Be Excellent To Each Other

Inspired by the (very entertaining) ongoing game of MafiaScum, after doing some research (there are tons of variants out there) I've written my own ruleset for a game I propose to run in the future. I'd like to discuss them with the board.

Plot premise: Vampires and Villagers: a Vampire Lord has fled to the remote Alaskan town of Barrow and gone to ground there. Fortunately, the residents of Barrow know a bit about Vampires, and the Vampire has been tracked by a novice Hunter who has been living incognito amongst them, trying to find the Vampire.

Inspired by Dimrill's performance, I think I would like to leave room for in-character posting in the game.

Game premise: in game II I liked the creeping sinister element of the Cult, where as time goes on they will gradually control more and more of the game. However I think the game gets quite hectic with three opposing factions, so I've combined the Mafia and Cult into one group, the Vampires. I like the idea of some players facing a choice between a minor power or a major power with an associated risk element. I like the idea of there being two daytime voting blocks, so I've put Masons back in from game I, and they have the ability to communicate outside the game. I like the idea of loyalties shifting through the game, and discovering traitors in your midst.

So, here are my roles. We'll call this VampireScum v0.2.

The game starts with one Vampire Sire:


The game starts with one Vampire Childe, the Sire has to make more as the game proceeds:


One serial killer:


2-4 Masonic Townies:


8-15 townies:


1 Protownie Van Helsing:


1 Protownie Priest:


1 Protownie Costumed Vigilante.


1 Loon.


1 Psychiatrist.


Primary win types are Town (all vampires and SK dead), serial killer (everyone dead), vampires (Vampire Sire still alive, vamps outnumber everyone else but there are still some other people alive. They do need food!)

The game would have an Afterlife thread in a locked subforum that only dead people would be allowed to read; they are allowed to freely share data there. This was inspired by Mr Craster telling me that watching the game is incredible fun to watch if you know who people are, and I would like to share that with the players where possible.

Game balance concerns me. I find it very hard to judge if the game is winnable for the various sides or not. I've spent a bit of time turning this over in my mind and working out the scenarios. There are some -- like the Vampires getting a Mason, or the Serial Killer getting Vamped -- that should result in absolute carnage which may or may not be a good thing. There is also a risk of an early upset if the Van Helsing gets lucky, and that may lead to a slow start (the Sire may not choose to try and turn someone on the first night, but instead wait and try and pick someone vulnerable). The Sire then has an interesting strategic choice between attempting to build up a large number of Childe for the roleblock abilities -- they could essentially choke the game up towards the end -- or playing it safe and slowly trying to find the priest and Van Helsing.

Changelog
V0.2 -- added 1 starting childe, takes two nights to Embrace, childe have a "bite" action, gave Vigilante a minor investigate power

That looks fantastic. I already put my name down
Will have a think about it and add some suggestions in a bit.

Seems a bit in favour of the vampires to me, mostly because only Van Helsing can kill the lord, and everyone else can block. Chances are he'd be blocked every night until killed.

*gets out special stamp*
*pounds into Richard's forehead*
"Win"

To clarify, I don't mind people volunteering to play it in this thread, but this won't be the next game of MafiaScum on the boards. Also, I will be collecting names and picking them out of a hat, not doing first-come-first-served. In the event of spaces being limited I think I will also try and pick people who weren't in Game II, or even people who haven't had an opportunity to play yet.

ComicalGnomes, I think it's unlikely the Lord would manage to recruit more than 3-4 Childe, and if there are still more than 10 townies in the game they won't have great odds on choosing who to block. I may also make Van Helsing's ability unblockable yet, I'm still pondering that. I agree that the town may not have quite enough on their side.

I'm trying to weight it away from random lynchings a little. Actually, perhaps an extra voyeur type roles on the town side would help; people who could snoop on roles and act as the seeds of suspicion to get the game rolling.

Also, ow, my forehead hurts.

In addition to what I said above, the Lord can still be lynched en masse. He just wins any one-on-one combat with the Serial Killer or Vigilante.

