Never argue with idiots; they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you on experience.
No community can, or should, be all things to all people. And that's okay!
When I've felt that people's behavior is unfair, or unpleasant, I tend to pull away and stop participating in games with them. It preempts situations where it's likely the same behavior will reoccur, and I'll be bitter, that are easily avoidable. This has happened to quite a few people over the years.
Though this may come as a surprise to some rap battlers, my general ethics are sort of a (very ill-defined) blend between "do what can be universalized to make it fair" and "the greatest good for the greatest number," and I don't really see a contradiction in this. But maybe people who act un-universalizably getting to stick around, and me not participating often or at all, is the greatest good for the greatest number? Sometimes that's hard to believe because there are mountains and valleys that don't get along with each other, let alone me, but...who knows.
And I feel like the absence of fairness hurts me...where? In my feelings? Definitely not in, like, my elbows. But sometimes it seems like that kind of frustration doesn't count, because it's not "really" emotional. If I complain or dump my problems on everyone else, however, I'm making the problem worse especially for people like me who might come later, because they'll read this and see "wow, the old-timers are mad at anyone who doesn't think like them, no chance this would be welcoming for a newbie!" So I stay quiet. (Except here.)
One approach I've seen people take is "if you have a problem with me, tell me about it, so I can avoid you in the future!" I don't like this approach. When your behavior is corrosive, I'm not going to give you the chance to show off your magnanimity by stepping aside for me. And who says anyone else will think I'm in the right? Probably the stuff I'm still pent-up and bitter about doesn't seem like a big deal to anyone else--after all, they didn't say anything.
The other version of this is people sort of being self-aware on their own, and saying stuff like "I realize that I have screwed up by making it all about me so I will do better in the future." Even when it's not all about them, it's all about them. (And then they tend to go back to normal after a couple weeks.)
This may beg the question of why I'm still even here, and I'm not sure myself. Maybe it's petty jealousy? Like, "how dare these jerks get to mostly enjoy themselves, whereas I, who give a rip, am left out in the cold." I don't know.
But the upshot of all of this is selection bias. If someone claims "obviously nobody has a problem with my behavior, because nobody here has ever complained," they're only able to see everyone there--not the people, old or new, who have been driven away by that behavior and aren't able to be counted.
Again, this isn't necessarily a bad or preventable thing. But it's worth bearing in mind.
Madeline's thoughts on social deduction games, forum/community meta, and any other philosophical musings
22 Oct 2018
- [+] Dice rolls
22 Oct 2018
Every so often there will be a debate somewhere on BGG about the value of hidden trackable information in games, let's say Small World as an example. Usually one person says something like this:
A: I don't really like HTI in games, conceivably you could just memorize all the relevant tiles as they were revealed, so all it serves to do is punish players for not having a perfect memory.
And often the conversation will take one of these two forms.
B: So...you could house-rule it so that the points are kept face-up?
A: Yeah, that's what I already do, and explain to new players the rules I prefer to play with. They tend to be fine with it.
B: Okay, well, great. Enjoy the game then.
A: Thanks, you too!
C: What's wrong with that? Lots of games reward players for having good memories, like the way you need to keep track of questions in Spyfall or previous answers in Time's Up. Why can't this be another one of those?
A: Because it's not a core skill of the game. The main strategies to Small World involve stuff like thinking spatially and planning how you're going to spread your pieces out. All of that can be done without a memory component.
C: You're just jealous because you don't have every single skill needed to do well at the game!
A: It's kludgy as it stands, and elegant to get rid of. Why would anyone play this way?!
C: Because I trust the designer to have made the optimal challenge to reward a wide variety of skills, not some guy on a forum!
A: Well, you're a swamp troll too.
I can understand both sides--I have several friends who prefer the house rule in this situation, but I normally default to the rules as written when playing with people I don't know.
The reason A has a point and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, I think, is that memory doesn't feel like a very core skill to the game. If I were trying to describe the things you need to consider to do well at Small World, I'd start with the spatial stuff mentioned above, the timing of when to go into decline, the economic valuing of the different races as the bid process proceeds, etc. But "memorizing/guessing by pile size who's the leader and attacking them, except if it doesn't make sense to do so geographically," is not high on my list (if at all). Yeah, considering how to keep different factions in balance is part of the game--and a part that can often be gauged just by taking in the current board state--but I have no objections to house-ruling away HTI in this and similar games.
