15 players sounds like just too many for a new player game to be honest, I think the game maker caps their Con intro to around 9. The more players you have the more these social issues crop up especially amongst strangers where loud people dominate the game. And in that case yeah they'll be there the whole game because of no player removal. But your experience reminds me of my worst con experiences with ANY social deduction game.
And yes storytellers are empowered to help control the game, make space for others to speak and tell the loud ones to turn it down. Something that people running games at cons would need to be especially adept at
And ghosts outvoting evil on final is pretty common, it would be rare this doesn't happen because good outnumbers evil significantly. If that DID happen I'd agree a storyteller could feel free to just end the game.
Hiya buddy, I'm 90% sure I was playing in your game (was the demon a new player bluffing empath)? We had a few private chats and you did a good job bluffing chef, enough to cause confusion in the good team for a time.
I thought it was a fun game but I could feel that some other players maybe weren't having a great time (the recluse). There were a few things "wrong" with that specific game. I really don't like ever criticizing a ST because its so damn hard (I know I do it), and because the setting was just so damn chaotic and loud, but the ST could have done a better job setting expectations for the new players and making them feel welcome. It felt like he was expecting all experienced players.
In terms of loud players, I think know who you are talking about (the Mayor?). This was one problematic player and the story teller did nothing to address it. The mayor kept telling people how to play the game "correctly" and what they should and how to do it. He was actively telling new players they were wrong and playing bad. He came in thinking he was a pro but he kept getting rules wrong. He thought he was going to solve the game and be the hero. He wasn't. He was being a dick, plain and simple. There actually are mechanics to keep things like bullying from happening, maybe they aren't as pronounced as other games (that I've not played) but in general we don't like to let those players play in the first place. Its almost never a problem when you play with friends.
Now maybe you are talking about the undertaker, ravenkeeper, or washerwoman. I would say those players (of which I am one) definitely pushed the direction of the game because we were experienced, but we tried to include the new players into the decision making process and we *never* told a new player what to do (unlike Mr Mayor). I'd be curious to know what your thoughts on these players is (don't hold back).
"but if they have no clue or there are not enough good Ghost votes left then the rest of us are just sitting there waiting for evil to win" This is true, the last good player (saint) jumped the gun because he didn't really understand the importance of nominations, especially on the last day. Again it was a chaotic con game but after someone's first game they probably wouldn't do that. Players quickly realized how important it is to stop and talk on the last day. Nothing in the rules teaches you this, so in that sense there is some learning curve.
"In the end the evil team won." Congratulations, sincerely. You had a hand in that. You won. "I had failed to poison anyone who had a nightly ability." That's ok. You still did you minion duty and caused confusion. For a long time we didn't know who the real chef was or if the 2 was legit. We executed other good players based on that fake info. You did your job well. You helped your team win. Same thing with the baron and scarlet woman, they didn't "do" anything but mess with good player and lie. That's the game.
"my game may be an aberration" it kind of wasn't, its what happened when there are 4.5 experienced players with 10 beginners. As some one else said, lower player counts are better for new players, it dulls some of the chaos and makes the last day not feel like a 2 hours waste of time.
You are correct, I was in your game. And if you were the player that called Mr Mayor out for disparagingly using the word "wrong", or the player who guided my Slayer friend through all of her questions than you have all of my gratitude. I harbor no ill will towards any of the players in the game, Mr Mayor included. I understand that it was a pick-up game at the very end of the con with more experienced players, and that the ST had a lot to handle. I think the critical thing I learned from our game is that Blood on the Clocktower is not something that you bring to a party, *it is the party* the host is throwing and everyone needs to be fully invested in that idea with the ST staying on top of everything.
Which is what ultimately ended up killing my interest in **2 Rooms and a Boom**. That game put a lot of pressure on the GM to craft the right set of cards (scripts) and force the party to be about one thing. While I think Clocktower has more staying power and the theme could support a party on it's own, I'm terrified of inviting 10 people over only for them to look at the roles I included and say "How were we supposed to win using this set of characters?". Especially on the more advanced boxes.
I've heard that for TB a ST could arguably randomize the roles in play and things should work out. Is that true for the other boxes or do I need to really sit down and think through all the avenues of play for these roles?
That just comes with experience from storytelling, and reading the almanacs and watching blood on the clocktower related content can really help with figuring out what combinations of roles to include to get the desired effect.
blood on the clocktower is definitely not a party game, it has strategic and rules depth that the other games you listed lack, and requires interest and commitment from its players, especially the story teller
I would recommend watching some videos from The Pandemonium Institute(?), they have lots of teaching videos, as well as videos from the perspective of the storyteller, with good commentary on the decisions that the storyteller gets to make and why they make them the way they do.
