Mafia Capital (WWC XI): Important Info Here -- READ OPENING POSTS!

[Snowblaze]

I said no further questions.

*sigh* I guess I'm destined never to get answers, then. That's very annoying. (It can only be either a mistake or just Xihirli being Xihirli. I have no clue which.)

[gac3]

*sigh* I guess I'm destined never to get answers, then. That's very annoying. (It can only be either a mistake or just Xihirli being Xihirli. I have no clue which.)

I just hope I get that kind of chaos in my game. It'll be great

[JeenLeen]

I just hope I get that kind of chaos in my game. It'll be great

If you prefer low chaos, one rule I thought of implementing if I ever run a game is something like "at max, 3 active QuickTopics between players". Mainly to prevent something like AvatarVecna's thing where she PMed everybody, which would seem overwhelming for a DM. It also seems plausible in many games' narrative, as while it makes sense you could get in private talks with a couple people in a crowd where everyone suspects the others of murder, it also makes sense you couldn't manage a lot of private conversations without drawing attention.

The cap of 3 would exclude the QuickTopic between the GM and player, or the wolfchat one for the wolves. Just can only be involved in 3 extra QuickTopics max.

edit: to make sure I was clear, that would mean, for example, AV could only be involved in three QuickTopics at any given time. So if she wanted to get a new one, she'd need to wait until someone she was in conversation with died OR formally end conversing with one person.

I've considered running a game, but the hurtle of managing all those QuickTopics is a large one to me. Plus getting consistent time online during the weekend and nights.

[Grek]

To me, Mafia is at its heart a game about an uninformed majority vying against an informed minority. If you alter that basic formula so that the majority is informed or the minority has dangerously false information, you're no longer playing Mafia.

In Corporate WW, a combination of Town power roles created an unbeatable tactic where the CEO's Child (or some other trusted Townie) solicits claims vs PMs and directs the lynches accordingly, making it so that the Town has more information than the Wolves. In Red Atlantic Cruise, a neutral was inserted into both Wolf factions with the knowledge of every Wolf at the start of the game and an explicit anti-Wolf objective. You may rest assured that there are design decisions in Spongebob Mafia which I feel are equally unacceptable, even if I won't get into the specifics due to it being an ongoing game.

I have no particular reason to believe that future game setups will be any more Mafia-like than the three I've already tried, and as a result I am no longer willing to play games advertised as Mafia on this site. If you ever decide to run an actual game of traditional Mafia, feel free to PM me an invite, but I'm not going to sign up for random games in recruiting when I have every reason to suspect that they're just Mafia-in-name-only.

[Valmark]

In Red Atlantic Cruise, a neutral was inserted into both Wolf factions with the knowledge of every Wolf at the start of the game and an explicit anti-Wolf objective.

Actually, in RAC we were almost all Town- I think JeenLeen was the only Neutral. It was two Town factions that needed to destroy each other's leaders, plus some more unaffiliated Town, a Neutral and a Wolf that was infiltrated in both Town faction (and thus knew about everything- she played us almost flawlessly).

So the basic premise IS respected: the Wolf knew everything and was in position to manipulate both factions, while the Town had little info on their enemy, same thing for the Neutral. The two Town Factions didn't even have the certainty to be able to trust each other (and there was indeed a mole). The only false information was the priority kill system. Though, no one asked so we weren't actually lied to.

[gac3]

To me, Mafia is at its heart a game about an uninformed majority vying against an informed minority. If you alter that basic formula so that the majority is informed or the minority has dangerously false information, you're no longer playing Mafia.

In Corporate WW, a combination of Town power roles created an unbeatable tactic where the CEO's Child (or some other trusted Townie) solicits claims vs PMs and directs the lynches accordingly, making it so that the Town has more information than the Wolves. In Red Atlantic Cruise, a neutral was inserted into both Wolf factions with the knowledge of every Wolf at the start of the game and an explicit anti-Wolf objective. You may rest assured that there are design decisions in Spongebob Mafia which I feel are equally unacceptable, even if I won't get into the specifics due to it being an ongoing game.

