Role classification system #517
Conversation
Introduced a detailed role classification system for antagonists and ghosts, providing clarity on behavior expectations through aspects like Disruption, Notice, Escalation, and Fraternity. This system aims to enhance player understanding and gameplay experience.
github-actions
bot
added
Design
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like adding role descriptions to the character tab, and I generally am a proponent of having more direction for roles via objectives and better touchstones for the players to fall back on for idea.
I think a lot of these classifications are overly restricting, and that the restrictions they imply are devoid of mechanical backing when really they should be primarily reinforced by gameplay mechanics.
| ### Notice | ||
| Notice relates to how noticeable the player's actions should be to others on the station. Note that this aspect may not apply to certain roles, such as silicons. | ||
|
|
||
| | Level | Label | Player facing description | | ||
| |-------|-----------|---------------------------| | ||
| | 0 | None | "Being detected would be disastrous for your mission - avoid notice at all costs." | | ||
| | 1 | Low | "You work best when you aren’t attracting much attention. Keep a low profile." | | ||
| | 2 | Moderate | "Being stealthy may be beneficial for achieving your objectives, but you have other tools you can rely on." | | ||
| | 3 | High | "You’re here to here to cause trouble and get everyone’s attention." | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This whole sections feels like a rules bandaid for bad role design. If there are tools available that would result in a playstyle that would be beneficial to the role but detrimental to its design goals then those tools shouldn't be available or their objectives should be realigned to make those actions less attractive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree in that roles should have tools that naturally move them towards the desired playstyles. But it doesn't hurt to remind players of it. For example, ninjas are a rare role that players don't often get a chance to play. With their powerful combat capabilities, new ninja players might be tempted to bite of more than they can chew, and get taken out quickly. Telling players straight up 'hey, try keeping a low profile' nudges them towards how we want to act without them having to learn some things the hard way
| ### Fraternity | ||
| Fraternity relates to player cooperation with other faction members. | ||
|
|
||
| | Level | Label | Player facing description | | ||
| |-------|-------|---------------------------| | ||
| | 0 | None | "The other members of your faction are your competitors. Either ignore them, or eliminate them." | | ||
| | 1 | Low | "The other members of your faction are your rivals. Temporary alliances might arise if your goals align." | | ||
| | 2 | Moderate | "The other members of your faction are your colleagues. You are welcome to assist them." | | ||
| | 3 | High | "The other members of your faction are your allies. Do whatever you can to support them." | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Implies some method of knowing the faction members. This exists for Zombies, Nukies, and Revs, but it otherwise unclear. With that in mind, I don't know when it would be appropriate for a role to know outside of high.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are plenty of ways of discovering who other members of your faction. You mention some, but there others, such as traitor code words and social deduction Some faction members are also going to pretty obvious, like 'Animal' or 'Xenoborg'
| | Cyborg | Nanotrasen | 0 | N/A | 0 | 3 | | ||
| | Mouse | Animal | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | | ||
| | Skeleton | Nanotrasen | 1 | N/A | 1 | 1 | | ||
| | Thief | Syndicate | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | ||
| | Traitor | Syndicate | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | | ||
| | Nuclear Op. | Syndicate | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Implies Nuclear operatives must work with traitors and thieves while the converse is not true, however currently that is untrue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could be addressed by rephrasing Fraternity 3 as 'The other members of your faction are your allies. Where practical, use their help to complete your objectives."
Then it's just a matter of tweaking the descriptions to meet our needs. They are in no way set in stone. Some of these can certainly be supplemented by mechanical reinforcement. For example, combining Escalation 0 with pacifism. But mechanical reinforcements can be circumvented. Being clear to players, 'hey, even if you find a way around the mechanical reinforcement, here's how we expect you behave' is important for establishing a good player culture from the onset |
This kinda feels like a page of the Guidebook fell out and landed in the Character window. Should we not rather link the player there? |
Imo if anything it should be both. That way the player can get a bite sized chunk of important expectations, but also have a button to pull up a full guidebook page if needed. Things that people commonly misunderstand while playing the role and get banned for could be included here. Because all antags are forced to open the character menu to find objectives this would both help good actors who forgot an important part of the guidebook/rules and also means that shitters who are purposely breaking rules can no longer use the excuse of "I'm not a raider I just missed that part of the rules" to avoid a harsher ban. This is extra great for downstream who may have different rules from upstream on a specific antag that would be good to convey to the player without them having to re-read a guidebook page and play spot the difference. |
|
If I understand correctly, this information is meant for the player themselves, not the character they are playing in game. While the ghost role pop ups are OOC information, this is IC information due to being in the character window, which all seems fine, but it is somewhat unclear. Also I do not remember where I saw this information, but I was certain antagonists also had a Major/ Minor classification, unless that is gone now. |
| | 0 | None | "The other members of your faction are your competitors. Either ignore them, or eliminate them." | | ||
| | 1 | Low | "The other members of your faction are your rivals. Temporary alliances might arise if your goals align." | | ||
| | 2 | Moderate | "The other members of your faction are your colleagues. You are welcome to assist them." | | ||
| | 3 | High | "The other members of your faction are your allies. Where practical, use their help to complete your objectives." | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think plugging in faction names/descriptions would make these a lot clearer. It would also probably be a bit of a pain to implement, but I think the increased clarity would probably be worth it?
For example:
"Other thieves are your rivals. Temporary alliances might arise if your goals align."
"Other nuclear operatives are your allies. Where practical, use their help to complete your objectives."
6 participants
This proposal outlines the implementation of a role classification system that can be used to better define and clarify expectations around player behavior for antagonist and ghost roles by breaking down broad labels such as 'solo antagonist', 'team antagonist', and 'free agent' into a collection of modular and combinable aspects.
This system can also be used to communicate behavioral expectations to players. Here's a mock-up of a potential UI design: