BriDynN: TWG's Community Initiative Project

[Brilliant Dynamite Neon]

Hey guys, I'm finally doing this!

If you didn't know, now you know: TWG on FFR is in a unique, unsure, transitory period. The activity in games has been all over the place, some questionable setups have been run, and the traditional style of FFR TWG has nearly disappeared; it's all far from a golden age. However, there are people as passionate as ever about this game and it's community, and want to work in it's best interests. At the same time, we are attracting a lot of new blood, bolstering our playerbase, and it's important that we are welcoming to them and provide them a good experience. It's quite heartwarming, but with that said, it's apparent that the TWG subforum is falling short in some areas.

We would do well to make some improvements and do some house cleaning around these forums, in order to both create more enjoyable experiences for those who are already active players, and expand our potential reach to more people. As comfortable as the status quo gets, sometimes old, inefficient institutions must make way for the new, and as a former TWC member and general steward of this community (that is very glad to see its revival), I feel that I must take up the charge once again and put forth some initiatives to make things better, more elegant, and more inviting for all. Of course, since these issues concern all players to some degree, it's fair -- indeed, essential -- to involve the whole community and welcome their opinions and ideas on such projects.

That is what this thread is for. Here, any proposal that people wish to put forth for the betterment of TWG shall be considered, discussed, and if it garners enough support by the community, I will work with the proposer and the local moderators if necessary to try and make it happen.

ON THE TABLE

1. Host Signups Reform

Proposed by: Brilliant Dynamite Neon

Now, I know people here aren't dumb. They are mostly capable of making good decisions, and have the capacity to look at things critically and spot potential problems. But that ability seems to have fallen by the wayside on several occasions when choosing the game to be hosted. Now I'm aware a lot of things can potentially be to blame for that. But personally, I feel that the biggest culprit is the antiquated way in which host signups are run.

The current system is messy and how it works does not match up with its apparent aims -- to let the community decide the best, most sound game to host. It has near-zero regulation, gives little incentive for prospective hosts to think in depth about their games, gives even less incentive for prospective players to do so, and is hardly democratic. I would think it obvious that a lack of organization in host sign-ups is simply not conducive to careful consideration, especially when a mere 5 votes is apparently enough to decide the victor and completely close off the discussion (which really hurts its inclusiveness as well.) As such, people usually don't have much time to form any "reads" on the game's possibilities, and those who simply couldn't be there are just screwed.

In addition, the low amount of votes needed in combination with the lack of a decisive voting period leaves host signups vulnerable to "hype wagons", where tons of people rushvote someone's game because it has a cool story/theme or other superficial appeal, or grips people with a unique concept. The extremely short time frame in which the decision is made...well, for one, it doesn't include the community very much, and two, it's bad for people actually looking at the game and thinking critically about it. This can come back to bite us when we vote in a setup that turns out to have major issues down the road, but it's perfectly allowable under the current system, and thus people once thought it was acceptable. Even with increasing awareness recently, usually by the time something imbalanced is discovered, the game is already underway and everyone tends to suffer for it (TWG CIV majorly, TWG CV to a lesser degree)

So, how can we change Host Signups to resolve these kinds of issues?

My idea is to run host signups in 2 stages, a very simplified version of my previous idea:

PROPOSAL STAGE - This is where hosts post their game writeups, and things are open for questions and feedback as per usual. What is unusual is that nobody votes at this stage.

VOTING STAGE - This is where people may vote on the game setups as usual, only there is an expected time frame for voting now. There is no "insta-host"; whichever has the most votes by deadline gets picked. (And of course if there is a tie we can hold a shorter second round of voting.)

IMO the stages should last at least 2 days each, but this is open to discussion. I think 2 days/3 days is a good boilerplate.

I think a system like this one addresses the problems on several levels. In general, it's a process designed to make people think about their participation in host signups as both voter and host.