I have no particular reason to believe that future game setups will be any more Mafia-like than the three I've already tried, and as a result I am no longer willing to play games advertised as Mafia on this site. If you ever decide to run an actual game of traditional Mafia, feel free to PM me an invite, but I'm not going to sign up for random games in recruiting when I have every reason to suspect that they're just Mafia-in-name-only.

For the record, I have a few points.

First, the CEO child wasn't even what messed with the balance of the first game. It was AV with a power play. One that was intended on making the game more exciting.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Red Atlantic Cruise was a single well informed wolf implanted into two neutral parties.

As for SpongeBob, we should wait to see how it turns out.

I will suggests you try more. The one before the corporate one was far more traditional in roles and style. The wolves ended up slaughtering in that. I personally believe that while I have some twists in store, I believe the inherent values you are seeking will be in tact.

[AvatarVecna]

All I'm saying publicly about Spongebob for the moment is that it's holding closer to this basic premise than Grek is giving it credit for. I've gone into more detail on that in the SSS dead-chat, so those that die will have some explanation of what's going on.

[Caerulea]

In Red Atlantic Cruise, a neutral was inserted into both Wolf factions with the knowledge of every Wolf at the start of the game and an explicit anti-Wolf objective.

If Xihirli died day 1, then everyone else would have won, to some degree. Everyone else was town, and there was one wolf who knew the distribution of alignments.

[Grek]

I thought about arguing over the specific minutiae of whether or not these setups were valid, but the fact that none of you think there was problem with them is proof enough for me that whatever it is you're running, I don't want it. Feel free to carry on without me, but I'm not interested and I expect this sort of nonsense is why the Mafia subforum is so very dead.

[Valmark]

I meant to ask- why is the mafia subforum considered dead when the first game I've seen had 20+ players? (Although one of them was almost completely absent)

I red AV's Spongebob game and it looks pretry straightforward? Aside from the fact that one of the wolves shared their own QT publicly so I'm assuming that Town is pretty much assured to win (on that note, the link is still there. Though at this point I don't think it matters all that much).


Not that I want to say that what you're saying doesn't make sense (to ME it doesn't, but it's a matter of opinions) but if by talking we can get to find a solution that works I think it's probably better to have one more player then not?

[Xihirli]

Actually, in RAC we were almost all Town- I think JeenLeen was the only Neutral. It was two Town factions that needed to destroy each other's leaders, plus some more unaffiliated Town, a Neutral and a Wolf that was infiltrated in both Town faction (and thus knew about everything- she played us almost flawlessly).

Fixed it. I'm still playing the long game; I assure you you didn't do anything I didn't plan for.

[Valmark]

...that means you outed yourself on purpose to get lynched?

That is a plan I'll never understand. Assuming you knew about who had the night kill priority each night- 'cause if you didn't then you indeed survived by luck and not planning.

Though the kill not working indeed helped us get the total win, so I can't complain being used.

[AvatarVecna]

I meant to ask- why is the mafia subforum considered dead when the first game I've seen had 20+ players? (Although one of them was almost completely absent)

Compared to where it once was, it kinda is, but far less than it was previously. When I first joined years ago, 20+ person games were the norm (as opposed to the 13ish we're averaging so far), there was always one game recruiting, with 1-3 games running (depending on how long they ran), and the waiting list to start running your own game was usually a few months long - there was almost always a half-dozen people already signed up to run something.

Compare that to 5 months ago, when this chat got its first activity in over a year with all the old veterans crawling out of the woodwork to wax nostalgically about the way things used to be, and the vicious cycle where games that start don't get enough players, so fewer people start games, so fewer people check the subforum for new games, so even fewer games that start get enough players, and so on. This thread had been dead for a year prior to that, with a few of the older players having abandoned this forum almost entirely in the interim.

...but that was 5 months ago. For the last four months, we've had at least one game either recruiting or playing constantly, and we're just now getting to the point where we have one game recruiting constantly (so multiple games semi in-the-air), and there's four more games in the pipeline awaiting their recruitment-start. Every game in those four months has had fresh faces joining the community, and some of them have been sticking around.

