TWG Headquarters

[Kowhai]

XI*
IX's problem was that Lenny got MVP, not that it died

[Chiral of Doom]

XI*
IX's problem was that Lenny got MVP, not that it died

damn smooooth 8)

[TotesAngel]

XI*
IX's problem was that Lenny got MVP, not that it died

ooh

[Nickito]

We should specify the difference between Abilities and Attributes. Basically, Abilities are active, and Attributes are passive.

Examples of Abilities:

The Seer choosing who to check each night. The Guardian choosing who to protect each night. The Brutal Wolf choosing who to kill after dying. The Necromancer choosing who to revive.
 Basically, if there's a decision to be made, it's probably an ability.

Examples of Attributes:

Colour/alignment/morality or whatever gimmicks are in the game. The Insomniac learning who visits them. The Wolfsbane surviving their attacker. The Coroner learning the colours of dead people.

Does this seem accurate? Am I overcomplicating things?

[Kowhai]

The wolfsbane has the ability to survive their attacker. The insomniac has the ability to see who visits them. These are both attributes and abilities, with abilities being a subset of attributes. In TWG, the only things which can be classed as attributes and not abilities are colour and name of role, unless there's something else I forgot.

[Nickito]

I think of Attributes as like Abilities in Pokemon (the fact that they are called Abilities does not help my case but whatever), and Abilities like Pokemon Moves. To me these are very different things which should be treated differently.

[Kowhai]

Imo, it makes more sense to adhere to the dictionary definitions of attribute and ability. Therefore, attributes refer to colour/name of role, abilities refer to other aspects of the role. Abilities can then be split into passive and active, as you suggested via PM, if you feel that distinction needs to be made.

[Nickito]

Maybe have Attributes (colour, allignment), Abilities (Coroner, Wolfsbane), and Actions (Seer, Guardian)?

[Kowhai]

I reckon abilities as in aspects of a role which are not colour/name/team should be all classed as one group since it is common for them to be treated as such. then we split them into Active Abilities and Passive Abilities, making sure to include the word abilities in both of them to signal that they are related.

[Nickito]

But my whole point is that they shouldn't be seen as being related
Just because a mistake is common doesn't mean we should encourage it

[Kowhai]

Why shouldn't they be seen as related? They are.

[Nickito]

If I am a Seer, I am choosing to use my Action on another user. I do have to send the host a PM confirming my choice.
If I am an Insomniac, I am not choosing to learn information about my visitors. I am not sending in a PM.

[Chiral of Doom]

I think of Attributes as like Abilities in Pokemon (the fact that they are called Abilities does not help my case but whatever), and Abilities like Pokemon Moves. To me these are very different things which should be treated differently.

Well you aren't the entire TWG fanbase

[Kowhai]

If I am a Seer, I am choosing to use my Action on another user. I do have to send the host a PM confirming my choice.
If I am an Insomniac, I am not choosing to learn information about my visitors. I am not sending in a PM.

Both of those are still abilities though, they are related.

[Nickito]

You agree that Passive and Active should be split up, I'm just suggesting calling them Abilities and Actions because alliteration is nice and it makes role descriptions less awkward. "Bomb - Blows up when someone uses an Action on them..." vs "Bomb - Blows up when someone uses an Active Ability on them", for example.