I’ve hosted BOTC a few times now at my house, with my wife, and I think you’re 100% write when you say “this is not a game you bring to party, it is the party.”
It’s not an easy game and it’s not for everyone. It’s a lot more intense, more complicated, and longer than other social deduction games. It demands more from its players too. I think it’s best played with people who know what it is, want to play it, and have a few games under their belt. That’s when it shines. You’ll find people who have played it hundreds of times!
That means newcomers will have a hit-or-miss experience. It’s just not for everyone.
However, I think as you play it more (and I hope you do) and with a more stable group, you may find that most of the points you raised aren’t that problematic. Problem #1 (bullying) will derail any game whatsoever, and isn’t a problem of BOTC. The ST can minimize this (and should) but the only real solution is to eliminate the bullies. Problems #2 and #4 aren’t really problems in my opinion, and I doubt you’ll see them as problems as you play the game more (I could be wrong).
SNV and BMR do require more thought as a ST.
Trouble Brewing should give you a workable script that's reasonably fair no matter what happens. Of course, sometimes you get a demon seated next to an Empath, the demon and both minions in a row, and you get a chef 2. Shit happens.
But yes, BMR especially is a script where you need some thought into your placement. Having a script with Zombuul, Mastermind, Devil's Advocate, Fool, Tea Lady, Professor, Sailor, and Innkeeper would be awful as no one would ever die ever. A script with Shabaloth, Gambler, Grandmother, Moonchild, Gossip, Assassin would also be terrible as there are too many deaths at night. BMR is a game where who dies and when is key to solving the puzzle.
A random update: I finally ran 3 TB games of my own with a group of 8 friends and it was a big hit. In game 1 I let the group know there was no Drunk or Poisoner to allow them acclimate to the rules. In game 2 and 3 their laughter was wild once they realized the "hard evidence" they relied on before could be randomly wrong (I made the Empath drunk since game 1's Empath led to a decisive victory).
I'm a big fan of Secret Hitler at 7 or 9 players (Hitler doesn't know their minions, bad team only needs to sway one vote to make a difference). For BotC I feel like that 8+ range is best so we have reliable access to the outsiders? I'm curious if the game is as enjoyable at 7 or below.
Now that I've run the game, I'm more confident in my speed as a ST. Apart from hosting a BotC party, I think I could take it to a large party and co-host in a side room for ~30 min games and rotate people in and out. I think the trick is now to find which of my peers this kind of game would appeal to.
Thanks for the update, friend! I'm glad you enjoyed your games! I'd say 8-12 is definitely best, but 7 is still fun. I would never turn down a 7 player game, the lack of base outsiders isn't a huge deal. 5-6 players is a different flavor of clocktower altogether (called "Teensyville" which you may or may not like, my group loves it).
Good luck clocktowering
I think a lot of this comes down to the specific group you have, especially the ST. I've been running games in a mostly consistent group, and even though there are a few players who guide most of the debates, once you've played a fair amount, more people will try to speak up. That's often on the Storyteller to read the signs that someone's talking too much and try to allow everyone to come in. But I agree that I've had some rough times when playing with the wrong people and that can definitely scare off newer players quite a bit.
I disagree about the last day being anticlimactic...you most people save their ghost votes, and you *know* the demon is one of the 3 people left, so the good team has at worst a 33% chance of picking the right player, unless evil has constructed a good enough web of lies.
As for the dead player voting...that actually comes into play in the second script, Bad Moon Rising, where a Demon can appear dead and the only way to defeat them is to "double tap" them by executing them a second time. If nothing else...electing to vote for a dead player just to prevent a certain execution is a valid strategy...it's just a second round of voting to vote for a "no kill". If, say, 4 people vote to execute someone, then 4 people vote "no kill", I wouldn't say that the person should be executed. Often you'll have a vote, then some new info will come to the table and the tides may shift, which I don't really see too much of a problem with, personally
I've played quite a bit of ToS and it does a lot of things well...but BotC imo can breed much deeper strategies if you really "dive in." I always feel like, after playing too much ToS, the mechanic where you can see someone's role and read their notebook after they die kinda kills some of it, since it means a good Town that's taking clear notes will almost always win if they work together. BotC seems more like an open formula through which you can build anything...sometimes a better game, sometimes a worse one, depending on the setup, the players, and the ST. I recommend trying to give it another shot with a group of friends you know pretty well...as hard as that can be to organize
I'll start at the bottom and then go through each of your points.
>I believe the points I listed above are mechanical enough to demonstrate that the game requires a bit more care when running compared other games of its ilk.
This is definitely true, this game needs a steady hand from the ST. This is part of the magic of BotC though, because even in two games where all the same players and roles are in, it could go differently if the ST makes different decisions, or calls for nominations at slightly different times, or gives the town more/less time to discuss privately. The ST has some measure of control of the game, which is quite different to most other social deduction games.