The only additional thing I'll say is that this community wasn't dead because of weird games, it was dead because of toxic members of the community - with testimony in this very chat from both veteran players and people who were new to Mafia at the time saying that it kinda turned them away from the subforum. I think it's unfortunate that Grek has ended up getting the short end of the stick three games in a row due to people pulling weird gambits, but with the way they've responded to it, I can't say I'm sad to see them go. They're welcome to continue playing in games, of course, and certainly I couldn't bar them from doing so even if I wanted to, but I think that blaming three narrators for designing **** games when the games went sideways due to player gambits, and ascribing this to a moral failing within the community as a whole...well, it's not an attitude I'm particularly interested in fostering.

I wish Grek good luck in finding Mafia games more suited to their tastes.

[Xihirli]

...that means you outed yourself on purpose to get lynched?

No further questions!

[Valmark]

To be fair, from what I've gathered the Spongebob game indeed has something that strays from her idea (as I understood it) beyond player's actions and I can't judge the Corporate game 'cause I'm not about to read that many pages to understand.

Though I'd never say that they were bad games- only that I can understand her reason for them not suiting her tastes. I had a great deal of fun with Red Cruise, so I could never claim that.

Not gonna judge on the reasons for player activity- all the things you said happened before I entered this section, so I can only comment the current activity. Which doesn't look dead at all.

No further questions!

Eh, don't worry, didn't search for an answer, it was more to indicate the tone of voice.

[Grek]

I don't particularly consider it a moral failing. More a disagreement on personal tastes. I think that classic open setups are classics for a reason, that weird gambits are only fun for the person pulling the weird gambit. Two out of the three of the games I've played on this forum have been deconstructions of the classic setup, and in my personal opinion not very well executed subversions.

I've already PM'd Valmark with my objections to the setup for Spongebob Mafia, but for reference here are my objections to the other two games:

Corporate WW had three things which can't really go together in a Mafia game: Open PMing (which is standard on Giant and part of pretty much every setup), a Confirmed Town Role (CEO's Child, which had the ability to have the Narrator announce their role and Town Status as a day power) and a Full Open Setup (where all of the possible roles are posted in advance with no 'unfilled' roles to be used as fake claims). This allows the Confirmed Town Role to break the game by having all players PM them a role claim.

We had 11 Town and 4 Wolves. If the CEO's Child had demanded claims, it would have resulted in (at most) 4 Wolves fake claiming a Town role, 4 Town counter-claiming a Town role and 7 Town roles who knew tha they were all Town, were in a network with one another, and knew that they were all Town. This didn't end up happening because oblivionkeeper7 was a new player and didn't realize it, but AvatarVecna did basically this same thing on D2 which inevitably won the Town the game. I pointed out this problem in the scumchat on D1, right after learning that open PMing was standard on Giant. It did not get fixed.

Red Atlantic Cruise had 19 players. There is some debate over who counts as a Wolf vs who counts as a Neutral, so I'm going to use T, M, S1, S2, and P as the faction names. It featured:

Spoiler: Setup

Show

Faction T: Started out with 8/19 players and very little starting information. Wins when Faction M dies, but was not informed of their win condition and were left to guess whether killing the Madman was enough or if there were (as hinted at) additional Wolves to deal with. They were also not informed that there were spies and were told to 'try random things' like voting to lynch the Narrator, electing a Mayor or attempting to use night abilities regardless of whether they had been informed of any night abilities. While they certainly were uninformed, they were an uninformed minority - there were 1.4 times as many non-"Town" as there were "Town".

Faction M: Single player (1/19) who is simultaneously in the faction chat for S1 and S2 and knows the identity and alignment of everyone in the S factions. Has the ability to communicate with both, has a nightkill and the ability to make the Narrator say arbitrary things once per Day and once per Night. Also: everyone who votes for them dies if they are lynched. Wins when everyone dies.

Faction S1 & S2: Two mirrored factions with 4/19 players each. Are told that they are a faction of 5 players (ie. they are each told that the Faction M player is on their team) and start out knowing the identity of everyone in their faction. Has a night kill, a watcher and a medic on team, as well as a 'coordinator' which they must protect. They win if they kill the enemy Coordinator while protecting their own.