TOPICS FOR DEBATE:
– Ideal length of the stages
– Sufficiency of the in-thread discussion to ensure balance (linked to Proposal 4, Bring Back The Workshop)

2. New History Threads

Proposed by: Brilliant Dynamite Neon

As evidenced, this is already being worked on, starting with the mainline games. Once that thread is finished, I will work on the history of jTWGs too.

While I'm mentioning it, I would like to again call attention to thesunfan who is being a huge help. He is working from the most recent games down and his pace is putting me to shame. I am very thankful for him.

Anyways, chronicling the history of games is obviously important. Those who don’t learn their history are doomed to repeat it! There can be learning experiences on all fronts by looking through past games, people can learn what did and didn't work in the past, and why. Also, when someone refers to a past game, someone can quickly look it up and find out what they're talking about.

TOPICS FOR DEBATE:
– BDN being a lazy bastard and not updating

3. A New, Comprehensive Beginner's Guide and Knowledgebase

Proposed by: Brilliant Dynamite Neon

Okay, I'm not one to demean others' work, and there's no doubt both parties were very sincere and great in their intentions. But frankly, I feel that both of the current "Beginner's Guides" in TWG are very inadequate. StoicRoivas' is very surface level and doesn't get into how players actually conduct themselves in game, while rzr's is awkward and scattershot (despite his attempts to actually characterize a game), grabbing for too many things, including stuff such as Items and Conversions that have no place in an introduction to TWG.

I am currently working on an outline for a new guide that should be much more helpful than either of the above two, and also a system of community contributions, such as articles and game commentaries, that can serve as further teaching tools.

Manti, I have made a general outline of topics I want covered with some scribblings of my own in some places; contact me if you still want to see and/or collaborate on this.

4. Bring Back The Workshop

Proposed by: Brilliant Dynamite Neon

No matter what type of game you are running, balance is crucial, and is the center of discussion in any Host Signup thread. This is common sense: the more balanced a game is, the more the outcome of the game will depend on the skill of the players, therefore the more enjoyable it will be for the players. This concern is especially dire for mystery games, which by design can only be run once, and will turn out to be a massive disappointment if it's balance is poor.

The crucial question is, is discussion in the thread good enough to balance games?

The easiest answer is that it depends on the game in question. And to me that alone is enough to warrant a dedicated place for game review. Some games have mechanics or role combinations that people can't grasp the full consequences of in the time given. Some people just don't think their games are ready and want to get them looked over before they visit them on the unwitting playerbase. Every case is different and it is important that there is a resource available for people who think their games need directed/intensive review.

I will be collecting arguments on both sides for this issue.

5. A Place For General TWG Related Discussion

Proposed by: Brilliant Dynamite Neon

This is pretty simple. People want to discuss TWG! They want to talk about events in past games, they want to talk general theory and role/game ideas, they want to know people's opinion on good Serial Killer play...the list is endless. The obvious problem? We have no place to do so. Everything in here is a Game Thread, or a Signup Thread, or a Postgame thread; none of these welcome discussion, and when there is such discussion it is not organized at all. Having a subforum would take care of these issues. Recently, Zageron was requested to help us out in this regard, which resulted in the move to a main forum and the addition of a test subforum, so it looks like we're on track to do this?

Danceguy, can I get an update on this, I believe it is you who contacted me about plans to have archive/discussion subforums.

6. jTWG?

Proposed by: Jurs, others



(but I'll get to this later.)

------------------------------------------

So if you have any commentary on the above ideas, go ahead! Or maybe even propose your own idea, and I can add it to the OP for consideration? I hope to make this thread pretty much an open forum for you guys -- a sort of suggestion box for the community at large to consider.

Fire away!

[Xiz]

A few of my thoughts:

Section 1.

In regards to the proposal stage and voting stage, I would say that those are actually swapped. For example, people might choose a playstyle over another and have a majority vote for that. After it has reached a majority vote, then the tweaking stage can begin. I feel as though these should be within the same thread, because if the tweaking happens to break the game or shows significant flaws in it, people can go right back into some of the other game options during that time.

