In Progress [LP CYOA] Tower

[Absinthe]

You bring up an interesting point: no matter how we vote, someone will have to suck it up. With that being said, I think that selecting our background before our sign is a better way to go about this precisely because it narrows down our range of choices to something more manageable, without disappointing a disunited majority. This will prevent an unpopular minority choice from claiming victory, while the rest of the voters are fighting over the colour of our character's jacket.

For instance, Scholars lead by a large majority with 6 votes total, but are losing to the united Merchant block in combination voting. The remaining six voters haven't expressed interest in either path. Under this system, the 80% of the electorate will have to go along with an option that only 20% of the electorate even wanted. Which is, obviously, not great.

But if we decide our background first, then we will be able to battle in a much smaller arena for the outcome we desire the most.

First, the total list of possible combinations here (60) is not unmanageable, though large. We don't have the fear that people will keep adding and subtracting from packages like we did with the training vote. The ultimate list of options we are actually considering isn't leading to the sort of onerous sprawling mess you are referencing. Second, the recommendation I made then would still be perfectly viable here: Take a look at all the voting packages people are actually considering here, then reduce it to a poll with only those packages available. If that list is too large, perform a run-off as you weed out lower vote options. That is the most dependable way to handle these sorts of things.

Finally, and most importantly, your notion of voting separately on background and sign is far more likely to result in precisely the sort of annoying mess of constant vote-shifting depending on overall outcomes that typified the maniac island training votes until we began consolidating down towards overall packages. Just because the voting lists may look neater in your version does not mean the voting process will be smoother. If anything what you are proposing is precisely what will lead to the sort of convoluted vote-shifting based on "oh wait I liked this option but now that that option is doing well on that other poll I'd like to shift this vote to get a better combination" and so on that resulted in such a constant mess of ever-changing votes and no end in sight.

Not quite. The only thing that drastically affects our character's character is his background. His zodiac sign will only affect his stats, but not his personality. We will mold that personality (and more stats and skills, I assume) as we grow over the course of the introduction.

If you think that having -2 charisma will not affect what sort of character we are playing, then you're mistaken. When I refer to character I am not referring to personality and background alone. I am referring to "what kind of person we are" and a character with -2 charisma for instance, is not going to be a particularly social person. A character with -2 int is not going to be a particularly smart person. A character with -2 strength is probably not going to be much of a fighter. That sort of thing does get decided by stat combinations. We can try to fix these faults through conscious effort within the CYOA, but seeing as stats go from 1 to 10 here, we know that stat-ups aren't going to be that easy to get a hold of, which means we probably wont invest into things we suck at. So the type of person we are going to be does get strongly affected by our initial stat-line.

 

[Baltika9]

. Second, the recommendation I made then would still be perfectly viable here: Take a look at all the voting packages people are actually considering here, then reduce it to a poll with only those packages available. If that list is too large, perform a run-off as you weed out lower vote options. That is the most dependable way to handle these sorts of things.

I love this.
Edit:

Not quite. The only thing that drastically affects our character's character is his background. His zodiac sign will only affect his stats, but not his personality. We will mold that personality (and more stats and skills, I assume) as we grow over the course of the introduction.

If you think that having -2 charisma will not affect what sort of character we are playing, then you're mistaken. When I refer to character I am not referring to personality and background alone. I am referring to "what kind of person we are" and a character with -2 charisma for instance, is not going to be a particularly social person. A character with -2 int is not going to be a particularly smart person. A character with -2 strength is probably not going to be much of a fighter. That sort of thing does get decided by stat combinations. We can try to fix these faults through conscious effort within the CYOA, but it will be a process of deliberately investing into things we suck at, which we are not so likely to do. Stats go from 1 to 10 here, so we know that stat-ups aren't going to be that easy to get a hold of either. So the type of person we are does get strongly affected by our initial stat-line.

I'm operating under the 'no stat less than 3' assumption.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

your notion of voting separately on background and sign is far more likely to result in precisely the sort of annoying mess of constant vote-shifting depending on overall outcomes that typified the maniac island training votes until we began consolidating down towards overall packages.

Except there aren’t solid packages being considered by everyone in every category.

Some of us are paying attention to the min/max discuss, but I think at least half aren’t and just drive-by voted their opinion and then left the thread until the next update.

So if we consolidated into packages, the scholar, for example, would be kind of shafted, since most of the packages for him are split into random sign votes.

It’s better to simply hold two COMPLETELY SEPARATE voting rounds.

It’s good that we had this overview of the different signs to see how we could make up for the shortfall of the backgrounds and capitalize on their strengths, but not being able to pair the right sign with the right background could result in a major handicap.

