BZP Mafia Discussion

We still would probably have lynched the guilty parties in almost every case, due to solving hints, even if you hadn't done what you were doing. So I'd say the village deserves some credit for not being miserably bad.

Oh, probably, yes. It's just I get credit for solving said hints first. =P

*Snaps fingers*

You're giving yourself credit, if that's what you mean.

Well, you know, they say that the only person you need to fool is yourself. =P

*Snaps fingers*

If anyone isn't planning on hosting XXIV, I want to host.

I think we should hold off a little bit on confirming future games; we're still playing XX, but the hosts up until XXIII have already been decided.

(which is the only reason why I haven't put my hat into the ring yet because yeah that is a little far ahead)

(but I swear sometime I will host the no-topic game and it will be great)

(but tbh it would probably work best as a side game anyway but)

(yeah)

 

ATTENTION: Do you feel that there should be a host queue in the first post?

 

no

i don't see why not, personally. at least a list of who's put a claim on what game/who is up to run a side game. you're already keeping a list of mafia games in the OP so maybe just include something like "XXIII - Portal" and wait until the game actually goes live for a link to go up

-Tyler

 

ATTENTION: Do you feel that there should be a host queue in the first post?

 

yes

~Unit#phntk#1

3 yea, 1 nay

Not a bad idea

4 to 1. I'm ending this vote once 24 hours have passed, id est at 4:34 PM EST Tomorrow, Sunday, Jan. 4th.

Well, I'd say no.

If only because people can't be guaranteed to be available by the time they get a chance to host. If there is one, it'd have to be malleable. Well, we could end up with a queue about twenty-seven names long and given the average length of a mafia game that'd take more than a year to go through, side games included.

(Also I thought Voltex started the topic and he basically is the Custodian of BZP Mafia.)

I'd say it would be editable but just to keep a list of claimed games on the front page for future reference.

4-2

I like the idea, but keep it malleable, so if someone dissapears or something comes up, then it can be changed, so that's a half-vote.

Votes so far:

4.5- 2

Yes I actually voted halfway. =P

EDIT: Luroka Said I can't halfvote, so this is a full vote.

The way I see it is this, we obviously have some games claimed already, but they aren't in one place. Putting them in one place would make this much easier for us.

I know I keep forgetting who all has what xD

So I guess this would be a yea as long as the list doesn't go beyond 3-4 games ahead.

RG you can't halfway vote.

6 - 2

I just don't feel that it's necessary. I'm worried at the excessive organization that has been taking place and how it is still continuing. If I'm remembering correctly, back in the First Age hosts were decided by pitting different game concepts against each other; that's how I originally got to host Bionicle Mafia 31, and I think that's how the last few games after that were decided as well. Perhaps we should ditch the whole claiming system and pitch the actual concepts when it comes time for the games people want to host instead? 

It would guarantee that the best games are the ones that are played, and it would also ensure that hosts have concepts that are polished and ready to go; while also guaranteeing that the host will be active enough to host the game to its completion.

I imagine this would only be put into effect starting with XXIV or XXV, but I think it might make for a better, more flexible experience in the long run?

It'd mean, though, that twists would have to be known ahead of time, or the more cool things that might not seem cool in descriptions might not get made...

I can see why you would say that, yeah. If we weren't going to claim, then that would be how I would prefer this system to be. (heck, it is how I'd prefer this anyways) But since we are claiming a few games in advance, it would be nice to know who all had claimed.

The First Age also had the big ole list, though it must have petered out by 31. For a while, they had games going all the way to 100 ahead claimed. Needless to say, that is why I've always been against claiming very far in advance. Heck, I am pretty sure we did this until the Darkest Days trilogy, and then it kinda became the norm even though I felt kinda bad about taking up spots that far ahead. *shrug*

Basically, I would prefer a system like that, Voltex, but I feel like we've tried to push systems like that before and they always seem to fade away pretty quickly. 

But I also feel like my memory is pretty vague on all this, sooo yeah. Fair warning.

I'm going to vote against listing, if only because we tried to stop doing that and all, but..

I think half the problem is at this point is that people want certain numbers and such

Ehks wants his X(X)[X]'s 

Tex wants his IX's, III's, and such

Burn wants his double-digit games..

Pitting concepts against one another doesn't really work out when a concept is half based upon, say, the number of the game, or at this point, the fact that most of a Mafia game doesn't seem to become apparent until into the game itself with a twist. 

TL; DR: I don't want a list but at the same time it seems to be all we can do so :/

Zakaro

6 - 3

I just want the list so that we know who wants what future games. I'd rather not have to dig through pages of posts to find who wants to host the next few games. Because I had to do just that earlier today

It'd mean, though, that twists would have to be known ahead of time, or the more cool things that might not seem cool in descriptions might not get made...

