Is no kill singular?
Apparently
Not that it matters when the convoluted redefinition of the term is only given after it was relevant that the OP stated something else
I still have not seen anyone pose a better wording to what I have enforced - I still challenge anyone to do this.
The intent of this phrasing is that a night action can have a target of anything you would like (without breaking the game, hence the singularity clause). So if you wanted to submit a intentionally outside the immediate scope of the game why should the mod stop you.
The mandatory nature of the night actions is solely to prevent forgetfulness of players from missing actions that they want to do. It also allows the mod the ability to ping for the completion of actions. Allowing for a buffer time for the mod to run actions and compose the start of day OPâs within a reasonable timeframe.
I do note that my phrasing in the term clarification post was sub par. But if there was questions regarding what was stated then they would be asked in their role cards. No questions were asked by anyone regarding the clarification.
How about âMafia factional kills are not mandatory - they must submit a target every nightâ
This at least indicates to players from the clunky wording that something is wrong
But why
Thereâs literally no good reason to do this and it doesnât matter because this wording only came into existence after it was already a problem
Nobody is going to punish or look down on you if you go âoh shit actually you did see motionâ when you realize the OP literally states kills are mandatory
Itâs way worse to come up with a bunch of convoluted and incorrect technicalities to justify how âoh it was totally possible the whole timeâ
Not only that but even your clarification still doesnât get at the idea that âno killâ is a viable option because you went out of your way to avoid just saying âoh yeah I allow no kill as an optionâ by making up a whole âyou know âtargetâ is really just an ethereal construct manâ narrative that makes literally no sense in the context of the game
1 Like
Thatâs bullshit because if they donât submit you just rand a target - you are and will always be incapable of enforcing submission of an action. The point of mandatory kills is to prevent trackers/MDs from becoming useless and preventing infinite length games where the scum force the Town to eliminate in MyLo rather than killing to bring the game to LyLo. It has literally no effect on player forgetfulness.
Both of these are already entirely possible without making the kill mandatory. Again, not actual reasoning to call the kill mandatory when it isnât.
Because by any reasonable standard there is no confusion - you literally avoided outright stating no kill was a possible target so any human reading would have no reason to believe a mandatory kill could target nobody.
It is not a reasonable expectation that your players should need to second-guess what you have told them and probe you for answers, especially in an open and standardized setup. If you wish to radically change things from how your players would normally expect them to function, that needs to be laid out in the OP or the game needs to be advertised as explicitly bastard.
What I posted above is the intent of what was I was using through this game with respect to night actions. Not generated specifically for this case to lead the game in a specific direction.
I will say that in hindsight specifically including the fact that a â/command no oneâ is a valid action and target combination would have removed what this thread is mostly about.
Your alternative message states explicitly the nature of the kills which is clearer, but it also exposes game state and if I came out with that message I would lead pretty much instantly to a squirrel kill. Giving me an angry squirrel for exposing game state and probably also resulting is a disputed result.
Couldnât, hammer happened too soon.
Iâm gonna go post signups for a test game soon, make sure to sign up for a new interesting mechanic!
You could also just omit ânight kills are mandatoryâ and that solves it lol
3 Likes
Thatâs what we call ânot lying to your playersâ 
1 Like
In a choice between clarity for all of your players and making one player who got an unfair advantage retain that advantage, there is no choice.
You can say that, but itâs really hard to believe when the OP says one thing in simple and plain language and everything you have said since after it became relevant has been convoluted and vague. 
also lol this result is way more disputed than âoh shoot my player didnât take a mandatory action and the game is overâ
So you would expose game state in order to clarify rules?
Precisely
because
These concerns directly conflict.
If players could have asked questions (had you given any indication that would ever be necessary) and been told âoh yeah nokill is an optionâ then there is zero reason to not have said as much in the thread unless you were purposefully and intentionally obfuscating that information from the players, which proves that the poor wording on the âclarificationâ was indeed intentional.
so no shit people didnât ask questions you wrote it in such a way that they wouldnât
but yeah if your OP says something and you decide that wasnât what you meant you 110% need to clarify that fully with your players
If you clarify it everyone is on the same page. In this case, I had already outed myself, which is huge for the scum. Theyâd already gotten more than enough out of the âmisunderstandingâ and can take the town knowing how the game works.
If you donât clarify it then sure the gamestate is less known, but thatâs only due to your OP being at best completely incorrect, which just makes the game outright bastard. Trying to like very very softly hint at âoh yeah I define things in weird ways, maybe you should ask about themâ does not make the game not bastard at that point.
very few things have the potential to make players feel worse than a secretly bastard game because itâs really just a waste of their time and every possible step should be taken to avoid becoming one
I do emit that I could have included a line in the definition of a target that would explicitly included no one/nothing valid. That dose not change that fact that if something was confusing, and you did not ask further clarification questions that would be on you regardless of what would be confusing.