View Full Version : Mafia Theory Thread
Goal of Mafia Theory: To discuss the logistics of the game and come to some consensus for others to follow, therefore creating a set of rules that everyone agrees on - call this our living FAQ.
You want to discuss the difference between Mind Control and Controlled Misdirection?
Which comes first - a Roleblocker targeting a Misdirector or a Misdirector targeting a Roleblocker?
Does a PGO kill before it's killer kills him?
Debate these questions here!
(warning - this thread might cause your head to explode, hence keep it civil, informative, and useful or I'll shut it down. :laugh:)
PaxZRake
12/01/2009, 23:13
You want to discuss the difference between Mind Control and Controlled Misdirection?
Which comes first - a Roleblocker targeting a Misdirector or a Misdirector targeting a Roleblocker?
Does a PGO kill before it's killer kills him?
Debate these questions here!
(warning - this thread might cause your head to explode, hence keep it civil, informative, and useful or I'll shut it down. :laugh:)
None.
Misdirection.
Depends on whether or not it's a Serial PGO.
KO Bossy
12/01/2009, 23:34
A semitone is the distance from one key to the next adjacent key. A whole tone is the same distance as 2 semitones.
Oh wait, this is Mafia Theory, not Music Theory.....
PaxZRake
12/01/2009, 23:39
I like octaves and wah wah pedals.
I like disco, I like funk.
Ignatz_Mouse
12/02/2009, 00:00
A mind Controller only targets one player, a controlled misdirector targets two.
Blocker.
No, both kill.
Or none of the above, or depends.
The specific interactions are up to mod whim, and players ought to never assume they know exactly how questionable interactions will resolve.
DocDoom187
12/02/2009, 00:12
Oh man, you better keep me and a couple other people away from this thread... Otherwise I'll reach 1000 posts here in one day.
I have a lot of opinions and feelings about mafia theory, and specifically HCRealms Mafia
Huuuuh. I was hoping this thread would be about Mafia play theory.
Amora's_best_friend
12/02/2009, 05:31
"My eyes are wide open, but I can hardly see" - Kylie Minogue, Too Far, 1997.
The BoyBlunder
12/02/2009, 06:16
Thanks for the input ABF.
charlesx
12/02/2009, 07:37
1) Re: the difference between Mind Control and Controlled Misdirection?
Depends on the mod. In my games, mind control is a day power driven through PM's that targets only one player and controlled misdirection is a night power that targets two individuals (A is misdirected to target B instead of his/her intended target.)
2) Which comes first - a Roleblocker targeting a Misdirector or a Misdirector targeting a Roleblocker?
If an RB'er and a Misdirector target each other, RB trumps Misdirection.
3) Does a PGO kill before it's killer kills him?
If someone targets a PGO for a kill, then it's mutual destruction. The kill goes through but the PGO power takes out the killer as well.
charlesx
12/02/2009, 07:38
The specific interactions are up to mod whim, and players ought to never assume they know exactly how questionable interactions will resolve.
Very true. Sometimes a mod ruling or standing game scenario mechanics determine the outcome of these actions. So the real answers boil down to, "it depends."
Maniac_nmt
12/02/2009, 07:56
Usually I would say this, although it could be different based on roles:
1. Mind Control forces someone to vote for a player, misdirector makes you target a player with your night action
2. Role Blocker
3. Unless it's the SK, they kill each other.
Well, I'll just echo my thoughts from the other thread:
There are three roles I'm talking about:
Misdirector - Randomizes target's target
Redirector - Selects target's target
Mind Controller - Makes target use their ability on another target
All three of these roles do different things. This is generally accepted by Mafians far and wide.
But here, we have this role called "Controlled Misdirector", and yet we also have a role called "Mind Controller".
I am of the opinion that if you're going to make another misdirector role, and call it "Controlled", it should be a Redirector. There are others in this thread who agree. You already have "Mind Controller". Why add another term for it, that makes it sound like a Misdirector, when that is plainly not what it does at all? It doesn't misdirect anything. It makes people do things to targets that they don't necessarily want to do at all. That's not misdirection. That's not target swapping.
All you have succeeded in doing with such a term is creating a role that is confusing by nature as to what it's actually capable of doing, when you already have one that makes it plainly evident.
And it's not too hard to see where a guy that has played mafia elsewhere, like me, would get confused by such a term, when I know damn well that we've used the term "Mind Controller" in the past, and often.
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 09:06
1) You want to discuss the difference between Mind Control and Controlled Misdirection?
2) Which comes first - a Roleblocker targeting a Misdirector or a Misdirector targeting a Roleblocker?
3) Does a PGO kill before it's killer kills him?
Debate these questions here!
(warning - this thread might cause your head to explode, hence keep it civil, informative, and useful or I'll shut it down. :laugh:)
1) none
2) flip a coin
3) simultaneous
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 09:10
How about this one? A tracker and a misdirector target player A. Does the tracker get the intended target or the actual target as their result. I thought this was a pretty cut and dry question, but according to Rok and TWD, I was wrong.
charlesx
12/02/2009, 09:10
Ah, I see. In my case a Mind Controller is a player who can target another player during the day and make them say and do actions according to PMs sent via the mod. That's what I think of when I see the term "Mind Controller."
charlesx
12/02/2009, 09:12
How about this one? A tracker and a misdirector target player A. Does the tracker get the intended target or the actual target as their result. I thought this was a pretty cut and dry question, but according to Rok and TWD, I was wrong.
Misdirection trumps tracking. Tracker obtains actual target (though misdirected) rather than player A's intended target.
What other definition is there, out of curiousity?
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 09:16
Misdirection trumps tracking. Tracker obtains actual target (though misdirected) rather than player A's intended target.
What other definition is there, out of curiousity?
IT came up that I was a tracker, but we had a debate as to whether I was getting people's intended target (the name they sent in their pm) or their actual target in the case of misdirection. My argument was that if I follow someone at night and watch where they go, I see where their actually went, not where they thought about going earlier in the night. Althought any other logic escapes me (except int he case of telepathic trackers), apparently, not everyone does it the way I do.
PaxZRake
12/02/2009, 09:17
How about this one? A tracker and a misdirector target player A. Does the tracker get the intended target or the actual target as their result. I thought this was a pretty cut and dry question, but according to Rok and TWD, I was wrong.
I go with the actual target.
Same thing occurs when a Tracker Tracks a Roleblocked character: Result - Your target targeted no one (because they were too busy being unconcious or some such)
How about this one? A tracker and a misdirector target player A. Does the tracker get the intended target or the actual target as their result. I thought this was a pretty cut and dry question, but according to Rok and TWD, I was wrong.
I would say that the tracker gets the misdirected result. That's part of the tracker's utility, while still adding to the confusion of the game.
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 09:26
As it turns out, my role was to find both their intended target and their actual one. This caused even more confusion because I wasn't aware of it.
Ignatz_Mouse
12/02/2009, 09:35
I write the definitions for each power ewach time, and rule dependin on how I worded it.
PaxZRake
12/02/2009, 09:37
I write the definitions for each power ewach time, and rule dependin on how I worded it.
I do this as well.
One game I made a decision to not write down the defs, just to see what kind of questions I would get for each power.
Ever since that game I've been sure to get my wording down the way I want it.
charlesx
12/02/2009, 09:58
As it turns out, my role was to find both their intended target and their actual one. This caused even more confusion because I wasn't aware of it.
In that case, I go back to the "it depends" answer. Mod's discretion that you should get both the actual and the intended targets, as long as consistency is applied. (That is, that you get both targets every time rather than randomly choosing between intended or actual.)
Otherwise, I would rule it as "actual target" only - even if the tracker has been misdirected.
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 10:14
In that case, I go back to the "it depends" answer. Mod's discretion that you should get both the actual and the intended targets, as long as consistency is applied. (That is, that you get both targets every time rather than randomly choosing between intended or actual.)
Otherwise, I would rule it as "actual target" only - even if the tracker has been misdirected.
I wasn't upset with VB at all. It's his perogative to design the game as he sees fit. It was mroe the in thread discussion that had me wondering.
DarqFeonix
12/02/2009, 10:40
I highly recommend including "Player A", "PlayerB"... When discussing scenarios. Even a phrase like Actual Target can be a bit confusing.
That being said, my power interactions tend to hold true to how the Roles would act. If Professor X is my Control Misdirector, in my mind he can make his target take an action even if they are trying to sit at home and do nothing.
PGOs, I have kill everyone who approaches him, other than a RB'er (so no, IMO, no Mutually Assured Destruction)
RB trumps Misdirection. This goes doubly true for Control MD.
*
New scenario: Player A Bus Drives B and C. Player X Jailkeep+'s Player B. Who gets JK'd?
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 10:44
New scenario: Player A Bus Drives B and C. Player X Jailkeep+'s Player B. Who gets JK'd?
Only an issue if you use the whole Jailkeep=RB nexus thing. I prefer the jailkeep = doc + RB role. Less broken.
PaxZRake
12/02/2009, 10:47
New scenario: Player A Bus Drives B and C. Player X Jailkeep+'s Player B. Who gets JK'd?
I have Misdirection typoe powers working before all others.
Player C gets Jailkept.
I write the definitions for each power ewach time, and rule dependin on how I worded it.
I do this as well.
One game I made a decision to not write down the defs, just to see what kind of questions I would get for each power.
Ever since that game I've been sure to get my wording down the way I want it.
Neither of you will ever get rules arguments out of me as a player, so long as this is the case. That is a very good thing to do. :classic:
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 11:10
Neither of you will ever get rules arguments out of me as a player, so long as this is the case. That is a very good thing to do. :classic:
I do the same thing. I very rarely get questions on the traditional roles. It's actually quite nice. Especially when you just spent the last 30-45 minutes sending them all out.
Sweet, I made another post on this, but the realmsquake erased it.
Just pretend there's a rather Thawmus-long post here about how great you guys are for paying attention to detail, along with a drawn out story of how I haven't been good at that myself, as a mod, in the past, and it has cost me time and frustration.
Throw in some words here and there that inspire you to greatness. Those are good.
Ignatz_Mouse
12/02/2009, 12:42
One thing I try to do before each game is decide where jailkeeping and busdriving fall in the order of operations. I am no consistent between games.
I highly recommend including "Player A", "PlayerB"... When discussing scenarios. Even a phrase like Actual Target can be a bit confusing.
That being said, my power interactions tend to hold true to how the Roles would act. If Professor X is my Control Misdirector, in my mind he can make his target take an action even if they are trying to sit at home and do nothing.
This is what I do. I'm very literal-minded when thinking about powers and what they represent.