So where does this overlap with werewolf, etc? Well, it normally doesn't reach that point, but sometimes I feel as if players want to punish others, not for tangential skills, but core ones. Valley-type explosions sometimes go like:
D: You're not allowed to lynch me, it's not fair, you always do that!
E: Well, who should we lynch then?
D: I don't know, someone else!
E: What are your reads? Who do you think is good or evil?
D: Stop demanding I post content, waaaaaah!
F: So so far I think H is good, their reaction to the stuff G was saying felt really natural and uninformed. I think J is evil, they seem kind of nervous and concerned with keeping up appearances. Between the lynch leaders, I would vote K but mostly because I think L's timewarp was kinda goodish?
E: ...[vote f]?
F: What's even the case.
If D is able to enforce a rule of "the ability to give meaningful thoughts and defend your positions is not a core skill of werewolf, and players like me shouldn't be punished for not having it..." then what is? What are you allowed to bring to the table?
The rebuttal is, sometimes players are more glib and methodical than others, given the format. (I'm someone who finds it a lot easier to write walls of text at my own pace than communicate socially in real time, which as a friend said, is probably why I gravitate towards forum games, while struggling more in the video format.) So if you have experience with some players, you will (if playing to your win condition) eventually come to evaluate them relative to "their baseline." Which is also how we get paranoia lynches.
I don't know what the solution is here, other than "don't go full-on with that rule above." This is one reason why people whose natural inclination is to be more communicative as good than evil really have to try to balance by raising their evil game, because even if some of us do try/succeed at it, we're still going to get punished if nobody else can. More no-meta games, for sure, would allow people to be rewarded/punished for grasping/lacking core skills.
"But can't I just make my own game no-meta by using a sock puppet/trading accounts with a friend so nobody knows it's me?"
No, and if you have to ask this I'm nightfalling you.
- [+] Dice rolls
22 Oct 2018
Sometimes someone will wear more than one hat in the same game. A mods a PBF werewolf game in a standard roleset, B joins and plays, but B dies in the first cycle and goes to spoiler chat. An RL circumstance comes up for A which means they won't be able to process dusk and dawn on time on Day 3 like they'd hoped. They mention this in deadchat, and B, who is also a proficient mod, says "hey, I could jump in and do it, I know how to carry out everyone's game orders." They do it, the players get their orders processed, A attends to their real life circumstances. B has worn both the "player" hat and the "moderator" hat for this game, and will get credit for such on Cassandra. It's a win-win.
I have no problems with these sequences of events!
I do, however, have some problems with other sequences of events that come about every once in a while, and I don't have a better term for them than blurring the lines between player responsibilities and mod responsibilities in a way that usurps, or relinquishes, someone's job. Here are some examples.
C creates a new roleset, posts it in the opening post, invites feedback, and the game fills.
D: Speaking as a member of the good team, I think we should all claim our roles at this point in time. I think it would help us win.
E: I think that would not be good for our win expectancy, and here is why. Blah blah blah the wolves have easy nightkill choices and so on.
D: Hmm, good point, let's see.
E: Maybe when the gamestate reaches this point...
Players having a conversation about what to do to help their team, in-game, playing for their win conditions. Great! (Either or both of them might be evil, of course. Also great!)
F: Speaking as a member of the good team, I think we should all claim our roles at this point in time. I think it would help us win.
G: I disagree, I think we should not do that.
F: Why not? Do you have a better strategy?
G: We just...should not do that.
G: It wouldn't be fair or sportsmanlike.
F: We're on a forum, and this is one of the tools that we have. Like rereading Cassy's vote tallies. Or moving our votes in lynch chaos.
G: We oughtn't do that, it might give good an unfair chance to win!
F: Well, most of us are good. Are you claiming evil?
G: No. But if I was evil, it wouldn't be fair that people can just claim their roles this early and have the evil team POEd down.
F: Well, if the moderator didn't want that to happen, they should have made a better roleset.
G: Noooo I will never claim!
F: ...[vote g]?
Again, regardless of anyone's alignment here, it's not fun for me to be on G's team and feel hamstrung because my teammate feels it's unprincipled to play the game on the field. It's not fun for me to be against G and succeed because they thought it was "noble" to not try, either!
