Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Huinesoron]

I actually wonder if this idea would be more fun if it was super-strictly limited. "The size of the box" just feels like it's trying to keep post sizes down, and would therefore favour players like Shasta who tend to post short posts anyway. Something ultra-strict, like "ten words" (or "one word"...), would be part of the gameplay, not a separate restriction.

I've just thought of another possible way to limit post numbers, and keep people from just breaking their posts up: you can post as often as you like, but there have to be at least five (two, ten...) posts between yours. That way everyone can contribute, and fast-paced sections stay fast-paced, but nobody can spam the thread.

(I'd say vote-posts would even more have to be separate in that game, to keep someone locking themselves out of voting because the thread went quiet all of a sudden.)

hS

[Boromir88]

I'm quite against any strict restrictions - I'm not against some people going for a super experimental game if they want to - but in general it sounds like a very bad idea. -Nog

One of the fun aspects of the game for me is the way everyone's free to construct posts however they like, to fit their particular motive. Also, having to pay close attention to the structure of the post itself will just give me something else to worry about, and I find that already sometimes the stress of the game can overwhelm the entertainment. - Inzil

Same. I'd be intrigued by Rune's twitter-inspired idea that he brought up. At least sometimes the thought is appealing when you see blocks and blocks of texts and feel like you've come back to have to read 2 pages of it. I'm not sure how this could be achieved without a character limit though. Then as Inzil mentions, that game with post limits and character limits just wouldn't appeal to me. That's not to say someone couldn't go on and create such a game.
__________________________________________________ ____
(Where the comment box cuts off on my laptop)

It just seems like it could be very easily help the wolves (who already have a slight advantage to start) than the village, which would add a wrinkle of unbalance I would not find appealing. I think it was Legate who said when he thinks of new roles or experiments the question is "is this phantom-proof" is a good general guide to follow.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it was Legate who said when he thinks of new roles or experiments the question is "is this phantom-proof" is a good general guide to follow.

Indeed. But actually, I like Hui's suggestion. There is a distinct chance the WWs could exploit it, but only to a degree.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I've just thought of another possible way to limit post numbers, and keep people from just breaking their posts up: you can post as often as you like, but there have to be at least five (two, ten...) posts between yours. That way everyone can contribute, and fast-paced sections stay fast-paced, but nobody can spam the thread.

That sounds actually pretty good to me!!! And we've had different games like this here in the past when this was used: the "Hurt and Heal" game had similar rule. And that worked pretty nicely. (And yes, posts with votes should be exempt from this rule. But the vote post should maybe have some rule like that it can't contain anything else, or perhaps at most two lines or something. Roughly. Or not. Whichever.)

The only problem could be with people who are posting at other time than others, or are in a completely different timezone. I mean, there's no problem with them to write all their thoughts down and post them all at once, if it's just about that. But imagine a situation where, say, there are ten European players and then Nilp and Lhuna. When it's "European normal time", people keep alternating, posting... then Europeans go to sleep, Nilp post once, Lhuna posts once, and that's the end for the two of them because they don't have other players present to fill the gap between their posts.

Of course, one could make some exceptional rule for some visibly disadvantaged players, but still. Again: should be tested beforehand.

[Galadriel55]

I am not sure if it's really necessary to limit post volume in that way. No one ever spams the thread singlehandedly to such degree (though I admit I have tried ). However, how about a simple rule that you can have no more than 3 (2? 4?) posts in a row? And an understanding that the post size limit is not there to break up the Wall of Text into 10 small chunks but so that what you say has to be more concise and to the point.

[Loslote]

Maybe the posts have to be separated by x number of other posts OR x length of time OR make a substantially different point than the preceding one?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I am not sure if it's really necessary to limit post volume in that way. No one ever spams the thread singlehandedly to such degree (though I admit I have tried ). However, how about a simple rule that you can have no more than 3 (2? 4?) posts in a row? And an understanding that the post size limit is not there to break up the Wall of Text into 10 small chunks but so that what you say has to be more concise and to the point.

Going to attempt a reply from my cell phone to see where the comment box cuts off...

My reason against this is that it starts restricting strategy and like Inzil, gets me to have to think about more than I already do when I post. My personal title of “laconic” is actually making fun of my style, because I’m not a very concise person. Sometimes I use it to be intentionally confusing, but it’s just my nature when writing any post, not just playing werewolf.

