The Mafia Discussion Thread

[DFF]

I did consider posting about using an RNG but thought better of it haha

[RPS]

1 hour ago, DFF said:

I did consider posting about using an RNG but thought better of it haha

If you all trolled me by only using RNG in my mafia game... *chefs kiss*

[Azazel]

I've learned 2 main things from recent games.

Short day phases and smaller number of players are ideal.  Big games are so hard to follow.

I'm going to try out a few unique things with the Godzilla Mafia game that hopefully makes it super fun.

[Naitch]

I've experimented a bit with mine again and find that 3 days is the sweet spot for me.

[RPS]

41 minutes ago, Azazel said:

I'm going to try out a few unique things with the Godzilla Mafia game that hopefully makes it super fun.

I'm a big proponent of more things to happen during the day phase. 

[kurgan]

On 29/10/2020 at 16:43, Naitch said:

I've experimented a bit with mine again and find that 3 days is the sweet spot for me.

I liked the 48 hours in WW2, kept things moving.

[DFF]

I think I like the idea of 48+. Whenever the phase ends, add 48 + however many extra to make it most convenient to majority of players (usually late UK so daytime north am) etc. I also like the idea of offering short extensions if enough players are active/agree. 

[Naitch]

35 minutes ago, kurgan said:

I liked the 48 hours in WW2, kept things moving.

 

8 minutes ago, DFF said:

I think I like the idea of 48+. Whenever the phase ends, add 48 + however many extra to make it most convenient to majority of players (usually late UK so daytime north am) etc. I also like the idea of offering short extensions if enough players are active/agree. 

These are both points I agree with. 48-72 seems to work and I'll probably be bringing the current game down to 48 hours now that numbers are dwindling. I did recently shift my deadlines back from 5pm to 8pm UK time to better accommodate a few US players after feedback during the game.

I'm torn on the idea of offering extensions, and how to approach the general malaise and Lynch/No Lynch arguments Day 1 attracts. That's why I offered out a No Lynch voting option at 1/4 +1 vote at the beginning of Werewolves. It seemed to work decently enough.

[DFF]

Maybe game runners can focus on voting for something else on Day 1 (like a Mayor/Sherriff or something different) and offer the town a chance to vote if they wish, but they'd actively have to vote for a lynch to take place on D1?

EDIT: 

I liked the 'resolutions' that were used in the Civilisation game recently. Kept everything fresh and there was always something to discuss, even if scum hunting dried up from time to time. I'm not saying they have to be as whacky/powerful as that, but I really liked the mechanic (and will blatantly pinch it when I get around to running another game). 

[Mx. Canadian Destroyer]

The version I play over Zoom works a little differently and I wonder how it would work for a game on here. 

At the end of the discussion period, everyone has to submit a nomination. The top two vote getters are up for another vote. The person between those two are then killed. 

I wonder if a game did a discussion period and then everyone needs to place their vote would work. 

[RPS]

Try it as a one off game. 

Typically speaking, that is how I have always played mafia and werewolf in person. You can always say how you are going to cast your vote and cast your vote differently at the end. I think the reason we do running votes here is that we are in different time zones and it makes it easier.

Would we could try on a one-off is a 48 hour window, you can place your vote at any time privately but you can never change it. 

[Naitch]

Yeah when I've narrated real life Werewolves games I've allowed open discussion for a bit and then called a vote, which almost always ended in a majority decision. Certainly worth trying out for an online game.

[nihilist]

Maybe the day period could just be a discussion period without anybody casting votes, and once that's closed, there's a 24 hour window to privately PM your vote to the game runner, or post a vote in the game thread without any further comment (I think we've done that in one game, although which one escapes my memory ATM). 

[Neil_1113]

How do we feel, as a whole, about a inactive no lynch component? In other words if we can't come to a consensus for a lynch, then the person with the least amount of posts at that point will be lynched? How well do you think that would be received?

As a mechanic for a game, not a rule of course *

[DYSI]

Seems to be punishing players who may have busier regular lives or something going on that doesn't allow them to post as regularly as they'd like. Things come up and sometimes mafias get put on the back burner. 

 

Also I could see people just posting the bare minimum to meet the requirements and screw someone else over who may have posted a long drawn out response with their theories. 

 

I wouldn't be for it personally. 

[Mx. Canadian Destroyer]

I think it's up to the game runner to decide how to proceed. 

[Naitch]

On 13/11/2020 at 14:46, Neil_1113 said:

How do we feel, as a whole, about a inactive no lynch component? In other words if we can't come to a consensus for a lynch, then the person with the least amount of posts at that point will be lynched? How well do you think that would be received?

As a mechanic for a game, not a rule of course *

Give it a shot when your game comes up. I have the same reservations about it as DYSI but it's worth testing out in practice. That's how we worked out which phase lengths seem to work the best.

[Azazel]

I chose picking from people with no votes (followed by whoever has the most votes).  Voting is the point of the day phase so people who do not put votes down are just stalling the game out.

[Gongsun Zan]

I think for a while I was attached to the idea of Vigs/SKs that could only kill people with low post counts. But it never really worked too well because they just ended up getting killed early on. =\

[Marcos]

If I was looking to run another mafia-style game named Secret Hitler, would there be any interest?  It's very similar to Mafia but with less 'night abilities' so would be more down to deduction and questioning than anything else.

Basically up to ten players are split into two teams, liberals and fascists with the fascist group also containing the Hitler role.  Hitler is known to the fascists but Hitler doesn't know the fascists (in fames with 7 players+). 

Each round, one player becomes president (set rota for who becomes president, with the president then nominating a player for Chancellor.  All players will then vote Yes or No to the proposed Chancellor and if a majority vote yet, that becomes the sitting government.  From there the president gets three policy cards which are either a liberal or fascist policy, the president then secretly removes a card before giving the remaining cards to the Chancellor who will then pick the chosen policy to be enacted.  

Game ends when either five liberal policies or six fascist policies have been enacted, with the players in the party winning if that happens.  However, after a certain number of fascist policies are passed, the standing president can win the game for the liberals if they assisinate Hitler, or the fascists can win if Hitler is electer Chancellor.  

Full details can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Hitler

If there was interest I do have two questions:

1) Should this be played in the Mafia section or the main Cube section?

2) Should it be added to the Mafia Waiting List rather than me jumping in with a game that could take people away from the next mafia game?