If a set is unbalanced to the extent that an all-claim D1 can be disproportionately biased in favor of good, and if players generally agree that that's not a very enjoyable strategy (I do tend to agree!) it's the moderator's responsibility to not run it. Or if they start it, realize it's easily broken, then maybe say "okay, that wasn't my best idea, let's not do it again." (And/or adjust results for balance reasons, on which see below.) But no player has the right to appoint themselves super-moderator and restrict others from using fair strategies. Because it's not their job, as evil or as good. If you want semantic restrictions, they had better be in the rules.
The flipside: let's say mod H tries an experimental game, but concludes after the fact it wasn't balanced. Or a BGG outage impacts players' ability to vote or put in actions.
H: Because of the external issues surrounding this game, I don't think it would be fair for the players on the losing team to get a loss on their records. I'm going to remove their alignments from Cassy.
H: Despite the issues in this game, I do think that the results are justified given how well the successful team played. I'm going to leave everything as it stands in Cassy; it's just one game in the grand scheme of things. Hope to see you in the next one.
H: I realize there could have been some issues with this game, so I don't know whether to let the results stand. If you were on the losing team and want your alignment removed, let me know!
It's not the players' job to make these decisions for the moderator. There will always be some people whose attitude leans more towards "yes, I deserved to win, this was unfair. Please don't count the loss against me." And there will always be some people who are like "no, I must bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of bias or caring about the results! Please count the loss against me so I can show off how scrupulous I am!" It's not realistic, or fair, to expect people to be completely objective and turn off either or of both these voices. Moderators' job is to make a call and stand by it. It isn't fun, but neither is getting into the whole situation in the first place.
- [+] Dice rolls
22 Oct 2018
(I've said some of this before in person at CabinCon, and in the Mental Health thread, but here with a longer philosophical preamble.)
Playing a game is morally neutral. Nobody should force you to join a game, whether in real life or on a forum. It's not ethically praiseworthy if you do so, and it's not morally bad either. (Except maybe if you're one of the ultra-utilitarians who's like "EVERYTHING is morally bad if you're enjoying it, because you could be killing yourself by inches to help someone worse off than you!!" But I feel like that's a hard standard to enforce on, like, actual humans, so we're going to ignore that mindset here.)
However, if you choose to play a game, then you've sort of signed up for a social contract in which some of the things you have to do aren't, in that context, optional. What are you committing to by playing a game? I would say this includes:
-Playing fair (not cheating)
-Trying your best to succeed (particularly in team games, but also in general)
--in my philosophy at least, not being an extreme mountain/valley/slope by expecting you or others to have special treatment applied to them that isn't applied to everybody
None of this is praiseworthy, because that's the bare minimum of playing the game! If you're over the age of five, you don't really need backpats for remembering to take your turn.
Every once in a while, someone will come up with a really cool strategy and execute it successfully. When that happens, yeah, it's great to praise them for doing well, and going above and beyond. Because that's a hard thing to do! It doesn't always happen.
But I don't want praise for "trying my best" or "not ruining the game for others by dumping my emotions on them." To me, praise implies that those are optional, and praising people means that others can get away with not trying. (And I do think that is an issue at times, too!)
So in particular, if I lose a game, I don't want people to say "it's okay Madeline, you did well and we value and like you!"
In team games, I can't respond to that by saying "no, actually we played terribly, so bleep off," because that might hurt the feelings of my teammates, and I don't want that! (Especially if my teammates put in effort themselves; if some of them really didn't, then we have another problem.)
And in general, it's like...you have no proof I did well, because the only objective proof comes from the results, and obviously I didn't. I'm autistic, and I often I feel that, in terms of social skills and empathy-magic, I started way behind the line compared to most people. But in "exchange," I feel like I have a relative aptitude at some kinds of logically puzzling things out. (These may or may not be true, but they are assumptions I take for granted.)
So when it feels like I've failed on my terms (the latter), and can never compete an equal on others' terms (the former), to be told I did well feels very fake and patronizing. Especially from people who are topographical extremes/have made it clear that we don't really have the same principles in common, game wise.
- [+] Dice rolls
22 Oct 2018
There are some annoying behaviors that I've been able to see correlations between. Maybe the same exact circumstances don't translate (today it's X's pet gecko, tomorrow it's Y's pet butterfly), but there are enough broad similarities that I can generalize them to the topographic model.
