The Random Button

[Matahari]

I've an idea for a feature to be tested in a game, that settles the randomizing debate. Or maybe it would make it worse, not sure about that. I'm hoping someone will be tempted to try it out.

For the first 2 or 3 days, a random button is added to the lynch poll, along with all players names. The host privately chooses a different player each of the days to be the random player.

In the event that people decide they would rather random than vote someone, they can feel free to do so. But the catch is, if the random player dies, their role will not be revealed. They will also be ressed after 72 hours and given the option of also bringing back the player who dies on the same night.

The theory here is that by day three, players should have some idea about who is bad or not, and shouldn't need the random button.

However, this could present some interesting ideas for mafia to play around with, such as night killing one of their own, if they are reasonably sure the lynched player will rezz them- or if the daily random player is mafia, then they could get by with killing off a team member.

Or say, on day three a civ gets random killed, but they strongly suspect the night killed person on night three, they don't have to rezz the player.

This could even involve a dead thread for the killed players to continue grilling each other, to decide whether or not to rezz their night mate-

Anyway, I'd appreciate feedback on whether anyone can improve on this idea and try it out in a game. Thanks!

[Matahari]

Thinking of things that could interfere:

If you have an unlynchable role in your game, the random button would have to supercede that. In order not to reveal what the players role is, they would have to accept the lynch if they were chosen via random button.

[thellama73]

It's an intriguing concept, but it sounds like you are basically asking the host to choose who dies on day one, which I don't think is very fair.

[juliets]

Not if the host randomized to get the one who would die. Plus that person comes back to life on day 3.

[Hedgeowl]

This is really interesting. It would be fun for someone to give this a try in one of the games. Just to see how the mechanics would work. I have also been thinking about the idea of a dead chatzy. SO much more fun, plus all the early dead players would still get to "play" rather than be out on day 1, etc.

[juliets]

This is really interesting. It would be fun for someone to give this a try in one of the games. Just to see how the mechanics would work. I have also been thinking about the idea of a dead chatzy. SO much more fun, plus all the early dead players would still get to "play" rather than be out on day 1, etc.

We have had some games with dead chatzy and the only problem i have seen is when only one or two of the dead players show up to the chatzy. Others have had a dead thread that only the deadies can see. It's fun if you have contests to get back in the game and such, usually people will participate in those whether its chatzy or a dead thread.

[Matahari]

JC- yes, the host would have to be the one who randomizes the player attached to the random button each day.

Hedgeowl- I agree that it might make for an interesting take on things. I just watched BWT get lynched on day 1/2 in three consecutive games, and it's pretty awful when you get stuck in a rut like that. There is a guy named bookhouse boy, who was cursed with a day two lynch, so many times that now, some of us still refer people repeatedly getting killed early as being 'book-wagoned'.

This would most definitely keep players from leaving mafia because they got killed early one time too many. Since most day ones are civvies, it would also help the civvies in general. And the player would still get the chance to actually be lynched or survive on their own merits, instead of day one bad luck.

As for the mafia, when they lose a player on the first day, it puts a serious hardship on their team, so this could help with that.

Another thing about this, is that if a killer goes by random on day 1, it could out his role, unless the mafia teams have open kills, as in anyone on the team gets to kill. And Indys with a kill would have to wait until night three, or whatever. Something like that.

I'm working on a game "Popeye- the movie", for whenever I finally get a computer, lol, and I hope to try this concept. But in the meantime I'm hoping someone else might try it.
and provided I can persuade Juliet's to host with me

[S~V~S]

This is really interesting. It would be fun for someone to give this a try in one of the games. Just to see how the mechanics would work. I have also been thinking about the idea of a dead chatzy. SO much more fun, plus all the early dead players would still get to "play" rather than be out on day 1, etc.

We have had some games with dead chatzy and the only problem i have seen is when only one or two of the dead players show up to the chatzy. Others have had a dead thread that only the deadies can see. It's fun if you have contests to get back in the game and such, usually people will participate in those whether its chatzy or a dead thread.

Some dead chats turn lame yeah, but some turn into Moobyworld, which was pretty awesome

I really like this idea, I might put a modified version into American Gods to see how it works, like maybe choose someone from the Day Zero poll, and give that mechanic to the Mod in advance to be fair, like say the second person to vote for the winning option, and THAT person becomes the Day one random button, and so forth.

[juliets]

This is really interesting. It would be fun for someone to give this a try in one of the games. Just to see how the mechanics would work. I have also been thinking about the idea of a dead chatzy. SO much more fun, plus all the early dead players would still get to "play" rather than be out on day 1, etc.

We have had some games with dead chatzy and the only problem i have seen is when only one or two of the dead players show up to the chatzy. Others have had a dead thread that only the deadies can see. It's fun if you have contests to get back in the game and such, usually people will participate in those whether its chatzy or a dead thread.

Some dead chats turn lame yeah, but some turn into Moobyworld, which was pretty awesome

I really like this idea, I might put a modified version into American Gods to see how it works, like maybe choose someone from the Day Zero poll, and give that mechanic to the Mod in advance to be fair, like say the second person to vote for the winning option, and THAT person becomes the Day one random button, and so forth.

I like that idea. Put it on the board!

[juliets]

and yes moobyworld was insanely funny

[Matahari]

Yay! I was hoping someone would try it out!

[S~V~S]

Well, it's a good idea. It kind of eliminates the non random random vote. Which gives me mixed feelings, as it could make it harder for baddies, and as a host, I want balance. But it also forces creativity, which I do like. So it is worth a try.