However, forcing packages on people doesn’t give everyone in the thread the opportunity to weigh in on which packages are best. Only those who are considering the package would get a say in creating it.

So if 6 people vote for scholar, but only two agree on a package, you’ve set the scholar package up based on the opinion of two people.

A two stage vote process would allow everyone to participate from start to finish. Just tell them: NO CONDITIONALS to make sure that they participate in the second round, if you’re worried about vote flopping cascades.

edit: of course it’s up to treave. However, if you were to use the votes we have now and implement Absinthe’s suggestion, scholar/ram would win. 6 votes for scholar, with the Ram being chosen by two people and therefore being the only package being considered.

I voted for that, so I wouldn’t mind it, but if we’re talking about the method with the most participation, I think the two votes idea is it.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm operating under the 'no stat less than 3' assumption.

Stats less than 3 are actually possible if we're just voting on each option separately. And the difference between 2 int and 3 int is that at 2 int we're an imbecile and at 3 int we're just a moron. It is still going to affect our character.

Except there aren’t solid packages being considered by everyone in every category. Some of us are paying attention to the min/max discuss, but I think at least half aren’t and just drive-by voted their opinion and then left the thread until the next update. So if we consolidated into packages, the scholar would be kind of shafted, since most of the packages for him are split into random sign votes.

You misunderstand. Under the above mentioned method, we conduct a new round of votes consisting solely of all the packages people have so far expressed interest in. So treave sets up the new vote, and they can vote on which signs they actually like of the ones they'd been contemplating and we settle things that way.

It’s better to simply hold two COMPLETELY SEPARATE voting rounds. It’s good that we had this overview of the different signs to see how we could make up for the shortfall of the backgrounds and capitalize on their strengths, but not being able to pair the right sign with the right background could result in a major handicap, but forcing packages on people doesn’t give everyone in the thread the opportunity to weigh in on which packages are best. Only those who are considering the package would get a say in creating it.

First off, if you were worried that the drive-by voters would not be around for a new poll of package votes, then the same problem will exist for your new two-round voting scheme. So nothing is solved. Second off, that has its own weird effects too. For instance, I like the Fish sign (water mutability sounds fun), but if Scholar takes it, there is no way I'm voting for -3 charisma. It's been preemptively ruled out. Conducting separate voting rounds will still induce this problem of contemplating and arguing over combinations only now people have less control over the combination they aim to end up with.

So if 6 people vote for scholar, but only two agree on a package, you’ve set the scholar package up based on the opinion of two people.

That looks good to your eyes but consider the possibility of people who only like specific combinations of scholar or who dislike extreme min-max versions where we get stats as low as 2 (and scholar can very easily get -3 charisma). Lumping them all together into scholar votes and then doing sign votes separately makes for ugly combinations easily when people are more likely to say "I like this kind of scholar or failing that, that kind of hunter/ambassador" as we have already seen in ranked choice votes so far. But that would all get the shaft under your method of making it two separate rounds of voting.

A two stage vote process would allow everyone to participate from start to finish. Just tell them: NO CONDITIONALS. To make sure that they participate in the second round, if you’re worried about vote flopping cascades.

Kicking out conditionals is just bad. Doing conditionals actually reduces the amount of vote flopping since you don't feel as pressured to change your current vote based on what is winning and if need be, you can just mark down a change down the line in your voting preference instead.

 

[hello friend]

I agree with Absinthe. I know I'm voting for a mutability sign either way but some of those combinations will be absolutely retarded. Splitting it up is a lose-lose situation and smells like communism - everyone can be equally disappointed.

 

[Tigranes]

Ahh yes

It's not a treave CYOA without us arguing over how to vote for the options

 

[Smashing Axe]

Astra of Mithuna (The Twins)
The Ambassador’s Child

 

[treave]

With regards to how the votes are counted, I think I'll leave it up to you guys to decide for now. I'll make a decision if the uncertainty continues, but ultimately for this particular choice we'd want to reach a result that most people are okay with, even if it might not be their favourite outcome. After all, the happier and optimistic people are at the start, the more butthurt they'll get later.

What I can do here is to set a timeline for your decisions. Let's have 24 hours from this post to hash out what form of voting you guys want to adopt. We'll see how it goes from there.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I am interested. Will continue to follow this.

 

[Baltika9]

What I can do here is to set a timeline for your decisions. Let's have 24 hours from this post to hash out what form of voting you guys want to adopt. We'll see how it goes from there.

Clearly, the only solution to this conundrum is to vote on how we would like to vote.