(Cuts off here on my phone)

Anyway, my intention is to say I personally wouldn’t find restricting length and post construction a game idea I’d like to participate in. That’s not to say someone can’t try it for their game and that others won’t be intrigued by it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I am not sure if it's really necessary to limit post volume in that way. No one ever spams the thread singlehandedly to such degree (though I admit I have tried ). However, how about a simple rule that you can have no more than 3 (2? 4?) posts in a row? And an understanding that the post size limit is not there to break up the Wall of Text into 10 small chunks but so that what you say has to be more concise and to the point.

This actually does not make much sense. For many people (like myself), limit to "at most two posts in a row" would mean no change whatsoever. The only time I post two in a row is either if I vote, or if I write a long analysis of something and while I'm writing, other posts appear, and I want to react to them as "postscript" to my previous post. Limit to "at most three posts in a row" would basically make me post freely like normally.

So such a rule would only disadvantage people who do what Shasta was doing in the last game and post five short posts in a row instead of one huge chunk as analysis.

Originally Posted by Loslote

Maybe the posts have to be separated by x number of other posts OR x length of time OR make a substantially different point than the preceding one?

That would be fair, but starts to already be horribly complicated. The time thing may be a problem if, say, I'm in a rush and writing on my work break, and I have time NOW but won't have in five minutes. (Granted, the same problem can technically happen with the "number of posts in between"-rule: you'd like to post something and you know you won't be able to within the next 5 hours afterwards, but not enough people have posted yet in-between your posts.)

The "substantially different point than the preceding one" - well, that's awfully vague. Who's to judge? I mean, we are grown-up people, I assume we would trust everyone to police themselves, but I can still theoretically envision a situation where some would feel that post X seems too similar to previous one, despite the author claiming otherwise. Again, we are grown-up people and should be able to deal with it, but I can imagine.

One systematic problem we are running into is this, in my opinion: the rules that are too strict may be really limiting and cause some problems. But rules that work as mere guidelines (like the "substantially different point" one) and are open to more interpretation sort of take away the point of the whole thing that it is a rule and restriction that is meant to make you play differently.

In other words - the notion that posts you make should ideally have "substantially different content" or that you "should not spam too often" is something people should strive for ideally in every game, sort of by the rules of common decorum. So if you enforce them not very strictly, that essentially changes nothing, only adds an extra aspect to bicker about or some people to feel offended because while they took great pains to post different content, they feel like my two posts were too similar and that was unfair.

If the idea is to make a different game, where the point is to make short posts, then yea, let's enforce a rule - generous enough that it does not disadvantage anyone too much, but that if it inconveniences people here and there, as it inevitably will, then simply tough luck, that's part of the format.

But if it's meant to be rules, they should be fairly simple and clear and at the same time strongly enforced.

So I'd say something like "there must be two posts after your last post" and "length of the text box at most, on the phone double the size" would do. (And the second rule is already bordering on not-clear-and-strict-enough, but would work. Making a "every post must have at most thirty words" rule would be better and probably funnier, for a really experimental "twitter" game.)

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

This actually does not make much sense. For many people (like myself), limit to "at most two posts in a row" would mean no change whatsoever. The only time I post two in a row is either if I vote, or if I write a long analysis of something and while I'm writing, other posts appear, and I want to react to them as "postscript" to my previous post. Limit to "at most three posts in a row" would basically make me post freely like normally.

Sorry, I was thinking along the lines of "if we restrict both post length and post count". Say you write a Wall of Text 10 paragraphs long. You can't post that in one post. The point is for you to get to the point and shorten your analysis, but you really wanna post it. So you split it into 10 separate posts and post them all in a row, to get your Wall of Text in without breaking the twitter limit. That kinda defeats the point.

But again, I think that it's a matter of conscience for each player not to do that, and we shouldn't have to restrict post count for that purpose.


The one thing that brings me stronger in favour of trying a shorter posts game at least once is that in both previous games pretty much every time a Wall of Text appeared I did not read it and skipped straight to its conclusion, if it had one. There is no way on Earth I can keep up with a game full of Walls. If someone posts a Wall, my solution is basically to skip over it, because it gets too much. And that's no way to play properly either. I would love a game without crazy long posts. Making it a Twitter game with more restrictions than just "please no Walls" is an extra twist that has to be gone around. And unlike a limitation on the total post quota or the frequency of posts, this is not a particularly Phantom-exploitable idea.