[OOC] Murderverse OOC

[wingedcatgirl]

Hmm, characters of ours who were received well... Vivi's already planned to be a player... maybe Mark February? He's dead, but that doesn't have to stop him.

[Despair's Archon of Memes]

I'd be totally up for that!

[artsyGeek]

OH HELL YEAH!

should i choose scott or snom... decisions....

[PointMaid]

Zanreo has decided to leave Toontown Showdown, so there's an opening to replace. Let me know if you want to do so.

[Cassie]

So i heard Murderfree's going to have a talent show arc in the future, definitely something that I can have Moona involved in, with the added bad memories she might've had from using microphones to murder in TS...

[wingedcatgirl]

Normally I'd recommend looking up Pokémon footprints on Bulbapedia, but guess what's friggin broken again today

[wingedcatgirl]

Vivi's BIA 3 outfit.

   

[Mr. Lee Hammer]

So I've been thinking about something for a long while now when it comes to RTD elements. Does anyone else think it seems to be more skewed to Town success? Let's think about this. If someone investigated evidence and rolls high, they get everything they need, learn everything. That's fair and all. But what if they roll like a 1 or 2? Worst thing that happens is they might get badly hurt in someway, like falling rock objects or tripping on fruit, but the evidence still remains intact. I think I like it in 2BA or .EXE where evidence has a chance of getting lost just as much as it does telling you everything you need to know. I remember in Life's a Beach where I did some hosting and I had some evidence got destroyed but then someone said it was supposed to effect the player, not the evidence. I personally think these need to be balanced more so scum can have just as much of a chance to succeed as they do to fail. I'm not talking about oversights on any murderers when they plan out the kills. I mean, with towns getting more and more competent, I think things should be evened out a little bit more. If the investigators find smoking guns, great, but I think they should also run the risk of accidentally removing the guns just as well. What do you all think?

[GoldenCityBird]

I have a quick question: Do hosts tend to come up with evidence that could point to the killer before starting the game, or is it more of a spontaneous thing? If it's the latter, I wouldn't be surprised. Planning out role lists, settings, ect. sounds like a lot of work coming from you guys. But, speaking as a mystery reader and writer, evidence is something that needs to be planned and chosen carefully.

A kinda-long rant on what I'd do

I'd personally do the former; have a list of few pieces of evidence a killer could reasonably leave behind, and drop them around as needed, probably once per kill. Stuff like hair, threads from clothing, make-up, or footprints. Fingerprints tend to annoy me a fair bit, since they only make one person suspicious.

To put this into practice, let's say that, in a specific instance, this guy was the killer. There's a lot of evidence he can drop: three different fur colours that aren't unusual on human heads of hair, three cloth colours that, again, aren't too outrageous, and that's not even taking hobbies, personality traits, and in-game events into play. Putting jigsaw pieces like those together seems way more satisfying than fingerprinting something to luckily find a perfectly-preserved fingerprint, in my opinion.

I think I may have spoken against evidence-forging roles at one point. I revoke that argument; for my system, evidence-forging becomes a lot better: players will have to try and deduce which evidence is real and which is fake.

This is all just a theory, to be perfectly honest, but I think this might be a lot more viable than having a lot of random elements determining what gets found.

[wingedcatgirl]

Honestly, the way we've collectively handled evidence in general is kinda feast-or-famine. Either there's tons of laser-focused evidence that all clearly points to exactly one person, or there's basically nothing at all.

It's definitely something we should be putting more careful thought into.

[PointMaid]

I agree, it's an issue. It's one reason I was discussing not disclosing roll numbers, since a low number can encourage you to just try again. But this is another way to approach it, and I like it. I agree, it's something to put some more thought into.

[Kennifer]

Agreed with all of this. I've got absolutely nothing against making the killers be creative and sneaky in planning out kills, even possibly framing someone, don't get me wrong. I think that's a lot of the fun in it is wondering "what the fuck actually happened here and how the fuck did they do it" vs. "oh hey look this guy has stab wounds and there's a trail of blood we can follow" or whatever.

