wD Mafia Master Post

[foodcoats]

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...)

[foodcoats]

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.

[brainbomb]

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.

[brainbomb]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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.

[brainbomb]

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!

[damo666]

@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.

[Chaqa]

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?

[brainbomb]

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.

[brainbomb]

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

[Jamiet99uk]

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.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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?

No. I don’t actually think it’s a problem to have a mafia team entirely filled by new players or by lurkers or by any other extreme randomization result. I don’t think there is a problem with having players who have failed to get along be on the same team. I’m just saying that if you think there is a problem so severe, then here are better ways to solve it than making the role assignments non random.

That’s my opinion. I don’t really want to spend any time in a game thinking about “would the GM allow this person to be this role or allow these two players to be on the same team?”

[foodcoats]

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?

Just to throw another bit of devilry in here… when I first joined a Mafia game here I asked if there was some kind of newb game I should start with and was told no, don’t worry about it, you’ll figure it out, and I did. I really don’t think it is necessary to wear kid gloves for newbs. But if this is a principle you hold to, just make that clear in your setup.

[foodcoats]

This whole debate is pro-town amirite

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

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.

I will say, this is generally a good idea, although GMs should not adhere to a strict ruleset, and if they do, should not share it. That prevents meta gaming via who the GM is

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

This whole debate is pro-town amirite

This is probably a t v t interaction

[Chaqa]

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?

No. I don’t actually think it’s a problem to have a mafia team entirely filled by new players or by lurkers or by any other extreme randomization result. I don’t think there is a problem with having players who have failed to get along be on the same team. I’m just saying that if you think there is a problem so severe, then here are better ways to solve it than making the role assignments non random.

That’s my opinion. I don’t really want to spend any time in a game thinking about “would the GM allow this person to be this role or allow these two players to be on the same team?”

I think "failing to get along" is a severe understatement of the issue I was avoiding.

Your example of "these two players to be on the same team" is exceedingly rare and I can safely say there are not currently any players who come close to the threshold that was necessary to re-roll the prior example.

[Chaqa]

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?

Just to throw another bit of devilry in here… when I first joined a Mafia game here I asked if there was some kind of newb game I should start with and was told no, don’t worry about it, you’ll figure it out, and I did. I really don’t think it is necessary to wear kid gloves for newbs. But if this is a principle you hold to, just make that clear in your setup.

I don't believe a new player cannot be assigned mafia. KOTP did very well in the game I just ran, and it's very rare we have a game with so many new players.

[brainbomb]

in M28 ND was the GM with me. This was my first game as a co gm, and after the drama and fallout from M20 where I was banned, my ability to be the GM was controversial. ND and I would do video chats to balance the setup and when it came time to rand the setup we had both items and roles to rand. allowing items to stack with certain roles would have created too much imbalance, so the items in play we were forced to handpick who would get them so that one team wasnt getting too many kill powers, or too many imbalances. Here handpicking was essential to the balance of the distrubtion and balance of the setup itself.

In the end we had a role that was a third party ghost, and one of its mechanics was to be able to control a player with an item called a pitchfork. if the ghost haunted the person with the pitchfork then the ghost could control that player and make them suicide.

As weirdness turned out, we couldnt rand because we had to remove the possibility of the ghost having the pitchfork as it was an integral part of what we thought would be part of the setup itself.

instead, day 1, stupid fighter had been given the pitchfork, and he was a vt. the item was optional you could legally kill yourself with the item if you wanted too. And in a totally wacky twist he got under some pressure and just decided to kill himself instead. So any thoughts the GM had of how the item would get used were thrown out when this occurred, and hey thats part of the game.

Damian ended up winning without the need for that item. and as far as who was randed PR or Mafia, we just did one roll. it was the items we handpicked to ensure balance. And I dont think given the setup and its intricacies that this should be disallowed.

[Balki Bartokomous]

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.
[snip]

I don’t think there are many occasions when a player should not be allowed in the game either. Y’all are bringing up edge cases where there are players who are new, or who have extremely low participation, or who cause fights. I think it is admirable that y’all deal with those issues, but I don’t think the answer is to let those players in the game, but only if they are assigned certain roles or if the right people are on or not on their team.