Reminder: Please keep all discussions on topic. Thank you.
Printable View
Reminder: Please keep all discussions on topic. Thank you.
My goal is to never be playing more than one game at once. It keeps me focused.
KidBeano sparked a logicombat between Master Mew and I about mass claiming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidBeano
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingno.Because it marginalizes the game. It puts the main decision making process in the hands of one or a few select "confirmed" townies that got the role claims, and puts everyone else in follow-the-leader sort of position. It makes the game stupid, especially if it happens early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by KidBeano
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingno.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master MewIt's a logical progression, though. The Town determines that someone is, "cleared," which in a closed setup, as most games here are, is often subjective, and that trusted player then communicates to the Town which of the remaining players they trust - as you mentioned, the person receiving claims could easily be mafia themselves, so there's still plenty of logicombat to go around.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingno.
It's just another method of scumhunting, and it is far from infallible - I don't particularly care for it, but I don't hate it, either.
Obvs I'm against mass claiming and will probably outlaw it in any of my future games, if I ever actually make more games with roles since I'm becoming a much bigger fan of small games with few or no power roles. What do you guys think?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMissingno.But the problem is that there's not plenty of logicombat to go around though. After the claims are taken people pretty much just sit around and go with what the claim taker has to say. Sometimes they even actively discourage other people from making points in favor of waiting for the claim taker to say something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
Also, if the claim taker is still unsure of who to go after, they'll attack players with passive or unprovable roles. Yeah they may be easier to fake, but they also happen to town players a lot, and if that kind of reasoning is used against you there's really not much you can do to logicombat your way out of it, especially if it's a role that a town considers expendable.
Then of course if you refuse to claim either because you don't trust the person or because you're afraid the above will happen, then you're looked on with suspicion anyway. Mass claims are just bad news. It stops mattering what people say to attack other players or defend themselves and becomes a guessing game about which roles the claim taker thinks are scummy or fake.
We should move this discussion to the Mafia Philosophy thread.
I don't like mass-claims one bit.
Particularly in games with masons, they become somewhat of a substitute for more active scumhunting. And worst of all is when somebody DOES refuse to claim, instantly putting a huge target on their back.
Town, mafia, or independent, I know that I don't want to give my claim during a mass claim in most cases, because then the entire game becomes a "follow-the-leader" situation. And then there is the issue of the passive and difficult-to-prove roles, like TheMissingno. said.
Towards the end of a game, I find mass claims a little bit more acceptable, but when somebody tries to initiate it early on (like the case in Oakwood Mafia), it is unnecessary and even at times detrimental.
Sounds like you guys have more of a problem with way the players handle massclaims than the concept of massclaiming itself. People just need to become more aware of how fallible the strategy can be.
Much of what you're saying can be applied to follow-the-cop as well, but I don't think anyone is advocating for doing away with the role to alleviate that issue.
While I personally think massclaiming is a very boring and mundane way to settle things, I wouldn't make it against the rules of any of my games -- mainly because it's up to the players whether or not they want to do something in-game: it's not my place as a host to tell them what strategies to use, whatever their alignment may be. If you really don't want massclaiming, there's really no point in saying, 'massclaiming is against the rules', because people are going to gather the claims anyway, and it's just going to end up the same -- all you're doing is prolonging the same languorous process instead of getting rid of it entirely. A good way to stop massclaiming is to disallow private communications; sure, they can still massclaim in-thread by everyone stating their roles, but it doesn't really happen that often, and, when it does, it's usually in LYLO, when there are only three players left.
However, that's only what I think about ALLOWING it or not. The concept of massclaims, is, as I've said, boring and mundane. Relying on one person to drag everyone through the game and co-ordinating everybody's actions and stuff is just completely ridiculous: you may as well have the entire town's roles just being assigned to the one person if you're just going to rely on a clear to win the game. I prefer the idea that, sure, people do trust each other with a few claims, but I don't like it when one or two people call all the shots -- Legend of Korra Mafia is the best example, off the top of my head, wherein people who actually worked together in some strange network managed to do a pretty great job of things, all considered, as opposed to the good few games wherein there was a single person doing everything.
I also agree with FinalArcadia in that it can be detrimental for the town in some cases, especially if the clear is pretty aggressive, arrogant, ignorant, unknowledgeable or just plain inexperienced. The last thing anybody needs is for somebody incompetent leading the town, or somebody so convinced of their own opinions, that they'll abuse their power over the town in order to get what they want, such as a lynch on somebody whom they may be completely wrong about, and they can make a really bad job of it if they are not open to others.
Master Mew, follow-the-cop is not really the same thing as massclaiming -- there is far more room to negotiate with follow-the-cop, as there are 'mole' roles that will flip the checks, or sanities, and it's not just one person or two co-ordinating every single thing in the game, either. Follow-the-cop has already been dealt with anyway, with the new influx and threats of strongmen roles and the like that can bypass doc protection in order to stop FTC if it ever arises.
I personally think massclaims are fine. But if the host has it so that it would be broken if the claims happened then of course no.
And remember there are masons in every game. It is known as Mafia.
I know in my games, at least ST:TNG I will allow mass claimsno this isn't a marketing scheme. But I shan't say more as it would spoil the game.
Mass-claims annoy me, but I don't ban them in my games - I prefer a subtle approach: Designing the roles to only confuse everyone even more if there is a mass-claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulmaster
Roles that are, "always Town," for instance, are Independent, or there are two Doctors, or a flavor role that everyone expects to be in the game isn't while an obscure character with a ridiculous role is. Throwing in flavor role from another, similar franchise is a favorite toy of mine as well (including Marvel's "Black Cat" in a Batman mafia, for instance - or a giraffe).
Punish mass-claiming with roles, not rules.
But doesn't that just make everything unnecessarily complicated? And even then, if you use that approach with multiple games, a counter-pattern will begin to emerge once players learn your hosting style and the alignments you give to certain types of roles.
And? If my pattern is unpredictability, the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that massclaims are ineffective in my games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliciano
No, the pattern would be "okay, so Master Mew likes to give roles different alignments so if someone claims this traditional town role then we know that they're probably independent or mafia."
That was one of the examples I gave, one of many, and I certainly don't do that every game. Besides, when someone claims Cop and no one counter-claims, I've never seen anyone say, "Okay, we should lynch them." I'm not completely stupid, I know better than to recycle the same tricks in every single game, they were just examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliciano
I think you should look at KidBeano's Sonic the Hedgehog Mafia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master MewThat was one of the examples I gave, one of many, and I certainly don't do that every game. Besides, when someone claims Cop and no one counter-claims, I've never seen anyone say, "Okay, we should lynch them." I'm not completely stupid, I know better than to recycle the same tricks in every single game, they were just examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliciano
You were lynched for claiming cop too early (not to mention a ridiculous pile of WIFOM), and that wasn't a mass-claim. Mass-claims are a very different kind of beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buoy
yeah, i was mainly just directing it at the cop commentQuote:
Originally Posted by Master MewYou were lynched for claiming cop too early (not to mention a ridiculous pile of WIFOM), and that wasn't a mass-claim. Mass-claims are a very different kind of beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buoy