[bea]

mata - I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to the idea when you wanted feedback but I just needed some time to think through it all.

I do like the idea. I LOVE that if someone is randomed out on day1 they get to come back day 3. It SUCKS for anyone do die day 1 due to "random" votes no matter alignment. That is a nice fix for some unfair things that have happened to all of us.

I worry though that this would become the "easy" vote option for everyone day 1 or day 2 or ect...

essentially - the day 0 polls were designed originally to give people something to talk about on day 1 so that "there would be little room to random" then hosts started playing with day 0 polls and nothing was ever decided on day 0 so day 1 still became day 1.

My worry about this is that because the random button is the easy button and really without the random button, I'd say I don't start making semi-informed opinions till like day 4 -( yes - spilntsy's refusal to read the roles till day 4 makes a lot of sense to me now...) My only real concern is that with the easy random button, there's no true "day 1" vote till the day the random button goes away. Ya know what I'm saying?

That said - I can see how making and active dead thread/bts room would help to combat that.

It's an interesting concept - I'm glad that JC and SVS are willing to tackle it because I'd like to see it play out once. I love creativity and I'm already adding some twists and turns to Bowie as I've had other creative inspiration as well. It's definately something I'm considering for my work in progress game.

Well done mata!

[juliets]

bea I've been thinking of the same thing, the ease of using the random button. People may get lulled into using it knowing that the person they are voting for would come back day 3 if they died. If S~V~S and I decide to try it I think we would all want to compare how many people voted random on day 1 with an average of other games' day one random votes.

[Snow Dog]

I do not care for the idea.

[thellama73]

I do not care for the idea.

I hate random voting anyway, so I don't like the idea of making it easier to randomize.

[juliets]

Maybe it should be you can use the Random button but there is a price to be paid - a vote would be added to your name the next lynch. Then there would be an incentive not to use it but its there if you are desperate for a vote. People who randomize a lot would hate that though.

[Epignosis]

I do not vote randomly, but there is nothing to stop people from just, you know, voting and not giving a reason why.

[Mongoose]

There could always be a preset limit to how many times you can hit the Random button.

[Tangrowth]

This is a really intriguing idea. I love experimentation in mafia. So as a host, I think this is a fantastic idea.

As a player, I'm not sure how I feel about it, if that makes sense.

[S~V~S]

I do not care for the idea.

I hate random voting anyway, so I don't like the idea of making it easier to randomize.

Yeah, but this makes fake randomizing harder, you know, SAYING you're randomizing when you aren't. You could be random voting for YOURSELF.

I think this might be interesting.

[S~V~S]

I do not vote randomly, but there is nothing to stop people from just, you know, voting and not giving a reason why.

Sure, peer pressure. You random button and don't say why, you're suspicious.

Randomizing mainly benefits baddies, thats why people find it suspicious. Randomizing for someone that you don't know will eliminate that. It could be your teammate, it could be you. I think it will DISCOURAGE randomizing, not encourage it.

[Epignosis]

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

"I'm voting for Epignosis."

Whether or not this was a random vote will not be known.

Don't say no one votes for you without stating a reason- I've done it, Zany Dex does it, etc. Plus people might think you were compelled to vote a certain way.

I do not care for the idea.

I hate random voting anyway, so I don't like the idea of making it easier to randomize.

Yeah, but this makes fake randomizing harder, you know, SAYING you're randomizing when you aren't. You could be random voting for YOURSELF.

I think this might be interesting.

A solid player could easily pretend to vote with a reason whilst actually randomizing. And do not say nobody would do that. Vompatti, A Person, etc.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea. Like MP, I like experimentation.

[A Person]

My biggest problem with it is that it doesn't stop people from voting randomly, there's no rule that says you need to have a reason to vote for someone and there's no reason why someone couldn't make one up if they had to.

When I vote randomly I use random.org to generate a random number, it seems more "fair" that way because if multiple people vote randomly, no one person is likely to suffer from it more than anyone else. This method would definitely cause some person to receive all random votes, which seems to defeat the purpose.

Edit: I realize there is a greater likelihood of a civ being randomly chosen, but I've never seen a baddie lynched with the first vote, so I'm not sure it would be any more harmful than if you didn't vote randomly.

[S~V~S]

It would discourage random votes which never help the civs. And baddies vote for who they want to ALL the time, and call it random. I will try it in my game, any random vote will be redirected to the random button, it will actually BE random, and if it sucks, no one will ever do it again.

Experimentation is fun

[bea]

It would discourage random votes which never help the civs. And baddies vote for who they want to ALL the time, and call it random. I will try it in my game, any random vote will be redirected to the random button, it will actually BE random, and if it sucks, no one will ever do it again.

Experimentation is fun

I know you prolly won't believe this, but I really do random when I say I'm randoming. I'd still have no problem using the random button on day 1. I'd self vote on day 1 too except people get cranky about that as well. If I've got nothing (which I often do for *several* cycles) I've got nothing. I can't wait to see how the random button plays out tbh.

[Snow Dog]

It would discourage random votes which never help the civs. And baddies vote for who they want to ALL the time, and call it random. I will try it in my game, any random vote will be redirected to the random button, it will actually BE random, and if it sucks, no one will ever do it again.

Experimentation is fun

I know you prolly won't believe this, but I really do random when I say I'm randoming. I'd still have no problem using the random button on day 1. I'd self vote on day 1 too except people get cranky about that as well. If I've got nothing (which I often do for *several* cycles) I've got nothing. I can't wait to see how the random button plays out tbh.

I've often felt like self voting on day 1 but I gathered it was bad form. Maybe next time.