Saturday, May 10, 2025

Proposal: Acceleration

In “Guards and Burglars”, change:

If a particular Agent currently has more Successes than every other Agent, and also had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action, that Agent has achieved victory.

to

If a particular Agent currently has more Successes than every other Agent, that Agent has achieved victory if at least one of the following statements is true:
* That Agent had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action;
* That Agent is a Guard, and has at least two more Successes than every Burglar;
* That Agent is a Burglar, and has at least two more Successes than every Guard.

 

Under the current ruleset, a victory is guaranteed at the end of the current round, because nobody is able to catch up. (Incidentally, “Clucky, I challenge you!” would have stopped this scenario occuring – forcing a round 5 that was meaningful – but it got voted down.)

There are two possible solutions to this: a) change the victory condition to be more difficult, making the gameplay more meaningful, or b) skip directly to the win without spending time on meaningless gameplay in between.

I don’t know how much interest players have in continuing to play. Last night’s results looked somewhat like two of the Burglars had given up (12 Infamy with no Guard encounters makes it likely that there was no attempt by them to steal anything and they just idled at, e.g., G), but because so much about what happened is kept secret, I don’t know whether or not I’m interpreting those correctly – and one way to find out is to ask, and one way to ask is to make a proposal. Are players happy with the current gameplay, or would they rather move on?

(I also note that “make the victory condition more difficult” has the issue that once a player is one round from winning, the other players on their team might not have an incentive to help the team win, causing the dynasty structure to break down. I think that if we want to continue play rather than accelerate to the win, we will have to either add a random factor to the victory condition, or make Successes matter beyond the dynasty somehow.)

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

10-05-2025 22:36:28 UTC

Any reason why this is better than A More Meaningful Round of Play? I noticed the same issue that you did and thought that a game of get/prevent Fame/Infamy might be nice for the last round.

ais523:

10-05-2025 22:43:01 UTC

@JonathanDark: It prevents the game turning into 7-vs-1 whenever a player is a round away from winning.

The likely outcome of “A More Meaningful Round of Play” when the almost-winner is a Burglar without Fame/Infamy is that the Guards guard three randomly chosen Ingresses and the other Burglars don’t bother trying to steal artifacts. That basically turns the game into a straight 25%-win, 75%-we-wasted-our-time, rather than following the actual dynastic gameplay.

When the almost-winner is a Burglar with Fame/Infamy, you get a similar pattern except that the almost-winner has much better chances.

When the almost-winner is a Guard, things get complicated: the Burglars can deny the Fame reward by submitting Grounds*12, but then the almost-winner gets further ahead.

Or I guess my main concern is that team play doesn’t function correctly in almost-winner situations under A More Meaningful Round of Play: Fame and Infamy are individual rather than team stats, so the almost-winner’s team doesn’t have a reason to cooperate with each other, and the dynasty’s mechanics don’t function properly.

JonathanDark: he/him

10-05-2025 23:02:00 UTC

I guess I don’t see how this would be any better. If the almost-winner is a Guard under this proposal, the other Guards will fail to Guard in order to allow the Burglars to gain a Success and hope that they get another chance at Successes in the next round, and vice-versa.

DoomedIdeas: he/him

10-05-2025 23:09:50 UTC

against

ais523:

10-05-2025 23:21:11 UTC

@JonathanDark: Well, this proposal ends the dynasty (I meet the victory condition it’s adding), so it’s basically just a question of “do we want to end the dynasty here given that ais523 would always win in the absence of rules changes, or do we want to try to continue?”, and that rather depends on how other players feel about whether the gameplay is interesting or not. I don’t know what the sentiment there is like, which is why I made the proposal to ask.

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.