wD Mafia Master Post

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:58 pm

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 3:46 pm
if a gm wants to run a game where they hand pick roles and there is no RNG that should absolutely be allowed if its part of the games theme. like an all stars game or something unique. Or a role madness or a upick. I think if you force a must always be 100% RNG rule you eliminate tons of game concepts and water everything down to just being a robot doing it all.

I will hard defend to the death the right to have unique setups with unique randing options. and as long as the GM announces it, and lets people know, this should never be illegal at all

If that is made clear as a part of the setup, it would be for the Council to approve, so it would be acceptable if they ruled it to be so.

by **brainbomb** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:46 pm

if a gm wants to run a game where they hand pick roles and there is no RNG that should absolutely be allowed if its part of the games theme. like an all stars game or something unique. Or a role madness or a upick. I think if you force a must always be 100% RNG rule you eliminate tons of game concepts and water everything down to just being a robot doing it all.

I will hard defend to the death the right to have unique setups with unique randing options. and as long as the GM announces it, and lets people know, this should never be illegal at all

by **brainbomb** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:43 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

I fundamentally disagree that GMs should tell players they shouldnt sign up. As a GM you want players. and you also want to give benefit of the doubt. but at the end of the day you DO want players and you dont want to create a rule set that excludes certain players you dont trust as far as lurking. Just because you think someone might flake, doesnt mean they will. you have to give people a chance, and being able to maintain game integrity in my example above means keeping a short leash on a situation. The fundamental aspect of the game is that the players expect the game to not be totally obliterated by some psycho.

I recall this issue happening unexpectedly with a mafia team where a disgruntled player wanted out of the game with sabi and others, and started naming off their mafia teammates and outting specific people they had beef with from mafia chat. I think demonRHK had to suffer through this.

The gm should be allowed to protect their games. We wait literal fucking months in a queue to get to run a game. we go through relentless oversight to approve our setups. we make tireless write ups of flavour and rules documents. We strive to consider every role interaction some role in the game may have. We are protective of OUR games. they are not some ROBOTS game, they are OUR games. We will defend them from anything that might just ruin the game and even when we do strive to protect them, people still can cause damage.

I have never told a person they cant play. new or old. er actually I surely told jamie he couldnt play once because he was annoying me. But the point is, you can sign up but im not gonna let you ruin my game if I think I can mitigate possiblity of damage. bear in mind only under most extreme of circumstances have I ever done this in this way, and perplexity I stand by that decision especially seeing that my judgement was right.

by **Chaqa** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:41 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm
I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.
This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).
For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

So essentially you think it would be better to cap the number of new players that can join a game rather than throw out the roll and re-roll in the exceedingly rare event all 3-4 new players roll mafia?

by **damo666** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:38 pm

@brain I don't think you should do 3 rands and pick one. This brings in an element of choice.

Rand once and if deemed unsatisfactory (like you cited), reroll, repeat.

by **brainbomb** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:35 pm

reviewing the game itself, lfischl as an example, who ALSO had subbed out alot, and had been a serial lurker who had even been sanctioned was randed as PR and no alteration was made to that. This should serve as evidence that the GM would only make a reroll or adjustment or throw out a sample in the most extreme of cases.

There was no handpicking or anything else that happened in M67.

Just one final note on that,

Perplexity
Profile Information

Banned

this person is also banned from webdip as well so please trust my judgement!

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:34 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm
I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.
This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).

For what it’s worth, I would much prefer complete randomization of role assignments over adjustments of this kind. The kinds of issues Chaqa brings up here, in my view, should be managed by who is allowed into the game, if at all.

I think that the best rule is that, if a GM allows a player into a game, that player can be assigned any role or be paired with any other player with equal odds as anyone else. I feel like this hat is a foundational aspect of the game, and learning that it does not apply here would change the way I approach the game.

by **brainbomb** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:29 pm

in M67 I did throw out a rand because of a particular player named Perplexity.

This individual had character issues on other mafia forums, was notorious for singing up for games and then flaking out. They had previously had to sub out of games on webdip as well for random reasons.

My first rand indicated they would be an important PR for town, and given their problematic past I did not feel comfortable having the game and its integrity or balance be based upon someone with alot of problems.

As fate would have it, the reroll randed them as a VT. And again this is not something I normally care about but as the GM I did not feel comfortable putting them as anything but a VT.

1. lfischl

2. hamilton brian

3. rdrivera2005

4. ghuggles

5. gimix

6. Chaqa

7. Perplexity

8. worcej

9. Macca573 (they/them)
10. Hellenic Riot
11. e.m.c

12. Vecna

13. foodcoats

14. DemonRHK

15. damo

16. celaph

17. President Eden

This game featured many lurkers, and many players who are always at risk for sub outs. but most of my concerns were about one specific individual.

