Improving Antitraveler Feelings

[wheat cobalt]

So basically I'm tired of asking to be a traveler in games and getting heat for it whether that being asking to be a traveler and staying all game(no1 else wanted to play) or being priorized for a full player.(yet people say first come first served) Mainly I'm looking for a way to maybe set standards to try and improve the traveler meta

[idle blade]

I'm fully pro-Traveller. They stop people subbing out mid game which is super annoying, and they're a valuable accessibility tool.

[sinful knot]

I agree that travelers are useful within their stated purpose. That said, I fully support STs making the decision to prioritize full players over travelers for their games. Travelers can be disruptive to the game balance. I will also make note that the policy is not “first come first served” for who gets to play. It is left to ST discretion.

[idle blade]

laxbro did say that "people say" rather than it being official.
It is really annoying, e.g. to be the person to get a split happening, to get told "ehh, ok only if we don't get 12 full players" when you ask to travel, and then someone appears right as roles are about to be sent and you're kicked out of the game for them.
Anyway that's a moan, the original post asked for suggested improvements so I shall stop moaning 🙂

[wheat cobalt]

Its not the same for every ST tho and thats where its fustrating.

What is this "stated purpose" Acalia and I said its an acessibility tool further proven by this rule: : Expect to be given the demon token. Do not DM the Storyteller asking for a certain alignment or to avoid a certain character. If this is a concern, ask to be a Traveller.

[ionic gyro]

-# the nature of suggestions is such that every few months we reinvent 12 full players discourse

more seriously, this is an issue that is intrinsically linked to STs heavily prioritising 12 full players, to the detriment of the players they do have and their rerack timer.

[quasi fog]

imo the rules dont need to change its just a matter of convincing STs to be less cringe

[idle blade]

Yep, this very hard. (Controversially, I think a lot of suggestions kinda have that as a solution!)

[wheat cobalt]

As someone who has been on both sides of "First Come First priority" to get shot down to a full player. Or when i asked to be a full player when theres already a traveler. I highly disagree. There needs to be some sort of standard

(Also the mods told me to bring it up here so I did lol)

[sinful knot]

This is a separate discussion altogether but I for one celebrate our ST diversity. I think it is important to give STs some latitude in deciding how the game runs so long as they try to do so in some manner consistent to themselves and aren’t outright discriminatory. So long as they bc a justify decisions (particularly as it comes to game balance) then it is okay by me. Some STs may not be comfortable running travelers anyhow.

The fact of the matter is travelers can be disruptive both in mechanics and balance (anything with extra evils is tough to balance) so I do not want to make a policy that would in any way force STs to take on the addition of travelers.

[wheat cobalt]

1. To your point with extra evils. you can just make the travelers good.
2. Tbh They can just say no. Instead of "wait 30 seconds" when ive already been waiting for to do a poll grim set up ect for 5min. to have a full player convientley show up.
3. Its been an issue with more experencied STs

I get St diversity... but what gets priority first come first served? or full players needs to be addressed

Cause Ive been excusled from games for both reasons... Im also not looking to vent.. Im looking for suggestion. At the end of the day the majority on this server are anti traveler For one reason or another and that needs to be fixed. To me that isnt very inculsionary

[drowsy reef]

I think this can all be very much helped by normalising deviant as a traveller choice. I have said many an essay in VC's about how I hate most travellers (not the character type, just the literal characters) but there is nothing wrong with deviant. As deviant you are a player there who is along for the ride (as long as you don't take the piss with the joke stuff).

I think that part of this is actually that there is a wider problem with travellers as a whole.

To break this down, I feel there are 3 seperate classes of traveller

(1) Characters that change how the game is played - Voudon, bishop, gangster, butcher, gunslinger, etc - These are fun modifiers to scripts that are great if everyone decides that is what they want to play

(2) Characters that allow you to join the game for a little if you are late or need to leave early - deviant, bone collector, scapegoat - some of these travellers are powerful but with most ST's will not break a game and let's us play BOTC with more people. Awesome!

(3) Characters that should be binned and never talked about again - Apprentice - Just no.

If you are playing characters from group 2 (especially deviant) there really isn't much to argue with. Part of the problem (not with OP, just in general) is people wanting to be the game breaking powerful travellers and this has given the whole character type a bad rep.

Online there is also another problem: if someone comes in as thief or beaurocrat then this is no fun for players with any lag. The app does not allow for this functionality and it just isn't fun. Very fun characters, just don't work with our current tools and slow internets.