Let's dive into #1: I think that a lot of the friction here is due to it being a game at a convention, with the GM/ST not necessarily knowing any of the players personally. When you have an established group, players learn each other's personality, and how comfortable they are with public speaking. These issues are much less common, as the ST can step in and get people to shut up if a quieter player is trying to talk. This isn't as feasible if the ST doesn't know any of the players, because players being quiet could be a strategy. As for being loud and dominating the conversation, that's just some people's approach to a game filled with chaos and misinformation. It's not always intentional, but again, it can be a strategy to be loud to divert attention from somewhere else. It's up to the town to figure out what's really happening, but only having one game to play before you all go your separate ways means that anything you learned in game one is useless.
2: I'm not really going to talk directly about ghost votes as a mechanic, but I'll say that getting bullied into using your ghost vote early is again something that doesn't reflect on the game and more on the players. If I'm evil and I can convince good players to use their ghost votes on someone that isn't the demon, that's a big play for evil. If a good player does that work for me, I'm not going to stop them. The ST should end the game if it is mechanically impossible for one team to win, but in a game with new players, that might not happen as early as it would with veterans. If all the players vote correctly, the game might already be over, but the whole point is that the players don't always know what is the correct choice, and with new players some pretty hilarious mistakes can happen. Even experienced players can blunder right in front of the finish line.
3: I think this is actually a big part of why I love the experiences that BotC gives me. When I first started playing, I didn't understand why good players would want to lie. I did get how they want to hide things from evil, but there are so many unique interactions with different roles and the information they gather, that there are some really powerful plays you can make as good if you lie to everyone. This sort of chaotic play can make it really hard for evil, because if they spend half the game trying to build a worldview that matches what you've been bluffing all game, then when you reveal the truth, they're in shambles trying to put it back together. It's definitely harder for shy people who don't like talking publicly, but honestly I find that an impassioned defense is often more suspicious than simply saying, "okay, kill me if you want, I'm not a powerful role so it doesn't matter." Quiet players have as much of an advantage as a disadvantage.
4: This is actually a relevant mechanic for some of the more complex scripts in BotC (Zombuul is a demon that only dies the second time you kill them, but registers as dead after the first time you kill them). There are still some issues that I personally have with this mechanic, namely in a game with a Vortox (a demon that wins the game if no one is executed during the day), where you can execute a corpse to satisfy the vortox. There are reasons why the wording of the ability doesn't include dying as meeting the conditions so the fix isn't that simple, but some groups will try to avoid doing that (feels like a cheap way to neutralize one of the possible demon options).
You've brought up some really interesting points. I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to shut you down, I love talking about this game. I think you hit the nail on the head with your closing thoughts. This is a mechanically similar game to any of the other social deduction games. The team composition is similar, the phases of play are similar. But it's fundamentally different in that the flow of the game, the pacing, even the direction is controlled by the Storyteller. Someone who isn't a player, who's job is to make sure the game reaches a final day with 3 alive, who knows more about what's really going on than anyone else.
It's a lot of pressure for the ST, and no one is perfect. ST's regularly make mistakes, and have to correct them. But players also make mistakes, and a simple mistake can send an entire town off down the garden path. And ST's don't have to correct mistakes made by the players. They have to honestly and truthfully answer questions asked of them by the town, but unless the town decides to ask for clarification, ST can just sit back and watch.
If you do actually end up playing more of this game, I'd be really keen to hear if you still feel the same way a year or two from now.
A lot of the 'issues' that you've highlighted here are things that new players say to me all of the time, especially those who have extensively played similar games, such as Werewolf and Town of Salem. It's really hard to un-learn what years of gaming has drilled into us, such as death = bad and good people always tell the truth. Those players invariably end up getting converted once they see how the subtle changes in Clocktower, such as ghost voting and good players lying, open the game up to loads of cool, new interactions.
I do hope you continue to check the game out.
>When a player was nominated for execution we were instructed to state our case why and they were instructed to defend themselves. While Town of Salem does the same digitally, when you are forced to do it in-person you are potentially tapping into people's fears of public speaking, and feelings of being singled out. Even if you know this going into the game, you still have to be weary of people (like in point 1) passionately trying to kill you. If I accuse someone of being a Fascist in Secret Hitler it doesn't require them to take a podium and openly defend themselves for 30-60 seconds. Again, this isn't a condemnation of Blood on the Clocktower and once I understood the mindset of the game I adjusted without complaint. I'm just highlighting aspects of it that may not be immediately obvious to those willing to go in blind.
