Role Assignments

EagleFan · 03-17-2010, 09:56 AM

Based on a discussion that started in the last game I figured I would start a thread for discussion.

How do you determine your role assignments when running a game?

Do you go 100% random, a mix of random and hand picking or entirely hand picking? Does it depend on the type of game (complexity) or the number of players? Do you mix it up?

I've done all of the above. The Olympics game was the first one that I ran which was 100% based upon random selection. Others have been a mix and one was entirely hand picking.

When hand picking I tried to put together a mix of newer players with experienced players on both sides.

I have also made a few alterations from the random selections based upon how some of the recent games had played out in some of the games that I had run. (Example: Making PB a vanilla villager in a game to try to help get rid of the "he's roled or a wolf" stigma and in another game making Schmidty a villager because he was on a long run of being a wolf and I could tell was unhappy about that run.)

In other cases I have made changes to try to spread out the roles a bit. If I recall correctly Lathum had a good role in one of my first games so I made him vanilla in the next game to give a high profile role to another person.

Thoughts?

Abe Sargent · 03-17-2010, 10:40 AM

I always randomize roles, every single time.

The Jackal · 03-17-2010, 10:42 AM

Like I said in the Beowulf game, I've never done anything aside from random. Don't want people that know you well to start guessing what you'd do as a GM - whether they are right or wrong that's too much metagaming injected unnecessarily imho.

PurdueBrad · 03-17-2010, 10:47 AM

I go random as well and kind of prefer it that way. I feel that as GM, I'm little more than a facilitator and I don't want to be micromanaging. Of course, I've only run two games so take that for what it is worth.

dubb93 · 03-19-2010, 04:13 PM

The one game I ran used random.org to give out the roles.

Danny · 03-19-2010, 04:19 PM

All random. I'm actually very surprised anyone does it differently (EF so far). I never thought of the idea of handpicking players. It does explain why PB didn't have a role though and as far as I am concerned, he still always has a role or is a wolf unless specifically handpicked by the GM not to.

CrimsonFox · 03-19-2010, 04:32 PM

Great thread. I at first thought that everything would be random when I started playing. But after 4 straight games of being vanilla villager I began to get paranoid and think that because I was new that I would keep getting picked as VV. I seemed to notice a lot of metagaming here and people not voting for people because they knew them or they were friends or whatnot so thought there was a slight possibility people were choosing roles and wolves based on that. But at the same time I was thinking it equally possible that it was just bad luck (which I have by the cartload).
So indeed it seems that I'm just unlucky as usual.

Danny · 03-19-2010, 05:33 PM

Actually I think in general we do a great job of not metagaming. And I certainly dont notice people not voting for someone they thought might be a wolf just because they were friends.

hoopsguy · 03-20-2010, 01:56 AM

I started off with 100% random.org but have started to drift away from that as an absolute. At this point, random.org is a starting point for me but I reserve the right to tweak a little bit to put better role/player balance in play if needed.

I really don't want to make decisions along player lines, but if I have a game where there is some kind of metric (think "the Twelve" from my first Marvel game) that calls for specific win conditions then I do think the game is better served with some consideration from the mod rather than a flat random.org. I'm guessing this is equally true for a small subset of the overall games - most the complex ones - run on this site.

Autumn · 03-20-2010, 11:30 AM

I've only run game, and used random. In retrospect though I would have tweaked the randomization slightly to make a better game. If I recall, Clap and Lathum were the wolves, and both had been getting so much early attention in previous games. It ended quickly because of that and I think the game would have been better suited by tweaking the wolves to prevent that.

I also don't see the kind of metagaming CF is referring to. I mean people give such reasons as "I've been voting X a lot lately, so I won't vote him." Or there are the day one votes, but that's day one. I don't think people vote because of friendships, but I know I often need something, anything to narrow down my voting options for me.

CrimsonFox · 03-20-2010, 04:46 PM

Well okay I've only seen that type of reason used once but every game I see metagaming of voting and thinking reasonings beyond THIS GAME ITSELF. Now for a wolf to use that kind of play I kinda get but vilalgers using it just bugs me a bit. Maybe I'm seeing it because I"m still kind of an outsider in this circle.

dubb93 · 03-20-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

but if I have a game where there is some kind of metric (think "the Twelve" from my first Marvel game) that calls for specific win conditions then I do think the game is better served with some consideration from the mod rather than a flat random.org. I'm guessing this is equally true for a small subset of the overall games - most the complex ones - run on this site.

As everyone knows I'm not one to cause controversy or start fights around here

, but I do take offense to this.

How do people get a chance to learn to play a role/become a better player if you won't let them play a roll. At the end of the day the game I GM'ed I wasn't completely happy with how some of the roles ended up, but I would have never considered re-rolling the rolls to put them on other players. It is just unfair.

dubb93 · 03-20-2010, 11:25 PM

DOLA

I would be really pissed if I ever learned that someone random rolled me for seer and/or duke and then took it upon themselves to assign that role to someone else. The seer and duke are two roles that if I have ever played them I sure as hell don't remember playing that game.

hoopsguy · 03-21-2010, 12:23 PM

Dubb, the example I used was a list of people that the wolves had to kill to win the game. That is a little different than the example you give.

But in the 24 game the wolf faction ended up with several roles that really couldn't be together and keep game balance (information roles that would have really limited the ability to learn about wolf actions). So I did modify that list prior to assigning players to the roles.

I do think those type of situations arise in games with 20+ unique roles much more than standard WW games.

Barkeep49 · 03-21-2010, 03:04 PM

Huh and to think I have these memories of balancing the 24 game as well... Weird...