[strong fiber]

Travelers are a net negative mechanically to the games they are in - travellers mechanically make the game worse for every full player, and often for the ST. This really isn't debatable, its core game design. For some people, giving a player the opportunity to play in the way they can at that time (i.e. travel into the game) is worth this cost. As this is a social game, primarily designed to be played in person, the game rules allow for a socially more enjoyable game at the cost of mechanical balance through this mechanic. This is a cost that some groups are very happy to pay, and some groups are not. I think it is a fairly egocentric viewpoint to consider not being allowed to travel in a given >12 player game on this server as exclusionary when a traveler will mechanically unbalance a game just by existing.

[drowsy reef]

I also agree with this, travelling imo purely from a mechanical perspective makes a game worse. But from a social can improve the game to play with more people.

A suggestion thread that I have genuinely considered making is that every player should have the right (if a traveller joins) to request that they are a deviant if that traveller joins midway through a pickup game.

I would also like to normalise that if chef/shugenja are on script then travellers should travel in at the end of night 1. I have been in so many TB games where the traveller travels out day 2 and the Chef 1 becomes meaningless.

(Apologies for the info dump, I have a lot of very strong and long thought through opinions on travellers)

[idle blade]

I think all of Huff's opinions are fine (except I like apprentice).

[grave horizon]

Speaking as someone that doesn't ST here much, I think a resource on which travelers mesh well and not well with general themes would be helpful. Base3 scripts have a starting point because the game comes with a set of travelers, but for custom scripts it varies wildly and is already difficult to gauge what the intent of a custom script is without prior experience. Traveler recommendations for each custom script might not be a bad start.

[wheat cobalt]

I was a barista on snv and people still had an issue

I do agree with huff for the most part.

[idle blade]

This is a good suggestion 🙂

[lapis rain]

It is exclusionary to not be allowed to play how you want if you want to play a traveller. The server rules already suggest playing as a traveller if you don't want to be the demon or a certain character. Calling it egocentric is unfair.

[idle blade]

I think that's the old social vs deduction thing. Some people play to solve games, some people play to have fun in company. I tend to find traveller opinions divide along those lines.

[strong fiber]

You might view it as unfair, but it is accurate. Egocentric: thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others. If there is a group of people who want a balanced game, because that's how they have fun, a traveller will make a game less enjoyable for them. That person who wants to travel may *feel *excluded, but they, as a person, are not being excluded; the character type and the imbalance it creates is being excluded. It is not about the person. Framing the discussion as exclusion of a person is egocentric. Yes that person has valid feelings, but so do the other 11 players. So does the ST. I feel that only the group at that time, and the ST responsible for that group's fun, could/should make that decision, and that would-be traveller should decouple the rejection of the character from the rejection of the person (in cases where the traveler is turned down).

This is oh so similar, but oh so different to the [N] player veto powers. There is a greater good to the server to be had in regulating group behaviour at a server level to ensure TB/B3 is an option for new players. I contend that a similar greater good is not present here.

[strong fiber]

I think this is accurate, but I am the exception for sure. I don't mechanically solve, but I care a lot about balance though. Tt doesn't matter what words are on a traveller token, it could be blank and it would increase variance significantly.

[lapis rain]

If a person is only comfortable playing a traveller for whatever reason it's important they have that option available. Especially in this server that strives to as inclusive as possible

[wheat cobalt]

Very much this

[wheat cobalt]

This

[wheat cobalt]

U get it

[wheat cobalt]

Do you have any ideas on how we can make those opinions less divided and more welcoming?

[idle blade]

I'm not sure, but I'm interested in hearing what people have to say. I think just emphasising the reasons people travel has changed some minds in the past, but some people, if I may steal Sven's parlance, can be egocentric about their perfect 12 player set up

[strong fiber]

This is very accurate.

[wheat cobalt]

Ive tried this to be shot down in the past

[strong fiber]

If a person is only comfortable playing as a traveller, should the server mandate that they can travel in every game the play in regardless of player/st feelings and desires?

[drowsy reef]

I might not phrase it the same way as Sven, but I actually agree with a lot if not all of the underlying points raised.

[strong fiber]

I do have a special way with words that makes people see the negative and not the truth.

[wheat cobalt]

its legit written in the rules...

[strong fiber]

The server empowers ST's to choose currently. You are wrong.

[wheat cobalt]

Scroll futher down

[idle blade]

Sven's asking about the worth of that rule, it's fair to question it. I disagree obviously, but it's alright to critique the rules

[strong fiber]

Every instance of traveller in the rules is accompanied with 'request' or 'ask'.

[drowsy reef]

I think that there is a discussion to be had about this that I do not even have the beginnings of an idea of what my opinion would be. But there does come a point where we are on this server to play a game. I want to be inclusive of everyone and for everyone to join in, but at the same time they have to join in the game that is being played.

