wD Mafia Master Post

[Balki Bartokomous]

And I kind of hate the idea of approaching a new game wondering if I want to play and thinking, "let's see who is the GM, hmmm, I wonder what role that person would prefer that I play?"

[brainbomb]

Are we going to create a culture then of players not willing to sign up unless the GM publishes their exact methods of how they distribute their setup?

I feel like were just creating doubt and retconning a decade of games from this forum, casting doubt on the results of years of games, and throwing shade on tons of GMs because "some people seemed to be VT too often".

if this wasn't an issue for you before, and you didnt feel like you were handpicked as your role in the past, ever, even once. then I think that should be evidence the GMs are doing a good job.

If it removes any concern for anyone not willing to sign up for my game, because they question the integrity of the rand itself, then I am happy to roll just once and just do one rand, and whatever happens, happens.

[Balki Bartokomous]

I'm not trying to question anyone's integrity. I just think it is useful to have a discussion about this rule. I am explaining what I think the rule should be and the reasons supporting my opinion.

[Jamiet99uk]

Give me a few minutes, I have some things to say about this discussion point.

[Jamiet99uk]

Hi everyone. I'm interested to see this discussion arise as it's a long time since it was last talked about.

I feel reasonably well-qualified to chip in here, as I have GM-ed somewhere in the region of 15 games on this site. In those I have had some superstar co-GMs including Dargorygel (several times), Chaqa, Worcej, recent MVP Sweetandcool, and a few others. I have also solo-GMed 3 or 4 times.

My own standard practice, for pretty much all of those games, has been as follows:

1. The allocation of roles (AND the randomisation of which roles will be in the game, in setups where this a factor) should be done randomly, by default.

2. To account for (very unusual) situations in which a totally random roll is likely to lead to a problematically unbalanced game, the GMs (collectively) should have the right to decide that the *entire* setup should be re-rolled from scratch, a maximum of once. The decision to do this should rest with the GM who did *not* do the initial roll. I am getting old, but I do not recall ever having used this option in practice.

3. The GM absolutely should not assign roles to specific people, or otherwise socially engineer the game. This is bastard mod territory and ruins the principles of the game. Wjessop is known to have done this at least once. Do any of us want to be the next Wjessop? I thought not.

Now to address some of the specific points already mentioned by others:

1:

Proposal 11:
All setups must be randomized by a kouncil member to avoid GM involvement in the setups distribution and rng. That kouncil member must not be a player or co gm, or gm in the game, and will not be a sub either.

(if you feel inclined to enforce this standard here is a proposal)

Officially, I would vote nay on this.

STRONG "Nay" on this. It creates too much work for the Kouncil, and it prevents a Kouncil member from playing.

2:

I don't think that any part of the game should be "Would this GM allow this to be the role distribution?" And if it's okay for GMs to influence role assignments, then that's part of the game here.

I understand Balki's concern and feel that we should treat this issue with due care. Random allocation should generally be our goal. Allowing the GM to engineer the assignment of roles should be generally prohibited.

3:

From the other side of the hat, as a GM, I already have stated I always produce three possible rands, and then either choose one of the three or rand which of the three I take.

You do what now?

I don't like this; I think it is flawed. It gives the GM too much influence in how the teams shape up. Don't do it this way, please, Brainbomb.

4:

This would be problematic if I explained the rationale of which of the three I am choosing. I did not explain any rationale. I did not say id choose the one that gives the best game. I did not say id choose one that picks the players I most want to see end up as some role. I simply said I choose one of the three. And there is probably not a person alive who would just accurately guess what I chose or why, because very little thought if any actually goes into any of it. It all is done to the service of the fairest possible option. which is subjective and inexplicable.

The fact that you are choosing at all, is a problem. You should not choose. I'm increasingly siding with Balki here as I read this.

5:

I'd be interested to hear other people weigh in on this. It kind of seems obvious to me that we don't want GMs assigning roles or influencing role assignment based on their ideas of fairness. I think that is inherently unfair, and it's just a different game than forum mafia. I don't want to have to think about whether a GM would put two particular people together in PR roles or scum roles, or whatever else. It's also not fair to players who would prefer to have a random chance of getting any particular role, rather than the role that a GM wants to give them.