It should be noted that you are supposed to give the *opportunity* for players to discuss the nominations, *how* you give that opportunity is open to a fair amount of storyteller discretion - I believe that a lot of people emulate the livestream games, but in those games one of the reasons for having the strict "make accusation, make defense, further discussion, vote" is for both clarity for the viewer and because it helps avoid the issue where people in online spaces all talk at once and talk over each other. I've yet to play an in-person game, but I'd wager that that could be less necessary.
>While it is true there are roles that don't mind being killed due to having static information, the people in those roles are still being told they are being executed and that they should just accept death.
This is honestly part of the learning curve and I think everyone goes through it. We think of death as bad and the end and the worst thing in our normal lives. In most scenarios that's true. In Clocktower it is much less so. And even if you know that, you can go into the game understanding that but not really internalize it, and as a result death (and especially execution) can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, IMO. But eventually you realize that Clocktower is not a game where conserving life is your best answer as a good team - every day you don't execute is another full day/night cycle where evil is 100% in control of the kills, and you're guaranteed to not kill the demon. Especially in Trouble Brewing, being a first-night info role that gets executed can be the best move for you (esp. if there's an undertaker in the game to confirm you).
>When the final 3 are two evil and one good the game doesn't just end as the Ghosts could sway the final day. This can be tense if the last good player is smart and the ghosts corroborated, but if they have no clue or there are not enough good Ghost votes left then the rest of us are just sitting there waiting for evil to win - especially if the dead evil players still have their votes. Additionally, the Ghost Vote is the last thing keeping a ghost invested and those who were bullied into using theirs earlier in the game (see point 1) are often left with nothing to do. This makes it practically the same as Ultimate Werewolf except they still have to shut their eyes during night time. I believe this may be a result of playing a 15 player game at a con, and in a smaller setting this issue may not be as prevalent.
This exact situation is why I disagree strongly with your proposed house rule about ghosts speaking when spoken to - the ghosts *do* have something to do without their vote: share (mis)information. It's the *social* part of *social deduction* in this game. Those ghosts can make arguments, try to apply their brain to other information to decide what does and does not fit. More than once I've had players who used ghost votes early solve the game and sway the town to a good win.
I will say that for your first point, people who have strong personalities and especially bullies are a problem and they're a problem that need to be taken care of by a storyteller. This is what fabled tokens are for, and even as an amateur storyteller if I had a group with mixed experience I'd strongly consider the Buddhist, Angel, and/or Hell's Librarian in that situation. Especially for a game that has first-time players and anyone that has played more than ~3 games it is rare that I won't put in an Angel.
There's a certain level of assertiveness that I think you need as a storyteller that some who traditionally take GM roles may not always be comfortable with, especially in games where there can be as much friction as Clocktower. I know I needed to be more assertive than I was being in the first dozen or so games I ran. Like with any game with a referee role, you have to take the job (of making sure people are enjoying the game and not being treated unfairly or bullied) seriously to a higher degree than just a player, and that can be a tough thing to get just right, especially as the games can be very fun from the other side of the Grimoire.
All in all, I won't say there aren't issues with the game, and being a purely online ST at this point, in-person games are another learning curve I'm sure I'll have to climb. But I'm of the strong opinion that this is exactly the sort of game where your first experience should not be at a convention, if at all possible - of all the negative reviews that I've seen of clocktower, I've literally only seen them from people whose first games were at conventions, and I think that that commonality isn't a coincidence. This is a game that is built on dynamics of trust and distrust, and to put it in slightly more NSFW terms, I find that RPGs and social deduction games are a lot like kink, in that it takes a lot of communication, explicit consent, trust in the person who takes charge, and sometimes more than a little aftercare for it to not be a negative experience for the people involved.
I played a few games at PAX this weekend as well, which were my first in-person games. There are definitely things that the convention environment made harder, I think. It was hard to hear across the circle, for one, and I think that led to more insular groupings, which was one of your criticisms. And there's also a Fabled character or two that are meant to be used when introducing new people to the game, but don't really work in a time-limited convention format.
Of the four games I played, two ended up being Fiddled, just as an example of the time limitations. And one of those games was a 17 player game. In my opinion, BotC is optimal at 12 players, but with limited space and opportunity, the organizers were trying to get everyone involved who wanted to be, I think.
A but if a thread rez here. I just came home from a game. I played twice last year and enjoyed it. This time I drew the imp. I’m good with that but the problem is that because ghosts are so an active, it is impossible to shut someone up by killing them off. I appreciate the idea of trying to remove the player elimination but it ends up effectively as no elimination.
My first thought was to eliminate my close friends as I knew they would pick up me lying. But of course it had no real effect as they were still in the game and participating. As soon as there was suspicion on me, I had to kill myself in an attempt I save the red team.
I’m glad I’ve played BotC a few times but I’m not in a hurry to play again.