Leading from this... In my personal experience there are two separate situations being talked about here. There is one where a person asks to travel in a game. There is another where a player asks to be a specific traveller in a game. If I am playing in a game and an St came to me privately and asked "would you be OK with X travelling in as a deviant?" my answer will always be yes. If the ST comes in and says "Would you be OK with a player travelling in, but they will only do it if they are 'something powerful'?" my answer would be no.

Everyone has the right and should be encouraged to play the game. People do not have the right to demand to be a powerful character. If you were a full player then you might be a tinker who's only ability is to sit round and wait for death.

[drowsy reef]

"Ask"

You can always ask, it does not have to be accepted. You may agree or you may disagree with that ruling, but that is the current rules.

[idle blade]

do people often ask to travel in as something powerful? I don't ST so it's not something I have come across. I know I always say to STs "I don't like these two travellers, but beyond that, happy to be whatever fits your grim". Are other traveller requests more fussy?

[drowsy reef]

All the time. I've had dozens of people who ask to travel, I say "only as deviant" and they say "never mind then".

[lapis rain]

The deviant's not a great role for everyone, it puts pressure on you to be funny and be more the center of attention

[drowsy reef]

Absolutely not, that is completely not how deviant is intended.

The Deviant ability is "You are a player in the game"... The token says what it says so that if a player is improving the game experience the ST can choose for them not to be exiled that day.

[idle blade]

Wiki says "If the player would prefer, you may determine different criteria for whether the Deviant is exiled. If being “funny” is difficult, you may reward the Deviant who “creates a positive mood” or “is helpful to others” instead. "

[wheat cobalt]

whats fustrating like your there for a full 5min as they are setting up a grim. to just be fully kicked out for a full player cause u have to wait "30more seconds"

[strong fiber]

This suggestion either intends to change the rules to remove 'ask/request' around traveller inclusion, OR change the minds of people who would say no to this question.
I would never say yes to the inclusion of a traveller. In a game I am probably 1 of 11 and thus my 'no' is not authoritative. My reasons are baked into the fundamental unbalance a blank traveler token brings to the game. Others may have their own reasons, and might be convinced.

[strong fiber]

This is a legit feels bad and not cool

[wheat cobalt]

Corrrect.

[drowsy reef]

Once again, this is a more complex situation. Are you travelling as you don't have time to play or because you don't want to be one of the on script characters?

[idle blade]

so that particular issue is with STs waiting too long to rack up in search of their perfect 12

[idle blade]

it's horrible, and when you ask to travel cos you're not up to the pressure, it's REALLY upsetting 😦

[wheat cobalt]

it depends.

Last night i didnt have time

[strong fiber]

I would never travel, but this is exactly how I feel about [N] powers with a late joining new player.

[drowsy reef]

The main reason "full players" are prioritised over travellers is maths... More people have fun for longer...

The other way of putting this is "I wanted to play a game and play it to the end but I was kicked out because there was someone else who wanted to play who could only stay for half an hour".

Is that not feels bad?

[idle blade]

Mmm, respectfully, while I get that that's frustrating and said as much in a thread the other day, it's been less an annoyance and more feels like a personal rejection of you to get literally kicked out of a game.

[drowsy reef]

Completely agree with this. But (1) it is a subset of situations and (2) it doesn't give you the right to a powerful ability. Honestly I think a big help for this issue would be a release of travellers from TPI like deviant or low impact travellers.

[idle blade]

Absolutely agree on powerful abilities. I can only speak for myself, but I'd never be upset about being a deviant, and only pick a traveller if pushed after offering the ST the chance.

[idle blade]

And yes, it is a subset of situations, but also a specific subset highlighted in the rules

[wheat cobalt]

the issue with that is a barista, is way to powerful on snv which is the script its meant ot be on

[strong fiber]

Personal rejection sucks, though is not the lens I have. 11 players getting a democratically chosen script overturned vs 11 players having an imbalnced game via traveler inclusion. Same feelings.

[idle blade]

I mean, plenty of people don't get their first choice of script as is because of the polling system (more's the pity - you'd all be playing Acailnics all the time if I could mandate that 😄 )

[drowsy reef]

This is why I don't put barista in my games... But I do accept other travellers

[wheat cobalt]

Thats fair

[idle blade]

Also not hugely relevant, but I'm playing with off server pals tonight - I was a lil bit late for game 1 due to not feeling 100% physically and they already had 15 so travelled as the gnome, and then since I wasn't 100% I asked to travel for game 2 as the apprentice (!), and I've had a lovely time and been fully involved even though I used all of my spoons up in game 1. Yay good experiences ❤️

[drowsy reef]

