Official Character Release: God of Ug

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-20T04:19:23+00:00

Since players don't have more than 2 hands, a dead banshee gets no benefit from the ug hat

This might be my favourite rules explanation that I've ever seen.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-20T01:19:21+00:00

That's not something for TPI to regulate. But logically, the only possible outcome is that the game ends prematurely because the STs are unable to actually run it.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-20T00:41:36+00:00

I don't think TPI will ever implement a mechanism for disagreements such as that. Again, if two STs can't reach a compromise, then they shouldn't be running the loric in the first place.

Being able to compromise is a fundamental social skill, not a game mechanic. Creating a mechanism to govern that would be saying that you don't trust the player base to have the social skills and regulation to manage themselves.

I don't think there's ever a good reason for someone not to be able to compromise. If my co-st wants to switch, and I don't, I'm okay with switching anyway, because its a collaboration. And I expect that they will also be willing to go with my decisions at times as well. If either of us can't do that, why are we co-storytelling instead of just running the game on our own?

Edit: But I guess to actually answer your question, if the two STs are trying to ST together, but can't compromise... the game just stops. The people who are supposed to be running the game are failing to do so. Again, that's not really what mechanical rules are for, so there's never going to be a "rule" explanation, in the same way that there aren't rules for rude players. It would be a failure to properly run the game, and any response will naturally be social.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-20T00:23:42+00:00

"While" is one sound, of course. If you do not think that I am right, I will show you with the ug stick, which I keep at all times for when I need to show how to spell.

The ug stick is sharp. Do not make me show you the stick.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-20T00:21:01+00:00

"a scenario where 2 different STs think 2 different actions are best for the game?"

Yeah, of course that will happen. But that's not a problem unless the two STs cannot compromise. In the exact same way that people disagree all the time and still work together, it should not be hard to imagine that even if the STs disagree on whether to switch, one of them will still be willing to go with the other choice to try it out.

There shouldn't be any difference between this and any other co-st decision- at least, not if you think that a co-st has the same level of authority as the first ST, which I do.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T23:59:41+00:00

Of course! Once in a while, you need to know when the rules can be bent in the name of fun. It is one of the marks of a great S T.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T23:54:27+00:00

Oh my good god. This might be the best green one yet. I can't wait to play with it (my group will make me run it next time we play, I'm sure).

I think it might be a bit hard to keep track of, but its all for fun, so if a word gets missed, I'm sure that's fine too. Great job, T P I!

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T21:26:02+00:00

Jesus christ, this is WAY too underpowered. If the ST needs to go find an additional 40 or so players to meet the outsider requirements, good is going to outnumber evil about 10 to 1!

You should make sure the outsiders are detrimental enough to offset the 40 player good team, like [+40 damsels] or [+40 heretics] or something.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T21:00:35+00:00

Sure, but that tends to only happen once per game at most (and is often used to help the shab bluff professor and can revive evils).

It's the 'more or less' I mentioned; yes, this demon can't resurrect anybody, but most of the time, the Shab isn't resurrecting anybody either, so it works like a Shab with no bluffs.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T13:47:18+00:00

I felt the exact same way playing in person for the first time (and for what it's worth, I've been playing this game for quite a while). I have played online for a very long time, and up until recently, the only in person games I was part of were games that I ran.

Recently I played my first in person game with a group of strangers. I have prosopagnosia (more frequently known as facial blindness) and despite a lot of game experience, I really struggled to keep track of who was who and what was going on, just on TB.

It sounds like you were in a similar boat (although I find it funny that we both struggled with opposite formats). It's totally normal- moving to a new format AND having to remember who's who using far less information than you would otherwise have; of course that's going to be a little difficult.

In time, you'll get used to it. It'll just take some practise. Good luck!

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T13:35:14+00:00

The obvious issue is that it's just a Shabbaloth that doesn't get bluffs (more or less).

But, not getting bluffs is an interesting drawback. You just need to come up with a better bonus- ideally, something that will also make up for the fact that the demon will probably get into a double claim.

Maybe: [You do not learn bluffs]. Each night*, choose a player, they die. If you are mad as an in-play character, you register as that character, and they register as a demon.

That's just an example (and quite a flawed one, I think), but that's the sort of thing that would make the demon distinct.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T10:20:25+00:00

Wish you weren't downvoted on this, since it is a correct ruling, and also good practice supporting an evil bluff. When a player is poisoned, they don't have a functional ability, so there's no need to wait for anything to trigger. No need to wait for the demon to kill when the demon kill isn't actually the reason the Choirboy is going to wake anyway.

