir to lynch me, a lynch I would survive if enough Aesir voted for me, but alas, only two of them did, while on the other side I had a greek and a Vanir vote, making my lynch inevitable.
I learned a lot about how I handle pressure that day, about crowd psychology on mafia games (a game based on crowd psychology, in case you didn't know) and I would have definitely done differently, were that to happen again.
I learned. I grew as a GM, as a player and as a person.
Now pray tell... what have you learned by getting names served to you by the GM?
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
Keep it civil, everyone.
If you wanna compare your WW experiences to explain why a certain thing should be done a certain way that's fine, but condescension doesn't help discussions and due to the PG13 rule nobody here is a kid.
Be nice.
Keep it civil, everyone.
If you wanna compare your WW experiences to explain why a certain thing should be done a certain way that's fine, but condescension doesn't help discussions and due to the PG13 rule nobody here is a kid.
Be nice.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
How To win
professorlight said:
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
How to host a decent game when they get the job of hosting one...
If a game is flavour dependant, names MUST be given. That's just a simple rule which most people understand. If it's something like the Reign of Terror, it's not so important, because you can just pick a random French name. While some roles were real people, others (like mine) were not.
professorlight said:
How to host a decent game when they get the job of hosting one...
If a game is flavour dependant, names MUST be given. That's just a simple rule which most people understand. If it's something like the Reign of Terror, it's not so important, because you can just pick a random French name. While some roles were real people, others (like mine) were not.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
You're right; I learned that you don't go to a forum to play with the metagame of a different forum, and I'm kinda doing that now; that doesn't take away from the fact that teal was the first one to be condescending, though, I call people "kid" a fair amount, and there's no condescension whatsoever there, the same way that if I call you "darling" doesn't mean I want [REDACTED].
Anyway, Athena, if you are interested on continuing the discussion, just PM me, I won't mess around in here anymore.
bigfootaus said:
You're right; I learned that you don't go to a forum to play with the metagame of a different forum, and I'm kinda doing that now; that doesn't take away from the fact that teal was the first one to be condescending, though, I call people "kid" a fair amount, and there's no condescension whatsoever there, the same way that if I call you "darling" doesn't mean I want [REDACTED].
Anyway, Athena, if you are interested on continuing the discussion, just PM me, I won't mess around in here anymore.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
I think some of the best learning experiences that I have had (as a GM and as a player) and have seen growing in others in such a similar situation is to not rely on claims as a sole means of proving one's worth/affiliation/actions/what-have-you. When town knows that the scum has cover roles, they're less likely to blindly accept a claim and move on, fostering analyzation and critical thinking skills and generally making in-thread discussions more lively and meaningful.
I think it's wonderful that you've had good experiences in flavour-based games without provided cover roles, but I can't help but believe these sorts of experiences are more the exception than the rule; at least they are in my experience and seemingly in the experience of others here. The fact that you didn't learn roles from the lynch (something that is a pretty standard mechanic, at least in my own experience) already kind of shows that the game is something of an outlier. I have seen numerous games dissolve quickly because of lack of safe-name claims by the scum (including the first game I ever GMed, which is probably why I'm particularly sensitive to it), and it seems like other players here agree with me, which likely means that it happens here (and elsewhere) as well.
I really would like to see your opinion on how you would handle a basic situation as outlined above, where all possible "safe" names are already in use in inno roles.
I think another important thing to keep in mind is how different online cultures and communities can be. You started off your initial post by saying that you've kept out of WW here, so I don't really know how much you've seen it played at multiple communities, but I've had a bit of experience with that myself. Having played a couple games here and followed along with some others, the WW community here plays drastically different from my other site. Some of these changes are superficial, some of them are more major (I was really confused by the concept of separate night phases at first
), and most of them are invisible, because they're not about rules and mechanics and how things look on paper, but really just in seeing how people play and interact with each other and the dynamic is very different. As such, I'm taking a lot of care to make sure that my upcoming game here will reflect the playstyles of the community here. Of course, I'm sure there will still be some clashes, no one's perfect, but if everyone has fun in the end, I'll be happy.
In regards to simply adding more rules to ban certain playstyles, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. Adding a lot of rules* and other such arbitrary restrictions to me always seems to serve to make the game feel more meta and has the tendencies to stifle discussion. I prefer to keep my rules clear-cut (such as, no copying GM communications) and simple so that in-game conversations progress and flow organically with a minimal of artificial intervention.
(* - Speaking of which, how exactly would you enforce a "No Mass Claims" rule? Where does a mass claim start? How many people are allowed to claim in a day phase before it stops being claiming and becomes mass claiming? And how would you punish a mass claim, anyway; everyone's modkilled, game over? Or just the people who claimed? Or the people who asked for each claim?)
Another agree-to-disagree point is the purpose of being a GM. Weren't you the one who said above that people should be playing for fun? I do not believe it is the GM's responsibility to challenge people and force them to grow, only to tell them "you failed, gg" if they don't hold up by my standards. As I said in my previous post, my goal as a GM has always been to make a fun and engaging game that people can enjoy, even if they're new to the game or not particularly good. I would rather my games be a fun and welcoming environment, since after all, that's the point of playing a game in the first place.
professorlight said:
I think some of the best learning experiences that I have had (as a GM and as a player) and have seen growing in others in such a similar situation is to not rely on claims as a sole means of proving one's worth/affiliation/actions/what-have-you. When town knows that the scum has cover roles, they're less likely to blindly accept a claim and move on, fostering analyzation and critical thinking skills and generally making in-thread discussions more lively and meaningful.