When I first started playing, the way I thought about each "player" was that it was a giant hotel and each player had a room. A hitman would go to a room and kill whoever was inside it. A room-checker would go and rummage through that player's room for stuff. A jailkeeper would lock the room's door so no one could get in or out. Etc. etc. etc.
I still like that way of thinking of it.
"Roleclaiming Day 1: Bad idea or the work of a Tactical History Major Genius?"
I'll just leave that here...
"Roleclaiming Day 1: Bad idea or the work of a Tactical History Major Genius?"
I'll just leave that here...
I don't think there's a blanket answer for this, personally.
"Roleclaiming Day 1: Bad idea or the work of a Tactical History Major Genius?"
I'll just leave that here...
Answer: Depends on how you do it.
Case in Point: re: Spiral. :laugh:
I will say that I like to routinely give blatant falseclaims on day 1. You just never know when I'll get a ridiculous role and actually be telling the truth.
anonym0use
12/02/2009, 15:37
Why do town alligned people think allying with the SK is a good idea?
Here - let me kill the mafia off at night so you can lynch me during the day...
Thawn - You haven't been 'round till recently, so I'll clue ya in on Day 1 Roleclaiming: It's pretty much my M.O., and the subject of much yelling/screaming/tomfoolery...
I figured I'd get peoples opinions on it.
Why do town alligned people think allying with the SK is a good idea?
Here - let me kill the mafia off at night so you can lynch me during the day...
Because the more third parties are involved in the game, the less the Mafia has a chance of winning. It's the same reason that 2 Mafias were (are?) so common, and why the number of townies was (is?) always barely above 50%.
If the Mod is writing roles with this in mind, why would you disregard it as a townie?
Now, I will say that this is also not one of those things where you can decide it to be a good idea one way or the other. It depends on the situation. If you've killed 8 Mafia, and you're wondering if you should get rid of the SK? Then yeah, you're having issues with logic. :laugh:
Thawn - You haven't been 'round till recently, so I'll clue ya in on Day 1 Roleclaiming: It's pretty much my M.O., and the subject of much yelling/screaming/tomfoolery...
I figured I'd get peoples opinions on it.
I would say that 9 times out of 10, it is a bad idea. There is that 1 out of 10 times where it is a good idea, and those can be hard to judge.
For example, there was a time in which I ended up being a town PGO. I Day 1 claimed, because I knew if I didn't, it was going to come back and get me lynched or worse. Did that perhaps hurt the town? Maybe, maybe not. I think I probably get targeted enough on Night 1, that I'm sure I would have killed plenty of townies, and likely a protector to boot, if I hadn't.
The reaction, when I did this, was not positive. But in the end, it's about what I felt was the best decision, and I still think I made it. I could be a poor sport about it, and decide to let the townie bloodshed spill into the streets next time, but if I think I made the right decision, why change it?
DocDoom187
12/02/2009, 16:12
The best time to claim day 1 is if you're a miller. Of course, this detracts a LOT of the fun of the game...
DocDoom187
12/02/2009, 16:13
Why do town alligned people think allying with the SK is a good idea?
Here - let me kill the mafia off at night so you can lynch me during the day...
I have one atleast 2 games this way and come close to winning in 2 others...
The SK is WORSE than the mafia. People should realize this.
The best time to claim day 1 is if you're a miller. Of course, this detracts a LOT of the fun of the game...
Oooh, I forgot Millers. Yes, I've been there as well, and I definitely Day 1 claimed. It was received rather well.
DarqFeonix
12/02/2009, 17:54
Why do town alligned people think allying with the SK is a good idea?
Here - let me kill the mafia off at night so you can lynch me during the day...
I think you are conflating two separate issues here. If it is late-game, and the Town has not eliminated many Mafia yet, they are in danger of being over-run by the numbers of a Mafia team.
For instance: let's say we start with 20 players. Estimate 5 Mafia and a SK. It comes to Day 4, and so far there has been 1 Mafia death, and 8 Townie deaths. The numbers are 6 Town, 4 Mafia, 1 SK. So then the SK is outed. What is the Town supposed to do? Blindly lynch the SK? That would send the game into night time, and the Mafia successfully kills a Townie, leaving 5 Townies and 4 Mafia... this is INCREDIBLY dangerous.
The other scenario is as was seen in, I believe, Thundercats. The SK was outed WAAAAAY early, but the Town let them live as a night threat to Mafia. This is the utter mistake you are addressing.
As has been discussed before, Mafia is a game of numbers, and sometimes you need to keep other scum alive at a certain point so you don't get overrun.
The other scenario is as was seen in, I believe, Thundercats. The SK was outed WAAAAAY early, but the Town let them live as a night threat to Mafia. This is the utter mistake you are addressing.
Conversely, Shadow and Thawmus ended up replacing the remaining members of the mafia, and then silently teamed up with the SK to remove the town from a winning position. This included several attempts to lynch a cop that had outed 4 mafia members, which were nearly successful.
And, in the end game, I'm pretty sure the Mafia was the only team that remembered who the SK was anymore, because he was largely ignored otherwise.
PaxZRake
12/02/2009, 20:01
Thundercats always irks me because everyone remembers Get_1's SK play when I was the far more successful SK.
DocDoom187
12/02/2009, 20:02
I won Thundercats...
So yeah. I rock.
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 20:17
This is what I do. I'm very literal-minded when thinking about powers and what they represent.
When I first started playing, the way I thought about each "player" was that it was a giant hotel and each player had a room. A hitman would go to a room and kill whoever was inside it. A room-checker would go and rummage through that player's room for stuff. A jailkeeper would lock the room's door so no one could get in or out. Etc. etc. etc.
I still like that way of thinking of it.
That's exactly how Peers wrote the first mafia game on the realms and I've thought about roles in a similar way ever since.
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 20:23
Haha, Thundercats was such a fun game to write. Gives me a warm feeling inside that its' still talked about.
KO Bossy
12/02/2009, 20:25
Nice to read about some of the really good old games that you guys have had (despite knowing nothing about what you're talking about).
HavokAndChaos
12/02/2009, 20:33
The best time to claim day 1 is if you're a miller. Of course, this detracts a LOT of the fun of the game...
This is part of the reason I don't like telling people their millers. Not that I have even seen it come up but I much prefer just including it and not telling the player :laugh:
The other scenario is as was seen in, I believe, Thundercats. The SK was outed WAAAAAY early, but the Town let them live as a night threat to Mafia. This is the utter mistake you are addressing.
Outed SK posing as a serial vigilante doesn't cut it? What about combining it with an impeccable mafioso body trail? :cheeky:
Thundercats always irks me because everyone remembers Get_1's SK play when I was the far more successful SK.
They remember it because of its utter amazingness. And that I got into the Mexican standoff even after outage.
SkyKushryd
12/02/2009, 21:44
So I'm assuming I should take the time to go read this game one of these days???
Since it wasn't really discussed, should the Cop in a Vanilla game out themselves day 1 without being forced??? (I.E. someone else claiming cop)
And I won't even ask my other question, because I know that Day-Killing your mason partner is not a good play. :laugh:
DarqFeonix
12/02/2009, 21:53
No they shouldn't. Cause they'll just be RBd every night.
Cannot wait until Vanilla is over so I can talk about that game in open instead of sending SEETHING messages to Truffle....
So I'm assuming I should take the time to go read this game one of these days???
Since it wasn't really discussed, should the Cop in a Vanilla game out themselves day 1 without being forced??? (I.E. someone else claiming cop)
And I won't even ask my other question, because I know that Day-Killing your mason partner is not a good play. :laugh:
No they shouldn't. Cause they'll just be RBd every night.
The question was for a Vanilla game. In which case, yes, they should. There's a chance they'll still run into problems, but the odds favor open protection, as opposed to anonymity.
DarqFeonix
12/02/2009, 22:13
I highly disagree. Outing yourself for no reason, with no info, is selfish, IMHO.
I highly disagree. Outing yourself for no reason, with no info is selfish, IMHO.
Wha-what? Selfish? No reason?
It's a Vanilla game. If the cop dies, the town loses. If the cop dies early, the town really loses. At what point would making themselves a known entity for the doctor to target, be selfish and a not-reason?
Keep in mind that in a pure Vanilla game, the only powers in the game are Cop, Doctor, Tracker, and Mafia Don. There is no reason whatsoever for him to keep himself hidden.
sstralkowski
12/02/2009, 22:21
Wha-what? Selfish? No reason?
It's a Vanilla game. If the cop dies, the town loses. If the cop dies early, the town really loses. At what point would making themselves a known entity for the doctor to target, be selfish and a not-reason?
Keep in mind that in a pure Vanilla game, the only powers in the game are Cop, Doctor, Tracker, and Mafia Don. There is no reason whatsoever for him to keep himself hidden.
Gotta agree with this mentality.
DarqFeonix
12/02/2009, 22:29
I've played in a few Vanilla games. mafia has always had a RBer or a MDer. To say otherwise assumes way too much.
And one shouldn't put so much faith in Cops.
I've played in a few Vanilla games. mafia has always had a RBer or a MDer. To say otherwise assumes way too much.
And one shouldn't put so much faith in Cops.
Those weren't Vanilla games. The games I've run, aren't Vanilla games. The only Vanilla game that was ever run, was the very first one.
"Vanilla Mafia" sells a lot better than "Themeless Mafia", which is what it is.
DarqFeonix
12/02/2009, 23:30
Those weren't Vanilla games. The games I've run, aren't Vanilla games. The only Vanilla game that was ever run, was the very first one.
"Vanilla Mafia" sells a lot better than "Themeless Mafia", which is what it is.
Then your answer was ridiculous and condescending. I think it is quite obvious the question was in regards to the Vanilla games that pop up on HCR, which are not what you call "Vanilla". But it is what the other 98% of the community call it.
If a game starts out, and the mod says "There is a Doctor, Cop, And
Tracker, and that's it"... Sure, go ahead and out yourself if you want. But most games don't do that, and if they do, it's probably Something Different anyway.
I find outing oneself like that selfish because that means the Doctor knows who to target, and the Mafia knows who not to kill for a few nights, as they WILL be doctored.
DocDoom187
12/02/2009, 23:36
If the cop dies, the town loses.
I read this as you asking me to run a Vanilla game with no cop...
Or rather, for you to run one because I want to play in it ;)
Then your answer was ridiculous and condescending. I think it is quite obvious the question was in regards to the Vanilla games that pop up on HCR, which are not what you call "Vanilla". But it is what the other 98% of the community call it.
Okay, in that case, I'm still right, because the two mods that have modded those games (I'm one of them, btw), have changed up the few roles that they include each time. The RB didn't appear in the first 4. While there's a chance the RB will appear, the risk is negligible compared to the risk of losing your cop early. Again, I've modded these, three times. The town loses without the cop.