@wheat cobalt, I really think it might help (if you agree) to put in the OP for people to qualify what they are referring to in this thread when they say "a player wishing to travel" as there is a large spectrum this covers from "a player who doesn't have capacity to deal with the stress of being the demon at the moment and just wants to be included" all the way to "a player who could play the whole game but likes the idea of being the gangster an killing half the grim because funny"

[idle blade]

Travelling is one of the really nice improvements of Clocktower over other social deduction games

[drowsy reef]

I really feel like there are multiple people in this thread who are commenting on this post all with a different concept of what "a player wishing to travel" is

[idle blade]

Because it is a broad umbrella

Travellers contain multitudes 😄

[drowsy reef]

If you read back the points made by everyone, I think you would actually both agree and disagree with every single comment made depending on how you are defining that

[wheat cobalt]

let me soak this in a bit. and ill consider it after this game

[drowsy reef]

We have all been in a game where a gunslinger has killed 4 people for the lols and I think it's unfair to compare them to the beggar who asks for one vote token and is just trying to join in

Again, I also think it's just going to go round in circles if we talk about the person who has played 4 games today and only has 1 hour left before they have to leave for something and the person who hasn't played in a week because work is busy and then log on to the server to find the one game they could play in started 15 mins ago

[idle blade]

I mean, the person who has played in 4 games today should be offering to step out if others want to play, and getting *rped ideally if need be (I think a suggested method for that is something I talked about in rules revamp minion chat)

[drowsy reef]

Completely agree, but I’m including those in “people who ask to travel” and other people aren’t and so rightfully might think some of my comments are a bit harsh

[idle blade]

I wonder about some sort of traveller blurb....

[drowsy reef]

But all of those people do exist on the server and so it is fair for someone to have that perspective when viewing the thread

To be fair to the OP, they do specifically talk about being a traveller who wants to stay for the full game.

I really feel that the way in to do this is to give them a depowered token (idk if this is in the server rules, but just travel them in with no ability if having the deviant token is going to cause an issue).

This tackle the issue on many fronts. It deals with objections from stigma of people believing they are doing it to get a powerful ability. If they are not in a situation where they want to deal with a position of high stress importance in a game then it also removes this. It negates any objections that abilities will interact badly with the script and make the game less fun.

If there are any objections due to “well people won’t want to speak to them as they won’t have information” (this being a straw man argument, but one I have heard) then this is a larger server issue as those same people in TB will not be speaking to any traveller nor the top 4 roll who outed their ping on day 1.

[idle blade]

Apprentice Amne with a "Pick a player, learn a no, ask a question, learn a cold" 😄

[drowsy reef]

Hey 😂 I did that to a drunk amne not an apprentice amne. I still don’t think Ethan has forgiven me for that one

[idle blade]

i remember and i think it was wonderful but it would be the ultimate depowered token 😄

[drowsy reef]

But yeah, this all leads in to a much larger (and very complicated/nuanced) conversation about travellers. Especially as a lot of travellers aren’t really travellers as much as “fableds that town can choose to turn off”

[strong fiber]

Blank traveller's are soft magicians with -1 outsider or minion. It's pretty steep.

[drowsy reef]

The setup mod is only true if they are displacing another player. But to make it clear, from a mechanical perspective I completely think it’s not even arguable that a player who can play the full game should travel instead. This is purely from an inclusivity standpoint of “I want to meet more cool people and play BOTC with them, what is the best way we can enable this when being a full player would be problematic?”

Like “you may or may not be evil, the demon does not learn this [-1 minion]” is a busted TF ability

[keen holly]

In a community that is so incredibly balance-centric and mechanically-focused, sometimes to the detriment of fun for all involved, I do not believe that Travellers will ever not be a contentious topic, regardless of the defined rules.

I very much feel as though most Travellers are the true "social" characters of this game, where your main defence against these powerful abilities is to read good socially, which is meaningless in an environment that heavily favours optimal mechanical play.

Sure, I'd like to see the situation improved but I'm hard pressed to think of any suggestions that won't greatly displease at least one of the STs running them, the players playing as them, or the players playing alongside them.

[wheat cobalt]

I like this as an option. BUt there are also some games i explictly state Imm travel out day 3... to be vetoed for a full player.. after i waited on them to set up a grim....

[drowsy reef]

As a public server I think that will always be the nature of it though. My idea of fun is different to yours is different to someone else’s so it will naturally tend to come back to balance.

It would be awesome though to see more situations like a pick up game from like 18 months ago that I was in which was BMR with matron, bishop and voudon and everyone just having a good time revelling in the absurdity

[idle blade]

I think one issue that has come up in here is STs taking ages to try and get to that 12. I dunno if some guidance on how long it should take to poll and rack is worth floating about......eh i feel tat might be too much legislating cos shit happens, but yeah I do see that happen

[wheat cobalt]

to this point if theres no other players? whats the harm?

