Thread: Mafia Philosophy

As far as Lie Detectors go, as a host, how far do you extend the context surrounding the statements sent in?

For example, let's say that a person's Role PM stated that they could "Send in a statement made by a member and receive a true, false or 'I don't know' response". How would you reply back to a PM from your Lie Detector that said:

"

Originally Posted by KidBeano

Town

This was in reply to me asking his alignment."?

For me personally, I would not (and did not in Make-A-Mafia) reply back with true or false, instead telling them that context is irrelevant, and giving an "I don't know" reply. For me, the only context I take into account is who said the statement. So, I don't know whether the statement "Town" made by KidBeano is true or false. However, would you accept the context and give a true/false response? Would you just say "I don't know" and let them try to figure it out?

To go a bit further, what would you do if they sent in this:

"

Originally Posted by KidBeano

Originally Posted by PichuBoy

What alignment are you?

Town

Is KidBeano telling the truth?"?

I would reply back saying that that is more than one statement, and I cannot give a reply. Would you just give it a "I don't know" response off the bat? Would you accept it, even though their role PM specifically says "a statement" and they've theoretically sent in two?

Finally, if they were to send you a conversation log, and then specify the quote they wanted, such as:

"PichuBoy: Hi
KidBeano: Hi
Pichuboy: I was just wondering
Pichuboy: What alignment are you in Make-a-Mafia?
KidBeano: Why do you want to know?
Pichuboy: I'm a lie detector
KidBeano: Oh, ok
KidBeano: Town

Is the last sentence true?"

For me, that's just "The context is", but phrased in a different way, and so I would reply the same as the first scenario.

^ I check for context - it prevents the player from exploiting statements like this one:

Originally Posted by Master Mew

When I'm Mafia I always nightkill null players because they're the most likely to be cop-checked.

By checking the context, I prevent the Lie Detector from pulling this phrase from the above quote to check:

Originally Posted by Master Mew

I'm Mafia

I would reply, "I don't know," because I don't know if Master Mew really nightkills null players when he's Mafia - if I took statements at face-value I would have to reply with True or False to a statement that had nothing to do with the player's alignment in the current game.

That's just me, though.

Originally Posted by Master Mew

^ I check for context - it prevents the player from exploiting statements like this one:

Originally Posted by Master Mew

When I'm Mafia I always nightkill null players because they're the most likely to be cop-checked.

By checking the context, I prevent the Lie Detector from pulling this phrase from the above quote to check:

Originally Posted by Master Mew

I'm Mafia

I would reply, "I don't know," because I don't know if Master Mew really nightkills null players when he's Mafia - if I took statements at face-value I would have to reply with True or False to a statement that had nothing to do with the player's alignment in the current game.

That's just me, though.

Well, obviously, if they were twisting/modifying a quote, I wouldn't give an answer as if the modified quote existed. I would ask for a link to where the quote actually happened, and if it turned out they'd twisted the quote, I'd tell them that Person X never said that, so they can't lie detect it.

What I'm talking about is when a statement doesn't make sense on its own, but it does with the context, usually because it's an answer to a question. Like, if someone were to say "Are you mafia?", I replied "No" and the Lie Detector tried to detect that, would you give a True/False or 'I don't know' response?

I would give a True or False, because I value that sort of check over the sort I mentioned above - the "No" you mentioned is the player actually claiming they aren't Mafia, so in my opinion it's more in the spirit of the Lie Detector role to allow that.

Is it wrong to present OOC behaviour, is it wrong to "Branch out"? Is it somehow scummy to experiment with different play styles in order to grow as a player, even if those experiments blow on your face badly?

In my opinion, it is actually a good thing, because when you experiment, you can see where certain playstyles can and will get you. You realize mistakes, misplays and things that could have gone better or worse, so, in a sense, it's good to experiment.

However, I've also found out that we as a group of mafia players, have already set the other players with "Guidelines" of how they should behave, leading to arguments of "Oh, you are acting OOC, you must therefore be scum!!!"

I find this kinda boring and stagnant. Because with that behaviour you are expecting the same result over and over again, instead of actually learning new things andhaving fun while doing it.

In my most recent games, I've been acting more rash, contrary to my previous behaviour. And while I was frustrated at first since I got the reaction described avobe, I now can concludethat this experience has thought me more of me as a player, and how I can get better at this kind of games. I also learned some good info on the reactions of other players.

All in all, even if I have lost quite espectacularly in recent games, I look at them with a smile on my face. Seeing how I learned more from those games than from the ones I've actually won.

Originally Posted by Neon Borealis

Is it wrong to present OOC behaviour, is it wrong to "Branch out"? Is it somehow scummy to experiment with different play styles in order to grow as a player, even if those experiments blow on your face badly?

No, it isn't scummy. The problem is that most people interpret, "strange," or, "unexplainable," as scummy. The truth is that when someone does something that you can't make sense of, they're probably a Vanilla Townie who feels comfortable trying out new gambits because they have little to lose. Mafia have a lot to lose and generally play very rationally.

In other words, I view irrational (or apparently irrational) behavior as a townread unless I can discern a clear scum-motive. Most people feel differently, however - judging by their voting-tendencies.

The problem isn't that people are analysing behaviour, it's when they make an assumption based on nonsensical evidence.

For example, if someone is consistently aggressive as any alignment, then while it is weird if they suddenly take a back seat, that does not mean they're mafia for acting differently.

However, if they have a tendency of being aggressive as town, and not so much as mafia, then that is a reason to be suspicious of them if they're not getting involved.

