480Re: Leagues and record-keeping
- Mar 6, 2008i have no objection to a league, cant say i'll pay much attention to it
in or out of game accept for fun.
Gary Gygax may have lost a saving throw but he'll no doubt get to roll
up another character.
--- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
> I've had second thoughts about "publishing" the outcomes of past
> Werewolf games.
> It was never going to be a league; it was just going to be a list of
> roles and winners/losers each game, so that we could see and banter
> about who was currently on a roll, and going for three-winning-sides-
> in-a-row or so.
> But I guess their reward would be ... to be an ace candidate for
> first lynch in the next game! The nominator is choosing randomly
> (outside of the 1-2 he knows are on his side), so it would be
> tempting to say: "I have nothing to go on, but he's won his share, so
> let's choose him to string up!". I realise he could still end up on
> the winning side, but it means he tends to be punished for doing well
> in the last two games.
> I realise that he could still "win", even dead, but he's been pushed
> out of playing beyond Day1?
> So I won't name the two players who are currently on a roll, winning
> side the last two times ...
> This meta-handicap ("stop HIM, cos he's topping the league") applies
> to any of our leagues, ofc, (as AndrewM once pointed out) but maybe
> too much so in WW,where the first nominations are random and the
> player on the receiving end could do nothing about it ...
> On the other hand, it might stop poor StuartF from always being odds-
> on to be nominated for the rope on Day 1, for speaking up and playing
> the game!
> Any views on whether it adds to or harms the playing of WW?
> So I'll limit myself to saying which side won, and name-checking only
> the Wolves:
> 20 Jan 08, 12 players, AllanM as Mod, Wolves won.
> MikaelS and NickyR won as wolves.
> 10 Feb 08, 11 players, BobR as Mod, Wolves won.
> AndrewM, AllanM and JosepP won as wolves.
> 17 Feb 08, 10 players, BobR as Mod, Village won.
> GeorgeY and JamesR lost as wolves.
> 24 Feb 08, 11 players, BobR as Mod, Village won.
> StuartF, AndrewM and AttilaW lost as wolves.
> --- In lbgc@..., "Founder." bobroscow@ wrote:
> > No, not always a league with averages and positions; sometimes just
> > record of what happened each time.
> > I'm now of the view that these leagues, fun-leagues, and record-
> > keepings are a Good Thing. They are not serious. But they add a
> > dimension to the gaming, add to the banter, add to the
> > cohesiveness ... and give something for the site to do ... which
> > adds cohesion, in theory.
> > I've always resisted a table of winners/scores across all games we
> > play, a sort of overall league. I still resist that, it won't
> > But leagues or records across particular games seem good. And the
> > MORE games we bother to league or record, the MORE proudly-happy
> > people we have, assuming that the highers and lowers vary from game
> > to game ... More leagues and record-keeping mean more people happy
> > that their successes were noticed and recorded, for that slight
> > push of pride amongst fellows. No need to reply that it really
> > doesn't matter to you; you'd be fooling yourself; you play with
> > not mattering, but you DO get a further buzz if you then see
> > appearing as numero uno somewhere ... Unless you are the
> > administrator, in which case the buzz comes from your league
> > on your every word, not from topping the league...
> > The GOOD thing about SEVERAL slow leagues or record-keeping is that
> > several players each top something, or are high on something ...
> > if it is by chance on a game of much chance!
> > So, this leaning towards leagues on LOTS of games is NOT to make
> > more competitive; it is to give acknowledgement and appreciation,
> > extra happiness, to those who do well in a game or two, OK?
> > gets more breast-swelling, lots of people are current champions or
> > contenders, on one or other game, ... and it gives more for our
> > to do.
> > So I'll post on Werewolf record-keeping next ...
> > Bob
- << Previous post in topic