Finally, and most importantly, your notion of voting separately on background and sign is far more likely to result in precisely the sort of annoying mess of constant vote-shifting depending on overall outcomes that typified the maniac island training votes until we began consolidating down towards overall packages.

Maniac Training voting only got better because we restricted ourselves to fewer choices. I should know, I was one of the poor bastards organizing and tallying that nightmare. This is an attempt at applying the lessons we learned previously to this LP.

Like Lambchop, I'm in an alright position, as the ambassador is pretty up there in votes and I have a shot at conquering the Tower for the King/Emperor/Tsar/Sultan. Others may be getting shafted, however, and I'd rather play with people who are enthusiastic about, or at least okay, with the character we created.

Or, we can start paging the people whose choices are falling behind.

That looks good to your eyes but consider the possibility of people who only like specific combinations of scholar or who dislike extreme min-max versions where we get stats as low as 2 (and scholar can very easily get -3 charisma). Lumping them all together into scholar votes and then doing sign votes separately makes for ugly combinations easily when people are more likely to say "I like this kind of scholar or failing that, that kind of hunter/ambassador" as we have already seen in ranked choice votes so far. But that would all get the shaft under your method of making it two separate rounds of voting.

That's democracy for you. I expect sequential voting to produce a result that the least amount of people will be displeased with. I am expecting that, after we pick a background, people will start to read into what kind of Scholar/Slumrat/Gieloth they would rather be.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I am interested. Will continue to follow this.

Then vote, my good man.

 

[Azira]

I'm tempted to vote for any option that would mean Absinthes choice doesn't win..

 

[Egosphere]

How about this -

each person sends me a message with

a) ALL classes in order of preference

b) TWO favourite astra signs for EACH class in order of preference

So you'd send me something like ( for example ):

Hunter > Merchant > Scholar > Slumrat > Ambassador

(Hunter) Lion > Archer | (Merchant) Bull > Fish | etc.

I give each class 1 to 5 points in order of preference, then tally the points to find the favourite class. Then, once class is picked, we tally the astra signs for that class (giving them 1 or 2 points in order of preference) to find the favourite. That way every has a say in the class, and everyone also has a say in the astra sign for that class, so you get to steer the character in your direction even if your least favourite class is picked.

Then when we get, say, 10 votes, I post all of the messages here so everyone can verify that their vote hasn't been tampered with. I also cast the first vote publicly so as not to be in a position to act as a tie-breaker if it comes to that.

This way we avoid people looking at each other's votes and altering their own

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I don't even get who wants to play as what archetype.

 

[Smashing Axe]

DUMP PHYSICAL STATS

WIZARDS RULE

 

[Grimgravy]

Get on the Crab Scholar train people! He can explain the tower.

Spoiler

The bourgeoisie elites may discount him but the masses will listen!

 

[ERYFKRAD]

DUMP PHYSICAL STATS

WIZARDS RULE

I get a vague feeling that we are not seeing eye to eye here.

 

[Absinthe]

Ditto. Specialists sound fun in theory but they're more boring in practice. You end up overusing the primary tools you have at your disposal and completely avoiding anything to do with your dump stats. Sure, the decision-making is easier, but the CYOA isn't better. I'd rather have our clever lad be able to handle a fight and do a bit of everything as circumstances change than keep going "we're obviously highly intelligent and can't do much else, so let's abuse any option that has [INTELLIGENCE] written all over it" all the time, which is where a number of scholar votes are headed. Ambassador+Twins pretty much locks us out of fighting and discourages us from risking our own neck. That's a lot of lost opportunities too. Maybe it's just me but I liked the way we could dive into things and take on danger ourselves in Legend.

Personally I think it'd be more interesting to do Hunter+Archer (+0 str, +1 dex, +1 con, +1 wis, +1 int, +0 cha - fire mutability) or Slumrat+Fish (+0 str, +2 dex, +1 con, +1 wis, +0 int, +0 cha - water mutability) as they give us balanced stat-lines with a wide array of options. Also the mutability options just seem more interesting to me (Ambassador Twins is air mutability though, which I kinda like less than water and fire).

Maniac Training voting only got better because we restricted ourselves to fewer choices. I should know, I was one of the poor bastards organizing and tallying that nightmare. This is an attempt at applying the lessons we learned previously to this LP.

That's the point of reducing it to package votes. There is only one poll to vote on instead of the multivariable messes that typified maniac training votes.

That's democracy for you. I expect sequential voting to produce a result that the least amount of people will be displeased with. I am expecting that, after we pick a background, people will start to read into what kind of Scholar/Slumrat/Gieloth they would rather be.

