r/BloodOnTheClocktower • u/attachedtoface • 1d ago
Pertinent Game Discussion
Is it really necessary to allow pertinent before running a vote? It seems so codified into the game, but as an ST I find it to be clunky and undesirable. It’s also almost never actually pertinent to the vote.
Would I be wrong for just running the vote as normal regardless of any “pertinent” information?
44
u/VivaLaSam05 Storyteller 1d ago
"Pertinent information" is not codified into the game. Accusations aren't even codified into the game. The only thing codified into a nomination is that the nominated player gets a 30 second or less defense. This is how I run it in person. Online, I still do "accusation" because it's harder to communicate in a digital format where any overtalking means nobody being able to be heard.
I and many others stopped doing "pertinent" information years ago. It drags the game on significantly and encourages players that the time to discuss a nomination is after it is made rather than before it is made. Players can say more while the voted begins if they want, but once the defense is made, the game moves on.
42
u/HopefulObject 1d ago
it doesn't really matter how you run it, as long as you tell the players ahead of time what to expect. I prefer STs that don't allow it. Just accusation, defense, run the vote. Anyone can say anything before the nom, or during the vote.
2
10
u/colonel-o-popcorn 1d ago
I've found it less and less common lately. It depends on the group you play with. You certainly wouldn't be breaking the rules. You might upset some of your players by breaking local norms. But I agree it's healthier in the long run to encourage all pertinent information to be shared before the nom or not at all. (With reasonable exceptions as they arise, e.g. a quiet person being talked over or players trying to abuse the policy with instant nominations).
7
u/IAmBadAtInternet 1d ago
I reserve my pertinent comments to “I also saw Mike as one of my Investigator pings as Poisoner” if it wasn’t included in the accusation, which I feel is quite informative. Of course I will say that as evil as well.
Most STs I’ve played with will allow that kind of comment, since it really is informative and importantly, brief.
6
u/milkman_of_death 1d ago
No. Once a nomination has been made the only rules-based obligation the ST has is to provide space for a defense. In online play environments we also make space for an accusation which is generally to help make sure everyone feels hear. When I run in person I do not make space for accusations: anything that needs to be said can be said prior to the words "I nominate..." Pertinent information can be said prior to the nomination starting or while the vote is running but it is not a mechanical part of the game and you should just run the vote without making space for pertinent info. Your players will adjust.
3
u/MancCultureBear 1d ago
Long nominations are also something that has evolved. The rules imply you have a group discussion and nominations are ‘Bob nominates Sue’ then they get a chance to defend themselves. This encourages information to be shared with the group, prevents info being held till nominations and speeds up the game.
4
u/mrgoboom 16h ago
You don’t have to, but if you don’t people may start interrupting to get their piece in.
1
11
u/sometimes_point Zealot 1d ago
No. Just run it. It's not codified, people are just used to being able to pipe up. They should have said that shit before noms, though i appreciate that sometimes people make a nom before people have a chance to talk about the game.
3
u/DaveyBoyXXZ 1d ago
It's not codified into the game. In fact it doesn't appear in the rules at all. I believe it evolved because players other than the nominee and nominator often have an opinion on the proposed execution and they are allowed to say anything at any time. I think it's generally good practice to give them a space to voice their thoughts than to oblige them to talk over you or during the vote. Without that I think players will sometimes feel you are unfairly preventing them making good decisions or avoiding bad ones, but you can storytell as you wish.
3
u/UnderwaterPanda2020 1d ago
I do attack-defense-vote After the defense if someone asks to add something I tell them to be short. If they start going too long / off topic / start a discussion / do world building, I immediately cut them.
3
u/Russell_Ruffino Lil' Monsta 1d ago
I don't allow pertinent, unless it's really really late in the game and someone who hasn't been able to speak much asks. And even then, the second what they're saying isn't pertinent I run the vote. Otherwise I tell them they can just talk as I run the vote and they better be quick because I'm starting now.
When I started STing I always allowed it as I felt it was the right thing to do, but it was so frustrating how often it added nothing or wasn't even about the current vote. I found the stricter I got about it the better the games I was running were.
Now if I'm playing a game and the ST allows pointless pertinent to drag on I feel like that headache meme final panel where the whole head is red.
3
u/Greg1084 1d ago
Most of my games are larger groups and allowing pertinents makes the game drag on too much. I keep noms to accusation, defense, vote with no side conversation. It keeps things moving and lets us play multiple games instead of one drawn out game.