If a game starts out, and the mod says "There is a Doctor, Cop, And
Tracker, and that's it"... Sure, go ahead and out yourself if you want. But most games don't do that, and if they do, it's probably Something Different anyway.
Except that's exactly how the first Vanilla game started.
I find outing oneself like that selfish because that means the Doctor knows who to target, and the Mafia knows who not to kill for a few nights, as they WILL be doctored.
That makes no sense, at all. They're selfish because they make a smart play, that everyone else will agree with. What bastards.
I read this as you asking me to run a Vanilla game with no cop...
Or rather, for you to run one because I want to play in it ;)
Not unless we want to see people get banned from the forum.... :noid:
DocDoom187
12/02/2009, 23:47
My problem with HCR mafia exactly.
You NEED a cop to win. You NEED definitive info to win. You NEED roleclaims to win.
No. You need posts, voting history, and a little luck. Anything else is gravy.
My problem with HCR mafia exactly.
You NEED a cop to win. You NEED definitive info to win. You NEED roleclaims to win.
No. You need posts, voting history, and a little luck. Anything else is gravy.
I don't think anyone's saying that you do absolutely need those things to win. We all know full well that games have been won without them. Disregarding their usefulness, however, is something else entirely.
In a pure Vanilla game, if the cop dies on Night 1, you are going to have a really bad town game. It's just that simple. If for no other reason than because we all know that participation does a skydive when there's nothing to share anymore.
DocDoom187
12/03/2009, 00:15
In a real Vanilla gmae if the Cop is randomly nightkilled early, no one would know the dead townie was a cop and hte threat of a cop should prove sufficient enough ot keep conversation going.
In a real Vanilla gmae if the Cop is randomly nightkilled early, no one would know the dead townie was a cop and hte threat of a cop should prove sufficient enough ot keep conversation going.
Yeah, I don't buy that. Not sure why you're trying to sell it.
Wha-what? Selfish? No reason?
It's a Vanilla game. If the cop dies, the town loses. If the cop dies early, the town really loses. At what point would making themselves a known entity for the doctor to target, be selfish and a not-reason?
Keep in mind that in a pure Vanilla game, the only powers in the game are Cop, Doctor, Tracker, and Mafia Don. There is no reason whatsoever for him to keep himself hidden.
Not true at all. In a Vanilla game, the cop's existence is to throw the town a bone when things are slowing down. A vanilla game is back to basics, which is analyzing individuals' posts and voting records.
A vanilla game's simplicity is designed so the entirety of those two things should be the focus of being absorbed.
Gotta agree with this mentality.
:sleep:
I don't know.
Every time this "A cop is needed" argument is thrown around, my mind always goes back to Vanilla V. That game pretty much proved how unneeded a cop's info really is when you can generate discussion to work with instead.
SkyKushryd
12/03/2009, 01:15
In a pure Vanilla game, if the cop dies on Night 1, you are going to have a really bad town game. It's just that simple. If for no other reason than because we all know that participation does a skydive when there's nothing to share anymore.
Not quite true, as can be seen in DUE TIME.
EDIT
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 07:03
My problem with HCR mafia exactly.
You NEED a cop to win. You NEED definitive info to win. You NEED roleclaims to win.
No. You need posts, voting history, and a little luck. Anything else is gravy.
This I agree with completely.
In a real Vanilla gmae if the Cop is randomly nightkilled early, no one would know the dead townie was a cop and hte threat of a cop should prove sufficient enough ot keep conversation going.
This I do not. The threat of a doctor keep the mafia second guessing their kills. The threat of a cop is irrelevant. There's nothing a vanilla mafia can do to stop themselves from being copped aside from the content of their posts. The "threat" of a cop doesn't exist until the cop roleclaims. Case in point. One of the vanilla games (The one where MSU was our don IIRC), I got Grinner, the cop, lynched on day 1 before he could claim. We didn't know he was the cop until the end, but it didn't affect our actions one bit since our only ability was a kill, and there was nothing we could have done to stop the cop anyway.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 07:04
Not true at all. In a Vanilla game, the cop's existence is to throw the town a bone when things are slowing down. A vanilla game is back to basics, which is analyzing individuals' posts and voting records.
A vanilla game's simplicity is designed so the entirety of those two things should be the focus of being absorbed.
:sleep:
You're quoting me as agreeing with a post I didn't agree to. vote: Get_1:angry:
The BoyBlunder
12/03/2009, 07:47
Not quite true, as can be seen in DUE TIME.
Don't talk about current games. I'm sure there will be plenty to say when the game ends.
Not true at all. In a Vanilla game, the cop's existence is to throw the town a bone when things are slowing down. A vanilla game is back to basics, which is analyzing individuals' posts and voting records.
A vanilla game's simplicity is designed so the entirety of those two things should be the focus of being absorbed.
I agree, but we're talking about whether or not the cop should claim on day 1. In which context, my post makes sense. I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you, but I'm not going to make that point when I'm trying to defend the idea of claiming cop day 1 in a pure Vanilla game.
I don't know.
Every time this "A cop is needed" argument is thrown around, my mind always goes back to Vanilla V. That game pretty much proved how unneeded a cop's info really is when you can generate discussion to work with instead.
Again, as I just said to Doom, nobody is saying that. We all know you can win games without a cop. My point is that it is still a particularly important role in the game, and not wanting to protect it in a Vanilla game "Just cuz" is pretty silly.
I guess my problem with most arguments made thus far is the words "never" and "always" being used with every opinion.
Those are kinda strong words to be using with a social game alone, let alone a social game that involves so very many variables that we know, along with variables we haven't even created yet.
Thundercats always irks me because everyone remembers Get_1's SK play when I was the far more successful SK.
Sorry, missed this.
I think this has a lot to do with the extraordinary amount of replacements the game suffered. Frankly, I didn't even remember that you were in the game, and that may very well be because of that.
I remember knowing that get_1 was the SK, but not that his play was particularly awesome or whatnot. I just wasn't around for that. The only thing I was around for was watching the town completely ignore him at the end, and him trying to help me lynch Truffle, the town's ridiculously successful cop.
I remember knowing that get_1 was the SK, but not that his play was particularly awesome or whatnot. I just wasn't around for that. The only thing I was around for was watching the town completely ignore him at the end, and him trying to help me lynch Truffle, the town's ridiculously successful cop.
Ah, of course you remember the one game in the last two years where I was the SKer.
I think I claimed I wanted to kill the old lion dude in order to un-serial vigilante myself. That guy bought it at least. Well, before he got janitored that is. :laugh:
Ignatz_Mouse
12/03/2009, 10:31
My problem with HCR mafia exactly.
You NEED a cop to win. You NEED definitive info to win. You NEED roleclaims to win.
No. You need posts, voting history, and a little luck. Anything else is gravy.
I keep hearing you rail about this as if it's true. I can't think of any games that rely soley on cops (or even powers) yet a the same time, if they are present I expect them to be recognized and used. Who are you addressing?
And what are you contrasting it to? mafiascum.net?
charlesx
12/03/2009, 10:55
Here's a question up for discussion.
You are the mafia. In which order do you eliminate the following roles so as to achieve victory?
doctor, tracker, reverse tracker, cop, vigilante, serial killer, roleblocker, coroner
Here's a question up for discussion.
You are the mafia. In which order do you eliminate the following roles so as to achieve victory?
doctor, tracker, reverse tracker, cop, vigilante, serial killer, roleblocker, coroner
Well, few questions:
Are they all claimed?
What kind of coroner are we talking about? Is this a forensic investigator?
charlesx
12/03/2009, 11:02
Well, few questions:
Are they all claimed?
What kind of coroner are we talking about? Is this a forensic investigator?
Let's assume (for theory's sake) that they are all claimed. Coroner = forensic investigator, i.e., anti-janitor.
PaxZRake
12/03/2009, 11:12
Here's a question up for discussion.
You are the mafia. In which order do you eliminate the following roles so as to achieve victory?
doctor, tracker, reverse tracker, cop, vigilante, serial killer, roleblocker, coroner
What powers does my team have?
I could care less about the coroner, since I'm not going to use my Janitor.
I'll keep the Vigilante or SK alive if I have a CM/MC.
In order of importance to kill early:
RT, Doctor, Cop, Tracker, Roleblocker, Vigilante, SK, Coroner (Who I'm going to get lynched anyway)
That's pretty rough though.
Let's assume (for theory's sake) that they are all claimed. Coroner = forensic investigator, i.e., anti-janitor.
In that case:
What powers does my team have?
I could care less about the coroner, since I'm not going to use my Janitor.
I'll keep the Vigilante or SK alive if I have a CM/MC.
In order of importance to kill early:
RT, Doctor, Cop, Tracker, Roleblocker, Vigilante, SK, Coroner (Who I'm going to get lynched anyway)
That's pretty rough though.
Yep.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 11:20
I allow coroners to target alive players and get a clue. basically I combined the clue cop and the forensic investigator or whatever. So using your janitor even in situations where you don't need to keeps the coronor targeting dead people instead of clue coping your mafia members. Just sayin.
I allow coroners to target alive players and get a clue. basically I combined the clue cop and the forensic investigator or whatever. So using your janitor even in situations where you don't need to keeps the coronor targeting dead people instead of clue coping your mafia members. Just sayin.
I was only asking, because if it was a forensic investigator that got the names of all people who had targeted that player in the game up to his death, I'd get rid of that bastard in a heartbeat.
charlesx
12/03/2009, 12:05
I was only asking, because if it was a forensic investigator that got the names of all people who had targeted that player in the game up to his death, I'd get rid of that bastard in a heartbeat.
And a role like that is potentially game-breaking, I would say. A coroner (as I define the role) should be able to obtain a dead player's true identity and the last person(s) who targeted him during the night that he died. Though I like Stan's take and letting the coroner act as a clue cop for living players.
Thanks everyone for your answers.
And a role like that is potentially game-breaking, I would say. A coroner (as I define the role) should be able to obtain a dead player's true identity and the last person(s) who targeted him during the night that he died. Though I like Stan's take and letting the coroner act as a clue cop for living players.
Thanks everyone for your answers.
I think the role is very cool IF there's a balancing factor added to it. When I put a coroner in my game (Dr. Mid-Nite), I balanced it with a time delay. If he targeted someone on N2, he'd have to sit still on N3 and wait until N4 to get the list of targets. If anyone messed with him during those two nights, no results for him.