That's a bad way to do democracy. You are decreasing the ability for people to choose between options they actually like with this method, which will obviously increase the amount of people displeased with the overall result.

 

[Nevill]

How about this -

Commendable, but too complex for anyone to actually cast a vote like this. Some people haven't even chosen the sign for their own class, and the number of people willing to put a thought in their least favorite class can probably be counted on one hand of a particularly unlucky minesweeper.

I'd probably prefer a runoff between the two most popular classes, and then another round for picking a sign for the winner.

As for the archetype, I am looking for a CHA-based class, which is why I am okay with Merchant, even though I don't find him as interesting as Ambassador ('s Child). I am sure we'll find a number of ways to spice up his life and make it interesting regardless.

 

[Baltika9]

Ambassador+Twins pretty much locks us out of fighting and discourages us from risking our own neck. That's a lot of lost opportunities too.

Locks us out? Not necessarily. We'll have 3 strength and 4 endurance, which, while low, don't indicate a physical disability. This means we can physically train our boy/girl to a respectable level.

TL,DR: we can go lift weights. Unlike me IRL, because the gym is closed.

I haven't touched a barbell in three weeks, send help.

 

[Absinthe]

Locks us out? Not necessarily. We'll have 3 strength and 4 endurance, which, while low, don't indicate a physical disability. This means we can physically train our boy/girl to a respectable level.

3 strength and 4 constitution means we really badly suited for fighting, since we're a full 3 stats down from the average guy. Actually, wait a minute, do we even know if MC is going to be a dude? Anyway, if prologue offers convenient stat-ups we can pour them into physicals but I think min-maxing is more the point than the side-effect of this kind of combo. I'm all for trying to redeem the bad stats of an Ambassador+Twins combo but we could also just not have any bad stats in the first place and build up from there.

TL,DR: we can go lift weights. Unlike me IRL, because the gym is closed.


I haven't touched a barbell in three weeks, send help.

Well if you don't have dumbbells at home that's on you. You can still do push-ups and the like without any equipment though. Just because you don't have any equipment doesn't mean you can't exercise.

 

[Baltika9]

if prologue offers convenient stat-ups we can pour them into physicals but I think min-maxing is more the point than the side-effect of this kind of combo

I'm not in it for the min-maxing, at least not until we grow up. I'm more interested in the Ambassador's story, not his stats. The latter will simply influence how I approach that story.

In my opinion, we ought to train him up, else we won't be able to duel those who insult our monarch.

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Well if you don't have dumbbells at home that's on you. You can still do push-ups and the like without any equipment though. Just because you don't have any equipment doesn't mean you can't exercise.

Yeah, I got and do all that. Nothing hits the spot like deadlifts do, though. And running is the work of the devil, l'd rather be swimming.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm not in it for the min-maxing, at least not until we grow up. I'm more interested in the Ambassador's story, not his stats. The latter will simply influence how I approach that story.

I'm actually much more interested in the Hunter's story than the Ambassador's. Growing up with a silver spoon in your mouth is a little meh. Having to push yourself to thrive in your surroundings is more interesting to me. And honestly I don't trust your story senses that much given how you just torpedo'd the last CYOA by pushing the cow vote. I think your tendency to push hard for whatever seems the most fun to your eyes creates some pretty glaring weaknesses you willfully overlook.

In my opinion, we ought to train him up, else we won't be able to duel those who insult our monarch.

I'm with you there. If we get a character with lopsided stats we should try to fix that soon.

Yeah, I got and do all that. Nothing hits the spot like deadlifts do, though. And running is the work of the devil, l'd rather be swimming.

If you have a pull-up bar it's not too bad. Still, at least you have dumbbells. Running's fine imo, but it really depends on the weather (and where you live, given the whole coronavirus quarantine).

 

[Baltika9]

I'm actually much more interested in the Hunter's story than the Ambassador's. Growing up with a silver spoon in your mouth is a little meh. Having to push yourself to thrive in your surroundings is more interesting to me.

I respect that.

And honestly I don't really trust your story senses given how you just torpedod the last CYOA by pushing the cow vote. I think your tendency to push hard for whatever seems the most fun to your eyes creates some pretty glaring weaknesses you willfully overlook.

Hi Kettle, this is Pot. Listen, we need to talk.

 

[Absinthe]

Hey, if you think I've fucked up, feel free to point it out. I'll try to do better. Certainly, no one's record is perfect, and I've had my share of mistakes, but I think we all saw it coming that the cow was sphere diplomacy levels of bad decision-making.