There is, however, another strain of behavior in the forum format that really weighs on me, and is not obviously correlated with personality extremes in this scale. So I feel like I should address it separately, but because of the nature of the beast it's difficult for me to talk about head-on, even here. Hence an appeal to metaphor.
A lot of arguments we engage in are "symmetric" in the sense that both parties have roughly the same amount to gain or lose.
A: Bright pink and lime green is the best color combination in the world!
B: No it's the worst!
A: Well you just have no taste!
B: I have more taste in one bud than you have in your whole tongue!
A: Fine, I'm going to paint my house pink and lime just to spite you!
Unless A and B share a house, this decision is well within A's rights. A reacts by changing things that only affect A. B might react by throwing out all their own pink and lime T-shirts, again, changing things that only affect B. So both of them have the same stakes in the argument of taste.
It's possible that the conversation might not get that argumentative, maybe one or both of them are just soft-spoken personalities. But maybe they're also relatively easygoing people who have strong opinions about color theory and keep politely saying "nope, won't ever agree."
Now consider this case (I stress that this is a metaphor, I don't believe any of you support littering beaches IRL, please do not hurt the baby seagulls):
C: I have a bunch of trash, I'm going to dispose of it on this public beach here.
D: I really wish you wouldn't do that.
C: Why not? It's my trash, I'm free to do with it as I please.
D: Well, the beach is...like...our common, public space. If you pollute it, then everybody is hurt.
C: Well maybe you're invested in it, but I'm not.
D: So like, on everybody's behalf, including the generations yet to come, could you...MAYBE NOT DO THIS?
C: NO YOU'RE WRONG, TAKE THIS *dumps trash*
D: *sighs, picks up some plastic, but isn't able to save a seagull who randomly chokes on a glass shard and dies*
D isn't really able to do anything to C, but C is able to do something that D finds hurtful, both to themselves and to potentially unseen others (while C doesn't care). Because of this, D has more incentive than C not to escalate the conversation and potentially provoke C. So they stifle their true feelings, and the only people who can speak freely are the pro-litter brigade (and maybe their close friends). Either you believe in a common cultural patrimony, or you don't, but it doesn't seem like it's even possible to discuss.
- [+] Dice rolls
A follow-up to my previous post; so these social dynamics exist. And sometimes there can be "earthquakes" that create even more mountains and valleys, shrinking the plateaus and pushing them closer to the margins. What form has that taken in BGG werewolf?
In mid-2015, something happened that was consequential in a number of ways; the original Cassandra site (the off-site resource where votes are tallied, werewolf players have chats with the mods, wolves make decisions, game statistics are recorded, etc.) crashed. In the medium to long term, this was frustrating to people like me who really care about the old archives and being able to browse past games; I and others spent a lot of time rebuilding it.
But in the short term, it was much less practical to play games at all, because we didn't have the automated "this is how many votes are for this player!" tally.
*Politics Metaphor Follows*
This should not be taken as indicative of my RL political views, because I believe that there are many steps the government can take to promote gun control and create a safer, healthier society. (If you disagree, this isn't the place for that discussion.)
Nevertheless, there's an idiom in the US that kind of applies here, which is "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." To generalize this to the point of extreme vagueness, I would say, "if a certain tool disappears overnight, only the people who are very invested in keeping it around will find immediate substitutes."
I feel like, to an extent, this happened with Cassy. Smaller rolesets became easier for mods to manually handle; one of the classic small rolesets here is the "no reveal niner," a game that often leads to some loud counterclaim battles. Historically, it's often been run early in the day compared to some games, and sometimes tends to attract louder, more aggressive "mountain" players. This is anecdotal and I can't demonstrate it rigorously, but it feels like during those few months, there were relatively more games that catered to mountain players, whereas the valleys were more (in the aggregate) like "eh, Cassy's down, don't wanna make more work for my adorable mods, let's pass."
Eventually Cassy came back (and crashed again, and was rebooted again, the following year, by which time I'd drifted away and couldn't tell you the effect even if there was one). And around maybe the start of 2016, the valley type players were more, "hey, can we have a place where our touchy-feeliness gets a say?" There were games built that deliberately encouraged a "mod will intervene if things get out of hand, please speak up if your emotions are being affected" environment, and though this didn't specifically target a valley audience, it sort of wound up that way.