Faction N: A neutral role with the ability to scry for Coordinator status and who wants both Coordinators dead prior to their own death or the end of the game. Starts out knowing that there are spies, but not who they are.

This is closer to a traditional mafia game, it you accept that Faction M was the "Wolf" faction and Factions S1, S2 and N were "Neutral" factions, but given that the Town was not informed that lynching the Madman was sufficient to win while both Spy groups were using night kills to blindly attempt to assassinate the enemy Coordinator, the setup was basically very-informed ultra-minority vs informed minority vs informed minority vs very uninformed plurality. When the Town won (and yes, I did win one of these games - don't call it sour grapes or assume I'm mad about losing), it was mostly due to luck. The conclusion was more confusing than satisfying and wasn't (IMO) very good Mafia.

As an aside, I literally have a gender marker right under my name. There is no reason to call me a 'them'.

[gac3]

I always forget the gender marker is a thing. Partially because I only discovered it a couple days ago.

Personally though, I appreciate the open PMing. Some roles and things work better with this. The actual Mafia forum where this is all they do seems to be fine with PMing for the most part. I havent played there but that's how it seems. It adds a layer to the game that can't be done in person. I like that about playing it on the forum.

[Valmark]

What debate was there on Red Ocean Cruise? There was one Wolf, one Neutral and the rest were Town, with two groups of four Town who were direct enemies (we didn't actually needed to kill each other, but by doing so we attained total victory instead of partial)

...also, we won by what's apparently a mistake on the Wolf side, so I'm very satisfied. Though we could argue that we risked losing due to bad luck.

Thinking about it, possibly those in the inside factions had more fun then those outside, thanks to the added challenge.

[Elenna]

For what it's worth, the first two games run here after the hiatus were both very traditional style (apart from allowing PMing, which Grek apparently doesn't consider traditional, although for what it's worth that's always been allowed on this forum, even in the Classic series of games). Actually, while those were running I was thinking that my plan to not tell what roles were in my HP game would be pretty different, although in comparison to the last few games it'll probably be fairly vanilla. I suspect what's happening right now is related to that - multiple people saw a couple traditional style games and thought "Hey, I can vary it up in this cool and interesting way!" and so we got a bunch of non-traditional-setup games all at once.

(Side note: is my game scheduled after gac's game? I've kinda lost track. If so, I may need to push it back a bit as I have an important professional exam mid-March. That's also why I haven't signed up for gac's game, btw.)

I will agree, actually, that the combination of PM's being allowed, all roles being known, and the existence of a guaranteed-town in Corporate WW was pretty game-breaking. Plus IIRC there was also a Baner, which compounds the issue. (I think I commented on this at the time?) But honestly, that's an issue I have with PMs in general - I like them, because they can result in cool plays that aren't possible in IRL games, but also if the narrator doesn't plan for them they can just break the game.

IMO Red Atlantic Cruise did keep the basic idea of Mafia/Werewolf - it wasn't quite the same strategy as a regular game, but then Caerulea said from the start that it wouldn't really be a traditional game, so there was an opportunity to self-select out. (Also, literally everyone except Xihirli was told that a) the Madman was a wolf and b) they needed to lynch the Madman, so I'd say for sure everyone was town, just that some people had extra win conditions). And for what it's worth, I did enjoy it.
My only issue with that game is that finding a single wolf is very hard, since you can't rely on a lot of the usual methods for finding wolves, and it's especially hard when a good chunk of the players think they're allied to the wolf. But winning as a single wolf who wants everyone dead is also very hard, so the difficulty was at least fair. Plus I thought it was an interesting way of ensure the single wolf doesn't get randomly killed D1.

[JeenLeen]

As to Grek's overall concern, I can see designing a game that allows a gambit like AV's move in the Corporate game to be a design flaw. But it is something probably unforeseen. Until that plan was realized, I saw the CEO's Child as a pretty useless role. Now I know not to make a role like that in any game I might potentially run.

I do like the idea of some cap on open PMs, at least for the sanity of the narrator and a limit on my compulsion to try to win. But some amount of secret PMs between players seems kinda fun.