During the game Perplexity began behaving strangely.
He was modkilled by me for rule violations listed below:

GM NOTE:
Perplexity was a vt who decided to share role pm to another player on discord. There will be additional discussion post game. Perplexity had asked for a sub and we were working on getting a sub. They decided to violate our rules in the most inappropriate way instead. You cannot share your role to another player in the game.

Perplexity sent several players screenshots of their role PM

because I anticipated this person COULD be a problem, I opted as the GM to produce a rand with this person adjusted to cause the least harm to the game itself due to their past history. My judgement here turned out to be true, and this player in the most disturbing ways possible, tried to damage the game itself.

Because he wasnt mafia goon, nor PR, the damage to the game itself was somewhat mitigated.

by **brainbomb** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:17 pm

M41 Civ V Mafia was a role madness game in which the roles chosen to be in the game were randomized, and the way the roles were distributed were entirely random as well.

Evidence being that bozotheclown was town aligned but got the role Strongman, which is generally only useful for mafia. This setup was unique, there was no reason for any adjustments of any kind. Some players in the game were new, but in this setup everyone was a PR.

1. doubtingthomas - Confirmed
2. Nephthys - Confirmed
3. Squigs44 - confirmed
4. nd - confirmed
5. xorxes - confirmed
6. worcej - Confirmed
7. DrCJG - Confirmed
8. crimsonfox - confirmed veggie eater
9. Jamiet99uk - Confirmed
10. damo666 - confirmed
11. bozo - confirmed
12. Ghug confirmed
13. rdrivera2005 - confirmed
14. Ezio confirmed
15. Vecna - confirmed
16. DemonRHK - Confirmed
17. Foxcastle - Confirmed
18. Ike -confirmed
19. dargorygel- confirmed
20. lord quas - confirmed

The actual issues with this game were not related to the RAND at all. the GM made a few mistakes in the game, namely accidentally sharing worcejs messages as the serial killer to ragingike instead of to the god chat. Ike saw them and had to be subbed out because I didnt delete the screen shot in time. At this point durga subbed in as a mafia member into ikes place.

Later in the game, players were talking about the game in a general discussion during a phase, and I posted a rules clarification that there was a possibility a serial killer was in the setup. And I should not have done this unprompted, because then it caused people to start thinking there might be one in play.

The game was pretty fun, swingy as all role madness games are, but it wasnt bastard. And the mafia team itself was random, as was the roles and who got them. I dont recall if I did a spread of three for that game but I am quite certain based on who was randed as what that I literally just rolled once and just went with it.

So this is just some insights into a specific game where I am quite certain I didnt manipulate anything to anyones dislike based on current tone of the topics.

by **foodcoats** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:06 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm
I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.
This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).

No, in this instance the correct GM adjudication is to assign foodcoats as the Vigilante so he can shoot damo within the first five minutes.

by **foodcoats** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:05 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm
I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

Good to know brain and Jamie are never paired scum in your games.

But seriously, thank you for sharing this. I see the logic in your reasoning and agree with those rulings, and it is helpful to get this kind of insight in case I GM again. I think this fits into the framework Jaime proposed and this furthers my support for that guideline.

(I think in your first hypothetical there might be an opportunity for a ban, as such a player sounds harmful to the community, but that's a different story, I guess...)

by **damo666** » Tue May 21, 2024 3:01 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm
I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).

by **Chaqa** » Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm

I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

by **foodcoats** » Tue May 21, 2024 2:36 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:16 pm

foodcoats wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:03 pm

sweetandcool wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 1:07 pm

I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...
I don't mind if GMs want to tailor setups according to specified, open criteria, but I find it very odd that GMs feel comfortable claiming the setup is random when they are secretly adjusting it. That is being dishonest towards the players and treating them as objects to be manipulated according to their personal whims and biases rather than as subjective players of a game with stated rules.

There's a good axiom for the GMs of tabletop RPGs: "If there's a dice result you wouldn't be comfortable with, don't roll the dice." I think that if a Mafia GM feels that a random role distribution needs to be modified, or that they need to hand pick parts of the setup to get a "good game," they should be comfortable sharing that modification with the players. If they're not, maybe they should ask themselves why they want to keep it secret - and maybe they'll realize it's not a good reason, or that there's a better way to go about getting the outcomes they are hoping for.
I've highlighted in green the section of this I think is mischaracterizing what at least I am saying. I have never adjusted a setup, but I have completely re-rolled (aka still random) the setup. It's no different than if I accidentally double clicked the randomize button and wiped away the first one on accident.