I agree with Balki on this.

6:

Are we going to create a culture then of players not willing to sign up unless the GM publishes their exact methods of how they distribute their setup?

What is actually wrong with this? I would support such a culture. The players should be able to have a reasonable expectation that the GM will set up and adjudicate things in a neutral, fair, and transparent manner.

To close: I would support the GM and co-GM being able to re-roll the entire setup a maximum of once, in extreme situations where a truly random roll creates what Chaqa called a "whoops" situation, but otherwise, I am strongly opposed to any kind of GM-allocating-roles approach. The allocation of roles, by default, should be random.

[foodcoats]

To be clear: I am not challenging anyone's character, and I don't think this is any sort of "cheating," especially where you all are explicit about it, as you are. I just think this is a rules question, and we have a different idea about what is the better rule.

My position: I don't think there is any reason at all why a GM should do anything other than an exactly randomized role assignment. I don't think there is a problem to be solved by GM preference here. And I think that making it murky (1) adds a guesswork about GM preference element into the game that isn't desirable and (2) makes it unfair for players who may not get to play certain roles that they would like to play.

Sorry if I made you feel I put the "cheat" in your mouth, Balki. I am saying "cheating" here in the sense that the rules are not being followed, although I believe this is happening with good intentions on the part of those who are doing it. I think those intentions are based on a misguided notion of the GM-as-storyteller rather than the GM-as-referee, and that such a view objectifies players, undermines their agency, and degrades the richness of plurality... but that is probably a philosophical digression for a different time.

I think that if a GM feels they should have the option to adjust the results of a random role assignment, they should specify this in the setup. Jamie has provided a good framework. I think this is important because everyone is playing the game on the basis that the roles are assigned randomly. If they are instead being assigned by GM fiat, it is not the same game.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

Alright here's my opinion on all this:

GMs should have to randomize roles. GMs should not (be able to) handpick who gets what role.
If GMs randomize and there is an obviously problem, such as that the entire scum-team is new players, the GM should completely reroll the setup.
GMs should readily admit that they have rerolled as above after the game is finished.

I believe this provides the best balance by avoiding the extremes of "what role would the GM give X" and crappy scum-teams.

What sayeth damo's hat?

[brainbomb]

I invite anyone in any game of mine to cite an instance where they feel my system created a bastard game.

Please provide exact examples of what you are accusing me of and what you feel in each case created a fraudulent outcome

[brainbomb]

If you can think of any game of mine you played in where you feel the result was bastard we can go to the scoresheet and mark them as no contest.

I have already stated I will randomize the upcoming game with zero gm influence on the semi open roles and on the actual rand. Just a one off roll and let it be.

[brainbomb]

The far more problematic issues with games recently has not been gm rand decisions.

Its been poorly balanced or totally imbalanved setups.

Random new rules being pushed or rescinded at random.

Player numbers dwindling and a council that lacked membership.

Too many role madness setups from gms which kept getting approved despite easy breakable issues

Despite these these things our community is doing very well. Like the gms we have are really passionate and invested.

Be aware that you are advocating your own personal desires to be imprinted on random dice rolls rather than allowing the gm director to be a director. To that point I feel that. Voices on this subject are not being totally transparent like I am. Nor to the extent I am.

Ive never run a bastard game on this forum and if you consider what ive done bastard then please find actual evidence that what ive done previously produced bad games with bastard outcomes.

[Jamiet99uk]

The far more problematic issues with games recently has not been gm rand decisions.

Its been poorly balanced or totally imbalanved setups.

Random new rules being pushed or rescinded at random.

Player numbers dwindling and a council that lacked membership.

Too many role madness setups from gms which kept getting approved despite easy breakable issues

Despite these these things our community is doing very well. Like the gms we have are really passionate and invested.

Be aware that you are advocating your own personal desires to be imprinted on random dice rolls rather than allowing the gm director to be a director. To that point I feel that. Voices on this subject are not being totally transparent like I am. Nor to the extent I am.

Ive never run a bastard game on this forum and if you consider what ive done bastard then please find actual evidence that what ive done previously produced bad games with bastard outcomes.