Here's a question:
Has anyone come up with a good solution for the two busdrivers problem? Other than simply not including two, that is. :cheeky:
Example:
Busdriver 1 targets Player A and B. Busdriver 2 targets Player B and C. What happens when someone tries to target any of those three? :ermm:
Has anyone come up with a good solution for the two busdrivers problem? Other than simply not including two, that is. :cheeky:
Example:
Busdriver 1 targets Player A and B. Busdriver 2 targets Player B and C. What happens when someone tries to target any of those three? :ermm:
Determine ahead of time which one you want to take priority, if you're actually going to write two of them into your game. Whether that be based on the order in which you receive the actions, or the roles themselves. But I would agree with just not allowing for the possibility in the first place.
Here's a question up for discussion.
You are the mafia. In which order do you eliminate the following roles so as to achieve victory?
doctor, tracker, reverse tracker, cop, vigilante, serial killer, roleblocker, coroner
Not knowing my mafia's set up, and all are claimed and from your definition of coroner and players' skill is equal.
I'd probably go coroner, RT, doc, tracker, cop, vig, roleblocker, sk.
I go after the coroner because normally the vig isn't going to kill early (unless he's a serial and at that point the vig and the SK are virtually indistinguishable) and the only people the coroner can get lynched are the SK and the mafia hitman. Neither one of these situations are good for the mafia. As the mafia needs the extra kills to get the numbers down faster.
DarqFeonix
12/03/2009, 12:17
Example:
Busdriver 1 targets Player A and B. Busdriver 2 targets Player B and C. What happens when someone tries to target any of those three? :ermm:
I've gone out of my way to not include that scenario... too much of a headache. That being said, I see four different ways of approaching it:
1) Simply flip a coin as to who goes first. BD1 wins, flips A & B. BD 2 then switches A & C
2) Weigh which role is more "powerful" to go first. If you have a Teleporter vs a Speedster, I'd have the Teleporter switch 'em first. Establish this in your mind before the game starts
3) First person to get their action in goes first. Short and simple.
Unlynchable characters? I'll refrain from sharing my own opinion, since it's well known by now.
I've gone out of my way to not include that scenario... too much of a headache. That being said, I see four different ways of approaching it:
1) Simply flip a coin as to who goes first. BD1 wins, flips A & B. BD 2 then switches A & C
2) Weigh which role is more "powerful" to go first. If you have a Teleporter vs a Speedster, I'd have the Teleporter switch 'em first. Establish this in your mind before the game starts
3) First person to get their action in goes first. Short and simple.
What's the fourth? :laugh:
3) First person to get their action in goes first. Short and simple.
This is what I ended up doing when I ran into that problem. However, it does create this "void" type of situation where the mutually targeted player just can't be targeted period during that time, since it's like a one-way tunnel from him to another player.
While it's a headache, nothing creates more confusion and misinformation than a whole lot of busdrivers in a game. Makes it exciting to figure things out, in my mind at least.
DarqFeonix
12/03/2009, 12:21
What's the fourth? :laugh:
Heh, I thought fixed that. My fourth was "Mafia goes first", but since both BD'ers could be Town, I removed it.
Unlynchable characters? I'll refrain from sharing my own opinion, since it's well known by now.
Useless as a Town power. Have never seen it really come into play, even though it's been used more often recently.
As a Mafia power, perma-unlynchability is clearly bad. No gray area there. Non-permanent unlynchability (i.e. multiple lives) is a good and useful thing.
charlesx
12/03/2009, 12:22
I have used two busdrivers in the past, and here is how I see it.
Busdriver 1 targets players A and B. Sends in his actions first. A gets switched with B.
Busdriver 2 targets players B and C. Sends in his actions second. C gets switched with A (who was switched with B by BD 1.)
Serial Killer targets A, but bags player C instead.
Yes, it can be a headache which is why I came to the decision to no longer use 2 BD's.
DarqFeonix
12/03/2009, 12:23
Sticking with the BusDriver theme, I believe this came up in TBB's Games Worth Playing. BusDriver Targets A and B. B is the PGO.
Does the switch occur completely?
Here's a question:
Has anyone come up with a good solution for the two busdrivers problem? Other than simply not including two, that is. :cheeky:
Example:
Busdriver 1 targets Player A and B. Busdriver 2 targets Player B and C. What happens when someone tries to target any of those three? :ermm:
You'd have to go with the order of the Player's PM. So if B1 came in after B2. Then B1 is really Busdriving A and C.
So if someone targets B. Then B2's Busdrive takes Precedence and they targetted C
If someone Targets A. Then B1's Busdrive is the one that takes precedence and that someone really targets C
If someone targets C then B1's A/C switch is the one that matters in the end.
YMMV though.
This is what I ended up doing when I ran into that problem. However, it does create this "void" type of situation where the mutually targeted player just can't be targeted period during that time, since it's like a one-way tunnel from him to another player.
While it's a headache, nothing creates more confusion and misinformation than a whole lot of busdrivers in a game. Makes it exciting to figure things out, in my mind at least.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/06/16/episode-1141-how-deep-does-the-a-hole-go/
charlesx
12/03/2009, 12:24
Unlynchable characters? I'll refrain from sharing my own opinion, since it's well known by now.
IMO, only a Don should be unlynchable - and then only when all of his minions are still in the game. Simple as that.
Rokk_Krinn
12/03/2009, 12:26
I don't know.
Every time this "A cop is needed" argument is thrown around, my mind always goes back to Vanilla V. That game pretty much proved how unneeded a cop's info really is when you can generate discussion to work with instead.
*shrugs* I've been known to run non-Vanilla games - and no, not necessarily referring to any current ones - without a true Cop, so put me in the boat of "Not a Mandatory Role".
charlesx
12/03/2009, 12:26
Sticking with the BusDriver theme, I believe this came up in TBB's Games Worth Playing. BusDriver Targets A and B. B is the PGO.
Does the switch occur completely?
Nope. PGO targeting gets the BD killed, therefore there is no bus driving. How was it ruled in the TBB game?
Sticking with the BusDriver theme, I believe this came up in TBB's Games Worth Playing. BusDriver Targets A and B. B is the PGO.
Does the switch occur completely?
I would say no, for the same reason that someone that attempts to NK a PGO does not NK the PGO. The PGO effectively negates any actions taken toward him.
I take care to not say the word "Roleblocks", because there have been multiple times where a bulletproof killer successfully axed a PGO.
Sticking with the BusDriver theme, I believe this came up in TBB's Games Worth Playing. BusDriver Targets A and B. B is the PGO.
Does the switch occur completely?
Depends on how you view the Busdriving. If it's literally, the BD is making B and A switch places then the switch does not occur and the BD dies. If the BD is essentially screwing with the GPS of everybody else or controlling the addresses of A and B, then the switch would occur as normal and anybody that targets B would target A and vice versa.
DarqFeonix
12/03/2009, 12:34
Depends on how you view the Busdriving. If it's literally, the BD is making B and A switch places then the switch does not occur and the BD dies. If the BD is essentially screwing with the GPS of everybody else or controlling the addresses of A and B, then the switch would occur as normal and anybody that targets B would target A and vice versa.
Heh, that's funny, because I've run BusDrivers both ways. In HAWTness I, BSG's Sharon & Athena were the busdrivers, but what they did was more Reverse-Control-Misdirect instead of switching players A and B. I'd need to review, but I'm pretty sure this exact scenario came up and I had *that* "BusDrive" go through before they ate it to the PGO.
Heh, that's funny, because I've run BusDrivers both ways. In HAWTness I, BSG's Sharon & Athena were the busdrivers, but what they did was more Reverse-Control-Misdirect instead of switching players A and B. I'd need to review, but I'm pretty sure this exact scenario came up and I had *that* "BusDrive" go through before they ate it to the PGO.
You could even combine the two really. BD switches the address, but still has to visit both. When he visits the PGO, he dies, and everybody still gets switched.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 12:56
And a role like that is potentially game-breaking, I would say. A coroner (as I define the role) should be able to obtain a dead player's true identity and the last person(s) who targeted him during the night that he died. Though I like Stan's take and letting the coroner act as a clue cop for living players.
Thanks everyone for your answers.
I don't allow the coroner to find the killer's identity. That's broken IMO. They just combat the janitored claim.
Amora's_best_friend
12/03/2009, 13:01
I have a question:
How do you rule when a mafia wins?
What happens if, say, there are 11 players left: 6 are mafia, 5 are town, and the town has a vigilante and PGO left.
Does the mafia instantly win? Does the game continue until both the PGO and Vigilante are dead?
Obviously the mafia can lynch whoever they want, but its a case of finding the right townie to lynch.
If I were modding it, I'd let the game continue until both PGO and Vig were dead. Just curious to see how other mods would rule it.
I have a question:
How do you rule when a mafia wins?
What happens if, say, there are 11 players left: 6 are mafia, 5 are town, and the town has a vigilante and PGO left.
Does the mafia instantly win? Does the game continue until both the PGO and Vigilante are dead?
Obviously the mafia can lynch whoever they want, but its a case of finding the right townie to lynch.
If I were modding it, I'd let the game continue until both PGO and Vig were dead. Just curious to see how other mods would rule it.
Mafia win conditions sometimes vary in wording. If it is: "You win until all threats to the Mafia are eliminated", or something to that effect, GAME ON! :classic:
But if it is: "You win when your Mafia holds majority", game over.
I've seen a lot more of the former here, and I don't know that I've ever seen the latter here at all, but if a mod were to use that win condition, there you go.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 13:05
Sticking with the BusDriver theme, I believe this came up in TBB's Games Worth Playing. BusDriver Targets A and B. B is the PGO.
Does the switch occur completely?
Yes, but the BD dies.
charlesx
12/03/2009, 13:06
I don't allow the coroner to find the killer's identity. That's broken IMO. They just combat the janitored claim.
I see your point, but I usually make at least one mafia player as untraceable or invisible in order to balance it out. There's always room for refinement, though, which is why it's great to be able to exchange ideas and viewpoints.
I would say no, for the same reason that someone that attempts to NK a PGO does not NK the PGO. The PGO effectively negates any actions taken toward him.
I take care to not say the word "Roleblocks", because there have been multiple times where a bulletproof killer successfully axed a PGO.
Thought of a better way to put this, and maybe people should consider changing the wording of the role to match, if they like it:
The PGO roleblocks anyone that he can successfully kill.
charlesx
12/03/2009, 13:09
If I were modding it, I'd let the game continue until both PGO and Vig were dead. Just curious to see how other mods would rule it.
I spell out the words "when all of the threats to your faction have been eliminated." Game on until they are all gone or unless it is very clear that the outcome will be in favor of one faction.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 13:11
I have a question:
How do you rule when a mafia wins?
What happens if, say, there are 11 players left: 6 are mafia, 5 are town, and the town has a vigilante and PGO left.
Does the mafia instantly win? Does the game continue until both the PGO and Vigilante are dead?