Re: Tabletop GMing (which I have done for close on a decade now), I do agree with that axiom in general, but I don't think it applies in mafia. I worry you are misunderstanding motivation and the reason we do things.

For example, hand-picking the roles for a semi-open setup is not done because randomness is the goal, it is done because semi-open setups disallow town to force a mechanical sole state via mass claiming.

I don't think I am mischaracterizing the situation. Adjust means to "alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result." The situation you are describing is one where you wanted to slightly alter the random result in order to achieve a fit you envisioned. Perhaps you didn't hand pick a role, but it seems you are dancing around the fact that you deliberately took someone out of a role.

Putting aside semi-open setups, because that has not been the main thrust of the discussion: I agree that randomness is not the goal in role distribution. Fairness is the goal. Everyone has biases, and randomness helps ensure fairness in role distribution. In the above, what was the basis of your vision? Was it fair?

I'm willing to be wrong. Can you give a detailed and concrete example?

by **Chaqa** » Tue May 21, 2024 2:16 pm

foodcoats wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 2:03 pm

sweetandcool wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 1:07 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 12:54 pm

As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.
I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...
I don't mind if GMs want to tailor setups according to specified, open criteria, but I find it very odd that GMs feel comfortable claiming the setup is random when they are secretly adjusting it. That is being dishonest towards the players and treating them as objects to be manipulated according to their personal whims and biases rather than as subjective players of a game with stated rules.

There's a good axiom for the GMs of tabletop RPGs: "If there's a dice result you wouldn't be comfortable with, don't roll the dice." I think that if a Mafia GM feels that a random role distribution needs to be modified, or that they need to hand pick parts of the setup to get a "good game," they should be comfortable sharing that modification with the players. If they're not, maybe they should ask themselves why they want to keep it secret - and maybe they'll realize it's not a good reason, or that there's a better way to go about getting the outcomes they are hoping for.

I've highlighted in green the section of this I think is mischaracterizing what at least I am saying. I have never adjusted a setup, but I have completely re-rolled (aka still random) the setup. It's no different than if I accidentally double clicked the randomize button and wiped away the first one on accident.

Re: Tabletop GMing (which I have done for close on a decade now), I do agree with that axiom in general, but I don't think it applies in mafia. I worry you are misunderstanding motivation and the reason we do things.

For example, hand-picking the roles for a semi-open setup is not done because randomness is the goal, it is done because semi-open setups disallow town to force a mechanical sole state via mass claiming.

by **foodcoats** » Tue May 21, 2024 2:03 pm

sweetandcool wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 1:07 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 12:54 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 7:24 am

But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn
As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.
I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...

I don't mind if GMs want to tailor setups according to specified, open criteria, but I find it very odd that GMs feel comfortable claiming the setup is random when they are secretly adjusting it. That is being dishonest towards the players and treating them as objects to be manipulated according to their personal whims and biases rather than as subjective players of a game with stated rules.

There's a good axiom for the GMs of tabletop RPGs: "If there's a dice result you wouldn't be comfortable with, don't roll the dice." I think that if a Mafia GM feels that a random role distribution needs to be modified, or that they need to hand pick parts of the setup to get a "good game," they should be comfortable sharing that modification with the players. If they're not, maybe they should ask themselves why they want to keep it secret - and maybe they'll realize it's not a good reason, or that there's a better way to go about getting the outcomes they are hoping for.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Tue May 21, 2024 1:56 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:28 pm
Just a quick rule clarification...

by **sweetandcool** » Tue May 21, 2024 1:07 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 12:54 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 7:24 am

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:09 pm

I think you are looking at the trees instead of the forest here. I am also curious to hear others' opinions on it. For me it is just a way to ensure a game doesn't turn into a dumpster fire immediately if we had for example a mafia team made up of all people who had never played before.
But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn
As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.

I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...

by **Chaqa** » Tue May 21, 2024 1:01 pm

Honestly I find this conversation tiring. We run games because we enjoy seeing the interesting outcomes of the setups we make. There is no personal gain to be had, no money to be made, and no incentive to play favorites. The incentive is to create a fun and un-scuffed environment and I feel we as GMs have done this well over the past 10+ years.

by **Chaqa** » Tue May 21, 2024 12:54 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2024 7:24 am

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:09 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:07 pm

I don't feel great about it. It makes me think back to some things that happened over and over again in games I recall playing here (e.g., Fluminator was always a PR, demonoverlord was always VT).

I am surprised that I seem to be the only person who thinks this is a problem.
I think you are looking at the trees instead of the forest here. I am also curious to hear others' opinions on it. For me it is just a way to ensure a game doesn't turn into a dumpster fire immediately if we had for example a mafia team made up of all people who had never played before.
But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn

As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.

wD Mafia Master Post

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post