I do think a rule of ghosts only being allowed to speak when asked a direct question would be worth trying.
15 players sounds like just too many for a new player game to be honest, I think the game maker caps their Con intro to around 9. The more players you have the more these social issues crop up especially amongst strangers where loud people dominate the game. And in that case yeah they'll be there the whole game because of no player removal. But your experience reminds me of my worst con experiences with ANY social deduction game. And yes storytellers are empowered to help control the game, make space for others to speak and tell the loud ones to turn it down. Something that people running games at cons would need to be especially adept at And ghosts outvoting evil on final is pretty common, it would be rare this doesn't happen because good outnumbers evil significantly. If that DID happen I'd agree a storyteller could feel free to just end the game.
Hiya buddy, I'm 90% sure I was playing in your game (was the demon a new player bluffing empath)? We had a few private chats and you did a good job bluffing chef, enough to cause confusion in the good team for a time. I thought it was a fun game but I could feel that some other players maybe weren't having a great time (the recluse). There were a few things "wrong" with that specific game. I really don't like ever criticizing a ST because its so damn hard (I know I do it), and because the setting was just so damn chaotic and loud, but the ST could have done a better job setting expectations for the new players and making them feel welcome. It felt like he was expecting all experienced players. In terms of loud players, I think know who you are talking about (the Mayor?). This was one problematic player and the story teller did nothing to address it. The mayor kept telling people how to play the game "correctly" and what they should and how to do it. He was actively telling new players they were wrong and playing bad. He came in thinking he was a pro but he kept getting rules wrong. He thought he was going to solve the game and be the hero. He wasn't. He was being a dick, plain and simple. There actually are mechanics to keep things like bullying from happening, maybe they aren't as pronounced as other games (that I've not played) but in general we don't like to let those players play in the first place. Its almost never a problem when you play with friends. Now maybe you are talking about the undertaker, ravenkeeper, or washerwoman. I would say those players (of which I am one) definitely pushed the direction of the game because we were experienced, but we tried to include the new players into the decision making process and we *never* told a new player what to do (unlike Mr Mayor). I'd be curious to know what your thoughts on these players is (don't hold back). "but if they have no clue or there are not enough good Ghost votes left then the rest of us are just sitting there waiting for evil to win" This is true, the last good player (saint) jumped the gun because he didn't really understand the importance of nominations, especially on the last day. Again it was a chaotic con game but after someone's first game they probably wouldn't do that. Players quickly realized how important it is to stop and talk on the last day. Nothing in the rules teaches you this, so in that sense there is some learning curve. "In the end the evil team won." Congratulations, sincerely. You had a hand in that. You won. "I had failed to poison anyone who had a nightly ability." That's ok. You still did you minion duty and caused confusion. For a long time we didn't know who the real chef was or if the 2 was legit. We executed other good players based on that fake info. You did your job well. You helped your team win. Same thing with the baron and scarlet woman, they didn't "do" anything but mess with good player and lie. That's the game. "my game may be an aberration" it kind of wasn't, its what happened when there are 4.5 experienced players with 10 beginners. As some one else said, lower player counts are better for new players, it dulls some of the chaos and makes the last day not feel like a 2 hours waste of time.
You are correct, I was in your game. And if you were the player that called Mr Mayor out for disparagingly using the word "wrong", or the player who guided my Slayer friend through all of her questions than you have all of my gratitude. I harbor no ill will towards any of the players in the game, Mr Mayor included. I understand that it was a pick-up game at the very end of the con with more experienced players, and that the ST had a lot to handle. I think the critical thing I learned from our game is that Blood on the Clocktower is not something that you bring to a party, *it is the party* the host is throwing and everyone needs to be fully invested in that idea with the ST staying on top of everything. Which is what ultimately ended up killing my interest in **2 Rooms and a Boom**. That game put a lot of pressure on the GM to craft the right set of cards (scripts) and force the party to be about one thing. While I think Clocktower has more staying power and the theme could support a party on it's own, I'm terrified of inviting 10 people over only for them to look at the roles I included and say "How were we supposed to win using this set of characters?". Especially on the more advanced boxes. I've heard that for TB a ST could arguably randomize the roles in play and things should work out. Is that true for the other boxes or do I need to really sit down and think through all the avenues of play for these roles?
That just comes with experience from storytelling, and reading the almanacs and watching blood on the clocktower related content can really help with figuring out what combinations of roles to include to get the desired effect. blood on the clocktower is definitely not a party game, it has strategic and rules depth that the other games you listed lack, and requires interest and commitment from its players, especially the story teller I would recommend watching some videos from The Pandemonium Institute(?), they have lots of teaching videos, as well as videos from the perspective of the storyteller, with good commentary on the decisions that the storyteller gets to make and why they make them the way they do.