Obviously the mafia can lynch whoever they want, but its a case of finding the right townie to lynch.
If I were modding it, I'd let the game continue until both PGO and Vig were dead. Just curious to see how other mods would rule it.
I'd rule it like you did.
DarqFeonix
12/03/2009, 13:13
If there is any way for a Mafia member to Die/Lose, I keep it going. If it's just the PGO as a killer, but the Town has a Misdirector (or the Mafia doesn't know who the PGO is), still a small chance of them losing.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 13:14
IMO, a PGO who is also a RB nexus to all except other RB'ers is beyond broken. The mafia should be able to sacrifice a hitman to take out the PGO if they've lost their RB'er.
IMO, a PGO who is also a RB nexus to all except other RB'ers is beyond broken. The mafia should be able to sacrifice a hitman to take out the PGO if they've lost their RB'er.
No, not an RB nexus. And it's the way PGOs always worked. PGOs kill people who target them, and the abilities used by those people never function, with the sole exception of a roleblocker.
In the case of a bulletproof killer, the PGO attempts to kill him, but cannot, thus the bulletproof killer continues to kill the PGO.
PGO stands for "Paranoid Gun Owner". The idea behind it is that the person shoots someone as soon as they breathe on their door, much less open it. Killing those who are trying to kill you, before they can kill you, is exactly what the role is intended for.
Amora's_best_friend
12/03/2009, 13:32
I'd say a NK against a PGO kills both the killer and the PGO.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 13:39
No, not an RB nexus. And it's the way PGOs always worked. PGOs kill people who target them, and the abilities used by those people never function, with the sole exception of a roleblocker.
In the case of a bulletproof killer, the PGO attempts to kill him, but cannot, thus the bulletproof killer continues to kill the PGO.
PGO stands for "Paranoid Gun Owner". The idea behind it is that the person shoots someone as soon as they breathe on their door, much less open it. Killing those who are trying to kill you, before they can kill you, is exactly what the role is intended for.
I understand what you're saying and how it is run elsewhere. And I am saying I think it is broken.
I understand what you're saying and how it is run elsewhere. And I am saying I think it is broken.
Not elsewhere. Elsewhere, he kills roleblockers as well, depending on the mod. Although most variations I've seen, give him only a set number of bullets (kills) allowed, which is my favorite version. What I like even more is telling the PGO player that he has a set number of bullets, but not telling him how many there are. :classic:
charlesx
12/03/2009, 14:05
Not elsewhere. Elsewhere, he kills roleblockers as well, depending on the mod. Although most variations I've seen, give him only a set number of bullets (kills) allowed, which is my favorite version. What I like even more is telling the PGO player that he has a set number of bullets, but not telling him how many there are. :classic:
I have always like the "transferrable PGO" - every night the player chooses to either keep the PGO ability (works as usually described) or to bestow it on another player. Of course, the downside is that when the power is bestowed, the player who originally had the power becomes vulnerable to being targeted.
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 14:18
Not elsewhere. Elsewhere, he kills roleblockers as well, depending on the mod. Although most variations I've seen, give him only a set number of bullets (kills) allowed, which is my favorite version. What I like even more is telling the PGO player that he has a set number of bullets, but not telling him how many there are. :classic:
Semantics...
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 14:19
I have always like the "transferrable PGO" - every night the player chooses to either keep the PGO ability (works as usually described) or to bestow it on another player. Of course, the downside is that when the power is bestowed, the player who originally had the power becomes vulnerable to being targeted.
PGO makers are fun due to their double edged swordiness.
Semantics...
No, not semantics. You guys want to discuss what happens here, so that's what I'm talking about. You claimed I was talking about elsewhere, so I clarified the difference between what we do here, and what others do elsewhere.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :rolleyes:
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 14:57
No, not semantics. You guys want to discuss what happens here, so that's what I'm talking about. You claimed I was talking about elsewhere, so I clarified the difference between what we do here, and what others do elsewhere.
Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :rolleyes:
You focused on that one word. Semantics. Moving on...
That's how I run a POG. That's all I was trying to get across. No need to start a fight over it. :)
charlesx
12/03/2009, 17:12
You focused on that one word. Semantics. Moving on...
That's how I run a POG. That's all I was trying to get across. No need to start a fight over it. :)
I focus on one word: POG. What does a bystander token have to do with mafia, may I ask? Is this Forbush Man that we're talking about? Or what? :laugh:
I focus on one word: POG. What does a bystander token have to do with mafia, may I ask? Is this Forbush Man that we're talking about? Or what? :laugh:
Forbush man is awesome. Don't bring him into this. :angry:
PaxZRake
12/03/2009, 18:26
So, I'm working on an Arcane Warrior/ Blood Mage build using my backup crew of Wynne, Morragine and Leliane.
Now, I'm just hitting level 14 with my characters, and I can't decide whether or not to make Morragine and Wynne into Arcane Warriors or Blood Mages.
From a mafia stand point, what would you do?
So, I'm working on an Arcane Warrior/ Blood Mage build using my backup crew of Wynne, Morragine and Leliane.
Now, I'm just hitting level 14 with my characters, and I can't decide whether or not to make Morragine and Wynne into Arcane Warriors or Blood Mages.
From a mafia stand point, what would you do?
Since it's Morrigan, not Morragine, I'd lynch Morragine.
PaxZRake
12/03/2009, 18:44
Since it's Morrigan, not Morragine, I'd lynch Morragine.
Oh to hell with you, to hell with you I say!
She's probably going Blood Mage, just because it suits her best I think.
DarqFeonix
12/03/2009, 18:54
Morrigan had one of the most powerful drop-attacks in Super Puzzle Fighter II... man, that game was awesome. Dan sucked so much.
Oh to hell with you, to hell with you I say!
She's probably going Blood Mage, just because it suits her best I think.
I would agree with that. Wynne, on the other hand, is a toss up for me. She's just such a good healer, I'd struggle with having her do anything else, unless either of those classes help her with that.
charlesx
12/03/2009, 19:52
Since it's Morrigan, not Morragine, I'd lynch Morragine.
This is a good call.
Vote to lynch: Morragine.
Nice to see that Pax has been taking spelling lessons from Stan.
:cool:
sstralkowski
12/03/2009, 21:19
I focus on one word: POG. What does a bystander token have to do with mafia, may I ask? Is this Forbush Man that we're talking about? Or what? :laugh:
:laugh: Foiled by my own inability to type yet again. It's the Moriatry ;) to my Holmes. And I'm not talking John either.
Nice to see that Pax has been taking spelling lessons from Stan.
:cool:
*rimshot*
here's one for discussion, should players be allowed to leave their votes with other players? i kinda think they shouldn't - they should just vote on someone before they leave, the rest of the town should be able to cover for that player by voting for someone else if the vote cast is against someone the town later feels isn't scum.
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 12:17
here's one for discussion, should players be allowed to leave their votes with other players? i kinda think they shouldn't - they should just vote on someone before they leave, the rest of the town should be able to cover for that player by voting for someone else if the vote cast is against someone the town later feels isn't scum.
I am 100% for the idea of leaving votes with others.
charlesx
12/09/2009, 12:23
here's one for discussion, should players be allowed to leave their votes with other players? i kinda think they shouldn't - they should just vote on someone before they leave, the rest of the town should be able to cover for that player by voting for someone else if the vote cast is against someone the town later feels isn't scum.
I tend to disagree with your stance. RL trumps mafia games. Sometimes players are unable to participate and the town is hurt by lack of voting. By leaving your vote with another player due to extenuating circumstances, at the very least you are contributing to some extent. I understand that my viewpoint favors the town, but there you have it.
DarqFeonix
12/09/2009, 12:24
For the longest time, I frowned upon it, and actually forbade it in my games. But as time went on, and the reality of RL schedules running up against the end of a day phase, leaving a vote with someone began to seem more and more acceptable. Just be sure to bold it...
Now, if the person did it, and then stayed online, participating in other games but ignoring that game since someone else had control... that'd be weak.
anonym0use
12/09/2009, 12:33
I am 100% for the idea of leaving votes with others.
I can't believe I forgot to add a rule in Munchkin where this couldn't happen. Munchkins would never leave votes with each other...
here's one for discussion, should players be allowed to leave their votes with other players? i kinda think they shouldn't - they should just vote on someone before they leave, the rest of the town should be able to cover for that player by voting for someone else if the vote cast is against someone the town later feels isn't scum.
Not at all.
While I understand that RL gets in the way, it usually throws strategy into the toilet, and can actually cause some rather frustrating situations for players, such as if you leave a vote with a mafioso in the end-game. (And that can even be frustrating for a mafioso, since they can't throw a trash vote at a teammate anymore when that happens) That's not something that should ever factor into your game.
If RL is becoming a factor, TALK TO YOUR MOD. Let them know that you're busy as hell, and let them come up with a way to handle it. Imposing your own rules for how your vote will work in the game, is an improper way of handling it. If it doesn't explicitly state in the rules, or in your role, that you're able to do it, you can't do it. Leaving your vote with people borders upon cheating.
And frankly, the people I see using it the most, are those that are still participating at least once or twice per day phase. That is the minimum required participation level. If you're reaching that, there are no extenuating circumstances keeping you from the game. You're there. That's all that's asked of you, so just be happy with it. Leaving votes is trying to get more participation out of your role, than you are able to provide, while still reaching the requirement. That's wrong.
EDIT: That being said, there are a lot of people that sign up for too many games, a lot of mods that beg for signups (which never ends well for participation. If you're not getting the signups in the first week, re-write your role makeup, and run the game as-is.), and a lot of mods that start their games far behind schedule. Right now, I'm concerned about my game, which I gave a January start date, 3 weeks ago, because there are games that are over a month late, that could start at any moment. And I'll be damned if they interfere with my game, which will most definitely start on the date I've set.
These things do not help participation, and are factors that need to be eliminated, so that RL is the only concern we have left to consider, when it comes to participation.
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 12:45
I disagree Thawmus. Leaving votes adds a whole new strategy to the game. It's quite interesting to see people's reactions to things like that. Who leaves what vote with whom and when. How does it affect voting records? How does the player play with more than one vote? You can tell a lot about a player by leaving your vote with them. Also, it can be a way for the mafia to seem more town friendly or at elast garner the trust of a single individual. I see it as much more than a lazy way of playing, and because of those aspects, I'm all for it. That and I hate to see days stalled due to inactivity. If it's due to confusion caused by players, I'm fine with it. That's when the mafia has worked for it rather than just taking the lazy win IMO.
I disagree Thawmus. Leaving votes adds a whole new strategy to the game.
My problem entirely. It shouldn't be a part of the game at all. What's the point of the Mayor role? What's the point of trying to convince 8 people to side with you, when you automatically get 3, or you need to convince only 6? You're defending it as strategy and a tactic, which makes me inclined to say: Then it's bull#### entirely.