Section 2.

Thank you Greg. You are doing a great job, keep it up. A history thread isn't needed in my opinion, but is really REALLY nice to have. For example, if I want to get a better read on TPS I might go ahead and look at his activity from his previous games to see how he plays. In my opinion, keep it going.

Section 3.

I really need the opinion of some of the newbies who played this past game to really have some strong feedback for this section. What I did this past game was kind of throw them into the fire and help them along the way. For example, in regards to Kayla (USA) or Mikeh (Russia) if they had ANY questions at all they would approach me, and I would help them out every step of the way without pursuing their moves or actions. Pretty much just rule clarification. I feel as though it worked pretty well, however there are cases such as Jon (Greece) where it didn't work as well.... then again he never really approached me until it was too late haha.

Section 4.

No opinion as of now.

Section 5.

The skype group IMO. It's a great hub that's used outside of the forums. If you are not in that skype group, hit me up.

[Bynary Fission]

My thought on section 1 - have you ever considered having a person who is new to hosting a game have a more experienced co-host help them run their game? I would imagine it's rather intimidating for somebody doing it the first time, and despite the safeguards we have to make a good game it doesn't always turn out that way when the game itself is played. I would think that having an experienced host co-host with a new host on their first game would serve as a beneficial way to help teach them how to run a game as well as ensure that the quality of the game is maintained in the event they begin to slip up.

My thought on section 5 - Agreed with the below poster. Skype could definitely work, but what about a sub-forum as well? Active players could be invited to utilize this forum when real-time chat is not necessary or feasible.

[thesunfan]

Yes, I agree with section one. We also need to keep the delay between the time where a game is voted into being played and the time that signups start. 48 hours worked really well this time around.

Section 2- I've started with some jTWGs as well, and I intend to bring a lot more things to the table once I finish the obvious (ie, writing histories) such as lifetime win-loss records, winning-est wolves, winning-est humans, and all kinds of SportsCenter-esque statistics.

Section 3- Yes, we need a new Beginner's Handbook to FFR TWG. We also should probably redraw up the rules since its not 2001 anymore than the Werewolf Council no longer exists, plus some rules are out of date/not followed anymore.

Sections 4 & 5 will receive comments once BDN gets more power.

[Crazyjayde]

1 : I would have also suggested those two stages to be swapped. It's easier to come to a consensus upon tweaking the game's rules when you can focus on one game's rulings only. I would also advise to regroup the two stages into one thread, and to find a proper logistic for doing so. Three preparatory threads would be a lot for a single game.

Also, I was always fond of the idea of having "event games" with a fixed restriction, where games suggested revolve around the same format or concept. You know, in times where we need to revert to simpler formats or whatever.

-

2 : An archival helps big time, it's nice to see a cleanup underway.

-

3: I support the idea of brewing a new, more comprehensive and "to the point" beginner's guide. I don't think both older threads achieved what they were aiming for. I never really understood much of them and instead went to Mafiascum for information.

Imo, it might be a good idea to divide it into two parts, with the basics and references into one (roles summary, terminology, game rundown etc.) and an index of advices or common question into the other.

[DarkManticoreX2]

Section 3 - BDN lets collab on this sometime. I have some ideas for helping newer people out as well.

[dAnceguy117]

good stuff, BDN.


5 - the Skype group is helpful for sure, but a little something more could help. IMs are cumbersome to sort through and find old messages.

not sure if a sub-subforum is necessary (or possible with this forum software). maybe move it to a separate site?

[Tps222]

I'm not even aware of what the skype group is.

[Tokzic]

I was going to make a topic for this post, but this thread is relevant enough:

--

So I just was looking at TWG postgames as a whole, and I couldn't help but notice:

Wolves win a lot lately.

And I think I know the reason for that. There's a recurring pattern in game design: We have a lot of people per game. And to compensate, we have games with a lot of wolves. But the sad reality is that a lot of players completely drop off the planet and we subsequently have a lot of inactive players per game. Players that sometimes take some time to replace.