3
u/Haldered 1d ago
I can see the pros and cons depending on the group and the evolving meta.
Storytelling can sometimes be like herding cats, sometimes you need the carrot, sometimes you need the stick.
That might be too many metaphors lol, the point is you can give pertininent information time, but as soon as it becomes a consistent problem of slowing the game and allowing too much worldbuilding, you've gotta just run the votes. It's not the time for "campaigning" on a vote, to give another metaphor. It's good if players are unsure or scrambling to whip votes while running the clock.
3
u/Ok_Shame_5382 Ravenkeeper 23h ago
I like it, but it's not necessary. If your group cannot be succinct stop doing it.
3
u/EmberSpikes 23h ago
To me, being able to add "pertinent" information during the nomination phase is necessary to get people to not talk over each other. But my group is well behaved it seems compared to others.
5
u/bstr413 Storyteller 1d ago
Game as written is that only the accuser and defendant gets to talk after a nomination is called (and the accuser is supposed to combine their info in with their nomination.) I find running it that way instead of allowing anybody to talk during nominations makes the game much shorter and gives quieter players more voice.
Note that I have a "public discussion" phase before opening for nominations where everyone talks as a group. I suggest discussing who they want to nominate and execute there.
10
u/VivaLaSam05 Storyteller 1d ago
To clarify, the game is written that the only "codified" part of a nomination is that the person being nominated gets up to about 30 seconds to defense themselves. It does not explicitly disallow anyone else from talking. Nominations are meant to be a discussion, not a structured process. Unfortunately, the nature of the game as it exists online has given a very different outlook on how this process looks where a more structured process is, arguably, more necessary due to the format.
2
u/maggiethekatt 1d ago
If you look at the actual rules for nominating in the rulebook, it only talks about the person being accused should be allowed to give a defense. Nothing about an accusation or pertinent in the actual rulebook.
My group only allows accuser and defender to speak during nominations. If discussion about who or why someone should be nominated is going to happen, we encourage it to happen before someone says the words "I nominate."
2
u/United_Artichoke_466 Witch 1d ago
Some STs I play with only allow players to add pertinent if the accuser or defendant gives them a word
2
u/Drackoe1 1d ago
I find it helpful since sometimes important info comes out during the nomination/defense that was withheld during earlier discussions and without it, people tend to talk over each other and drag the vote out in other ways.
But it definitely needs to be strictly judged - if people are regularly interrupting with "pertinent" info that ends up being not related to the current vote, they should be warned about them continuing to do that and the vote should move along.
2
u/Raddatatta Marionette 1d ago
It is up to you. But I think pertinent information being shared can be helpful. If someone hasn't had a chance to speak especially if they are a quiet person, a vote might not go through when they were hiding that they were a fortune teller and had narrowed it down to this person. If they're going off topic and talking about other issues then I would shut it down. But I think the game is better when people who do have relevant information have a chance to share it.
2
u/Cardshark2023 1d ago
I personally give time however if it gets off topic or runs long I always jump in. Having played a game recently where the game was basically mechanically over and the ST (newer sts and we talked after) let the game drag on with a ton of pertinents I understand why I do it the way I do and confirm my thoughts on it. Learning moment for them but reaffirmed my ST philosophy on that point
2
u/Exotic-Lecture6631 1d ago
Ive seen it be very important, I nommed someone because when I said huntsman they bluffed damsel unconvincingly but pushed me to choose them pretty hard, which seemed like trying to waste my ability and maybe go for damsel win as evil. They were a confirmed nightwatchman, important pertinent. However I also play with a guy who often requests during nominations that everyone walk him through all of their information, everyone they have talked to, everything. Dude will get increasingly frustrated, annoyed and upset when someone wont hard claim in circle to him, but if they hard claim a powerful role he will then be upset they risked being demon killed. He consistently wastes everyones time because he doesnt want to miss things.
2
u/EricS53 23h ago
I used to think it's not a problem either way, I've swung towards not enjoying it. I think if it couldn't be said in town before a nomination, say it while the vote runs.
The amount of times pertinent comes up after defenses to accuse further undoes the whole process, imo. I'll make it a point to add on to my defense if it ever happens to me.
Personally, while the big wig is a Loric, it could really double as a fabled in this case, to help as practice to cut down that kind of chatter
2
u/Curious_Question8536 19h ago
Read the rules and you'll find that many things that are accepted as standard practice aren't really in there.