Yeah, it wouldn't really work to boast about your game with "it has a great twist and I know you're gonna think it's awesome but I can't tell you"

 

It'd mean, though, that twists would have to be known ahead of time, or the more cool things that might not seem cool in descriptions might not get made...

Yeah, it wouldn't really work to boast about your game with "it has a great twist and I know you're gonna think it's awesome but I can't tell you"

 

But if you look at, say, XIX and XX... well, they'd be pitched as they were. The twist might be mentioned, but both were also functional games before the twists even took place.

also @Zakaro: XIX was the last number I wanted to host, and even then, by the time I was done XVIII I didn't actually really want it anymore... it was more that nobody else had anything ready to go at that point. I don't care if I get a particular number at this point.

All I know is I want to keep the games I listed my desire for in my blog. 23, 34, 45, 56, 67, 78

I'm going to vote against listing, if only because we tried to stop doing that and all, but..

 

I think half the problem is at this point is that people want certain numbers and such

Ehks wants his X(X)[X]'s 

Tex wants his IX's, III's, and such

Burn wants his double-digit games..

 

Pitting concepts against one another doesn't really work out when a concept is half based upon, say, the number of the game, or at this point, the fact that most of a Mafia game doesn't seem to become apparent until into the game itself with a twist. 

 

TL; DR: I don't want a list but at the same time it seems to be all we can do so :/

Zakaro

I actually only wanted XX

Someone else can have ALCOH-I mean XXX.

But if you look at, say, XIX and XX... well, they'd be pitched as they were. The twist might be mentioned, but both were also functional games before the twists even took place.

Yeah, I was joking, it'd probably be fine

Someone else can have ALCOH-I mean XXX.

I've got a different idea entirely for that one

I've got a different idea entirely for that one

We all know that one.

Bionicle Mafia: Tic Tac Toe

I'm against lists. They're too limiting. What sounds like an alluring game when it is first proposed will not necessarily do so after the intermediate games have been completed. And as we all know, players are prone to disappearing, without warning.

Re the proposition of games: As some have pointed out, strict insistence on a presentation of the game's concept would rather limit what it could do in terms of twists. But I see no problem with players voting for a game simply because they like what its host has done previously.

One more thing: I think that we should set some sort of ground rules for twists. Nothing too tight, but enough to prevent surprise game features that are either untenable (e.g. those that extend a game's length too far) or, for want of a better term, non sequitur (e.g. those that switch the game to an entirely unrelated system of play.)

6-4

I vote against lists, too. They're not just limiting, we might end up with games being claimed waaaay into the future again. :/

Everyone seems to be assuming that this list would extend thirty games into the future or something. I was thinking no more than five. It'd definitely be useful to keep track of who's hosting the next few, in order to avoid conflicts of who's hosting what and when...

Given the length of recent games, we have no idea exactly how long it will take to go through a hypothetical list. It could take three months or six months. Five games into the future I'd say is still pretty far. In fact I'm pretty sure we had a list once and we abandoned it because it was too unreliable... we're at game XX, so has anyone claimed XXIII/XXV? No? I'd rather it'd stay that way until we actually get to them. I'm sure there are other people that feel similarly. When a game is around the corner, you can mostly guarantee that the person hosting it is going to actually be active, because it's about to happen. With a five-game waiting list, there's more time in between the claim and the game, during which anything could happen. 

So if there is a list, it has to allow for flexibility. 

Yes. Yes it does. But that doesn't mean it'd be better to have no list at all.

"Has anyone claimed 23?" Yeah. I have. I just don't know if we have any games claimed beyond that one.

Yes. Yes it does. But that doesn't mean it'd be better to have no list at all.

Doesn't it? What's to be gained from a list? All having one does is to risk us being stuck with a game that we don't want. There's nothing stopping someone from saying "I'd like to host the main series game after the next one" and everyone else saying "that's a dandy idea." But we shouldn't set these things in stone. Mafia games, as evidenced by "the Voltex Constant," can be quite exhausting. That's an inevitable side-effect of the sort of grandiose games we design and play, but it does mean that we shouldn't assume that what strikes our fancies once will always do so.

 

Yes. Yes it does. But that doesn't mean it'd be better to have no list at all.

Doesn't it? What's to be gained from a list? All having one does is to risk us being stuck with a game that we don't want. There's nothing stopping someone from saying "I'd like to host the main series game after the next one" and everyone else saying "that's a dandy idea." But we shouldn't set these things in stone.

And I'm not saying we should. I don't want a list that, once written, is permanent. I don't want a list that says "you can host and you can't" and so on. I just want an easily accessible collection of those who have requested to host. As Luroka mentioned, it's a pain in the butt to have to look through six or seven pages to figure out who wants to host something when in the near future.