This seems to depend far too much on chance to me. At a glance it looks as though if the Vampire Sire dies early on the vampires will almost certainly lose, and if he doesn't they will almost certainly win. I'm not really comfortable with the fact an unfortunate target on the VS' part could end the game night 1, or the fact towards the end of the game the town may end up in a situation where it's completely impossible to win- situations like that are usually no fun at all to play in.

These are the comments I want, because you've obviously played a bunch of this before and I haven't. So far I've been convincing myself that the odds of that happening are small enough to get away with, and that the idea is to encourage caution on the part of the Sire player -- they are not necessarily supposed to be picking names out of a hat, but trying to figure out who is least likely to be protected, i.e., who hasn't been useful to the town. I agree with you that it is impefect though but I am struggling to adjust it sufficiently without throwing the whole premise out. Of course, the premise may be flawed.

I actually don't care too much though about the fact that towards the end the Town may be really screwed. I don't care because the players won't know at the time. There might only be a handful of Townies left at the end surrounded by skulking vamps, utterly screwed and still unknowing, but I think that it could still make for some great tension because the Townies can never know how far along the vampires are.

Overall though I hope that people will be willing to accept that if a ruleset someone creates is flawed, and maybe the game collapses, then we'll just play a different game. Some of these rulesets will have balance problems or other issues but part of the fun (for me anyway) is that the rules are never the same twice; I'm prepared to put up with some "bad" rulesets in return for that variety.

Perhaps a role that can find out how many vamps there are? Say, a vampire tracker, who can find out how many there are, but only reveal it upon their death? That way they could only become directly useful to the town by getting themselves killed.

can i be involved please. I got owned in MS, want to do better in VS.

Also Dr, I sent you a message on XBL last night around 8pm I think about Rock Band.
Did you get it? Were you just not interested?
I really wanna do some online banding, let me know if you do too....

I considered a Cop, who perhaps could uncover roles like the Priest but would always fail on the Sire. I've also considered making one of the Protownies part of the Masons, so they have a small group that trusts them, to increase their influence in the daily vote. Of course the Masons have to hide from the Vampires though, so they'd have to be just as subtle in their block voting as the Mafia in the games we;ve had so far.

LaceSensor: I replied to that over here.

I think perhaps slightly powering down the Sire and Helsing would be a good idea. At the moment if you're a townie there doesn't seem that much you can do to influence the game, because those two roles are so powerful that they basically dictate the entire flow of the thing. I'm not sure how you'd do that, though. Perhaps you could take the setup to the MafiaScum boards, as I'd imagine they'd have advice that's more helpful than "I think this needs fixing but I don't know how", which is the best I have right now.

That's a good idea. Dimrill the gravedigger keeps track of the number of empty caskets in the crypt, perhaps.

You might not have to make the death automatic -- you'd probably not last long once you reveal yourself. Although, I like the idea of sacrificial roles, as the idea of the the game is for your team to win, not for you to survive.

Don't forget the townies can still lynch anyone they want, which remains the primary information gathering technique. And the Helsing is only actually a protective role, not so different to the Doctor in normal MafiaScum. I think the Priest is more useful. And for the Sire, his only power carries risk, which I think balances somewhat... we could just play a dozen games and see how it pans out

I might do that. I've been browsing around over there, interesting stuff.

I still think Noncescum offers the most potential for hilarity.

Could make it so, if the Vampire Sire is killed, the oldest Childe becomes a replacement Sire. And make the Sire start the game with one Childe already, to reduce the odds of an early upset. Then make it so the Sire has to visit the same target two nights running to Turn them, to slow down the rate the Vampires can munch through the town.

I'm trying to induce a slow-burning atmosphere paranoia, hence there is quite a lot of scope for traitors in your midst.

I think I like that idea. Especially if the player is told on the first night that they've been bitten. Then they could beg for protection from another character so they don't get turned - but who'd know if they were telling the truth or trying to distract the roleblockers?

I'm not really sure that it'll be possible to work out how things will pan out. I think play testing is the only way to see if everything fits together.