It's quite interesting to see people's reactions to things like that. Who leaves what vote with whom and when. How does it affect voting records? How does the player play with more than one vote? You can tell a lot about a player by leaving your vote with them.
Which is, again, why it should not be allowed.
Also, it can be a way for the mafia to seem more town friendly or at elast garner the trust of a single individual. I see it as much more than a lazy way of playing, and because of those aspects, I'm all for it. That and I hate to see days stalled due to inactivity. If it's due to confusion caused by players, I'm fine with it. That's when the mafia has worked for it rather than just taking the lazy win IMO.
If you're going to defend it as a method of gaining information, then yes, it's a lazy way of playing. Entirely.
I said "Entirely" too many times. :( Entirely. :(
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 13:07
My problem entirely. It shouldn't be a part of the game at all. What's the point of the Mayor role? What's the point of trying to convince 8 people to side with you, when you automatically get 3, or you need to convince only 6? You're defending it as strategy and a tactic, which makes me inclined to say: Then it's bull#### entirely. Which is, again, why it should not be allowed. If you're going to defend it as a method of gaining information, then yes, it's a lazy way of playing. Entirely.
Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. :classic: I think there are certainly instances of it being used lazily, but I've seen just as many people use it for a good reason. But that's why these games are all fun. There's more than one way to play.
Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. :classic: I think there are certainly instances of it being used lazily, but I've seen just as many people use it for a good reason. But that's why these games are all fun. There's more than one way to play.
More than one way to play, nothing. The intent for allowing it is to let players who are busy, give others a chance at achieving a majority lynch vote. Defending it as strategy, tells me that the whole idea is bull####, and should be scrapped.
RL, I understand. I think there's better ways of handling it, but if a mod wants to handle it this way, fine. Players using it as their own rule-base to play the game? Nuh-uh. Not acceptable.
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 13:26
More than one way to play, nothing. The intent for allowing it is to let players who are busy, give others a chance at achieving a majority lynch vote. Defending it as strategy, tells me that the whole idea is bull####, and should be scrapped.
RL, I understand. I think there's better ways of handling it, but if a mod wants to handle it this way, fine. Players using it as their own rule-base to play the game? Nuh-uh. Not acceptable.
I think you just like to argue. And not just with me. No matter how hard you kick and scream, your way is not always the only way. :grin:
I think you just like to argue. And not just with me. No matter how hard you kick and scream, your way is not always the only way. :grin:
A guy asked if leaving votes with players should be allowed. Everyone spoke of the merits of it allowing players with RL conditions to stay in the game, and help achieve majority. Except for you.
You feel that it's a great way to achieve information in a game, which is not what it's intended for. You're not playing Mafia, you're lying to the mod and other players when you're saying you have RL conditions to keep you from playing, if you use it as a strategy and tactic.
It's rules abuse, plain and simple. If I knew a player was using it this way, to gain information, rather than help keep the game moving, I'd modkill them for it.
If you want to use the rule this way, fine. Tell the mod that before the game starts. See what their reaction is. :cheeky:
I think of it like the election....
why concentrate on little states with little amounts of electoral votes when you just gotta swing California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, and Ohio? :laugh:
BTW, I hate arguing. Believe it or not, I'm very very anti-confrontational. But I'm also very very VERY passionate about rules, intent of rules, and rules abuse.
charlesx
12/09/2009, 13:50
A guy asked if leaving votes with players should be allowed. Everyone spoke of the merits of it allowing players with RL conditions to stay in the game, and help achieve majority. Except for you.
You feel that it's a great way to achieve information in a game, which is not what it's intended for. You're not playing Mafia, you're lying to the mod and other players when you're saying you have RL conditions to keep you from playing, if you use it as a strategy and tactic.
Just want to jump in and say that I didn't read it the same way, Thawm. I think that what Stan meant was that the results of leaving votes with other players translate into additional ways to obtain information and therefore play into the overall strategy - the results, mind you, not the actual action of leaving the vote with another player.
I agree with you that if someone is deliberately leaving the vote without an extenuating RL reason, it is not the right thing to do. I don't believe that Stan was advocating doing so.
That having been said, even if it is prone to abuse, I will continue to allow in my games for players to leave their votes with other players. My initial response stated my position - RL trumps mafia; the town should not be penalized by the loss of voting power because a player's RL schedule prevents him/her from participating.
Just want to jump in and say that I didn't read it the same way, Thawm. I think that what Stan meant was that the results of leaving votes with other players translate into additional ways to obtain information and therefore play into the overall strategy - the results, mind you, not the actual action of leaving the vote with another player.
You're wrong:
It's quite interesting to see people's reactions to things like that. Who leaves what vote with whom and when. How does it affect voting records? How does the player play with more than one vote? You can tell a lot about a player by leaving your vote with them. Also, it can be a way for the mafia to seem more town friendly or at elast garner the trust of a single individual.
I agree with you that if someone is deliberately leaving the vote without an extenuating RL reason, it is not the right thing to do. I don't believe that Stan was advocating doing so.
Yeah, if the mod's fine with it, fine. But at least be using it for the right reason, which is because you're unavailable to play that phase. Using it for other reasons, you're lying to the mod and your fellow players about your availability, which is what it's there to address. It's rules abuse, and it makes guys like me less inclined to allow it in games.
That having been said, even if it is prone to abuse, I will continue to allow in my games for players to leave their votes with other players. My initial response stated my position - RL trumps mafia; the town should not be penalized by the loss of voting power because a player's RL schedule prevents him/her from participating.
And that's totally fine. I disagree with it, but that's fine. That's your way of handling that issue in your games, and that's acceptable.
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 14:41
A guy asked if leaving votes with players should be allowed. Everyone spoke of the merits of it allowing players with RL conditions to stay in the game, and help achieve majority. Except for you.
You feel that it's a great way to achieve information in a game, which is not what it's intended for. You're not playing Mafia, you're lying to the mod and other players when you're saying you have RL conditions to keep you from playing, if you use it as a strategy and tactic.
It's rules abuse, plain and simple. If I knew a player was using it this way, to gain information, rather than help keep the game moving, I'd modkill them for it.
If you want to use the rule this way, fine. Tell the mod that before the game starts. See what their reaction is. :cheeky:
My comment was referring to the fact that I said we'd have to agree to disagree and you continued to tell me I was wrong. And now not only are you twisting my words, but calling me a liar and a rules abuser. This feels like HAWTness all over again where you get all holier than thou and hand out the beat downs while everyone has to bow to you. It's getting old. :tired:
Now to address your horridly inaccurate description of my actions... If I am going to be away from the thread for a decent amount of time (albeit 1 hour or 10) I sometimes leave my vote with another player. Sometimes I'll be able to sneak back on for a couple minutes and think it's dumb to take my vote back onyl to leave it again 5 mintues later so I'll just not move it at all. I do this sometimes when I get home from work because I have maybe 10 minutes before I need to cook dinner. I can see your point if someone sits on the thread all day long posting and still leaves their vote with someone else for thwe whole time just to see a reaction, but if you leave your vote with someone because you really are leaving the thread (even if you come back earlier than expected) I see no harm in that. My point was that you can then glean info from what happens after you do leave your vote with someone. That's a truth you cannot deny. You may disagree with me, but my opinion is just as valid as yours.
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 14:44
Just want to jump in and say that I didn't read it the same way, Thawm. I think that what Stan meant was that the results of leaving votes with other players translate into additional ways to obtain information and therefore play into the overall strategy - the results, mind you, not the actual action of leaving the vote with another player.
I agree with you that if someone is deliberately leaving the vote without an extenuating RL reason, it is not the right thing to do. I don't believe that Stan was advocating doing so.
That having been said, even if it is prone to abuse, I will continue to allow in my games for players to leave their votes with other players. My initial response stated my position - RL trumps mafia; the town should not be penalized by the loss of voting power because a player's RL schedule prevents him/her from participating.
This is exactly what I was saying. Hence the idea that you just like to argue, Thawmus.
My comment was referring to the fact that I said we'd have to agree to disagree and you continued to tell me I was wrong. And now not only are you twisting my words, but calling me a liar and a rules abuser. This feels like HAWTness all over again where you get all holier than thou and hand out the beat downs while everyone has to bow to you. It's getting old. :tired:
HAWTness was a matter of internet rage. I apologized for that. It was uncalled for. The equation of that, to this, is equally uncalled for.
As for agree to disagree, that doesn't cut it for me. Normally, I'd be fine with that, but you have been defending the idea that you could use this as a strategy and tactic, which is not what it is for. That's not being truthful with your moderator. There is no agree to disagree in that department.
Personally, I never knew that anyone was actually using it with that intention, that's part of why I'm reacting this way. I'm willing to bet that other mods here didn't know that, either. So yes, I'm going to drag that mentality out and beat it to death, if for no other reason than to make mods aware that it is happening. Because that awareness quite obviously, as you can see in Charles' post, does not exist.
If you want to take it personally, and feel that it's a slight on your personal integrity, that's your business. I'm not the one trying to defend a game strategy that is, plain and simply, not being honest with the GM.
Now to address your horridly inaccurate description of my actions... If I am going to be away from the thread for a decent amount of time (albeit 1 hour or 10) I sometimes leave my vote with another player. Sometimes I'll be able to sneak back on for a couple minutes and think it's dumb to take my vote back onyl to leave it again 5 mintues later so I'll just not move it at all. I do this sometimes when I get home from work because I have maybe 10 minutes before I need to cook dinner.
And this scenario is not at all what you have been describing. Do you understand that?
I can see your point if someone sits on the thread all day long posting and still leaves their vote with someone else for thwe whole time just to see a reaction, but if you leave your vote with someone because you really are leaving the thread (even if you come back earlier than expected) I see no harm in that. My point was that you can then glean info from what happens after you do leave your vote with someone. That's a truth you cannot deny.
I'm not denying that truth. I'm openly acknowledging it. You are speaking of it as the primary merit of allowing such a rule, and I am openly telling you, no, it's not a merit, it's a drawback, and if you use it solely for that "merit", then you are not being honest with your mod.
You may disagree with me, but my opinion is just as valid as yours.
And I didn't tell you that your opinion was invalid, either. :tired:
This is exactly what I was saying. Hence the idea that you just like to argue, Thawmus.
Except I quoted where you were not saying it at all. Hence the idea that you were wrong, got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and rather than just man up and say, "Well ####, I guess that is messed up, well what about looking at it this way?" You're going to instead try and drag my name through the mud, and change your argument entirely, while pretending you've done no such thing, and "Thawmus is just going off again, God I'm sick of that guy."