A balance where it isn't as frustrating for the town as it was in, say, .EXE3... but isn't as easy as it's been for the town in some of the more recent games, is good.

Also I'd think that with say... fingerprints? That should not be as easy for people to tell whose they are as obviously as it is (This was particularly egregious in say, BSW, where somehow you were able to compare fingerprints using FLOUR. I mean I know this is a universe where a Snom can be a restaurant employee but come ON). Something like "they are from an adult human" would narrow things down a bit without having a big red arrow pointing right at someone. Combining this with an easier piece of evidence to identify like a hair or some clothing fibers (still though who's having that many fibers fall off their clothing all the time? I can see if it gets like... torn off while committing the crime or something though) that can help narrow it down further. So where it's not, for example "you find Golfball Poisoner McGee's fingerprints all over the putter handle" but rather "the fingerprints look like they were made by large-ish adult hands so it could have been GPM or also XYZ or ABC" and "you also find a hair that could've belonged to GPM or ABC" or whatever.

This would keep a more fun element of mystery where it's "okay we have several pieces of evidence that could point to so-and-so, but this one also looks like it could be bla-bla-bla". Keeps the towns looking reasonably competent but doesn't make the killers look completely incompetent even when they try to frame someone and/or cover their tracks.

[Dookie]

Also agree. I can try to make this more balanced, as I am currently running a game.

I love the idea for not showing the roll, because people just always try, try again. And the whole system in general can be broken at times, like when 5 people go after the same task (each with decreasingly less effort but into them, from > go to the bathroom and look for evidence against Player X to > evidence), you're bound to get a good roll.

And fingerprints and footprints are something I've tried to stray away from. They're basically a big pointed sign saying “HEY LOOK AT X THEY DID IT.” That's why I've tried to use cloths and hair more.

And the whole “Don't effect the evidence, only effect the player” thing? In my opinion, it's stupidly against scum, because no matter what, the evidence will stay, and the scum can only watch as the town has pends the entire day phase grinding through everybody to see who's hair it is (or whatever).

I'm thinking of dropping the DETE (Don't effect the evidence) next round on BIA. Maybe not even showing the rolls. I just feel like in modern murdergames, scum are at a disadvantage, because no matter what, they'll always leave something.

[wingedcatgirl]

Yeah, normal mafia games don't have RP-based evidence at all, so we really do need to give scum a boost to balance that.

Still, we don't like that one bad roll by one player can remove agency from the entire rest of the town... Hmm.

[PointMaid]

There's also the fact that in general, with some exceptions, only the scum tend to leave evidence. Investigators generally don't. Perhaps goes with the Don't Effect The Evidence idea. It's one thing that, let me say it, doomed Amanda in LaB, since I'm fairly sure we all pretty much realized that.

[Kennifer]

And the sad thing with Amanda's footprints? My kill PM had her intentionally shuffling to avoid leaving them, so if her prints were there it should have actually been from her investigating.

Also with the footprints, unless someone wears shoes that are like... super distinctive (or doesn't wear them at all), rather than (using the LaB example) "they're definitely Amanda's" more something along the line of "they're from women's flat shoes" or "they're medium-sized sneaker prints" or something like that that again, could be from a couple different people. (Obviously if it's like... Paw prints or something it's more effective but if there's two people wearing similar shoes it should not be "yes it is obviously this person".)

[Mr. Lee Hammer]

Maybe just one bad roll shouldn't affect everything in a bad way, but maybe cause some damage. Maybe 2 or 3 bad rolls can ruin the evidence for good?

And one more I thought of since fingerprints were debated. What does everyone think of imprints or handprints on people? When you're trying to frame someone and you try to tell if they were mishandled in some way? Kind of takes away some mystery and seems like it could be a game-breaker, like how GBC feels about fingerprints (although on fingerprints, I could take or leave). I would think stuff like that would fade out overnight, at least on those still alive. Is that too much too?

[PointMaid]

Yeah, I wouldn't think it would be easy, especially to get fingerprints from skin or certain other surfaces. And most marks. I did use bruises where I thought them appropriate and likely, but they don't have to yield precise evidence either. Maybe more general size and shape.

