wD Mafia Master Post

[brainbomb]

I can tell you from past experiences that I have been in games where I suspected I was not randomly assigned what I ended up with. But I also didnt care, and its quite the accusation to just claim the GM rigged the game right? I dont have any actual proof it happened.

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.

[brainbomb]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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?"

[brainbomb]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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.

[brainbomb]

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.

[Chaqa]

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.

[Chaqa]

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.

[Chaqa]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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.

[Chaqa]

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.

[brainbomb]

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

[Balki Bartokomous]

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."

[Chaqa]

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"

[foodcoats]

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.

[dargorygel]

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)

[brainbomb]

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.

[Chaqa]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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.