jTWG

Re: jTWG

Also two things: we don't have enough players for two games to be run simultaneously. We already know that. Two, we don't need to label games jtwg. Three, if we want simpler games we can choose to host them as a community without feeling like we're playing super cool professional level twg because it's really not a reason to get a hardon guys seriously. Four, FUCK THE KING. five, nobody wants to play seer/guard games. SiX, why do we think the new players are feeling intimidated ( I have t seen that and can't link it to the alleged complexity of our current games ) seven, if players are feeling intimidated as you claim make them feel not intimidated you play twg use your skillz

Re: jTWG

We don't need to hold players hands - if you guys want people to learn how to play well then play as you normally would and reinforce lessons learned in post game. Learning happens in post game.

Re: jTWG

Even this thread is twg

Re: jTWG

we do have enough players for two smaller games.

fair

it's only partly about the setup. where people would normally be yelling WHAT ARE YOU DOING at someone not claiming a role or voting to kill a claimed blue or something like that (both during the game and in the postgame), in one of these a vet should be prepared to explain certain things and play the game without blowing a gasket. I know to you that doesn't matter but maybe it matters for some.

right those should never be run. there are a lot of ways to fix that kind of setup.

see:


wouldn't the best way be to accommodate for them? which is what this is about

I agree but if new players want to get a few games branded as "easy mode" or "lower consequences" first why not let them? in dailymafia I wanted to get a couple games under my belt where it wouldn't matter as much to people who take the game really really seriously if I fucked up in the game or did something that led to a reroll or something like that. I think having the option makes sense.

Re: jTWG

new players know what they want. imo say your piece but ask them what they want.

Re: jTWG

Speaking as someone with a few games of TWG under my belt, I would like to not only see this, but play in one.
A simpler game would be helpful, and I'd like to play with people around my skill level. I always feel like not saying too much and not being much of a leader, per se, because I feel newer and not as confident in my play and playing this I think would benefit me, as well as others with my experience.


//2cents

Re: jTWG

Isn't that the point of the host sign up phase and the game voting thread?

We don't need to institutionalize anything because we already can do these things. Once you institutionalize it it will not go the way you want it to.

Re: jTWG

So let's say people want simpler games ( I like simple games ) then someone should ask for it, someone should offer to build and host one, and most people should vote to play it.

Do you want to institutionalize simple games? Well, if you do when most players want to play ridiculous games I would sit out nobody is going to play the simple games and we'll be back here talking about jtwg again.

We already have the ability to cater to this group - we just have to host a game and it has to be voted for

There's nothing to fix here.

Re: jTWG

Heh, it feels like we've been doing nothing but complex (figure these roles out) games.

Next voting thread, I'm definitely going to vote for something with nothing special attached to it.

Re: jTWG

I mean if you guys want to reinstate the caste system go ahead.

Here's the problem: if we run two games simultaneously separating the player base we won't have enough players - if people want to play a 20 man game we won't have room for another twig. It's not that I want to play a game like that - having the option is important, it's part of the voting process. If you institutionalize it we won't have options.

If you don't institutionalize it you run he risk of hosting simple games at the whims of the players - can't guarantee you'll have them.

I don't think there's a happy medium that does not involve separating players into groups and if you're going to do that I wouldn't want games I'm interested in playing be affected by a need to fill games on either side of the table, siphoning experienced players from interesting games to fit a need that was artificially manufactured.

Both parties won't be happy, doesn't matter what you do.

Re: jTWG

There is a third option.

If you get more people involved in TWG by offering to run simple or beginner-level games, then the player base might expand to the point that you CAN run large games and still have enough players left for a simple jtwig.

Re: jTWG

how is it a caste system if everyone can choose which games to play in?

look at what those in favor are saying. it doesn't seem to me like "simple games" is the focal point.

Re: jTWG

I don't really know what the interest level is, and I'm not too convinced that running these jtwg things would buff the numbers that greatly, but I guess we wouldn't know until we tried.

are you asking for simple games? if you are, then I would agree with fiction. we can just vote to play simple games if that's what we want to play.

Re: jTWG

if simple games aren't the issue then it's the roster. If you guys want to host jtwigs I guess I don't see a problem with that as long as there are no ceilings. Meaning, jwtig players can opt to play in games we vote for and the jtwigs we create for them, yeah?

The problem with player segmentation was how players had to be approved to play 'real twigs.' I find this to be ridiculous and unfriendly.

The better way to approach this would be to prevent players from going downwards - as in, preventing experienced players from playing in jtwigs that are designed for people to get their toes wet.

say we have a list of jtwig players we update as they feel they've outgrown the stage and they opt out to let others in. Limit the jtwg roster to about 21 (that's one 9 player game and one 12 player or one 16 player game) and then as new interest comes in jtwig players who have played enough jtwigs to feel comfortable can opt out of the roster and never play those games again..!!!

If you want to help people move up you've got to let them play on their own. I think the difficulty players have with twig has a lot less to do with game types than it does with comfort. And we can be intimidating although there's like no reason for players to feel intimidated. But whatever. If they want to duke it out comfortably then separate them, don't let experienced players interfere and allow them to graduate by opting out.

Re: jTWG

in that regard I feel jtwig can work - you just have to find new players through CC or TGB. But under no circumstances should experienced players be allowed to play in them. It siphons the players we need from games we need to fill and it ruins the experimental learning stage the jtwig is suppose to cater to