Policy Discussion: "Normal"

Post Post #43 (isolation #0) » Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:36 pm

No. It's not a matter of definition, it's a matter of fact. A normal role is a role that is used in mafia frequently, and does not require any significant rule changing mechanic to work. If you find anything wrong with that as a definition, then let me know.

There is nothing about hiders or gunsmiths that makes them any different from cops and doctors in terms of both ease to understand, and commonality. The only difference is that maybe they're not THE most common roles, but they're still common, and since you give us no brightline as to evaluate what is common ENOUGH, you have no offense there anyway.

Post Post #47 (isolation #1) » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:38 pm

Thok, you're begging the question. Actually, a lot of them.

What roles are allowed, and what roles are not? What is too counter-intuitive or too setup changing to be allowed in? After all, after the big 4-5 roles, it's all subjective anyway. It seems kind of strange to try to make that an objective rule.

Furthermore, and role warps the setup, even if just a little bit for balancing. Adding a cop when there is a doc is usually invitation for bad news, so on and so forth.

And finally, Just because gunsmiths require a tad bit of knowledge about mafia in general, that does not mean one has to declare them not normal. Again, what is the brightline here? To have a RB, or a vig, one would have to assume that players know the risk of using their actions every night, they have to determine whether the SK is likely to have perks or not. It isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem.

Post Post #51 (isolation #2) » Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:45 pm

53 was not normal by any stretch of the imagination.

Post Post #105 (isolation #3) » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:51 am

If it was the case in word, it certainly has not been the case in deed. I do not feel that skruffs felt he was doing anything wrong by posting his game. He asked all the right people to review it, and so far it's been great.

Post Post #110 (isolation #4) » Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:47 pm

Skruffs, I don't think defending a point is going to get you banned from MS.

Post Post #118 (isolation #5) » Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:31 am

Yeah, a new forum isn't enough. I think a whole new website is necessary.

Post Post #124 (isolation #6) » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:40 am

I think this whole discussion, as you could probably have guessed from my last comment is preposterous. If it ain't broke, then don't fucking fix it. There is nothing at all wrong with the way games are set up/ divided now. The rules should just be changed to reflect what has been going on for EVER, and that should be that. I think an overwelming majority of people on this site would favor the term 'normal' allowing flavor. We should just do that, and all this will disapear.

Post Post #126 (isolation #7) » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:07 am

I'm sorry, but there is no concievable way that you can convince me that
light flavor =/= mafia. It just is too much of a stretch.

Post Post #129 (isolation #8) » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:35 am

I can not comment on early morning, as I am in it. I shall not comment about 300, because I know nothing.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that it HAS been used that way, but that's descriptive instead of prescriptive. Making an argument for how something is doesn't at all change how it should be.

In my opinion flavor is defined as extra non game changing information, and 'theme' refers to complexity of mechanics.