[wheat cobalt]

sorry huff i just dont understand what you mean

[drowsy reef]

That player who took your spot may not have been in the VC, but they too were waiting for that game. And for them to wait for a game and be told “no, there is a player who can only be here for half the time” is not fun either

[wheat cobalt]

Like i said ive been explictly told to wait... which just feels yucky

Ive been on both ends of the spectrum.. so like...

[drowsy reef]

That’s playing BOTC on this server, it’s a lot of waiting. Sometimes you wait and there are 13 people and you don’t get to play… how is it less yucky for the person that you are displacing?

[keen holly]

I think people have suggested a "rack" timer to go alongside the "rerack" timer in the past, but that's a different suggestion for a different thread

[wheat cobalt]

I just dont want their to an anti traveler meta on this server anymore

[idle blade]

The issue is that being told to wait as a potential traveller means you may still get told not to play because the next ST might not accept travellers, and then the next ST might say "nah we've got 12 full players without you even though this guy has played three games"

[drowsy reef]

I’ve tried to say it very clearly above… this is a very reductive way of viewing the situation… I disagree there is an outright anti traveller meta, I do agree there is a situation around people’s perception and interactions with travellers that causes people to not want them in games as a consequence of a more complicated situation

[idle blade]

^ Agreed

(though tbh I didn't quite get what you meant the first time either)

[wheat cobalt]

I disagree. Anytime ive viewed people ask to travel its an immedite no. or "id perfer 12 full players" it is what it is i guess

[idle blade]

You deffo do get used to certain STs being outright nos and some being more welcoming

[drowsy reef]

I will go on record as saying this: in the absence of extenuating circumstances and with everything else being the same, if there are 1 too many people for a game and there are 12 full players and one traveller who can only stay for an hour then the traveller should step down

[idle blade]

Devil's Advocate moment (Acaila playing BMR? 😮 ) I wonder how much the traveller perception would change if the server rules were "12 full players max, or 12 full players and no more than one traveller"

[wheat cobalt]

tbh i thought about this

[idle blade]

Respectfully, I don't think things are ever "everything else being the same"

[wheat cobalt]

Dont worry im the d.a. that protected u

(okay jokes aside now)

[idle blade]

As laxbro has said, you get STs dawdling over racking so someone slips in last moment, you get people staying on for multiple games over a traveller who hasn't played, etc. etc. I don't think you can ever say it's cut and dried like that

[drowsy reef]

I just agreed that this is the effect of what is happening… I really am trying to dig into this issue and explain my view on the wider situation of what is actually causing this. I might not have explained myself the best I can but giving what I’ve said another read might help you see a different view even if you don’t agree with it

[drowsy reef]

They aren’t, I’m trying to avoid nit picking arguments and get to the root of the point rather than get distracted

[wheat cobalt]

and im tryna understand your point huff i really am. Sorry im im not understanding

[idle blade]

I get that. I think, with respect to laxbro, this is more of a moan than a suggestion, (even though it's a justified moan!) and it's not an easy one to find a solution to, if there even is a perfect solution.

[drowsy reef]

It’s a hypothetical that will never come to light but gets to the point of our views on priority in games

[idle blade]

And I think there are a lot of contributing issues, each of which needs a different approach

E.g. traveller perception, ST obsession with optimum numbers, some players being too demanding, etc. et.c

[drowsy reef]

I will be annoyed if this is a moan. I’ve put a lot of time into this and it isn’t the forum for that.

[wheat cobalt]

Listen I was told to bring it up as a suggestion by the mods. I didnt wanna bring it up here orginally

I just wanna make the server more welcoming, by helping with defining what travelers are suppoused to be used for, if they get priotity can they stay the whole game?

[idle blade]

I hope you don't think I'm being dismissive, but I meant that it's more "here is a problem" rather than "here is a suggestion". And I'm not saying it's not the place for it, just that I understand why Huff is trying to burrow down to the roots of things.

[wheat cobalt]

gotcha. Like i genuinley dont have a suggestion, i need help. The root of the problem is maybe we should set expectations for travelers wether that be by mods or STs? would that help?

[drowsy reef]

There is a lot above going over how who “a traveller” is will include a range of people and this will have different outputs on an answer, is it possible to be more specific?

[idle blade]

Yeah, and that's fair. But I also get that's why we need to tease out the problem (or imo a collection of problems into one big knot) first 🙂

right chaps, it's 1am, I really should go to bed

[wheat cobalt]

I really liked what you said acalia maybe 12 players plus a traveler might help?

