I see how the alive-to-win wincon turns a game from a group of civvies into a group of indies. I don't think that can be refuted because many of us have or had played that way for years. I think it was a function of people creating more intricate games with role mechanisms that could possibly break a game too early if powerful civvie roles outted themselves. In our quest for creativity, we felt it necessary to ban claiming, clinting, and info-dumping to ensure (in hosts' minds at least) that both sides of the game had a chance to both win and enjoy themselves.Law wrote:This statement is all that I need to know that I would never host a game where you had to be alive to win. It's all anyone should need, to understand why it's a terribly flawed notion.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.
It's not about winning and losing, it's about incentive and intent. If your townies aren't playing properly, then it's not the same game anymore. If I enroll in a game and I'm later informed that I need to be alive to win, even if I am
I've not seen one person here refute this most basic detractor from that style of hosting. I've seen some people try, and ultimately fail.
Without the ability to claim and whatnot, the imperative to contribute may have been lost along the way. Without the chance to break a game, there was less chance to put yourself out there and take a stand. In this way, would anyone agree with me that the drive for complexity and uniqueness in our games years ago may have led us to this point where we find this culture clash taking place?
I like complexity in games because they lead to fascinating roles. The more fascinating, intricate, and nuanced a role I am given, the less likely I will be to take a chance and die early. If I have an awesome role, I want to stay alive as long as possible to use that role.
What I think I disagree with in this discussion is the seeming assumption that a DoA wincon will result in players collaborating and engaging more. I can agree that civvie-survival wincons will lead to less risk-taking. Without hosts having the ability to pick and choose which civvies deserve win credit, I cannot agree that DoA wincons lead to more risk-taking. In my mind, unregulated DoA can yield just as much nonparticipation. Maybe that's a product of the mafia cultures I have played in over the last eight years.