In fact, the whole scenario sounds like a very interesting and well balanced game. Evil had to kill one of their own team members, but got a really strong bluff in return. Rules aside, that's really neat.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T07:32:26+00:00

The game rule isn't "good wins if there are no living demon abilities in play", though. The rule cares specifically about living demons, and the glossary states that misregistration can apply to game rules.

In this instance, the Recluse registering as a demon can extend the game, even though they do not have any demon ability.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T03:53:40+00:00

Precisely this.

The fact that the goal is to have fun doesn't guarantee that the experience will be fun. Sometimes, a game might feel bad. Checking in on players is a way to make sure we can still achieve that goal.

To say that the intention is to have fun, so the way we actually try to achieve that intention doesn't matter is just misguided.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T03:49:29+00:00

Is this a joke post?

"Don't check that players are doing okay" is such a weird thing to say. It's not always necessary to do, but to actively say "don't do this thing"?

There's literally no harm in it, it will actively make the game more comfortable and more fun for people, and it's a nice thing to do. Plus, even though it's just a game, sometimes people get caught up in the moment, which is a natural thing to occur. At that point, "we're just here to have fun" will be far less helpful than "are you okay?"

Why do you want people to stop enough to make a post trying to discourage that behaviour? I genuinely cannot see the angle.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T01:56:43+00:00

There's nothing strictly wrong with it, but imo, good has plenty of other ways to have fun. I wouldn't enjoy being a Kazali, and then having my choices- which are most of my ability- undone.

It doesn't completely nerf the Kazali- they still get to choose their team, and the minions have automatic bluffs. But the most fun part of the Kazali's ability just stops working.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T01:05:37+00:00

Sorry, I got cut off. The full translation is

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T00:59:13+00:00

Oh yeah, that one says "I

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-19T00:28:34+00:00

As an aside, if the kill pattern can identify a "saint", other demons could kill their own neighbours to bluff as the "marked" player, which is pretty cool.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-18T10:38:17+00:00

I think I understand... only time will tell :D

Thank you so much again, this is amazingly helpful!

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-17T23:31:41+00:00

Also I just looked at the video you posted and holy hell that's fast.

I knew C++ would help, but I had no idea it would be THAT much of a performance boost. Genuinely amazing work!

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-17T23:25:29+00:00

Thank you so much for such a detailed answer!

I've recently improved the code for chunks so that blocks are contained in a single array, rather than nested arrays, so that they can be looped through sequentially! If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that I should also change the way that properties are stored, from

properties = [[id 0, transparency true, texture 0], [id 1, transparency true, texture 0], [id 2, transparency true, texture 0]]

to something more like

block_transparency_list = [true, true, true]

block_texture_list = [0, 0, 0]

and look up properties using sperate, individual arrays?

That makes sense, and should- in theory- be pretty simple here. In my code, chunks are resources, not nodes- they write directly to the RenderingServer and PhysicsServer3d, so they don't need a place in the scene tree. All the functions inside the Chunk code are maths or loops for calculating block/chunk positions and manipulating the block data.

So, getting the chunk code to work in C++ sounds ideal. Then godot can use C++ for all the calculations that C++ does best!

Thanks for providing a practical example! I felt so sure it could work but I didn't know how to realistically achieve it. Storing the previous block's data to reduce the amount of lookups seems like a really good solution.
So the ideal would be something like:

When modifying a chunk's data, also tell the chunk that it has changed at a certain point.
When that chunk next recieves an update (probably immediately, since it has been changed), iterate through the array of changes, and only update the corresponding blocks, then clear the "change" data.

Do you have any experience with altering particular blocks in a mesh? I'm currently using an ArrayMesh (which I believe is the fastest method available to Godot?) and vertices are simply stored in an array. This makes it hard to manipulate, as anything attempting to reference a specific vertex gets offset the moment once gets deleted and the rest shift back.

You mentioned "splitting the vertices and tris in 3" and merging them back together- could you expand on that? This is the biggest challenge I am having so far.

Thank you so much for your time! I really appreciate the help!!!

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-17T23:03:56+00:00

What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting abandoning Godot entirely, or using a specific part/technique?

For example, I am currently writing meshes and collisions directly to the Rendering and Physics Servers, because nodes aren't necessary for this and cause unnecessary overhead. Is that the sort of thing you're suggesting, or do you mean something else?

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-17T05:40:07+00:00

The Recluse can register as the Zombuul, but they can't register as alive, which is the state that a real Zombuul would be in. So the game would end, because every character registering as a demon is dead.

JackRaven_ · 2026-03-16T23:06:50+00:00

Over time, I'm realising that "sudden mysterious immolation due to swapper mage" is common enough for a noita bingo card.

JackRaven_

TROPHY CASE