I like that. I was trying to think of something along the lines of: if vampires are amongst those who vote for a lynchee, there's a random chance that one of them can be either revealed or end up getting dusted as they take part in the mob.
A bit complicated, but I dunno, maybe it makes the vamps more lurky and cautious.

I'm not sure this doesn't get too bluff/doublebluff/triplebluff though, which then rapidly just turns into too much luck rather than skill. Only the vampire have a reason to lie about being bitten, which means if two people say "please save me", then odds are, one's a vamp and the other a potential vamp next turn. What about the addition of a couple of Cowardly Townies who only Win condition is to survive, by any means? They would have a reason to lie and claim protection. It wouldn't take much to sow some doubt. If you were bitten one night, it'd be aces trying to convince everyone the next day! Strategies from the Vamp's side is then to create a lot of false positives, deliberately biting people one night and not returning to confuse matters.

I've already considered, and given up, on the idea of random chance a number of times. My pen&paper RPG background is coming to the fore here but I'm resisting it on the grounds that I don't want to clutter the (quite pure) nature of the game up. I like the concept though, but if our early games are anything to go by, the best thing the vampires can do is sit back and let panic take over anyway; hmmm. I considered making it a Vampire win condition that there be a minimum number of Townies left, on the grounds that they need some food, but also that I wanted to change the dynamic of the daytime. I'd like it to be an option that the Vampires might actually trying to stop anyone getting lynched, so they can grow their clan each night and build towards getting some roleblockers in play, rather than just trying to whittle the townies down as fast as possible.

I do think this would feel quite different to the Mafia games we've had so far, and that would be good.

The more I think about it the happier I am with that above suggestion. I think the town should also get a Voyeur and a Tracker, as they are quite low-powered roles that nevertheless do get good nuggets of information from time to time, and they help make the town less reliant on one or two pieces of data.

I would consider, as part of the character gen processing, allowing one of the Protownie roles to end up in the Masons, as I discussed earlier. What do people think of that? Too powerful for the town?

No, because all that's needed is one mason to be turned, and the advantage is at best gone, at worst an entire disaster for the townies. Add to that, it would increase the chances of the masons being obvious.

In my own personal opinion from myself, I am concerned that everyone would much rather play murder in the dark, than talk about proper games and stuff.

Anyway, Carry on.

That's what we need more of - murder mystery games!

I have time for both, we're talking about racing games in fact.

Feel free to start a topic on another genre and I'll come in and tell you why racing games are better.

Go start a thread on The Ship. If you want to do some Games Journalism, then I think Friday the 13th is the first murder mystery game on computer.

@Dudley - this is a thread about VampireScum, please keep discussion of racing games to the racing games thread, thanks.

So make it so a childe can bite too. It won't have any other effect than telling someone they'd been bitten.

Further to my prior point: It seems easy enough to win just by attracting vampires to bite you. The vampires do seem to be stronger by far.

According to White Wolf, the plural of Childe is "Childer". [/nitpicky]

The problem is with only one Sire you're risking early instawin for the town, with more than one it feels like it'll become nearly impossible for the town to prevent creeping vampire death.

Maybe if a Childe bites someone, then the Sire only needs one bite to turn them...

Bah to you. Clearly it's been too long since I played WoD.

I know, I know. Pretty much the same way as the current game is going with the cult.

So, do we play this after the current game ends? What do we think on these rules? I think from the 0.1 rules posted earlier, I would add a starting Childe (to reduce the possibility of an early lucky shot taking the vamps out) but make the Sire have to come bite someone twice, two nights running, to turn them (otherwise I think they might run through the game a bit fast). The person who has been bitten would be told they were at risk, and may plead for protection etc in the thread, but then it isn't a given the Sire would return to that target. To confuse matters I'd also add a minor ability for the Childe; they could give up their roleblock or kill function and instead bite someone. It doesn't do anything except make the target think they will be turned next night.

edit: If the Sire is killed the oldest Childe is promoted to Sire.

