wD Mafia Master Post

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 20, 2024 10:50 pm

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:

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:43 pm
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:

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:48 pm
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:

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:52 pm
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:

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:59 pm
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:

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:05 pm
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:

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 8:44 pm
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.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 20, 2024 10:28 pm

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

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Mon May 20, 2024 9:12 pm

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.

by **brainbomb** » Mon May 20, 2024 8:44 pm

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.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Mon May 20, 2024 8:16 pm

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?"

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Mon May 20, 2024 8:14 pm

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.

by **Chaqa** » Mon May 20, 2024 8:09 pm

It is very rare I find myself in completely agreement with brainbomb, but this is one of those times. I have run enough games and I believe people know my character enough to know that anything that has been done has been done with good reasons and sparingly.

by **brainbomb** » Mon May 20, 2024 8:03 pm

I think there is just so much misunderstanding happening here. As well as assumptions. Ive never adopted a hard line stance that if some player has been vt too many times in a row I would deliberately alter that to force them to be mafia. I dont pick individual battles within a rand to decide something. I couldnt give you an example but there has never been a game I ran on webdip where the outcome was flawed, the players felt the game was rigged, ect.

Were there ever games where people made assumptions about what the rand was? of course. Lots of people have assumed things over the years, and they never once were accurate in their assumptions. The goal is that the exact result is not predictable and beyond the setup being unpredicatable, or broken by some unforseen mechanic, the players usually try to not game the GM or the rand.

Part of the mutual respect between player and GM is knowing what is manipulating the rand, and knowing when the GM must do something to minorly tweak what would be a problematic situation. I dont agree with taking that level of direction and administration away from a GM. At the end of the day the GM has to make the game fair.

Lets dive deeper into an example of things I have never done just so you are clear.

I have never altered the result of a rand purely because someone who is a notorious low poster would end up as that role. I recall many games where I randed and one had a lurker with infractions from the kouncil as PR in all three. I didnt alter the result purely because he randed PR. Now, there could be a logical argument for that the GM SHOULD alter that result. If someone has lurked SO many times, and has been modkilled numerous times, it is detrimental and unfair to town and to the rand to delegate that person to be a PR which may have to be subbed. If you know there may be an issue, I would argue you as the GM SHOULD be allowed to alter that rand. You want a quality game, one with less need for GM intervention later.
That being said, ive never done what is described above. But I can tell you that the desire to do so would be strong.

by **dargorygel** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:54 pm

FWIW... or maybe more than that...
While I agree with Balki's concerns about manipulation, I am fairly sure that I have never seen this being abused. I think I have GM'ed OR Co-GMed at the top end of numbers in here.

I would never have stood for (as Kouncil or player) a 'favorite' mentality. I would never have stood for (as Kouncil or player) a "try to make it completely perfectly balanced' mentality.

If some have been softer on this in the past, let's do better.

(Captain meme aside)

by **foodcoats** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:51 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:05 pm
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 you. Changing roles is cheating and GMs should not be allowed to do it, or should state they will not be assigning roles randomly.

by **Chaqa** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:37 pm

For what it's worth, one player continually rolling the same role is not a reason I have or would re-roll for. There are very few specific things that constitute a re-roll in my eyes, such as what I'll call "woops, all new players"

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:32 pm

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:25 pm

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

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:04 pm

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.
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.
This system im describing would be a way for the GM to avoid repetitive rands you described above : flum pr seven games in a row, durga vt seven games in a row. You could rand three options and choose one that doesnt have the same ppl always being pr

You are missing my point. I don't care if Fluminator is a PR every time if he is assigned those roles randomly. I do care if it isn't random. And I care if there is a game where you are the GM, and I can assume that someone who has been getting a same role a lot won't be that role in your game because you are trying to "avoid repetitive rands."

by **brainbomb** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:25 pm

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

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:04 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:59 pm
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.
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.

This system im describing would be a way for the GM to avoid repetitive rands you described above : flum pr seven games in a row, durga vt seven games in a row. You could rand three options and choose one that doesnt have the same ppl always being pr

by **Chaqa** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:09 pm

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

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:04 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:59 pm
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.
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.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:07 pm

Chaqa wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 7:04 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:59 pm
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.

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.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:05 pm

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.

by **Chaqa** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:04 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:59 pm
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.

by **Chaqa** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:03 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:56 pm

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:53 pm
the result is still random, im just allowed to see a spread of possibilites and choose one. I dont find that to be a flawed way to do things.
Truly, the fact that you think this is not flawed (i.e., randing three times and picking your favorite) is a big concern.

I believe that the whole point of the game is trying to sort alignments that were distributed randomly. I don't want to play: "would brainbomb like this alignment distribution if it were one of his three options?"

Frankly this has never been a problem until now, but I suspect that this is one of those "we don't talk about Bruno" situations where it's common but unspoken. Someone already mentioned the time Captainmeme handpicked roles.

by **Chaqa** » Mon May 20, 2024 7:02 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:28 pm
Just a quick rule clarification coming out of a post-game discussion from M88:

I think it is important that role assignment be 100% random. There should be zero room for any GM to have any input at all, including re-randomizing roles after they've been randomized once.

Curious to know if there are any alternative views on this point.

Brain has already posted my views on this. I don't believe GMs should be handpicking who plays what, but I view it as part of the job of the GM to ensure a game will be fun, and that may be include re-rolling if the assignments look like they will lead to an un-fun or combative environment.

by **brainbomb** » Mon May 20, 2024 6:59 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:56 pm

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:53 pm
the result is still random, im just allowed to see a spread of possibilites and choose one. I dont find that to be a flawed way to do things.
Truly, the fact that you think this is not flawed (i.e., randing three times and picking your favorite) is a big concern.

I believe that the whole point of the game is trying to sort alignments that were distributed randomly. I don't want to play: "would brainbomb like this alignment distribution if it were one of his three options?"

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.

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