Grek, I found you to be a fun player (in all the games) and difficult adversary (in the games where we were opposed factions). It does sound like the upcoming games are more traditional. We could use players in gac3's, so unless you're really sold on not participating, I'd recommend asking him how traditional vs. non-traditional his game will be. It looks pretty standard, with Town faction, Wolf faction, and some neutrals, but lots of power roles but no clear definition on the power roles. It looks like we won't meet the 20 player limit he has set up, so it's unlikely it'll be a game where all roles are known (e.g., we'll know everyone is 1 of 20 mutants, but if there's just 16 players, there's roles left to claim and we avoid the risk of what happened in the Corporate Game). Sorta like the Wizard's game; I forget if you were in that or not, but the fact that there were 8 wizard roles but only 7 wizards (or whatever the exact numbers were) gave the wolves a good bit of wiggle room when false-claiming.

Fixed it. I'm still playing the long game; I assure you you didn't do anything I didn't plan for.

This actually makes sense to me.

One big flaw (to me at least) in Mafia is that knowing a player gives you an advantage. Those of you who know each other from multiple games know how one normally plays and have a sense of what is normal or abnormal, and thus can use that to distinguish wolfish or non-wolfish behavior. It seems an unfair advantage to experienced players. (On the other hand, the forum tends not to kill new players Day 1 or Night 1, so maybe that balances well enough.)

My guess is that the move that essentially doomed Xihirli to a lynch was either 1) a mistake / strategy that went in an unexpected way OR 2) something to set her up as seen a certain way by the community so that "long game"-wise (e.g., over multiple games) she has better odds of victory.

For me at least, I've tried to make it known that I act "helpful" whether I'm wolf or town. It is honest in that I find posting and speculating fun, and I'd get bored with the game if I wasn't active. But in some games where I was neutral or town, my level of activity made folk think I'm a wolf, so I've tried to disseminate the idea that me acting that way does not necessarily mean I'm a wolf. (It is also helpful that I act that way when I am a wolf, as well.)

Also: everyone who votes for them dies if they are lynched.

To nitpick: this was one of the arbitrary, false things Xihirli had the narrator say. (I realize this nitpick is not particularly helpful relevant to the actual discussion, but it was a point of confusion in the game so I want to clarify.

[Aventine]

I thought about arguing over the specific minutiae of whether or not these setups were valid, but the fact that none of you think there was problem with them is proof enough for me that whatever it is you're running, I don't want it. Feel free to carry on without me, but I'm not interested and I expect this sort of nonsense is why the Mafia subforum is so very dead.

The only additional thing I'll say is that this community wasn't dead because of weird games, it was dead because of toxic members of the community - with testimony in this very chat from both veteran players and people who were new to Mafia at the time saying that it kinda turned them away from the subforum. I think it's unfortunate that Grek has ended up getting the short end of the stick three games in a row due to people pulling weird gambits, but with the way they've responded to it, I can't say I'm sad to see them go. They're welcome to continue playing in games, of course, and certainly I couldn't bar them from doing so even if I wanted to, but I think that blaming three narrators for designing **** games when the games went sideways due to player gambits, and ascribing this to a moral failing within the community as a whole...well, it's not an attitude I'm particularly interested in fostering.

As someone who was there for the slow painful death, AV is more or less accurate. The biggest problem was some lingering philosophical disputes led to pent up frustration that erupted into open *******ry. That's why the subforum is dead, not because a couple games were run in a style you didn't like.

(Also I don't think anyone involved is around any more. The community here is basically developing from scratch.)

For whatever it might be worth: it's one thing to come here and say "hey guys, I'm not a huge fan of the style of game that's been going on here, so I think I'll hold off from playing more." But it's something else entirely to say stuff like "I have no particular reason to believe that future game setups will be any more Mafia-like than the three I've already tried, and as a result I am no longer willing to play games advertised as Mafia on this site. If you ever decide to run an actual game of traditional Mafia, feel free to PM me an invite, but I'm not going to sign up for random games in recruiting when I have every reason to suspect that they're just Mafia-in-name-only."

{Scrubbed}

In any case, I can run a classic-style game if you want (and if nobody else is planning to).