The idea is to build an atmosphere of creeping paranoia, where previous friends can become enemies (e.g. if the vamps turn the SK, they will have a traitor in their midst, and same thing if a Mason is turned). I'd look for the game to perhaps run a little longer and slower than the other ones for this reason.

What do we think of the game balance then guys?

Honestly, I really don't know how it will work. I think you should go for it and see how the game develops.

I'm having a game off after this one ends. Too much else to do but I'll follow this one with interest.

This has occured to me too. Suck it and see. All these games have a good bit of luck (cf: Mafia Goons all dead by night 2 in Game II).

Crap, with no CG in it, how will anyone win? It's a guaranteed stalemate!

Yeah, I think you just need to run the game and see what happens.

Bwahahaha

CG will have to have a special FenceSitter role. He does nothing all game, chooses a side at any point he likes, and that side immediately win.

Hmmm... it's a tricky one.

If the Sire turns three people early on, without picking the SK, then he'll have a fantastic advantage. They can kill, turn and roleblock twice. At that point the Sire could even take it easy and avoid the risk of turning anyone else.

If you ally to this that the Sire role gets taken up by the Senior Childe, then I fail to see how anything other than a Vampire win is inevitable. The town's only hope is to have the SK infiltrate the vamps.

As such, if the game goes past day three, the Vamps are almost certain to win. Hell, unless the Chief vamp dies first time, they're strong favourites.

I would counsel against a Childe becoming a Sire. It would be like give one side an unlimited supply of Sires, several Roleblockers and a Kill function. They'd surely walk it to victory.

Have you missed that I've made turning somone in a childe take two nights? The Sire has to bite someone two nights running to turn them.

Maybe; how about, Childe doesn't become a Sire, Sire can still be lynched as normal. But if the Sire is caught by Van Helsing a Childe dies in his place? That way, there is still only one Sire out there, but the odds of a single unlucky choice by the Sire of bite targets are reduced. Otherwise if the Van Helsing and Sire choose the same target Night 1 the game is over.

Additional thought -- if you had two Childe, I'd have one of them out creating phantom bitings and not roleblocking. Otherwise the activities of the Sire would be easy to follow.

LET'S JUST FUCKING PLAY IT.

Ah, I see.

Now it puts the balance back in favour of the Town, as the Sire is going to find it very hard to turn anyone before he dies... though I can think of certain devious tactics to employ!

Yes. That's the point

On reflection I think two-nights-to-turn but Childe-becomes-Sire is an OK balance. I suspect the vampires will be wanting the Childe Bite night ability which will calm down their rolebocks.

The massive number of roleblocks they could accrue (one per Childe after the first one) is to reward them for shooting for a large clan, which is a risky move. The safer strategy would be to recruit 1-2 childe and then try and wait it out, being sneaky during the day. I think it's an interesting tactical balance.

It's certainly worth a pop, isn't it?

All new rulesets will probably have some imbalances and exploits in them, which can be tweaked in future games of that variant. I'm sure that will be true of my upcoming GothamScum game, as well as VampireScum.

It looks like MafiaScum is here to stay on the forum. I was quite worried that after a couple of games interest would die away, but there seem to be enough people to get twenty people for each game and I don't expect that to stop soon, looking at how the third game has gone.

So I'd except and hope we'll be rotating between Mafia/Vampire/Gotham/Zombie/BarbieScum games for a while yet.

I'd love to host a MafiaScum game at some point. Add me to whatever list exists!

I think I'm down for game five, but don't know about anything after that.

All these games have a hefty luck element, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. What I was looking to see was people debating it; unless most people immediately agree it's biased, it's probably OK enough to go with.

See also the current Dead Zone thread about Game IV, which (amusingly) was referred to inside about five posts by one smart ass guy as a lock for one side, by another clever guy as a lock for another side, and by someone else clued up as "too close to call"! It all depends.

(deliberately vague)

You are, and game six is up for grabs. At this rate we'll have as hard a job chooses who running the game as who is in one!