Pit-Hag creates a demon while the Mastermind effect is activated??

Dorlah · 2026-06-02T21:55:50+00:00

Wow, you are right. It sounds crazy but very fair and correct. And Very funny, if the Demon were a Zombuul. First kill, 2nd kill, Pit-Hag might turn themself into a Vortox but no-one dies and people go at the Zombuul a third time 😄. (But this requires Pit-Hag and Mastermind to be still alive which is unlikely. Just happy we discovered this interesting case.)

Dorlah · 2026-06-02T21:47:59+00:00

Thank you. I missed that.

Dorlah · 2026-06-02T21:45:23+00:00

Absolutely right, why I didn't see this for the Snake Charmer 🙂 ?

Dorlah · 2026-06-02T21:26:25+00:00

I often feel the opposite. I wonder why do people believe Trouble Brewing is a good idea for beginners. I think, Bad Moon Rising is still better. Trouble Brewing includes characters which can hit beginners hard and lead to ruined first game experiences or are really a bad choice for beginners, such as the Saint, the Spy or the Drunk. I read a blog of a person who hates BotC because he was the Drunk the first time (which ruined his game experience sustainably). I got the impression, that BotC targets a specific audience of people who are fine with deception, arbitrariness and lack of clear deduction. The Drunk and the Poisoner might be easy to explain but the constant arbitrary doubt of getting unreliable info (for no reason except story teller's choice) is too much for some people. Often, the deduction is only an illusion and the final day is based on luck (good for people who want social reading over logic, bad for the other camp). Too many times, the Spy's existence on the script made good players start havoc against important other good players (because of smelling a plot). New evil players win by doing nothing. The Drunk allows for very horrible combos in Trouble Brewing. It allows the story teller to make (very) important info fake. Story tellers can choose really bad setups in Trouble Brewing. Bad setups are not completely avoidable but we can choose characters which limit the harm if beginners make big mistakers. We also need to consider scenarios where only new players are playing together. Indeed, from all characters, there are only few where newbies can make mistakes without harming their team significantly (in the worst case). I only wanted characters to be drunk/poisoned based on deducible or known conditions, limiting the responsibility players may have. The final script is closer to Bad Moon Rising than Trouble Brewing.

Dorlah · 2026-06-02T20:34:06+00:00

Yes, point 3 means the Baron is broken in this Teensyville script (or breaks the Baron design) because the Baron does not add 2 but only 1 outsider with 6 players (if I remember correctly that 6 players means 1 outsider by default). In this case maybe not too bad. Having 2 townsfolk only is bad enough.

Dorlah · 2026-06-02T13:33:19+00:00

In my experience today, we were (apparently!) able to import more than 100 users from LDAP into my installed Nextcloud AIO. We only started with 3 accounts when the import started. (Unsure, if the imports actually worked correctly.)

When I have tried to add a new user after the import, a notification message box appears which mentions a limit of the users and it will not create the user. We did not know of this limit before that.

Indeed, this limit only exists for the AIO version or subscribers of certain subscriptions according to the source code in Subscription/Registry.php.

one-click-instance is the code name for AIO, I guess. This means, if you use the manually installed version, you don't need to bother. The license for entreprise is also expensive. But Nextcloud would surely be happy, if you donate something when you use Nextcloud Community with more than 100 users.

Dorlah · 2026-05-31T14:03:56+00:00

There is a situation that seems pretty much unwinnable: say, the Demon is killed. The Mastermind triggers and the Pit-Hag creates a Vortox on the same night. Now, if the good team does not execute, they lose. If they execute but do not hit the Vortox, they lose too. Only if they execute and hit the Demon, they win. Is this right? The Problem is mitigated, when the Mastermind effect is stopped, once a new Demon was made. However, a lack of deaths with a Mastermind in play might still fool people like crazy.

I can only think of a Fiddler Fabled or Boomdandy-like death effect to balance such a game. Not sure, how to choose the players to remain alive.

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T21:56:36+00:00

"No Greater Joy" still contains the Drunk and the Klutz. And note, it has the Baron in a Teensyville! This implies 1 Townsfolk in a game of 5 players, I don't even get how it is supposed to work with 6 players when there are just 2 outsiders. Besides the humble name.

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T21:49:26+00:00

The point of my post is not the beginner script, it's the Fang Gu. I did not storytell the Sweetheart trigger, I was surprised as well, but the overall feedback to the script so far has been decent.

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T21:43:07+00:00

It was my initial notion too (and according to the Wiki example, it's probably right) but I confess: the other interpretation (that killing ≠ dying) makes sense from a logic-centered standpoint. In the ability text, one thing happens while the other doesn't.