[idle blade]

I actually think it will cause utter chaos 😄

[wheat cobalt]

go to bed

[drowsy reef]

Agreed, I really don’t like that

[idle blade]

because nearly every game will suddenly be 13 players

[drowsy reef]

And who is the traveller and who isn’t? Can I elect to be traveller? Can I choose my token?

[idle blade]

but at the same time, I think it would mean STS who complain about their perfect 12 player grim no longer have an excuse

like I say, devil's advocating!

anyway, good night chaps, be good, don't be cringe in my absence!

[drowsy reef]

If I get bored can I choose to leave even though I said I would be there the whole game?

[wheat cobalt]

i need to eat ill defintley continue this at another point

[drowsy reef]

What we need is Paradox's input

[quasi fog]

points im agreeing with

• some players being completely unable to play because an ST refuses to allow travellers is an accessibility problem
• low impact travellers ( ) are much less of a balance swing so should be encouraged more often
• a pre-setup traveller not getting an answer immediately & instead being made to wait 5min to be kicked out is not cool - they should get an answer much sooner

the actual solutions from a mod perspective would be

• require STs to accept (eg) at least 1 low-impact traveller per game if player count is <12
• require an immediate reply from the ST to traveller requests so people aren't left waiting 5 minutes only to be rejected from playing once it hits 12

not sure how i feel abt the 1st but i think the 2nd is needed

[final inlet]

My two cents on Travellers within Live Games is that if a player racking into a game can't stay for the full game / doesn't want to be a Demon then they should be allowed to travel (not a wild hot take just supporting this belief). This also allows players not a fan of playing with a Traveller to do an awkward shuffle of "who wants to drop me or the traveller" (ultimately inescapable). Travellers here don't have anymore priority than a Full Player but doesn't mean they have less - if a player wants to play the game but due to other circumstances needs to travel, then they should.

Additionally, I don't think players in Live Games should be travelling into games though. Essentially it's not what the server's really maximised on. If a player really wants to play then wait for a game or split. Plus it prevents awkward polls of "do we want a traveller" etc.

[drowsy reef]

This does create more issues though... Like I will accept low impact travellers most of the time, but I am frequently asked for a traveller in a new player TB game and I will say no as adding an entirely new mechanic can be very confusing. It's not that I disagree with the intentions of this I just think again that it is a much more complicated issue than it's currently being given credit

[final inlet]

The 2nd one also stems from STs not starting as soon as they can because they praise 12 Player Games as Idols. Whilst I don't think we need to implement a timer or button we just really need to reinforce the "just ST the game" mentality

[drowsy reef]

Say this louder!

[final inlet]

I will disagree with the Low-Impact Traveller argument however, and whilst there are some Travellers that are stronger or swingier than others or change the game, that's an appeal of a Traveller that town has the opportunity to diminish through exiling. And the way you deal with auto-exiling Travellers (beyond improving feelings towards them) is to prevent mid-game travelling.

[quasi fog]

agree to disagree; a lot has already been said on why i feel thats not true so won't say more

[drowsy reef]

You say this... But I've had multiple travellers literally rage at me for exiling them day 1. Something about being a traveller makes them feel like they have a right to stick around, when if you compare that to a standard player who does the same when executed day 1 then that player would be seen as toxic

[keen holly]

As a Traveller, I'd feel annoyed if I was exiled on day 1 purely because I was a Voudon, or an Apprentice. If players have reason to think I'm on the opposite team to them, then sure, they can exile me, but if they're doing it because of the token I was given and their personal prejudices against that token, that's problematic. I'd equate it to the "Saints don't exist" meta (where players just execute Saint claims on d1 and accept the rerack if they were real), which I'd expect many would consider to be rather un-fun for the Saint.

[obsidian shadow]

I personally don’t care about travelers alignment unless it’s a specific one like apprentice, if the vuudon is evil how does that matter, their ability is the same

[final inlet]

evil Voudon early on dictates nominations but that's out of scope for this suggestion lol

[drowsy reef]

However, if you are a barista and there is an empath 1 on you... I think it's perfectly reasonable of town to decide to exile you

[obsidian shadow]

And also even though they are travelers, death is not the end

[drowsy reef]

I was just about to say the same thing!

I see so many travellers be exiled and then go "well there's no point then, I might as well leave"

[keen holly]

My point was purely that there should not be reasons external to the current game that are influencing exiles 🙂

[drowsy reef]

100%

[idle blade]

I think this is all good 👍

[idle blade]

That's dumb

[strong fiber]

I also personally don't care about traveller alignment, because just by existing they have helped good.

[trail crater]

So my read (/hj) on this thread is that the new rule should be:

Unless a game is already at 12p or it’s a new player’s first TB, anyone may request joining a game as a Deviant with the HB Moonlight Fabled in play.