And this is why I don't think mafia theory threads, or strategy threads, are worth a damn. Because some of you take this stuff personally, rather than just try and learn from someone else's viewpoint.
My view: The rule sucks, and it's prone to abuse. More to that point, you've argued a merit to the rule, that speaks to the abuse I don't care for, is a reason to keep it, which I disagree with.
Your view: The rule is great, because you can use it to gain information in the game. Thawmus called me a liar, and he just likes to argue.
Excuse me while I go :157446:
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 15:27
HAWTness was a matter of internet rage. I apologized for that. It was uncalled for. The equation of that, to this, is equally uncalled for.
As for agree to disagree, that doesn't cut it for me. Normally, I'd be fine with that, but you have been defending the idea that you could use this as a strategy and tactic, which is not what it is for. That's not being truthful with your moderator. There is no agree to disagree in that department.
Personally, I never knew that anyone was actually using it with that intention, that's part of why I'm reacting this way. I'm willing to bet that other mods here didn't know that, either. So yes, I'm going to drag that mentality out and beat it to death, if for no other reason than to make mods aware that it is happening. Because that awareness quite obviously, as you can see in Charles' post, does not exist.
If you want to take it personally, and feel that it's a slight on your personal integrity, that's your business. I'm not the one trying to defend a game strategy that is, plain and simply, not being honest with the GM.
And this scenario is not at all what you have been describing. Do you understand that?
I'm not denying that truth. I'm openly acknowledging it. You are speaking of it as the primary merit of allowing such a rule, and I am openly telling you, no, it's not a merit, it's a drawback, and if you use it solely for that "merit", then you are not being honest with your mod.
And I didn't tell you that your opinion was invalid, either. :tired:
I think I'm done with this subject. It's clear that you'd rather nitpick words than have an open discussion. I'm not interested in a lecture. Enjoy your evening.
I think I'm done with this subject. It's clear that you'd rather nitpick words than have an open discussion. I'm not interested in a lecture. Enjoy your evening.
Please read this post as commentary, not as an argument:
And that's a fair point. I very well may be. However, I feel that if you had just said, from the get-go: "Hey, it's a side effect, not the goal." I wouldn't have said much of anything.
Okay, that's probably not true. I would have written a completely different 1000 word post that wouldn't make you feel insecure and integrity threatened. But c'mon, this whole time I've been acknowledging that, yes, you can use it to glean information from players. We were never debating whether or not that was the case. The problem was, and is, for me, if people are using it solely for that purpose. And if so, mods need to be aware of it.
It's just like the discussion we just had in Munchkin. While I understand those who feel that their personal integrity is on the line when they post things in the game, which cause them to refuse to lie, or make a false claim, I do not feel they should ever make that a case for reasoning or logic in-game. A man's personal integrity should never be called into question during a Mafia game. It should never be involved, whether that be for positive or negative gain. I don't want to sit in a game and, for an obvious example, have to be put into a game position where I have to put TAK's personal integrity at stake. We all know he won't lie, and he has personal reasons for that. But I shouldn't ever be put in a position where I either have to trust TAK as a person, rather than a player, or cause distrust in TAK as a person, rather than a player. I feel that if TAK wants to keep a "no lies" stance, he should keep it to himself. It's only going to end in personal investment in a game of lies, which is never going to end well.
And that's my point. If you feel that you cannot play, and you tell the mod this, that should be held as you, the person, telling the mod something. In that instance, you are no longer playing the game anymore. You are just being yourself. And if you say something like "Leave vote with X", when you are able to participate more than the minimum required level that day (which is usually one post), I feel that you're being dishonest with that mod. When you leave that vote, you are saying, "Hey, I don't think I'll be back today." And if that's not true, then you're abusing the rules. And, as I said with Charles, if you've told the mod that you intend to do this ahead of time, and he allows it, that's something else entirely.
As for finding out you have time later: whatever. It's not an issue. We've all said, "Hey I don't have time", and then found out later that we have it. Doesn't do well for us in-game sometimes, but that's just life. I don't have a problem with someone using it as reasoning for trusting or distrusting someone, so long as they used it the way the mod originally intended it to be used, when they first allowed it. If they're not, then I have a very real problem with that.
And what I read in your original post, was that it was a valid in-game strategy, regardless if you used it properly or not. And if that's incorrect, I apologize.
Hey, c'mon guys, we're all friends here.
what chaos have i unleashed? :confused:
The BoyBlunder
12/09/2009, 17:39
I have always like the "transferrable PGO" - every night the player chooses to either keep the PGO ability (works as usually described) or to bestow it on another player. Of course, the downside is that when the power is bestowed, the player who originally had the power becomes vulnerable to being targeted.
Did I make this power? I know I had it in Pirates vs Ninjas, with The Dread Pirate Roberts, but was I the first? I hadn't seen it used before I included it, I know that much.
sounds kinda cool, like a hot potato. did the person keep their original powers or were they replaced with the PGO role? and did they get their power back if they passed the PGO? if i was the PGO and passed it to TBB who was a cop, would he still have cop ability?
what chaos have i unleashed? :confused:
*shrug*
It's not the first time the topic has come up here, and it likely won't be the last. I don't recall the last time being any better.
charlesx
12/09/2009, 19:03
sounds kinda cool, like a hot potato. did the person keep their original powers or were they replaced with the PGO role? and did they get their power back if they passed the PGO? if i was the PGO and passed it to TBB who was a cop, would he still have cop ability?
I am not sure who thought of it first. I think that TBB might have been the first one to use the transferrable PGO.
The player who "receives" the power does not know it. His/her powers function normally. They are a PGO only for that one night. When the next day comes, the PGO ability reverts to the original player. In your example, if you passed the PGO to the cop (TBB), the cop would still get a night result - and he'd be protected for the same night. Think of it as a semi-doctor role with a bite! :laugh:
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 20:15
Please read this post as commentary, not as an argument:
And that's a fair point. I very well may be. However, I feel that if you had just said, from the get-go: "Hey, it's a side effect, not the goal." I wouldn't have said much of anything.
Okay, that's probably not true. I would have written a completely different 1000 word post that wouldn't make you feel insecure and integrity threatened. But c'mon, this whole time I've been acknowledging that, yes, you can use it to glean information from players. We were never debating whether or not that was the case. The problem was, and is, for me, if people are using it solely for that purpose. And if so, mods need to be aware of it.
It's just like the discussion we just had in Munchkin. While I understand those who feel that their personal integrity is on the line when they post things in the game, which cause them to refuse to lie, or make a false claim, I do not feel they should ever make that a case for reasoning or logic in-game. A man's personal integrity should never be called into question during a Mafia game. It should never be involved, whether that be for positive or negative gain. I don't want to sit in a game and, for an obvious example, have to be put into a game position where I have to put TAK's personal integrity at stake. We all know he won't lie, and he has personal reasons for that. But I shouldn't ever be put in a position where I either have to trust TAK as a person, rather than a player, or cause distrust in TAK as a person, rather than a player. I feel that if TAK wants to keep a "no lies" stance, he should keep it to himself. It's only going to end in personal investment in a game of lies, which is never going to end well.
And that's my point. If you feel that you cannot play, and you tell the mod this, that should be held as you, the person, telling the mod something. In that instance, you are no longer playing the game anymore. You are just being yourself. And if you say something like "Leave vote with X", when you are able to participate more than the minimum required level that day (which is usually one post), I feel that you're being dishonest with that mod. When you leave that vote, you are saying, "Hey, I don't think I'll be back today." And if that's not true, then you're abusing the rules. And, as I said with Charles, if you've told the mod that you intend to do this ahead of time, and he allows it, that's something else entirely.
As for finding out you have time later: whatever. It's not an issue. We've all said, "Hey I don't have time", and then found out later that we have it. Doesn't do well for us in-game sometimes, but that's just life. I don't have a problem with someone using it as reasoning for trusting or distrusting someone, so long as they used it the way the mod originally intended it to be used, when they first allowed it. If they're not, then I have a very real problem with that.
And what I read in your original post, was that it was a valid in-game strategy, regardless if you used it properly or not. And if that's incorrect, I apologize.
Understood. I will try and be more precise with my words next time. No guarantee on the spelling though.
sstralkowski
12/09/2009, 20:17
I am not sure who thought of it first. I think that TBB might have been the first one to use the transferrable PGO.
The player who "receives" the power does not know it. His/her powers function normally. They are a PGO only for that one night. When the next day comes, the PGO ability reverts to the original player. In your example, if you passed the PGO to the cop (TBB), the cop would still get a night result - and he'd be protected for the same night. Think of it as a semi-doctor role with a bite! :laugh:
TBB could have been the first. I honestly don't know. I do know that I've used it several times and it is a blast every time.
The BoyBlunder
12/09/2009, 21:50
I am not sure who thought of it first. I think that TBB might have been the first one to use the transferrable PGO.
The player who "receives" the power does not know it. His/her powers function normally. They are a PGO only for that one night. When the next day comes, the PGO ability reverts to the original player. In your example, if you passed the PGO to the cop (TBB), the cop would still get a night result - and he'd be protected for the same night. Think of it as a semi-doctor role with a bite! :laugh:
I've actually done it two ways. The first time was in my very first mafia game Sunday Funnies mafia. The Crocs from Pearls before Swine thought they were an SK, when actually they were a serial PGO maker. They choose a new target each night.
In Pirates vs Ninjas, the pgo was able to permanently make someone else a pgo, losing the ability them self. They never chose to do so.
While this thread may have sparked a lot of arguments, it's also given me many role ideas.
sstralkowski
12/12/2009, 14:26
Thoughts on games that go on long breaks? There have been quite a few since the realms started hosting Mafia. Some come back while others don't. In your opinion, does it hurt the game to do so? If so, is it better that the game just be canceled? I'm not pointing this at anyone in particular so please don't take offense guys.
A hiatus of two weeks unless it was agreed upon seems fair enough to me for cancellation.
Thoughts on games that go on long breaks? There have been quite a few since the realms started hosting Mafia. Some come back while others don't. In your opinion, does it hurt the game to do so? If so, is it better that the game just be canceled? I'm not pointing this at anyone in particular so please don't take offense guys.
This is a weeny answer, but I think it depends on a case-by-case basis.
Did the game go on hiatus after the first night phase? In the middle of the game? Near the end?
Almost always when it's in the middle, the game just can't recover. People lose interest and forget what's been going on, and it's almost not worth it to restart.
If it's in the beginning when nothing serious has really happened yet (and players can easily review everything that has) a restart becomes more viable. Likewise, if it's near the end (though I can't see why a game would ever go on a long hiatus near the end) when there are fewer players left, it becomes simpler for those who are left to get back into it.
