…the more I think about this topic, the more my mood sours.
I’ll leave this thread alone. If there are any policy changes, I’ll learn from #Announcements.
In the meantime, I will continue to host the way I have been hosting in the past few years.
2 Likes
but it’s known exactly that that role exists and people join knowing that they could get that role
which if you think about it means that the label of “Bastard” really need not apply
1 Like
you’ve hosted way too many games for the answer to not be “all of the above” 
2 Likes
I think we’re actually looking for abstract-ish since, as mentioned in the op, we have quite a few different hosts with wildly varying beliefs
same with reviewers as well
1 Like
i mean you clearly could but how is the player meant to know what you meant when you wrote bastard in the OP? i think the room for interpretation is a bit too great and the abstract, while it does have some pluses, also makes it far harder for a player to figure out where a game lies
1 Like
also I would advocate for whatever label between “Not Bastard” and “Bastard” is used not be “Semi-Bastard” and use “Experimental” or something. The important thing is to have that defined somewhere to set expectations, but I think calling it Semi-Bastard may give the wrong impression from the jump (since players are unlikely to actually read the definition and just associate it with “Bastard Light”).
3 Likes
i think osie’s definition makes these differences clearer which is why i like it more bc its easier as a player to get an idea of how the game would be
I think hosts should set expectations in the sign-ups more clearly than just calling it “Bastard”. I don’t think any definition would ever make me say a host shouldn’t clearly explicate some of the things they may or may not do when deviating from the norm.
2 Likes
is Litten Smalltown (pre-achro changes) classifiable as not bastard
yeah i see the labels as the bare minimum where most OPs should try to communicate more if they’re including weird stuff
1 Like
What’s funny is my issue with Osie’s definition is it’s a little too narrow. I set out to produce a high level and broad definition that was intended to reflect nearly everything someone might reasonably consider to bastard or semi-bastard. It seems like you’re expecting something that would be presented to players in the sign-up for a bastard game which I would agree my version is not great for. It’s Meant For Lawyers instead of Meant For Citizens. Something presented to players would likely skew closer to Osie’s for brevity’s sake.
3 Likes
i think it should be defined as a game conceived out of wedlock
5 Likes
the short version would like
- Semi-Bastard: there could be some wacky or unexpected things and information from the host are less than perfectly reliable
- Bastard: anything goes mechanically and the host may be as unreliable as they want to be
1 Like
Wheres our Monday discussion! Your meant to be our voice mag!
2 Likes
Also a final version should be accompanied by examples and exceptions and things like that. Fucking with the rand or the elimination are two things that are already covered by my definition, but are worth emphasizing that dabbling with either is extraordinarily likely to piss a lot of players off.
2 Likes
yeah this is my opinion i dont have anything to add both seem good
i agree with this but fi we are expecting that hosts are going to give a very clear expectation of what will happen in their game then i don’t see what the point of defining bastard at that point is because i see the reason to define bastard as to make it clear to the player what is expected/allowed in a bastard/semi-bastard/regular game. (i think we have different reasons as to why someone should define bastard)
i see osie’s definitons, which ARE less broad, better for that use of describing a game to a player which I don’t think your definitions do as well.
1 Like
what do you see the purpose of defining bastard to be?
1 Like
I went for something closer to a complete definition which means it would either need to be incredibly long or short but abstract. It doesn’t mention Cults or Jesters, but you can still arrive at the same conclusion because
covers both for most communities. Again, I also agree this isn’t suitable as is to be presented to players for quick consumption. It’s something to be built upon with more specific examples and simpler wording to help communicate the gist because that’s what most people need to know to understand. Like this is the thing that if it’s unclear if something is bastard or not, reviewers/hosts can look back on and see if how it fits into the framework. 90-something percent of the time that won’t be necessary, but it’s good to have it when it is. But yeah I think this is a difference of expectations on what I set out to do and what you were expecting to see.
1 Like