[wheat cobalt]

Being just a deviant is just so limiting tho.. Id suggest the ST pick 2 or 3 low impact options

[wheat cobalt]

I agree with lot of this. Id like a rack timer to futher avoid some STs ego wanting a "full 12 player grim" cause even if u get told some STs are like wait x amount of time.. just to be booted

[wheat cobalt]

o i see u dont think we need the button. the issue is how area we going to change their mentality (thats harder to do cause ya know psychology) .

[strong fiber]

If you mandate rules, you don't need to change mentality. I really don't like [N] powers, but I rock with it.

||Because its the rules .gasp||

[wheat cobalt]

No correct. thats the point i was getting at

[strong fiber]

You probably are not going to change the mentality of people who do not like travelers, just like I am not going to convince those that like amni that its a bad role.

[sinful knot]

I disagree with mandating certain travelers or specific rule exemptions - especially one as limited as “a new player’s first TB game.” I do not think STs should be required to accept travelers for any reason they choose, similar to how they can also choose to ask specific players not to play if they choose. We do not force STs to list custom scripts if they are not comfortable with that script so why would we force them to run travelers if they are not comfortable balancing that? I do think that STs should be quicker about getting a game going with or without a traveler, but that is best handled via ST feedback and not via rules. That falls more under “advice” than “rules.”

On a related note “just make the traveler good” is not a good take because this also affects game balance.

[wheat cobalt]

^to me that's a lack of inclusion which is a separate issue

Back on topic

[drowsy reef]

You have the right to play a game… you don’t have the right to a useful ability

Reference for this: Outsiders

Being the mutant is limiting, I don’t have the right to request I don’t receive that token

If you can’t play a full game I think it’s a fair stance to take that another player that can stay for the whole game takes your spot. If you are not in a situation that you want to deal with the stress of powerful abilities I think it is fair, if not even kind, to give you a character without and ability. If you just want to be a traveller personally (not everyone agreeing that they want to play with a specific traveller) then I think it’s fair to ask you to join the game as a full player.

I think it also could be an interesting idea to offer to town before the game starts whether they want to include a game changing traveller. Want to play a bishop game? Awesome! Vote on it and if it gets majority then *rp a player to be their bishop. That’s a cool idea that I might try next time I ST.

[warped vigil]

Your position here appears extreme to the point of untenable due to self contradiction. For one, Travellers being a 'net-negative mechanically' can quickly be shown wrong with well beloved games like #the-day-the-music-died , where Gunslinger was the central driving force of mechanics in the final two days and turned the game far more balanced and exciting for all involved. So it is entirely debatable and refutable that Travellers are a net negative to the mechanics of a game.

The other issue is labelling the desire to be a traveller as 'egocentric' and also as a negative label as a counter argument against your opponent position, but if so, then your own position is untenable. You write " I feel that only the group at that time, and the ST responsible for that group's fun, could/should make that decision, and that would-be traveller should decouple the rejection of the character from the rejection of the person (in cases where the traveler is turned down)." This means you believe in regards to the question that the ST and any other full player should only consider their own feelings, with full disregard for the feelings of the would be Traveller, making this a clear case of being 'egocentric' within your own argument, but the consequence is the argument requires us to reject itself for being wrong under its own terms. It is self defeating.

[drowsy reef]

Pretty sure that isn't an accurate representation Sven's position. I understand that they might be blunt sometimes but I think a rereading might help.

[warped vigil]

On the contrary, I think it's accurate and quite fair. Sven specifically writes in reply to someone arguing it is exclusionary to not be allowed to play due to wanting to be a traveller, to which Sven not only is in agreement but goes further, arguing first and foremost "You might view it as unfair, but it is accurate"

Furthermore, Sven even brings up the very point I brought up within their own position, writing: "Yes that person has valid feelings, but so do the other 11 players. So does the ST."

I can not be giving an uncharitable reasoning if the very point I am arguing causes a contradiction within someone's view is also brought up by the person themself

[sinful knot]

From like an argument accuracy perspective - providing anecdotal evidence of a game where travelers beneficial does not refute Sven’s claim that he feels that travelers are “net” negative. His claim is more of a claim that on average across all games. The idea that the group collectively agreed to include the travelers and let them live that late into the game is probably an example of a system which Sven proposes working well. Travelers were right for that group and that game. But it is anecdotal and doesn’t apply to every game.