So the total effect was a larger separation between mountain (slope)s and valley (slope)s. Again, this is all anecdotal, but I feel like that timeframe gave some of these people more opportunities to avoid troublesome interactions--but at the cost of making it more difficult for the plateaus, because almost every game would feature at least one emotionally volatile person.
- [+] Dice rolls
This is the central metaphor that a lot of my other philosophizing is based off of. It will be very wordy.
I originally posted some of this here, after having turned it over in my head for a while, but didn't feel like I could go into more detail. So I'm self-plagiarizing.
So you probably know about topographical maps. In real life. They are representations of the physical surface of the earth, to highlight areas of extreme elevation, like, mountains and valleys. One way of doing this is by drawing a 2D map like normal, but using lines to connected places with the same elevation. Both mountains and valleys will appear as tightly nested ovals on these maps. Others are in profile, taking a cross-section, which makes mountains and valleys easier to distinguish from each other.
So that's very exciting, but what does it have to do with board games.
Well, some of the metaphors we use in describing personalities (not just in games, and not just online) have to do with size. "She makes me feel small." Some of them don't really fit consistently--if you're trying to "be the bigger person," are you being "bigger than the game"? Hopefully not. But in terms of mountains and valleys, I feel like we can get a fairly complex, extended-metaphor description of a lot of interpersonal conflict (obvious, or otherwise) that arises.
What is a mountain? It “towers above” others and “looks down on” them. It exists in “rarefied air.” Next to its size, others are made to “feel small.” It “dominates” the landscape. And so on. Basically, mountains are those who go too far in touting their own ego/skill at a game, so as to create a corrosive environment for others.
"You're mean if you kill me on the first night, because everyone is so in awe of my talents that they don't let me play."
"You're stupid if you don't kill me on the first night, because I'm smarter than you and I will figure out the game."
"You need to listen to my opinions about player X, because I'm flawless at reading them."
"Don't feel bad that you lost, you never had a chance against me anyway."
It's okay to take pride in your skill and enjoy your successes! We all like to do it! We're all smart, thoughtful people who enjoy the fun of figuring out puzzles. That's why we're here. Mountains, however, act as if only they can be the smart ones.
In real topography, mountain peaks don't just appear out of nowhere. They're "supported" by mountain slopes, who form a "pedestal" for the mountains to sit on.
"We can't lynch Y, because they'll solve the game if they're good."
"Z is actually my father's second cousin's aunt's college roommate, like in RL, so we'd better trust them!"
"The team needs to be myself and Q for mission 1, it worked last game!"
"R is smart and knows math, gotta keep 'em around!"
What is the mirror image of a mountain? A valley, which is “low” and “drains” much of the precipitating energy. Mountains and valleys look almost indistinguishable on the first kind of topographical maps, and are reflections of each other on the second. It's hard for mountains and valleys to exist in the same place at the same time.
"Don't lynch me, my pet gecko just died."
"How dare you expect me to post content and relevant thoughts on the game? Meanies."
"I'm so stupid, I'll never figure it out."
"But games are supposed to be FUN, and how can I have FUN if you expect me to contribute and help my teammates figure things out?"
Again, lots of people have upsetting experiences IRL. Many people struggle with mental health issues, and find an online format an easier way to communicate at their own pace. But the implication that one person's problems are uniquely important isn't cool.
Like mountains, valleys also have valley slopes propping them up (propping them down?)
"Don't you dare ask S to contribute more, that gecko picture is plenty evidence of their goodness!"
"Is T not happy enough with their success in other games? Let's trade accounts so they can have my constructive meta?"
"We're all friends, aren't we? Friends don't make other people sad!"
A lot of the major conflicts in games arise when mountains and valleys clash with each other, let their emotions boil over, and/or feel like they have to replicate emotion that would seep in as other alignment.
M: You all need to trust me and [vote V], who is obviously a werewolf!
V: I'm not a werewolf, why are you out to get me????
MS: Well who do you think is evil then?
V: That's too much work, I don't have to tell you that!!
MS: Let's follow M to victory, [vote V]!
VS: Stop picking on V again, we vote V every game.
M: Now I'm going to get murdered! Woe is me! It's so hard being so talented!
V: Why are you talking about murder, that's not polite in these modern times, let's be ethical and talk about lovingly ostracizing our excellent friends!
VS: I think we're all getting distracted from the real issue here, which is that the mod posted some beautiful gifs last page, and I think we should quote them and annoy all the phone posters! Now, doesn't everyone feel aesthetically happier?