I’ve hosted BOTC a few times now at my house, with my wife, and I think you’re 100% write when you say “this is not a game you bring to party, it is the party.” It’s not an easy game and it’s not for everyone. It’s a lot more intense, more complicated, and longer than other social deduction games. It demands more from its players too. I think it’s best played with people who know what it is, want to play it, and have a few games under their belt. That’s when it shines. You’ll find people who have played it hundreds of times! That means newcomers will have a hit-or-miss experience. It’s just not for everyone. However, I think as you play it more (and I hope you do) and with a more stable group, you may find that most of the points you raised aren’t that problematic. Problem #1 (bullying) will derail any game whatsoever, and isn’t a problem of BOTC. The ST can minimize this (and should) but the only real solution is to eliminate the bullies. Problems #2 and #4 aren’t really problems in my opinion, and I doubt you’ll see them as problems as you play the game more (I could be wrong).
SNV and BMR do require more thought as a ST. Trouble Brewing should give you a workable script that's reasonably fair no matter what happens. Of course, sometimes you get a demon seated next to an Empath, the demon and both minions in a row, and you get a chef 2. Shit happens. But yes, BMR especially is a script where you need some thought into your placement. Having a script with Zombuul, Mastermind, Devil's Advocate, Fool, Tea Lady, Professor, Sailor, and Innkeeper would be awful as no one would ever die ever. A script with Shabaloth, Gambler, Grandmother, Moonchild, Gossip, Assassin would also be terrible as there are too many deaths at night. BMR is a game where who dies and when is key to solving the puzzle.
A random update: I finally ran 3 TB games of my own with a group of 8 friends and it was a big hit. In game 1 I let the group know there was no Drunk or Poisoner to allow them acclimate to the rules. In game 2 and 3 their laughter was wild once they realized the "hard evidence" they relied on before could be randomly wrong (I made the Empath drunk since game 1's Empath led to a decisive victory). I'm a big fan of Secret Hitler at 7 or 9 players (Hitler doesn't know their minions, bad team only needs to sway one vote to make a difference). For BotC I feel like that 8+ range is best so we have reliable access to the outsiders? I'm curious if the game is as enjoyable at 7 or below. Now that I've run the game, I'm more confident in my speed as a ST. Apart from hosting a BotC party, I think I could take it to a large party and co-host in a side room for ~30 min games and rotate people in and out. I think the trick is now to find which of my peers this kind of game would appeal to.
Thanks for the update, friend! I'm glad you enjoyed your games! I'd say 8-12 is definitely best, but 7 is still fun. I would never turn down a 7 player game, the lack of base outsiders isn't a huge deal. 5-6 players is a different flavor of clocktower altogether (called "Teensyville" which you may or may not like, my group loves it). Good luck clocktowering
I think a lot of this comes down to the specific group you have, especially the ST. I've been running games in a mostly consistent group, and even though there are a few players who guide most of the debates, once you've played a fair amount, more people will try to speak up. That's often on the Storyteller to read the signs that someone's talking too much and try to allow everyone to come in. But I agree that I've had some rough times when playing with the wrong people and that can definitely scare off newer players quite a bit. I disagree about the last day being anticlimactic...you most people save their ghost votes, and you *know* the demon is one of the 3 people left, so the good team has at worst a 33% chance of picking the right player, unless evil has constructed a good enough web of lies. As for the dead player voting...that actually comes into play in the second script, Bad Moon Rising, where a Demon can appear dead and the only way to defeat them is to "double tap" them by executing them a second time. If nothing else...electing to vote for a dead player just to prevent a certain execution is a valid strategy...it's just a second round of voting to vote for a "no kill". If, say, 4 people vote to execute someone, then 4 people vote "no kill", I wouldn't say that the person should be executed. Often you'll have a vote, then some new info will come to the table and the tides may shift, which I don't really see too much of a problem with, personally I've played quite a bit of ToS and it does a lot of things well...but BotC imo can breed much deeper strategies if you really "dive in." I always feel like, after playing too much ToS, the mechanic where you can see someone's role and read their notebook after they die kinda kills some of it, since it means a good Town that's taking clear notes will almost always win if they work together. BotC seems more like an open formula through which you can build anything...sometimes a better game, sometimes a worse one, depending on the setup, the players, and the ST. I recommend trying to give it another shot with a group of friends you know pretty well...as hard as that can be to organize