Abe Sargent · 03-21-2010, 03:23 PM

I have never been the duke, althpough once I was elected duke in those games with an election, but I'm totally okay with that. It's not a role I would revel in. But I wouldn't like it if I was rolled for it, and then swapped with something els.e

hoopsguy · 03-21-2010, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Huh and to think I have these memories of balancing the 24 game as well... Weird...

Who are you again?

Seriously, if you have anything to add on the topic that would be great. That one was a challenging one to balance and I'm not 100% sure that we got it right.

Barkeep49 · 03-21-2010, 10:06 PM

There's a difference between role balancing and rigging role assignments. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with role balancing. On the other hand, I think rigging role assignments needs to be done with the utmost care, for reasons including those dubb stated.

EagleFan · 03-21-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

There's a difference between role balancing and rigging role assignments. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with role balancing. On the other hand, I think rigging role assignments needs to be done with the utmost care, for reasons including those dubb stated.

True. Generally my games have become more random as I have progressed but I may tinker a bit before rolling up the roles. Such as the PB and Schmidty "incidents" where I knew PB was being painted into the "always a wolf or roled" pattern so I made him vanilla from the start and Schmidty who was nt happy being a wolf several games in a row so I removed him from the wolf roll.

In my first game I hand picked everyone based on what I had hoped would be a good mix of vets and new(er) players on both sides. I actually never thought about random at that point as I had heard a fair amount of talk during the games that I was playing that made it sound common to pick the roles.

03-17-2010, 10:40 AM	#2
Abe Sargent Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Catonsville, MD	I always randomize roles, every single time. __________________ Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent

03-21-2010, 03:23 PM	#16
Abe Sargent Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Catonsville, MD	I have never been the duke, althpough once I was elected duke in those games with an election, but I'm totally okay with that. It's not a role I would revel in. But I wouldn't like it if I was rolled for it, and then swapped with something els.e __________________ Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent

03-17-2010, 10:42 AM	#3
The Jackal Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: New Hampshire	Like I said in the Beowulf game, I've never done anything aside from random. Don't want people that know you well to start guessing what you'd do as a GM - whether they are right or wrong that's too much metagaming injected unnecessarily imho.

03-17-2010, 10:47 AM	#4
PurdueBrad Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DeKalb, IL	I go random as well and kind of prefer it that way. I feel that as GM, I'm little more than a facilitator and I don't want to be micromanaging. Of course, I've only run two games so take that for what it is worth.

03-19-2010, 04:19 PM	#6
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	All random. I'm actually very surprised anyone does it differently (EF so far). I never thought of the idea of handpicking players. It does explain why PB didn't have a role though and as far as I am concerned, he still always has a role or is a wolf unless specifically handpicked by the GM not to.

03-19-2010, 04:32 PM	#7
CrimsonFox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2009	Great thread. I at first thought that everything would be random when I started playing. But after 4 straight games of being vanilla villager I began to get paranoid and think that because I was new that I would keep getting picked as VV. I seemed to notice a lot of metagaming here and people not voting for people because they knew them or they were friends or whatnot so thought there was a slight possibility people were choosing roles and wolves based on that. But at the same time I was thinking it equally possible that it was just bad luck (which I have by the cartload). So indeed it seems that I'm just unlucky as usual.

03-19-2010, 05:33 PM	#8
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	Actually I think in general we do a great job of not metagaming. And I certainly dont notice people not voting for someone they thought might be a wolf just because they were friends.

03-20-2010, 01:56 AM	#9
hoopsguy General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Chicago	I started off with 100% random.org but have started to drift away from that as an absolute. At this point, random.org is a starting point for me but I reserve the right to tweak a little bit to put better role/player balance in play if needed. I really don't want to make decisions along player lines, but if I have a game where there is some kind of metric (think "the Twelve" from my first Marvel game) that calls for specific win conditions then I do think the game is better served with some consideration from the mod rather than a flat random.org. I'm guessing this is equally true for a small subset of the overall games - most the complex ones - run on this site.

03-20-2010, 11:30 AM	#10
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	I've only run game, and used random. In retrospect though I would have tweaked the randomization slightly to make a better game. If I recall, Clap and Lathum were the wolves, and both had been getting so much early attention in previous games. It ended quickly because of that and I think the game would have been better suited by tweaking the wolves to prevent that. I also don't see the kind of metagaming CF is referring to. I mean people give such reasons as "I've been voting X a lot lately, so I won't vote him." Or there are the day one votes, but that's day one. I don't think people vote because of friendships, but I know I often need something, anything to narrow down my voting options for me.

03-20-2010, 04:46 PM	#11
CrimsonFox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2009	Well okay I've only seen that type of reason used once but every game I see metagaming of voting and thinking reasonings beyond THIS GAME ITSELF. Now for a wolf to use that kind of play I kinda get but vilalgers using it just bugs me a bit. Maybe I'm seeing it because I"m still kind of an outsider in this circle.

03-21-2010, 12:23 PM	#14
hoopsguy General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Chicago	Dubb, the example I used was a list of people that the wolves had to kill to win the game. That is a little different than the example you give. But in the 24 game the wolf faction ended up with several roles that really couldn't be together and keep game balance (information roles that would have really limited the ability to learn about wolf actions). So I did modify that list prior to assigning players to the roles. I do think those type of situations arise in games with 20+ unique roles much more than standard WW games.

03-21-2010, 03:04 PM	#15
Barkeep49 Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not too far away	Huh and to think I have these memories of balancing the 24 game as well... Weird...

03-21-2010, 10:06 PM	#18
Barkeep49 Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not too far away	There's a difference between role balancing and rigging role assignments. I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with role balancing. On the other hand, I think rigging role assignments needs to be done with the utmost care, for reasons including those dubb stated.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)