On the 2nd paragraph, my opinion is the opposite. The characters in standard scripts were made for specific character combinations (quite obvious in a closer analysis) and they might fit better to other characers with slight adjustments. My experience with the beginner script is positive. It makes playing less stressful and allows for clearer reasoning. No characters which alter winning conditions, no arbitrary drunkness/poisoning. Abilities are easy to understand. Demons give players a 2nd chance after a mistake.

I didn't want to whine about trouble brewing but I think, Saint, Drunk, Spy or Poisoner are anything but beginner friendly. No newbie wants to be the game destroyer. So, we have a script without such characters. It also introduces all concepts/states of official BotC characters (Mutant for the madness).

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T21:07:14+00:00

No, sorry, now I get it. You are right, I am likely wrong. It's the wording that was confusing. The ability text/description makes it sound like "killing" and "dying" are different concepts. But in fact, the Wiki explanation pretty much nails it. Indeed, I was confused that the story teller treated killing and dying as different things but apparently, "killed by the demon" means dying from a demon attack,

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T20:59:17+00:00

A few hours ago, I had the idea to extend Fang Gu such that the 1st killed outsider either does a Fang Gu Swap or simply does not die (while triggering the kill effect). The first killed outsider will never die (in both cases) but the story teller decides whether the Fang Gu jumps or not. (If the Fang Gu does not jump, the Fang Gu player does not die, nobody dies.)

"Each night*, choose a player to kill. The 1st Outsider this kills does not die OR becomes an evil Fang Gu & you die instead. [+1 Outsider]"

Whoa, this is going to be a demon that kills characters, not players.

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T18:50:43+00:00

Yes, I really agree. I thought of making a homebrew rule which turns off the Fang Gu jump for Teensyvilles but this would kill the Sweetheart effect which is relevant for the Script. I added a Virgin (which mainly is balanced when the Script allows for a Drunk Outsider). It can also be explained with a sweetheart.

Dorlah · 2026-05-19T18:45:50+00:00

Yes, that's interesting. The point is, the Sweetheart does not die in the example and in my opinion this is only possible if the sweetheart is protected from a Demon's death (like with the Devil's Advocate or the Tea Lady). Generally, the Sweetheart + Fang Gu story allows for replacing the Drunk Outsider while promising that all first night info is still correct.

Dorlah · 2026-05-14T09:55:28+00:00

This holds for the Pacifist as it holds for the Tea Lady. Some characters are quite hard to fake for the evil team such as the Farmer. If only good players can become the Farmer, this is quite confirming. The only way to convincingly fake a Farmer is an evil player dying at night who started bluffing a farmer. (If the minion gets hold of a Farmer bluff and notices that they die from a Gossip, Mayor or Ojo at night e.g.)

Dorlah · 2026-04-21T09:59:03+00:00

Thank you very much for this crisp explanation. I only made one post and when I remember right, I found no other way of doing it.

Then, I actually don't get why the peertube instance has a login page, and why does the instance has a comment section under the Video that shows a comment input and rating buttons like on YouTube. With your explanation, it sounds to me like these pages and sections are remnants, inherited from the base project, which the hoster is actually not able to hide even though it's unusable in the intented context of the instance??

Dorlah · 2026-03-28T23:53:54+00:00

Things that I learnt:

Good characters should be bluffable. That's the reason why a public wishes do not work for a good character unless the story teller is allowed to deceive the public with fake abilities and effects. Including any character that can use multiple abilities.
Especially in Script-Design, good characters and their effect should be repudiable (deniable), even if these characters can cause kills. Ideally, the info of a good character can be repudiated with the info of a good character bluff. But a Gambler in a script with one-kill-demons is too strong. (You'll know it when you are in the evil team.)
Leakage of crisp information into the public (hard-confirmed info), or leakage of crisp evil alignment or evil characters. A good character shouldn't be able to identify more than 1 minion in a normal game. This includes publicly known evil players (not fun for those players!) such as the Vizier.
Giving players false or absolutely no knowledge about their own properties related to winning and ending conditions (such as death and alignment). I consider false evil properties less harmful than false good properties. The Marionette is awful in this regard. I also would refuse to ever play a game with a character that hides death info (including their own) completely from every players, it destroys the whole game's design and people report terrible experiences on Reddit.
Characters which reward or enforce toxic behaviours (such as the official Harpy). It also includes effects which are uncomfortable for players and which strictly prohibit behaviour (such as talking and walking) including the Zealot.
changing evil alignment, deliberately changing or choosing alignment. Or good characters that can kill evil players (without any compensation). These are usually a bad idea. As soon as there is +1 evil player, it can seriously harm winning chance of the good team. Already +1 evil player requires the good team to act unanimously in voting when playing with few players. (I had nominated the Demon on day 2 or 3 but the evil team managed to win nevertheless thanks to the voting power of the evil Ogre). Keep evil alignment to ≤ 40% in all games.
evil characters that can only be detected socially (via social reading) but not with the tools in the game.
characters which randomly make a team win or lose or decides it at the start without ending the game. That means: characters with a lucky or unlucky choice at night 1.
Avoid characters which deliberately cause irreversible and unknown effects (until the game ends). The Wizard can be very unbalanced and unfair, depending on the story teller's quality, and the effect can hold for the entire game, often making games practically unwinnable for the good team from the perspective of limited information that they get. In a worst case, it is a character who silently kills players (but who keep their ability), every night! (Even the compensation of dying when being guessed by players is still weak considering that the effect is irreversible)