I hate it when games go on breaks and when it finally comes back...you find yourself dead.
Quebbster
12/14/2009, 09:14
Here's a question:
Should you always be suspicious of replacement players?
I've just finished my third Mafia game. In all three replacement players were brought in at some point... and they all turned out to be Mafia. Is this just a freaky coincidence?
sstralkowski
12/14/2009, 09:16
Here's a question:
Should you always be suspicious of replacement players?
I've just finished my third Mafia game. In all three replacement players were brought in at some point... and they all turned out to be Mafia. Is this just a freaky coincidence?
Definitely a coincedence. I've replaced players of all alignments in the past. I usually won't replace after day 4 or so, though. It's just too hard on the player.
Quebbster
12/14/2009, 09:33
Definitely a coincedence. I've replaced players of all alignments in the past. I usually won't replace after day 4 or so, though. It's just too hard on the player.
yeah, I figured as much. Still, you never know... :)
And to be honest, out of the 4 replacements 2 were done at the same time and were roles played by JackAssterson... The fact that he was Mafia in both games just served to increase the spookiness.
Here's a question:
Should you always be suspicious of replacement players?
I've just finished my third Mafia game. In all three replacement players were brought in at some point... and they all turned out to be Mafia. Is this just a freaky coincidence?
Depends on the mod. I know some of the more experienced mods know, "Hey, if I'm replacing the mafia don, I better replace the Jester, too." But I know it's happened often in the past, where an inexperienced mod replaced important mafia roles, and not town roles.
I was guilty of it, with my first game. And if you go the modkill route, like I do, you have to be totally indiscriminate about it, and not care about game balance, which is very difficult for me. So, even I have been tempted to go the route of replacing mafia, and modkilling townies. DBZ 2 was terrible with this, because I ended up having to modkill more mafia members than I would have liked.
One thing I will say, that doesn't have to do with the mod: Mafia members tend to drop off the face of the earth, faster than townies. I don't know if being in the mafia makes the game boring, or what. I've been guilty of it in the past, personally. And it's been something I've noticed as a mod and as a player. So, yes, I am a little leery of replacements, because while there are extenuating circumstances for some folks, for others it's a combination of extenuating circumstances, and apathy.
One thing I will say, that doesn't have to do with the mod: Mafia members tend to drop off the face of the earth, faster than townies. I don't know if being in the mafia makes the game boring, or what. I've been guilty of it in the past, personally. And it's been something I've noticed as a mod and as a player. So, yes, I am a little leery of replacements, because while there are extenuating circumstances for some folks, for others it's a combination of extenuating circumstances, and apathy.
And, on this, I wanted to start another question, based on one of my personal quirks with mafia teams:
Should the Don be allowed to send in everyone's actions?
My problem with this has been twofold:
1. I feel that ever since this got started, mafia teams have communicated less, and been less active in games, because they have removed from themselves the necessity to be active anymore. They can sit back and let the Don send in all of the team's actions. Furthermore, the more active members of the team, end up having less control over what they're doing. It's your role, you should be responsible for what it does, not the Don. And even furthermore, this keeps you from being able to use some pretty cool roles, such as the Usurper and Town Traitor, and the variants of those two roles.
2. It's unfair. If the town players don't participate, their actions are randomized, or not used at all. If Mafia players don't participate, they act exactly how their mafia wants them to. I don't feel that the discrepancy should exist.
Now, on the other hand, I fully understand that it's simpler to have it done this way, and that it helps the mod and the players when it's done this way. So I don't begrudge anyone for doing this, just wanted some discussion.
sstralkowski
12/14/2009, 09:58
And, on this, I wanted to start another question, based on one of my personal quirks with mafia teams:
Should the Don be allowed to send in everyone's actions?
My problem with this has been twofold:
1. I feel that ever since this got started, mafia teams have communicated less, and been less active in games, because they have removed from themselves the necessity to be active anymore. They can sit back and let the Don send in all of the team's actions. Furthermore, the more active members of the team, end up having less control over what they're doing. It's your role, you should be responsible for what it does, not the Don. And even furthermore, this keeps you from being able to use some pretty cool roles, such as the Usurper and Town Traitor, and the variants of those two roles.
2. It's unfair. If the town players don't participate, their actions are randomized, or not used at all. If Mafia players don't participate, they act exactly how their mafia wants them to. I don't feel that the discrepancy should exist.
Now, on the other hand, I fully understand that it's simpler to have it done this way, and that it helps the mod and the players when it's done this way. So I don't begrudge anyone for doing this, just wanted some discussion.
I've actually allowed any player in the mafia to send in final actions so they don't just sit back and depend on the Don. It has led to a few "I thought YOU were sending our actions in" moments, but oh well. I will say that I alwasy add the caveat that if a player sends in their own action and it differs from what their teammates said they woudl do, I go with the individual action. It allows for roles like Usurper and Traitor and such.
I've actually allowed any player in the mafia to send in final actions so they don't just sit back and depend on the Don. It has led to a few "I thought YOU were sending our actions in" moments, but oh well. I will say that I alwasy add the caveat that if a player sends in their own action and it differs from what their teammates said they woudl do, I go with the individual action. It allows for roles like Usurper and Traitor and such.
I think that sufficiently handles problem 1 for me, but what about problem 2? That almost seems worse, in that case, since any one person in the mafia can make the entire team "active".
sstralkowski
12/14/2009, 10:28
I think that sufficiently handles problem 1 for me, but what about problem 2? That almost seems worse, in that case, since any one person in the mafia can make the entire team "active".
I am not sure how to handle #2. *snicker* I am much more concerned with balance than making the game equally fair to everyone. Not every role has the same chance of winning, and I'm fine with that. I just chalk it up to the nature of the beast. I'm not saying I don't care, just that not every game can run perfectly, so there are bound to be some quirks.
I am not sure how to handle #2. *snicker* I am much more concerned with balance than making the game equally fair to everyone. Not every role has the same chance of winning, and I'm fine with that. I just chalk it up to the nature of the beast. I'm not saying I don't care, just that not every game can run perfectly, so there are bound to be some quirks.
I see it as a balance issue, not a "fair for everyone" issue. You're talking to a guy that has used a "You automatically die on Night 1" role, here. :laugh:
DarqFeonix
12/14/2009, 11:07
I personally am deeply involved with my Mafia proboard as a mod, and imake sure there is planning done by every party. However, being a Mafia member REQUIRES planning, IMHO, and that may take much longer than 1 single player sending in an action, hence I want the Don to send them all together. Of course, like Stan, if a member wants do something different than what the Don says, I'll take it
sstralkowski
12/14/2009, 11:08
I see it as a balance issue, not a "fair for everyone" issue. You're talking to a guy that has used a "You automatically die on Night 1" role, here. :laugh:
Please clarify your opinion on seeing it as a balance issue. I'm not quite sure how you came to that conlusion.
And In Sesame Street mafia, Mr. Hooper died in the middle fo the game for no reason. Thing is, I knew what night it would happen so it was easy to balance around. A player not participating is tough to balance around.
Please clarify your opinion on seeing it as a balance issue. I'm not quite sure how you came to that conlusion.
And In Sesame Street mafia, Mr. Hooper died in the middle fo the game for no reason. Thing is, I knew what night it would happen so it was easy to balance around. A player not participating is tough to balance around.
My point exactly. If you start out the game with an equal balance between the mafia and town, then a non-participating town player should hurt the game balance as much as a non-participating mafia player. Mafia teams being able to work at full capacity throughout the game, regardless of participation, while the town never truly works at full capacity, due to a lack of participation, is unbalanced.
Regarding the "mafia laziness" point, it may be just my opinion but I don't think it's true at all.
I've rarely been a part of a mafia that succumbs to inactivity. That, I again believe, is the "nature of the beast" as sstralkowski calls it. The very fact that the mafia automatically has more information than the Town makes it more interesting and is conducive to productive conspiring. It's easier (and more fun) to play as part of a team than as an individual.
Within the last couple of months, almost everyone in each mafia I've been in has really gotten into the game.
In fact, I'd argue that it's easier to fall into inactivity when you're a Townie. Townies tend to either be highly involved (because since they're isolated they feel they need to be to get everything out there) or stop paying attention (because since they're isolated :cheeky:, it's easier to do that than try to absorb everything going on). There's likely to be less of a gradient than in mafias.
sstralkowski
12/14/2009, 12:35
My point exactly. If you start out the game with an equal balance between the mafia and town, then a non-participating town player should hurt the game balance as much as a non-participating mafia player. Mafia teams being able to work at full capacity throughout the game, regardless of participation, while the town never truly works at full capacity, due to a lack of participation, is unbalanced.
Ah, gotcha. Well while I've seen inactive mafias before (GLC), they're pretty good for the most part. And even though an inactive mafioso can hurt thread participation, I've rarely (not never) seen them make it to a win. And given the random nature of some townie targeting, I think one could make the argument that randomizing a non-participating townie, has no more effect on game balance than some of the other things townies do based on flawed logic and whatnot. Overall, I think a randomized mafioso can hurt game balance mroe than a townie.
Really, I think mafias only need one or two members who really get into it. Then they'll pump everyone else on their team up and they'll automatically start participating.
I guess I've just had bad luck with it, then. Or I talk too damn much. Probably a little of both. Seems whenever I get on a team, or if I mod, I'm the only one talking on the proboard.
sstralkowski
12/14/2009, 12:47
I guess I've just had bad luck with it, then. Or I talk too damn much. Probably a little of both. Seems whenever I get on a team, or if I mod, I'm the only one talking on the proboard.
I've had those, too. It just seems the exception, not the norm. I'm in agreement with get_1 on this one.
I guess I've just had bad luck with it, then. Or I talk too damn much. Probably a little of both. Seems whenever I get on a team, or if I mod, I'm the only one talking on the proboard.
Team dynamics are tough. I tone down myself quite a bit. Rather than insist upon the team doing what I want, I may just subtly suggest it (or lead them to reach my conclusion themselves).
Bossiness doesn't translate well into management roles.
Quebbster
12/14/2009, 17:04
One thing I will say, that doesn't have to do with the mod: Mafia members tend to drop off the face of the earth, faster than townies. I don't know if being in the mafia makes the game boring, or what. I've been guilty of it in the past, personally. And it's been something I've noticed as a mod and as a player. So, yes, I am a little leery of replacements, because while there are extenuating circumstances for some folks, for others it's a combination of extenuating circumstances, and apathy.
That's pretty much what happened to me when I got recruited to Aegon's New Guy Mafia. The guy playing Batman decided to quit, so I was called in to replace him.
Considering that Robin had just been lynched and that he was suspected due to not posting at all, I'm not surprised the guy wanted out though.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.