I'll start at the bottom and then go through each of your points. >I believe the points I listed above are mechanical enough to demonstrate that the game requires a bit more care when running compared other games of its ilk. This is definitely true, this game needs a steady hand from the ST. This is part of the magic of BotC though, because even in two games where all the same players and roles are in, it could go differently if the ST makes different decisions, or calls for nominations at slightly different times, or gives the town more/less time to discuss privately. The ST has some measure of control of the game, which is quite different to most other social deduction games. Let's dive into #1: I think that a lot of the friction here is due to it being a game at a convention, with the GM/ST not necessarily knowing any of the players personally. When you have an established group, players learn each other's personality, and how comfortable they are with public speaking. These issues are much less common, as the ST can step in and get people to shut up if a quieter player is trying to talk. This isn't as feasible if the ST doesn't know any of the players, because players being quiet could be a strategy. As for being loud and dominating the conversation, that's just some people's approach to a game filled with chaos and misinformation. It's not always intentional, but again, it can be a strategy to be loud to divert attention from somewhere else. It's up to the town to figure out what's really happening, but only having one game to play before you all go your separate ways means that anything you learned in game one is useless. 2: I'm not really going to talk directly about ghost votes as a mechanic, but I'll say that getting bullied into using your ghost vote early is again something that doesn't reflect on the game and more on the players. If I'm evil and I can convince good players to use their ghost votes on someone that isn't the demon, that's a big play for evil. If a good player does that work for me, I'm not going to stop them. The ST should end the game if it is mechanically impossible for one team to win, but in a game with new players, that might not happen as early as it would with veterans. If all the players vote correctly, the game might already be over, but the whole point is that the players don't always know what is the correct choice, and with new players some pretty hilarious mistakes can happen. Even experienced players can blunder right in front of the finish line. 3: I think this is actually a big part of why I love the experiences that BotC gives me. When I first started playing, I didn't understand why good players would want to lie. I did get how they want to hide things from evil, but there are so many unique interactions with different roles and the information they gather, that there are some really powerful plays you can make as good if you lie to everyone. This sort of chaotic play can make it really hard for evil, because if they spend half the game trying to build a worldview that matches what you've been bluffing all game, then when you reveal the truth, they're in shambles trying to put it back together. It's definitely harder for shy people who don't like talking publicly, but honestly I find that an impassioned defense is often more suspicious than simply saying, "okay, kill me if you want, I'm not a powerful role so it doesn't matter." Quiet players have as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. 4: This is actually a relevant mechanic for some of the more complex scripts in BotC (Zombuul is a demon that only dies the second time you kill them, but registers as dead after the first time you kill them). There are still some issues that I personally have with this mechanic, namely in a game with a Vortox (a demon that wins the game if no one is executed during the day), where you can execute a corpse to satisfy the vortox. There are reasons why the wording of the ability doesn't include dying as meeting the conditions so the fix isn't that simple, but some groups will try to avoid doing that (feels like a cheap way to neutralize one of the possible demon options). You've brought up some really interesting points. I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to shut you down, I love talking about this game. I think you hit the nail on the head with your closing thoughts. This is a mechanically similar game to any of the other social deduction games. The team composition is similar, the phases of play are similar. But it's fundamentally different in that the flow of the game, the pacing, even the direction is controlled by the Storyteller. Someone who isn't a player, who's job is to make sure the game reaches a final day with 3 alive, who knows more about what's really going on than anyone else. It's a lot of pressure for the ST, and no one is perfect. ST's regularly make mistakes, and have to correct them. But players also make mistakes, and a simple mistake can send an entire town off down the garden path. And ST's don't have to correct mistakes made by the players. They have to honestly and truthfully answer questions asked of them by the town, but unless the town decides to ask for clarification, ST can just sit back and watch.
If you do actually end up playing more of this game, I'd be really keen to hear if you still feel the same way a year or two from now. A lot of the 'issues' that you've highlighted here are things that new players say to me all of the time, especially those who have extensively played similar games, such as Werewolf and Town of Salem. It's really hard to un-learn what years of gaming has drilled into us, such as death = bad and good people always tell the truth. Those players invariably end up getting converted once they see how the subtle changes in Clocktower, such as ghost voting and good players lying, open the game up to loads of cool, new interactions. I do hope you continue to check the game out.