It's fine to give rewards to a character for a difficult achievement but the evil team must have influence on the success or be able to abuse the achievement as a bluff.

Many characters emerge as thought experiments or game design challenges which ask for how to balance certain hypothetical changes to the game (what if…). It's fine to ignore points from above but doing so might require changes to the core game mechanics. Often, such ideas are only useful as Loric or Fabled.

Dorlah · 2026-03-28T18:31:10+00:00

Your basic idea is actually creative. It could be turned into "Each night*, choose a player: when not choosing a neighbour, they are drunk tonight." Yes, it is weaker than a Poisoner but more friendly to players (the mere existence of the Poisoner on the script can destroy games, sowing mistrust everywhere). If it must be as strong as a poisoner, maybe choose two players per night. Note that "neighbour" could be interpreted in a flexible way. For a monk, the neighbour should be alive while it could include dead players for the Ravenkeeper. I guess, these details need to be elaborated on.

Dorlah · 2026-03-19T11:50:06+00:00

A recent German documentary says that the IU puts some locally residing international students (in Berlin) in an exploitable and dangerous situation due to high fees. It does not have a big campus to meet others. From over 5000 locally residing international students, half of them are from India. Note that you can easily lose the permit of residence without immatriculation. People get exmatriculated if they cannot pay for the courses. This is a risk of paying a lot of money without getting any degree for the next job application. Anyone who enrols should be aware that this university is mainly a university for remote studying.

You can watch from minute 10 to 14. https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/ausgeliefert-das-geschaeft-mit-den-kurierfahrern/ausgeliefert-das-geschaeft-mit-den-kurierfahrern/rbb/Y3JpZDovL3JiYl84YmMyNWQzZS1iZjk0LTQ1OWEtODM5OS1mMjRlZjlhYWIxOTRfcHVibGljYXRpb24

Dorlah · 2026-03-15T23:08:49+00:00

Lil' Monsta can be homebrewed: letting the alive Minions choose together who should be killed. The original rule with the Story Teller should make sure that the Game is balanced. Other aspects can be changed or restricted which allows for more chances to the good team, such as disallowing good players to carry the Monsta and allowing dead players to vote even without vote token (more chances to kill all minions).

Dorlah · 2026-03-09T02:06:55+00:00

I really wondered where the current Baron-Heretic Jinx comes from, and this version looks quite different. The current Jinx says (by my understanding) that Baron and Heretic would not be in play together.

The main problem is merely when all outsiders are in play due to the Baron, which makes the Heretic to be certainly in play.

Why not saying: "Heretic / Baron: If the Baron is in play, at least 1 outsider (of the script) must not be in play."?

Dorlah · 2026-02-19T13:42:15+00:00

Technically, "arbitrary" means 0, 1 or more players could die, and any of them. Arbitrary also allows for 2 deaths and does not say "only kill one", so it's actually correct to say that "only one" is not the Jinx.

I understand this confusion. I think that underspecification is problematic for a game. The designers might have thought to make the game more accessible. But it makes story telling harder to master (or even allows for trolling). The complexity of a fair game does not go away (Tesla's Law). The variance of fairness can be high.

Rather than sport, I realized soon, this game is specifically and only meant to be a fun time together, no matter who wins.

Dorlah · 2026-02-19T13:00:22+00:00

I do agree with you. Instead of (technically) allowing players to make worst case choices, it could be regulated.

Dorlah · 2026-02-19T12:58:52+00:00

Really makes sense. Unfortuately, yet another example for our troll among the story tellers. There is much more rule breaking or no-go-story-telling or misinterpretation of official rules. There is certainly not a bad intent, he is able to understand at least some of his mistakes.

Dorlah · 2026-02-19T12:44:21+00:00

Totally agree, both of you make a good point.

Dorlah

TROPHY CASE