[Kennifer]

I'd think if it was like... bloody/oily/greasy handprints or something that'd leave a mark, or if it was rough enough to cause bruising then yes but... regular handprints especially with someone wearing gloves, how would an ordinary layperson (like the vast majority of murdergames characters) even notice someone had say, had their shoulder touched or whatever unless a lot of force was used?

Like no, not all kills should be evidence-free (other than the Ninja type roles obviously) but between "yes this is obviously so-and-so's fingerprint and you can tell this with your untrained eye" and the roles that can watch people at night (or the night patrol, or whatever) ESPECIALLY if they can see enough to identify a particular person... kinda gets broken in favor of townies. (I mean yes doing stuff at night is fun but it works better if you don't get the full details. "You see a person enter X room" or "Someone humanoid and tall does Y" or whatever, keep some of the mystery.

To note I am not just saying this 'cause Amanda got outed as scum so quickly; it's less fun as town too if it's too obvious who the killer is, especially early in the game. Like I think this is something that worked well enough with BiA; the clues from the first kill pointing at a couple different people made the first investigation more exciting. And then on the second day since the wrong person got hammered, we had someone we were suspicious of so having clues point at that person then made sense. (Plus, BiA having scum roles that can forge evidence makes it less obvious for townies without tipping it too far in the other direction.)

[Florien]

I think shading evidence hunting rolls would be the best solution for RTD sorts. YFF will not be implementing RTD, at least not for the fourth one, but just an idea, people tend not to shed hair, or leave clothing fibers everywhere all the time, and whatnot. Maybe limit personal evidence and focus more on scene evidence. That is, instead of people leaving their hair at every crime scene, only leave hair under circumstances where it would be realistic to do so, such as a fight, or some trickery set up by an innocent to catch their murderer beforehand.

Also, if there's shed hair in a frequented place, there's probably hair from everyone else who's ever been there too. Switch focus more towards the victims and the act of the murder, then think of natural consequences from the actions performed. Evidence, unless a major mistake was made on the part of the murderer, should be be less directly implicating of the murderer.

Like, I think of this as working to solve the case yourself, rather than planting evidence leading to the solution. Don't think about the case you have to set up as a host as "Okay this person murdered someone, how does the evidence implicate them?", instead think of it as "This person did these actions while murdering someone. What evidence, if any, would logically be left behind by those actions, individually and together?" It leaves it more up to the players to put the evidence together as they find it while the scum team/murderer offers alternate interpretations of the found evidence, rather than handing them the solution as to who did it and putting the onus on the smaller scum team/murderer to shout "I WAS FRAMED" convincingly enough. It also opens the door to circumstantial evidence playing a bigger role, like it does in actual investigations.

Basically, don't leave evidence behind that the perpetrator isn't leaving behind because of carelessness on their part or some trick on the part of the victim.

At least that's my idea.

[GoldenCityBird]

[...] Maybe limit personal evidence and focus more on scene evidence. That is, instead of people leaving their hair at every crime scene, only leave hair under circumstances where it would be realistic to do so, such as a fight, or some trickery set up by an innocent to catch their murderer beforehand.

[...]

Like, I think of this as working to solve the case yourself, rather than planting evidence leading to the solution. Don't think about the case you have to set up as a host as "Okay this person murdered someone, how does the evidence implicate them?", instead think of it as "This person did these actions while murdering someone. What evidence, if any, would logically be left behind by those actions, individually and together?" It leaves it more up to the players to put the evidence together as they find it while the scum team/murderer offers alternate interpretations of the found evidence, rather than handing them the solution as to who did it and putting the onus on the smaller scum team/murderer to shout "I WAS FRAMED" convincingly enough. It also opens the door to circumstantial evidence playing a bigger role, like it does in actual investigations.

[...]