I think it's wonderful that you've had good experiences in flavour-based games without provided cover roles, but I can't help but believe these sorts of experiences are more the exception than the rule; at least they are in my experience and seemingly in the experience of others here. The fact that you didn't learn roles from the lynch (something that is a pretty standard mechanic, at least in my own experience) already kind of shows that the game is something of an outlier. I have seen numerous games dissolve quickly because of lack of safe-name claims by the scum (including the first game I ever GMed, which is probably why I'm particularly sensitive to it), and it seems like other players here agree with me, which likely means that it happens here (and elsewhere) as well.
I really would like to see your opinion on how you would handle a basic situation as outlined above, where all possible "safe" names are already in use in inno roles.
I think another important thing to keep in mind is how different online cultures and communities can be. You started off your initial post by saying that you've kept out of WW here, so I don't really know how much you've seen it played at multiple communities, but I've had a bit of experience with that myself. Having played a couple games here and followed along with some others, the WW community here plays drastically different from my other site. Some of these changes are superficial, some of them are more major (I was really confused by the concept of separate night phases at first
), and most of them are invisible, because they're not about rules and mechanics and how things look on paper, but really just in seeing how people play and interact with each other and the dynamic is very different. As such, I'm taking a lot of care to make sure that my upcoming game here will reflect the playstyles of the community here. Of course, I'm sure there will still be some clashes, no one's perfect, but if everyone has fun in the end, I'll be happy.In regards to simply adding more rules to ban certain playstyles, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. Adding a lot of rules* and other such arbitrary restrictions to me always seems to serve to make the game feel more meta and has the tendencies to stifle discussion. I prefer to keep my rules clear-cut (such as, no copying GM communications) and simple so that in-game conversations progress and flow organically with a minimal of artificial intervention.
(* - Speaking of which, how exactly would you enforce a "No Mass Claims" rule? Where does a mass claim start? How many people are allowed to claim in a day phase before it stops being claiming and becomes mass claiming? And how would you punish a mass claim, anyway; everyone's modkilled, game over? Or just the people who claimed? Or the people who asked for each claim?)
Another agree-to-disagree point is the purpose of being a GM. Weren't you the one who said above that people should be playing for fun? I do not believe it is the GM's responsibility to challenge people and force them to grow, only to tell them "you failed, gg" if they don't hold up by my standards. As I said in my previous post, my goal as a GM has always been to make a fun and engaging game that people can enjoy, even if they're new to the game or not particularly good. I would rather my games be a fun and welcoming environment, since after all, that's the point of playing a game in the first place.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
Keep calm and listen to Indian music.
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZyAB2KFDls[/video]
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBodrcJyuE[/video]
(Skip to 1 minute.)
Now that I distracted everyone I can catch up on what happened here.
Keep calm and listen to Indian music.
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZyAB2KFDls[/video]
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBodrcJyuE[/video]
(Skip to 1 minute.)
Now that I distracted everyone I can catch up on what happened here.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
I guess Teal doesn't like Indian music, since he wasn't distracted enough from posting. Anyway, keep it nice here. If you can't be open minded about other points of view while staying respectful to everyone, it's best to stay out of discussions you feel passionate about on the forums, since that can definitely get out of control fast. I don't see any problems with continuing talking about different ways to play WW if it's kept nice and friendly.
I went over the whole conversation just now and all I can say is that apparently people can enjoy different ways of playing that game (this is not really a surprise). I don't see problems with the way things have been going here, and if people do think things can be done differently it's nice to give feedback in a friendly manner.
Professorlight, why haven't you tried hosting a game or talked to people about how they would feel about trying something new? It doesn't have to become "the" way of playing on PokéBeach, but I personally don't think trying out new play styles and rules is that bad. If the community also likes it, it can be played like that more often. It doesn't all have to be the same style all the time, unless everyone enjoys that. This is why it's good to be able to give feedback on the games (respectfully). It will teach hosts and staff what the players enjoy.
I guess Teal doesn't like Indian music, since he wasn't distracted enough from posting. Anyway, keep it nice here. If you can't be open minded about other points of view while staying respectful to everyone, it's best to stay out of discussions you feel passionate about on the forums, since that can definitely get out of control fast. I don't see any problems with continuing talking about different ways to play WW if it's kept nice and friendly.
I went over the whole conversation just now and all I can say is that apparently people can enjoy different ways of playing that game (this is not really a surprise). I don't see problems with the way things have been going here, and if people do think things can be done differently it's nice to give feedback in a friendly manner.
Professorlight, why haven't you tried hosting a game or talked to people about how they would feel about trying something new? It doesn't have to become "the" way of playing on PokéBeach, but I personally don't think trying out new play styles and rules is that bad. If the community also likes it, it can be played like that more often. It doesn't all have to be the same style all the time, unless everyone enjoys that. This is why it's good to be able to give feedback on the games (respectfully). It will teach hosts and staff what the players enjoy.
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
What if H/H was played without pokemon, and just used usernames?
What if H/H was played without pokemon, and just used usernames?
RE: Game Suggestions & General Discussion
Prepare yourself for the biggest flame war in internet history.
Prepare yourself for the biggest flame war in internet history.
- Status