The Mafia Discussion Thread

[naiwf]

This is why I don't play games big enough for there to be lurkers any more. They add a whole new dimension that isn't within the spirit of the game. I like to play with active players, and that's not necessarily guys who post 23,000 posts a game like DPS, just guys that come up with thoughts and suspicions a few times a day phase.

That's a good strategy.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I'd lynch a townie if I think another player is probably (50%+) scum. I would however lean to lynching a probable townie who has played terribly early on regularly, if I can't see a more viable target just to prevent the town from ending up with weaker players holding the cards at the end. Add in that the town usually ends up wasting day phase after day phase wondering about this same player later on and it's just something I prefer to nip in the bud ASAP. There have been plenty of games where the person who should have been lynched 1st or 2nd ends up killing the town because the scum will never eliminate them and can just keep mowing down the bigger threats.

[Pesci]

Yeah, neither do I. I don't mind characters with some sort of restriction, but shit like that doesn't help anybody. To keep their interest you normally have to give them a badass ability as well, which begs the question - what exactly is the restriction there to do? It's obviously not to weaken the town.

EDIT: In reference to Benji.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Pesci

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

All townies are not created equal. A townie who doesn't vote or say anything isn't worth anything, and it's better to eliminate that dead weight early on if you're in a 50/50 situation or worse. If you don't think so, try to win a game where all the townies left are lurkers and let me know how that works out when you can't get enough votes to lynch scum. It does you no good if there are 8 townies, but only 3 are playing against a scum group of 4-5 active players.

And if you had lynched those lurkers instead of other townies and one or two scum, the numbers would just catch up with you that much sooner. It's hard to win a game with lurkers, but it's harder to win a game against more enemies.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Yeah, neither do I. I don't mind characters with some sort of restriction, but shit like that doesn't help anybody. To keep their interest you normally have to give them a badass ability as well, which begs the question - what exactly is the restriction there to do? It's obviously not to weaken the town.

It's fun and zany and that's all that matters to people who don't really understand what designing a game is about.

[naiwf]

All townies are not created equal. A townie who doesn't vote or say anything isn't worth anything, and it's better to eliminate that dead weight early on if you're in a 50/50 situation or worse. If you don't think so, try to win a game where all the townies left are lurkers and let me know how that works out when you can't get enough votes to lynch scum. It does you no good if there are 8 townies, but only 3 are playing against a scum group of 4-5 active players.

And if you had lynched those lurkers instead of other townies and one or two scum, the numbers would just catch up with you that much sooner. It's hard to win a game with lurkers, but it's harder to win a game against more enemies.

My scenarios are for situations where both players are likely townies or one "confirmed" townie who sucks/lurks against someone we have no idea about and are essentially taking a blind swing at. Obviously lynching scum is the way to win, but if given a choice between someone who has made 6 mistakes and is likely to be town versus taking a stab at a better player I have no read on, I'm going to eliminate the guy who is likely to be town just to get the error prone player out of the way. A townie should never be a lynch target 4 or 5 times in a game because they keep coming across as scummy. Think about the number of games where one player is almost lynched in the beginning, and then ends up wearing a bullseye for the rest of the game but doesn't get NK'd because they're providing an excellent shield.

[Pizza]

I get what naiwf is saying. I'd rather lynch townie Nick Adams day 1 instead of day 5. I'd just rather lynch someone I don't have a read on or who I'm suspicious of over someone I'm confident is a townie, even if the townie is a bad player and the moderately suspicious player isn't. Lynching a near certain townie is almost as bad as a no lynch, it's playing not to lose instead of playing to win I feel.

[-A-]

Yeah but the 'I can lead Nick Adams/burninator around by the nose when I'm scum' applies equally when you're town. If I get to endgame with one scum and one impressionable townie I'd hope to be able to persuade him to follow my vote. Yes, bad players are often unpredictable, but good players tend to distrust each other even more so the effect is the same.

[Sousa]

I'm through with gimmick posting requirements just like I'm through with cults. I've had very few experiences where either makes the game more fun.

[DFF]

I think cults can be fun as long as they are not overpowered and they are not the main focus of the game - but there has to be a good reason for them to be there (that last point is more aimed at themed games).

I like the idea of one guy sneaking around trying to recruit people - but its getting the balance right.

Roleposting is an odd one. I'd only really reserve it for something special and, as someone pointed out earlier, give a kick ass ability in return.

Speaking of roleposting, was it Sousa that fake role posted for 90%+ of a game not too long back? Or was it TGC or Cloudy? Hmmm... it was hilarious (and brilliant) nonetheless.

[MalaCloudy Black]

Are you thinking of when Sousa faked the Kizarny roleposting?

[DFF]

Are you thinking of when Sousa faked the Kizarny roleposting?

That might in fact be it.

[Josh]

My totally subjective list of things that should not be in mafia:

- Cults

- Required roleposting

- Beloved princesses

- Jesters

[Sousa]

No hate for death millers?

[DMN in the House]

Norro did it in AVGCM too. Unless that was a safeclaim.

Someone start a new mafia, I want to play.

[Pizza]

Gatekeepers.

I'd be in favour of scrapping the 5 at a time rule for a new game starts every Monday (substitute day of the week here, but you get the idea). It'd improve the waiting list, because people would know exactly when they're scheduled to start, and it'd prevent situations where every game has been going on for a while, some are crawling towards endgame, and some people are dead in every one.

[Josh]

No hate for death millers?

Those too.

[C-MIL]

My idea for the waiting list worked like so...

Establish a set max number of games a person can play, say something like 3. People can sign-up for any game on the list. No more registering a game while you're running though. Once somebody has enough players to start, they can go. If somebody gets killed in one of the games, they can sign-up for another one.

It'd run into the same problem the original poll concept did, that being unproven runners/unpopular themes not getting an opportunity, but if I was looking to play in a new game right away, I'd go for the one closest to being full most likely.

It'd be a pain to moderate, but seeing what RW's done with the league totals and such, certainly not beyond his reach.

[DFF]

Gatekeepers.

I'd be in favour of scrapping the 5 at a time rule for a new game starts every Monday (substitute day of the week here, but you get the idea). It'd improve the waiting list, because people would know exactly when they're scheduled to start, and it'd prevent situations where every game has been going on for a while, some are crawling towards endgame, and some people are dead in every one.

What is a gatekeeper?

[Ruki]

If they make it to end game, they kill everyone and only they win.

[naiwf]

What is a gatekeeper?

A guaranteed way to piss off every player at endgame that is NOT the gatekeeper