Calm down, Brain. You are behaving as if you feel you have been personally accused of something. I don't believe that is the case. Balki raised a valid point about GM neutrality and transparency, that's all. Don't take any of this personally. You are a valued member of this community. You don't need to personally defend yourself here.

[brainbomb]

First off dont come flying in here calling my games bastard and my methodology bastard. Show me real examples of bastard games ive run. No backpedalling. No whataboutisms. Prove your talking point that used as toxic of verbiage as possible.

[sweetandcool]

1. I trust the GMs and I trust their discretion.

2. I assume it is pretty rare, but I can understand that in some scenarios the game's assignments are such that concerns arise, such as a Mafia team composed of all new players who have only posted once in forum (bot game? (; ).

If the GMs deem the assignment roll for a game to be degenerate, then I think it is fine if they reroll the entire setup. Rerolling a particular assignment is unacceptable.

3. I would be okay if a rule was made to set the standard that no rerolls (or one reroll in degenerate circumstances) be allowed.

4. We should set some sort of official standard. Because of the integrity of our GMs I don't think we should be draconian about enforcing it and just trust the standard is followed.

[brainbomb]

If you have a single example of a game where you think the game was flawed and you got unfairly treated by all means cite it.

I can call up multiple examples of games where you deliberately used your position to hurt me or screw me over specifically and it wasnt even the rand. Your unfair administration in the game where durga was calling players incels and you gave her a slap on the wrist but then modkilled me for giving someone a +1 as an example.

You applied the letter of the law as a GM in whatever way you wanted when it suited you and wanted to be a kind appeaser in chief until it came to defining the law towards me. That is a classic example of what we should be focused on outlawing - not what a gm randed privately for their own game.

[brainbomb]

I will take your lack of response as capitulation to the toxic and completely ridiculous claims you were making. Now we can move on!

[Chaqa]

Let's all take a breather. I don't think anything has been meant too personally

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

What are the rules about this anyways? It seems like there is a consensus that GMs handpicking players for roles is bad, and randomization is good. "Rerolling" randomized roles is sometimes acceptable. Is there a rule or Kouncil decision that GMs cannot handpick players for roles? I've seen (and read) the official rules doc, but people seem to be referencing other Kouncil decisions. Is there, like, a record of past Kouncil decisions or...?

[FlaviusAetius]

I don't think that any part of the game should be "Would this GM allow this to be the role distribution?" And if it's okay for GMs to influence role assignments, then that's part of the game here.

This so much. There should never be an outside influence leading you to believe one person or another is mafia or not based on the GM's preferences. It should be randomized and always randomized. Some games will have mostly newer players being mafia, and that might lead to an easy game, it might lead to a legendary game out of no where. That's the point of randomness, literally anything could happen. If you love the scenario you concocted so much and want another crack at it because you felt the scenario you created didn't get its full potential, then we can play it again that's the solution to that. The solution is not for GMs to reroll or handpick when the randomness doesn't give them what they want

[FlaviusAetius]

A Mafia game is a production event. There is a cast of characters, a plot, an engine and all things therein run through its director whose first duty is to provide a fun, fair, and high quality game.

I dont think we need more micromanagement into the GMs on this forum. but we have a kouncil who can do those things if people think thats important.

Its bad though when players need to play a different game outside to see what would the GM be deciding here? And now because this scenario has been brought up and so many GMs are willing to reroll, I think there needs to be a rule ensuring there is true randomness and no GM muckery happening

Otherwise that high quality game you want to be playing is forever tainted, and harmed, with a large shadow over it, ruins the whole experience imo.

[FlaviusAetius]

I only think that the game would be better with more oversight now that I know the general sentiments on randomization that you stated and quoted.

How do you feel knowing this has always been how it is, and you were just blissfully unaware?

I don't think it's super common, but it's a tool in the GM's toolbox like any other.

There was only one scenario where handpicking was OK, and that is in a blissfully unaware situation. Now that we know its a possibility, and that people are actually doing it, it taints the game, it can't happen anymore.
Also previously you said "its the GM's job to make sure the game is not a combative environment" or something like this.
What??
That makes no sense at all, the point of randomization is that anything could happen in any one game, that means one game could be full of combativeness and another could have everyone in a field all happy together. If the game's are being tailored, then you've lost the plot