Do you see the problem?

This is TWG hardmode. When there's even a 2-3 player pool of humans that aren't playing the game, wolves can easily have 2-3 people play entirely under the radar and get away with it because humans can't afford to flip coins to find wolves. A void of information gives a disproportional advantage to wolves.

Another problem with Big TWGs is that even in ideal circumstances, with every player generating discussion, the threads become HUGE. This makes following the thread take more time and therefore become exponentially more difficult. This is tough on the players, and especially tough on the replacements.

I feel like this just isn't what TWG is. TWG should be a more moderate number of players that are all actively participating in the game, with a realistic amount of discussion to keep 100% on track of. Hosts should keep up with their thread and remove anyone who completely vanishes for periods over 72+ hours. Even if life happens for a while, it's fine - replacement is just something that happens too. Join the next TWG. Whatever, dude. We shouldn't be overloading ourselves or signing up for games we don't have time to play anyway.

[Vendetta21]

i highly advise only changing one or two things at a time BDN

[thesunfan]

Originally Posted by Tps222

I'm not even aware of what the skype group is.

You've been in it since its inception lol.

Honestly, wolves are on a streak, and BOTH sides get replacements a fair deal, and its rather annoying, but its not apparent how related it is. AFK humans have been a problem since the inception of this game, and while I do entirely believe that it needs to be addressed, possibly in the way Afrobean stated in the postgame thread, both sides have been getting replaced recently, look at Japan being replaced by Sweden, who was almost immediately replaced by Scotland after that last game.

[FoJaR]

ugh skype is so bad and also the worst.

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by KgZ

I'd go even further to say that certain peoples posts can get huge. That's never fun to read. Brevity should be encouraged.

that's a game-specific thing. if you're playing in a game and you can't be arsed to read someone's posts, tell them. yell at them. plead with them. threaten to lynch them. make it part of the game.

there won't be restrictions on how short or long posts can be.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Tps222

I'm not even aware of what the skype group is.

Me either. I wasn't even aware that Skype did groups like that. My name is Afrobean if anyone wants to hook me up there.

Regarding what Tokzic said: yes, games are probably too big. There are enough people who want to play, but not enough people who actually play. I think rather than aiming for 20 players with 5 wolves and 4 or more replacements, we should shoot for 16 players with about 4 wolves and NO replacements. Or even smaller perhaps! If there are extra players who couldn't make sign ups, run a secondary game at the same time.

[FoJaR]

yeah smaller the better like 4 players.

oh wait i think there was a 4 player game that was floated a while back

[Xiz]

@Afro

Added ya. I'll toss ya in when you are on

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

i highly advise only changing one or two things at a time BDN

the host signups are the only game-related thing listed up there. what's the concern?

[Svaz]

The idea of voting on a game first and then tweaking it makes sense, I guess, but I feel like it'd be better to have games proposed in a separate workshop thread and then introduced as a game if no issues are had with it in whatever host signup thread. I can understand a need to revamp the voting process, but I dislike the idea of a pool, why not just have a time (48 hours, I guess, as the OP states) that voting occurs and have for/against options rather than just for? I get that it'd be a little unnecessary if it were a binary decision but in something with multiple options it might make things a bit more clear.

Alternatively, a window in which the host ideas can be submitted and then a later voting period (is that how it is now? it seems like everything just happens at once to me) or something, the voting period (maybe) including a for/against option if necessary...

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

yeah smaller the better like 4 players.

oh wait i think there was a 4 player game that was floated a while back

didn't you put that on the table when you were in the middle of hosting that one where we had five day lapses in discussion

[Krauthammer]

LEt's go starting with the Host Sign-ups revamp. It's the one that controls most of what TWG in FFR will be.

I'll join what other people have said, about flipping the phases proposed, although in the voting phase I think there should be a definite time for proposing games, and then the rest for the votes themselves.