[gac3]

My plan for my game (since it's the first I am running) was to base it heavily on the wards game I started with. The one Grek joined right after. I honestly think she would have approved of that game. I will say that I have two roles planned that might mess with the opinion of it being traditional. One however is reserved for Duck999. They likely won't use it because of real life commitments though. The other is just to add spice if we got a full line up. neither though seems to fall in what Grek would be against.

I agree about experienced players having an advantage because of that. Honestly I have used that already in SpongeBob to make decisions. That said, I think I will advertise the community in my post because I think knowing there is an established community will help encourage people who may feel overwhelmed by that.

[Duck999]

As someone who was there for the slow painful death, AV is more or less accurate. The biggest problem was some lingering philosophical disputes led to pent up frustration that erupted into open *******ry. That's why the subforum is dead, not because a couple games were run in a style you didn't like.

(Also I don't think anyone involved is around any more. The community here is basically developing from scratch.)

As someone who was there but not a part of said disputes, it was a sad thing to watch, and this is a very accurate description.

For whatever it might be worth: it's one thing to come here and say "hey guys, I'm not a huge fan of the style of game that's been going on here, so I think I'll hold off from playing more." But it's something else entirely to say stuff like "I have no particular reason to believe that future game setups will be any more Mafia-like than the three I've already tried, and as a result I am no longer willing to play games advertised as Mafia on this site. If you ever decide to run an actual game of traditional Mafia, feel free to PM me an invite, but I'm not going to sign up for random games in recruiting when I have every reason to suspect that they're just Mafia-in-name-only."

Because of the above, I don't really want to get involved in any argument, but I would like to say that it is important to advertise games well. I don't know the specifics of any of the games, but it is the narrators' responsibility to make sure players know what they're getting into and the players' responsibility to read the OP and know what they're getting into. Since I didn't actually observe any of the games in question, I don't know who is at fault, or if anyone is even at fault at all. Just keep in mind that everyone should know what they're getting into.

Also, a lot of experimentation takes place in games. Sometimes it works amazingly and leads to deep, strategic games. Other times it's the opposite. It happens. I know none of my games have ever been balanced, but everyone knew what they were getting into. On the bright side, if an experimental idea doesn't work out, people learn not to include it in the future and the next game will probably be better.

One however is reserved for Duck999. They likely won't use it because of real life commitments though.

Three cheers for college

[Xihirli]

Have you ever considered that this entire forum is just one big werewolf game, and that I'm the lone wolf wondering why my night-kill powers aren't working?

[Snowblaze]

No, I haven’t, strangely enough. That would be... weird. I can’t quite believe I’m seriously thinking about it. On the RAC thing, after you killed BoP I’m pretty sure there’s no way you could have won. So maybe you just decided to lose your own way rather than the slow and painful way. That makes more sense than some ideas I’ve thought of.

(Also, I now almost want to die in SpongeBob just so I can find out what’s going on.)

[Xihirli]

Don’t worry about it, that’s not the case.

My night-kill powers ARE working.

[JeenLeen]

I am also curious to read that chat log in the Spongebob game after it ends. But it sounds like it's close to ending. I do think that, overall, I'm glad I decided to sit that game out, though.

Don’t worry about it, that’s not the case.

My night-kill powers ARE working.

It would be interesting to see if the rate of new forum members is fast enough to keep the forum populated if one forum member died each night. This could probably be maximized by targeting posters with a certain number of recent posts who have joined not very recently. That way she likely doesn't waste night-kills on people who just joined and might lose interest (or be bots and get banned) or posters who are technically members on the forum but inactive.

But perhaps I shouldn't give murder advice that puts me as one of the likely targets.
On the other hand, with her experience I reckon she already knows the optimal ways to murder and such advice is not needed.

[gac3]

I just realized I'm supposed to be starting my game soon. I kinda figured SpongeBob would be over by now

[AvatarVecna]

I just realized I'm supposed to be starting my game soon. I kinda figured SpongeBob would be over by now

Many people have put forth theories on how they think that game will go. Alas.

[gac3]

Many people have put forth theories on how they think that game will go. Alas.

I still have a few theories for what is going on. I however can't wait to see what happens.