[warped vigil]

For Sven's argument to have weight in regards to countering the original position put forth against antitraveler dislike, it can't be on solely an 'average' across all games, as this would fail to present a sufficient reason in the general case, as it can only work in specific ones where the traveller would be negative. Meaning the argument would be tautological if it genuinely only referred to such cases, as all it'd be saying is "Travellers are bad in games where they are bad"

So if you're correct, then sure, but then nothing has been argued

If the argument is on the general case, which I assumed as necessary to be charitable to the argument, a single piece of conflicting evidence is all that is required to argue against it

[drowsy reef]

No... Saying things in general aren't fun across games is not negated by there being 1 game where people enjoyed it

[warped vigil]

Again, which way are you referring to with "In general?"

If you mean "There exist cases where they are bad", then trivially, but then there's no genuine substance to the claim?

It's saying "Travellers are bad when travellers are bad"

For the 'net negative' claim being put forth to be true in any substantive way, it has to be referring to a general case regarding an inherent negative quality, that it brings a negative cost to all games

[drowsy reef]

There's more than one way?

[warped vigil]

Well since i wrote two ways... Yes?

[drowsy reef]

I think we can calm the energy down a bit in the thread

[warped vigil]

There's no negativity?

This debate is cordial and academic? I see no animosity present from yourself or anyone else?

[drowsy reef]

It's been suggested above that talkkiing about a person "travelling in a game" can be taken in multiple ways. there have been multiple times that people have been taling about a "traveller" when referring to many different situations.

[warped vigil]

I'm aware? How would that be relevant if I'm arguing against a point in both possible ways that could be asserted?

[drowsy reef]

There are times when with server rules travellers can displace other players and this is different to a traveller playing in a spot that would be otherwise undilled

[warped vigil]

I'm aware, what's the relevance to my counter point?

[drowsy reef]

It might just be the that tone is hard to gauge in text but to me this is feeling very heightened...

[warped vigil]

But I've stated to the contrary?

I am genuinely confused as to the point being put forth here...?

If it assists: I'm a mathematics Ph.D student and most of my procedure here is in regards to the quality and consistency of the arguments, so I'm only analyzing and responding to anything in regards to the quality and consistency as I see it. There is no hostility or anger from my position, if the intensity of my writing is causing concern, it's merely a consequence of my choice whether intended or not to be formal and focused on those concerns.

[obsidian shadow]

I think the issue here is that travellers get a lot less hate in text as you don't have the same 12 player limit as we do in live. So in live traveller hate is a really big issue wheras it is not in text

[drowsy reef]

Oh yeah... All of this is a live issue

This whole thread is to do with how travellers interact with live rules

[wheat cobalt]

Correct ^

[strong fiber]

Thank you for your attention in this thread. To your first point. I posit that its largely irrefutable that a traveller being added to a grim helps good. A blank traveller token either takes away an outsider or a minion in cases where it replaces a player, OR, adds a new player that 'would' have been an outsider or a minion if they were a full player. In both situations, the recommendation is that 2/3rds of the time they are good. If good (which is the majority of the time) they are also in a unique social position where they can demon fish by approaching players and saying "I saw you as my demon". All for the price of a single blank token. If you codified these abilities into rules text, even including the chance they were evil, this would be a townsfolk ability (and is certainly stronger than the huntsman). While I accept that you want to debate this, *mechanically *this is the truth of the matter, and while individual games might play out differently, in all sorts of ways (this is covered with the word 'generally', and where your gunslinger example sits), travelers have a cost, and that cost is at the expense of game balance, harming evil. I argue that some groups are happy with that choice, and some are not - and that the server should not regulate that more than it has already.

To your second point, I think I could best describe it like this; I can think of no instance where I have witnessed the reason for a traveller being turned down being towards the individual, i.e. "Sorry Huff, I do not like it when *you *play a traveller". It is just not a thing. The person is not getting rejected, the role is. I argue that that person then describing the actions of that group as a rejection of them, when it is not, *is *egocentric. They are making it about themselves in a context where they would be welcome as a full player.

[novel quail]

Gave +1 Thanks to @warped vigil (current: #141 - 292)

[strong fiber]

A subsequent debate about STs waiting and replacing a traveller has started, and that one has a little more nuance and a little more feels bad, but that context doesn't change my position, but does have a little more of my limited empathy.

[vital perch]

I fully agree except with the part about the rack time.
There are STs that take too long to setup the grim and/or run the first night. That's a matter of STing skills (often related to the ST running a script they aren't equipped to run) and has been discussed in other suggestions threads.
But I think the rack time issue that's relevant to this thread is STs and players waiting for the magic 12p game.

[ionic gyro]

But I think the rack time issue that's relevant to this thread is STs and players waiting for the magic 12p game.
tbf, players can't do anything if an st decides to wait for 12 apart from ask them to change their mind, whereas an st can start a game at any time as long as they have the minimum number of players.