Cassandra: please go here to replace an upset player
Player who just quit: Waaah, you're all awful and I hate you, this incredibly unhelpful ISO will surely not scare off any potential replacements from stepping into this perfectly normal seat!
And it's not long before mountains and valleys are trying to avoid each other, for everyone's sakes. Sometimes one party is more clearly in the wrong than the other. Sometimes they're both to blame for escalation. Sometimes the slopes go too far in enabling. Sometimes a slope is more extreme than a small hill or vale. Nobody is "the most wrong," but everyone is affected.
In topography, we also have plateaus, which are sometimes too common to warrant mention. Until noted, every piece of land is relatively flat in its own regard. And we'd all like to believe that those "level playing fields" can exist. Oftentimes, mountains and valleys (and slopes) will recognize that the "opposing" party has aggravated an issue and want to avoid them, but are relatively cool with the rest of the players, who are just trying to keep their heads down and play the game they signed up for.
And some of them are easygoing and can get along with just about everyone! But I, the quintessential plateau, rankle very easily at perceived unfairness, and the consequence is that I can barely stand anyone.
I guess for me it all boils down to an issue of fairness. Do the standards player B wants to be held to make for a cohesive game if everyone gets that kind of treatment? If not, why should we give B that treatment? Are there any objective criteria to justify that? (Every once in a while the answer is "yes!" There's the "generally don't lynch newbies on their first day of their first game" guideline, which is possibly to stave off groupthink for our sakes as well as the newbies' potential retention/benefit. But usually, it isn't.)
Nobody likes to be lynched. Nobody likes to make the wrong decisions. But at some point in time, everybody is going to. And by coddling the people who demand special treatment, you're not just alienating the "other extreme;" you're also pushing away people in the middle. I know this sounds cynical, but sometimes I think social life in general is more zero-sum than we'd like to admit.
(Continued/repeated in "How We Got Here," and to some extent "Selection Bias.")
- [+] Dice rolls
22 Oct 2018
Hello! I'm guessing most of you will have found this from a link in the Werewolf/Village Square forums, but whether or not you have, an intro:
My name is Madeline. I joined BGG in spring 2014, after the friend who'd gotten several of my classmates/colleagues hooked on Resistance together posted a link to a (since-deleted) strategy guide here. I quickly became involved with Resistance PBF, and from there, the Werewolf forums. I played semi-actively until early 2016, and then more sporadically from mid 2017 onwards.
I can be very longwinded, and I have a lot of thoughts about games; not just in the "is this mechanically balanced" sense, but "are the people balanced?" Are people playing fair, in the obvious and not-so-obvious ways?
A lot of my thoughts have found written form around the Geek (and I'll shamelessly plug some below!), but others are not as easy for me to express. Werewolf has a tradition of "mod chats" where players can leave their real-time thoughts on the strategy of playing their roles, plus whatever gamestate observations they don't want to make public, which others can look back on later. (Resistance has similar geekmails, at least when I've played, but not feasible to make public to the same extent.) So along the way, I sometimes vent my frustrations there--after all, if other people's emotional volatility is making me upset in thread, it would be pretty hypocritical of me to dump my emotions on them! Or at least that's how I feel.
So this blog is a place for me to share some of those longer-form musings, in what can be my "own space:" I (hopefully) don't have to feel like I'm dumping on everyone if you're free to ignore me at will. I'm not sure the blog format is the best, but I don't think anything really would be (maybe an interconnected wiki?) My thoughts can be very verbal, but not always linear--which makes it hard to complain about one thing because I'll bring up five more problems along the way. Which is why I more often stay quiet.
Anyway, in no particular order, hope you find something worthwhile here.
P.S. my usual avatar is a rook, like the chess piece, hence the name. I'm currently moderating a werewolf game for the first time, which is exciting, but also means that I've changed it temporarily and the name isn't going to make sense during the possibly one occasion that people are reading it. That's my luck.
Previous Writings, some of which may be expounded upon later:
Top 25 Games (2015)
Top 35 Games (2017)*
Meetup Report (2014)
Convention Report (2017)
Pandemic Legacy Season 1 Campaign
Pandemic Legacy Season 2 Campaign
What is the gamestate?
*in particular, this includes the first draft of the Topographical Theory, of which much more to come.
Personal Codes of Conduct (Werewolf)
- [+] Dice rolls