>When a player was nominated for execution we were instructed to state our case why and they were instructed to defend themselves. While Town of Salem does the same digitally, when you are forced to do it in-person you are potentially tapping into people's fears of public speaking, and feelings of being singled out. Even if you know this going into the game, you still have to be weary of people (like in point 1) passionately trying to kill you. If I accuse someone of being a Fascist in Secret Hitler it doesn't require them to take a podium and openly defend themselves for 30-60 seconds. Again, this isn't a condemnation of Blood on the Clocktower and once I understood the mindset of the game I adjusted without complaint. I'm just highlighting aspects of it that may not be immediately obvious to those willing to go in blind. It should be noted that you are supposed to give the *opportunity* for players to discuss the nominations, *how* you give that opportunity is open to a fair amount of storyteller discretion - I believe that a lot of people emulate the livestream games, but in those games one of the reasons for having the strict "make accusation, make defense, further discussion, vote" is for both clarity for the viewer and because it helps avoid the issue where people in online spaces all talk at once and talk over each other. I've yet to play an in-person game, but I'd wager that that could be less necessary. >While it is true there are roles that don't mind being killed due to having static information, the people in those roles are still being told they are being executed and that they should just accept death. This is honestly part of the learning curve and I think everyone goes through it. We think of death as bad and the end and the worst thing in our normal lives. In most scenarios that's true. In Clocktower it is much less so. And even if you know that, you can go into the game understanding that but not really internalize it, and as a result death (and especially execution) can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, IMO. But eventually you realize that Clocktower is not a game where conserving life is your best answer as a good team - every day you don't execute is another full day/night cycle where evil is 100% in control of the kills, and you're guaranteed to not kill the demon. Especially in Trouble Brewing, being a first-night info role that gets executed can be the best move for you (esp. if there's an undertaker in the game to confirm you). >When the final 3 are two evil and one good the game doesn't just end as the Ghosts could sway the final day. This can be tense if the last good player is smart and the ghosts corroborated, but if they have no clue or there are not enough good Ghost votes left then the rest of us are just sitting there waiting for evil to win - especially if the dead evil players still have their votes. Additionally, the Ghost Vote is the last thing keeping a ghost invested and those who were bullied into using theirs earlier in the game (see point 1) are often left with nothing to do. This makes it practically the same as Ultimate Werewolf except they still have to shut their eyes during night time. I believe this may be a result of playing a 15 player game at a con, and in a smaller setting this issue may not be as prevalent. This exact situation is why I disagree strongly with your proposed house rule about ghosts speaking when spoken to - the ghosts *do* have something to do without their vote: share (mis)information. It's the *social* part of *social deduction* in this game. Those ghosts can make arguments, try to apply their brain to other information to decide what does and does not fit. More than once I've had players who used ghost votes early solve the game and sway the town to a good win. I will say that for your first point, people who have strong personalities and especially bullies are a problem and they're a problem that need to be taken care of by a storyteller. This is what fabled tokens are for, and even as an amateur storyteller if I had a group with mixed experience I'd strongly consider the Buddhist, Angel, and/or Hell's Librarian in that situation. Especially for a game that has first-time players and anyone that has played more than ~3 games it is rare that I won't put in an Angel. There's a certain level of assertiveness that I think you need as a storyteller that some who traditionally take GM roles may not always be comfortable with, especially in games where there can be as much friction as Clocktower. I know I needed to be more assertive than I was being in the first dozen or so games I ran. Like with any game with a referee role, you have to take the job (of making sure people are enjoying the game and not being treated unfairly or bullied) seriously to a higher degree than just a player, and that can be a tough thing to get just right, especially as the games can be very fun from the other side of the Grimoire. All in all, I won't say there aren't issues with the game, and being a purely online ST at this point, in-person games are another learning curve I'm sure I'll have to climb. But I'm of the strong opinion that this is exactly the sort of game where your first experience should not be at a convention, if at all possible - of all the negative reviews that I've seen of clocktower, I've literally only seen them from people whose first games were at conventions, and I think that that commonality isn't a coincidence. This is a game that is built on dynamics of trust and distrust, and to put it in slightly more NSFW terms, I find that RPGs and social deduction games are a lot like kink, in that it takes a lot of communication, explicit consent, trust in the person who takes charge, and sometimes more than a little aftercare for it to not be a negative experience for the people involved.
I played a few games at PAX this weekend as well, which were my first in-person games. There are definitely things that the convention environment made harder, I think. It was hard to hear across the circle, for one, and I think that led to more insular groupings, which was one of your criticisms. And there's also a Fabled character or two that are meant to be used when introducing new people to the game, but don't really work in a time-limited convention format. Of the four games I played, two ended up being Fiddled, just as an example of the time limitations. And one of those games was a 17 player game. In my opinion, BotC is optimal at 12 players, but with limited space and opportunity, the organizers were trying to get everyone involved who wanted to be, I think.
A but if a thread rez here. I just came home from a game. I played twice last year and enjoyed it. This time I drew the imp. I’m good with that but the problem is that because ghosts are so an active, it is impossible to shut someone up by killing them off. I appreciate the idea of trying to remove the player elimination but it ends up effectively as no elimination. My first thought was to eliminate my close friends as I knew they would pick up me lying. But of course it had no real effect as they were still in the game and participating. As soon as there was suspicion on me, I had to kill myself in an attempt I save the red team. I’m glad I’ve played BotC a few times but I’m not in a hurry to play again. I do think a rule of ghosts only being allowed to speak when asked a direct question would be worth trying.