This sounds good on paper, but since most games have a rigid day-night cycle and more ridiculous murders than an average season of Midsomer Murders (likely caused, in part, by the storage rooms that would probably produce the Ark of the Covenant if asked), I feel like this will be very hard to implement. If it's just evidence being left behind "logically", what's stopping a killer from doing the same finely-detailed evidence-free murder multiple times in a row, with only minor cosmetic changes such as the murder weapon?

True, this system is flavourful, making everything seem like more of a realistic investigation, but these games don't feel suited for that at all.

[Florien]

I mean, you'd think someone would try that, yes. But in practice, I've never received nor heard tell of an evidence free murder being sent. It's surprisingly hard to reduce the evidence to nothing. Further, everyone's here to have fun and be creative. Even I, notorious for playing to win and picking off beloved characters specifically because they're threats, change up my kills significantly. I don't think that the risk of someone finding a low-evidence method and sticking with it with minor variations each time is very likely. If someone does, it can be dealt with when it comes up. As it stands, players really should be rewarded for thinking creatively enough to get away with murder in spectacular fashion like that.

Basically, because people here are interested in being creative with their kills, and because it's so difficult to make a low-evidence murder under most map conditions, I'm sure it will be fine. And even if we get someone who does do the same kill over and over because they never get caught when they do it that way, that's an issue that can be solved with asking nicely to please try to be more creative after the second or third time. It can be the DM handbook for D&D advises. You reward the players for being clever, but if they become too reliant on their one trick, you let them know that that way is getting old and they should probably try something else, for the enjoyment of everyone.

[Kennifer]

I just feel like we need to hit that sweet spot where there's just enough evidence of any sort (whether it's physical evidence or one of the roles with the right abilities seeing something) to figure out what happened or what could have happened without it being too obvious in who it's pointing to. Unless the killer actually does get super sloppy or it's say... like in Toontown where there was a day kill with an actual witness. (And even then, having it look obvious but be part of a frame job adds a layer of something interesting and it's so rare to get a mislim these days; iirc Steambot was the first mislim in ages and a lot of that was due to annoyance as much as "hmm yes these clues could point to him".)

It's less fun if it's too easy or too difficult, no matter which side you're on.

And yeah I think killers using a variety of methods is good... there's a lot of variety in the characters entered so kinda tailoring a kill to whoever is being killed is just as interesting as the host tailoring an execution to whoever is voted off. It'd be boring if the host just executed everyone by shooting them in the head. (Plus if someone does the same kill over and over, even if there's very limited evidence, I'd expect town to realize "oh hey these victims all died the same way" and try to narrow down their investigation methods due to having at least a shred of an idea what they're looking for... rather than seeing "okay this one was burnt to death, this one drowned, this one we can't even find the body beyond some blood stains, and this one seems to have been poisoned somehow" and having to tailor the investigation to those specific kills.

...please note I have not had coffee yet and am barely awake (hooray for sleeping late Sunday mornings) so this may be more rambly and nonsensical than I'd hoped.

[Kennifer]

Also on my last post, even with low-evidence kills... hey get the social deduction on. Figure out who might have had a motive to go after that particular target (a motive beyond "lol I rolled scum" that is). Sure targets could be chosen randomly but not always. Looking at how the kill was done helps too... if it was poison is there a character who either has knowledge of poisons or would have a reason (and the time) to seek out that knowledge? If it was blunt force trauma, would that narrow it down a bit due to some characters maybe not being large or strong enough to have wielded something heavy? Did the murder require a level of dexterity and hand-eye coordination that some of the animal characters might not be able to achieve?

There are so many more fun ways to do it than "you found so-and-so's fingerprints on a supply crate" lol.

[wingedcatgirl]

On the note of town rarely mislimming, that's definitely at least in part due to a huge reluctance to eliminate without solid evidence. Which in turn is because most characters aren't pragmatic and/or bloodthirsty enough to eliminate every day for no reason but tactical advantage, most RPers for whatever reason aren't coming up with an IC reason to do so anyway, and no GM has figured out the in-universe part of the "all of a team wins together, including the dead ones" rule.

I should really work on that last one, but I keep running danganlikes that don't have that rule anyway :p