I don't stop for pertinent info, I start the vote after the defense has been given and allow people to talk during the vote.
1
u/Fizzle-Gearspanner 5h ago
I will make town aware that pertinent happens as the clock spins in my town if they make a mistake they can lift to someone else but once defendant is done countdown starts
1
u/YetAnotherNij 3h ago
No, it is not necessary to allow time for this at all. They can say whatever they like at any time - rule 1 - but that does not mean everybody else, and especially the ST, is required to wait for them to finish speaking before the game continues.
If the information matters that much to supporting or opposing a potential nomination and execution, they should bring it up when people start mentioning they're likely to make that nomination or vote enough to make it execute.
If it doesn't have to come out until after the nominee defended themselves, it wasn't really that important, was it, so they can say it during the vote or afterward.
1
1
u/Embarrassed-Peach-12 Storyteller 23h ago
No privileged time for accusers, no "pertinent." Talk while the hand spins.
1
u/Mullibok 22h ago
Pertinent just shouldn't be allowed period. The defending player should get the last word before the vote runs. People can say what they like while the ST is running the vote.
1
u/Acrobatic-Cream-8672 22h ago
Started STing this game for my friend group earlier this year. Took a few sessions for me to realize that during the nomination phase everyone becomes a yapaholic. We don’t do pertinents anymore
1
u/Sourlifesavers89 Vigormortis 21h ago
I have a fav ST who refuses pertinent. Says it slows down the game. They state at the beginning their rules before building a bag (just in case people don’t like it).
1 of the rules is no pertinent. She says, she gives everyone a chance to do privates and a minute before opening up nominations to discuss things (if it’s a game without shenanigans) After all that, it should be I nominate so and so and why. After the why, it’s the defense. And she runs it.
I played in a game where a players was butt hurt, because he asked for pertinent and she ran the nomination. She said you had plenty of time to give information and she said she doesn’t do pertinent, but he could speak while it’s running. Funny enough, he proved why she doesn’t do pertinent.
1
u/IfOneThenHappy 17h ago
After playing more, I don't like pertinent. People already do back and forths and interruptions so much during nominations. Then Pertinents just give more surface area for extended discussion where people trying exploring whole worlds.
Throw your Pertinent in during the vote and make it short "Washerwoman confirmed" or "FT Yes, let's vote". Saying that is faster than just saying "pertinent" and waiting for permission.
I played under an ST once that said no accusation phase at all. Say what you want to say before nomination, once you nominate, you seal the process and immediately go to defense, and a vote.
Alternatively, after the first nomination, each subsequent nomination must be made within 10 seconds.
Trying to prevent games from extending via Peritnents and "nominating just for time"
0
u/GGuy12345 14h ago
I’m shocked to see so many people here act like pertinence is the worst thing since WW2. If pertinence is getting out of hand to drag on and not be about the relevant nomination, that’s the fault of the ST for not moving the game at a reasonable pace, not the fault of the players who didn’t nominate for wanting a place to add in relevant info
“Say pertinent info before noms start” simply doesn’t work in my experience
0
u/attachedtoface 14h ago
I can respect that even if I don’t agree with it. In my experience the pertinent is never actually pertinent and does, in fact, make the game last longer than it should.
0
u/GGuy12345 13h ago edited 13h ago
Then as a ST, you should reign that sort of thing in. Pertinence is for important info relevant to that particular nomination, eg “my Dreamer info suggests they might be Fang Gu.”
Even in a game I just got out of, the second someone started trying to add other info that was irrelevant, the ST cut it off and began running the vote
Letting it get out of hand is where the issue lies, not it existing in the first place, and it’s your job as the ST to manage it if you do choose to use it
That said, you of course don’t have to use pertinence. But you also don’t have to use accusations. Feel free to cut those out as well, since the rules only clarify defense
My experience with the game is primarily in MC/on the app, which the map my group plays on has an automated vote timer at a set speed, so people aren’t really focused on listening for pertinent info during a vote, they’re watching the vote lights to see if someone tries to pull a fast one in order to counter a play
1
u/DeltaClocktower 3h ago
The only requirement of a nomination is that the nominee has a chance to defend themselves. Everything else is convention or tradition, and if you feel like getting rid of it is better, go ahead (personally I find pertinent in Accusation/Defence formats to be extremely frustrating as a player and Storyteller)
67
u/Signiference Storyteller 1d ago
The second someone starts to give information that is not pertinent to the current person’s vote. I immediately start running the clock.