"They don't usually act like this" =/= scum, in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by KidBeano

For example, if someone is consistently aggressive as any alignment, then while it is weird if they suddenly take a back seat, that does not mean they're mafia for acting differently.

However, if they have a tendency of being aggressive as town, and not so much as mafia, then that is a reason to be suspicious of them if they're not getting involved.

I guess the problem I have with Meta-tells like this one is that they're so subjective... how does one quantify aggression?

So, since this was such a hot-button topic in my game, I figure I'll bring it up here.

As a host, how involved do you think you should be in the outcome of your game? If one faction screws itself too early, do you attempt to give them another chance for the sake of balance and a possibly more exciting game? Or do you let one faction or the other get completely swept, which usually leads to ill-will among the players who lost?

(Flaming paragraph deleted by vice-webmaster)

But I digress.

As a general rule of thumb for me, as soon as the game has started, the host is there as a neutral party who isn't supposed to interfere. The problem with allowing the host to "participate" in the game, as it were, starts putting some grey areas into the game, or starts changing the outcome. For example, where do you join the line at host intervention? Who can say "It's acceptable for hosts to change roles during the game, but it is not acceptable to provide clues"? They're both intended on giving one faction an advantage, so what's the difference? What about hosts commenting on the game around them? I remember once a host said "Wow, I'm surprised that everyone just bandwagoned on that person for no reason o.o" - is that acceptable? I don't think it should be.

Having said that, the only exception to not interfering for me is if it would completely break the game, or start outing mafia members if left uncorrected. I remember in Super Effective Mafia, Buoy and I had to slightly change the mafia's role PMs after the first member died, because typeclaiming had been allowed in the game, only one person had claimed Rock, and the role PMs mentioned 'Sudowoodo' as the mafia leader. However, all we did was edit his name out of the PMs. We didn't change any of the roles.

All mechanics should be thought out and consistent before the game is even posted, including night action priorities, who counts for what faction, how roles will interact with each other, etc... If you forget about something, then you should make a decision as soon as you realise, and not seconds before the situation arises.

If you're "balancing" because it was the faction's fault they lost, you're then basically penalising the opposing faction even though they've done nothing wrong. When you join a mafia game, you basically accept the fact that you might have a couple of idiots on your team who have the potential to lose the game for you. If someone's really going to show any "ill-will" further on from the game, then if I'm honest, I wouldn't want to play with them anyway.

If it was the hosts' initial balancing that caused one side to get swept: Still no, but I can see why people might want to. However, it's something to take account of when making your next game, and not something you should try to "save" the current game with.

I know it's hard as a host to watch your game get swept one way or another, or to watch your favourite role die Night 1 or whatever. However, at the end of a day, it's a mafia game, not some precious child. You'll host plenty of others, to get in some sort of strop because one faction was good enough to end the game on Day 5 or whatever is a little childish.

This was a little rushed, so it probably doesn't make much sense, but yeah.

I already explained why I did what I did in my particular game when I ended it. The phrase I posted is incredibly shortened and does not encompass any of the other circumstances which were particular to my game. I simply wanted to know the opinion of others on the topic of host involvement in general, and to what degree they find it acceptable or not so.

I explained myself and apologized already. Many times.

Originally Posted by Feliciano

So, since this was such a hot-button topic in my game, I figure I'll bring it up here.

As a host, how involved do you think you should be in the outcome of your game? If one faction screws itself too early, do you attempt to give them another chance for the sake of balance and a possibly more exciting game? Or do you let one faction or the other get completely swept, which usually leads to ill-will among the players who lost?

I only hosted two mafia games up so far, but that was what I feared the most - one of the factions getting owned early, resulting in a quick game over. It's hard enough to distribute players and roles to a perfect balance, and you never know what would happen. So I included preplanned events before the game started and set up a trigger point to activate it. The event would include everyone (or RNG'd) alive and give all teams equal chances to turn the tables and get a win. But that's just me.

My personal opinion is, not to alter the game in any way after it started. Events, role-modifications, any changes should also be planned before the game starts. Planning to give your fav character an overpowered ability from the start can be acceptable, but making it overpowered when it wasn't preplanned isn't.

Originally Posted by Feliciano

I already explained why I did what I did in my particular game when I ended it. The phrase I posted is incredibly shortened and does not encompass any of the other circumstances which were particular to my game. I simply wanted to know the opinion of others on the topic of host involvement in general, and to what degree they find it acceptable or not so.

If you're still butthurt, I explained myself and apologized already. Many times.

I didn't mean how you mentioned your game, I meant how you introduced the topic in a biased way. To put it in an extreme way to get across what I mean, it's like a judge telling the jury "Now make your decision: do you wish this murderer to go to jail, where you will cause every innocent party involved to be happy, or do you wish him to walk free and terrorise civilians, possibly to recommit his evil act where their deaths will be on your heads?"

I'm fine with you posting it, and I'm fine with your opinion.

I have better things to be butthurt over than a mafia game.

Originally Posted by Feliciano

The phrase I posted is incredibly shortened and does not encompass any of the other circumstances which were particular to my game. I simply wanted to know the opinion of others on the topic of host involvement in general, and to what degree they find it acceptable or not so.

Which Kidbeano did...

Originally Posted by Feliciano

As a host, how involved do you think you should be in the outcome of your game?

Once you've designed the roles, rules, and mechanics and the game has officially started, the Host should step back and enjoy the show - they should do nothing further to impact the course of the game except as an emergency step in response to a game-breaking Host-error (for instance, accidentally sending cop-check results to the wrong player).

If one faction screws itself too early, do you attempt to give them another chance for the sake of balance and a possibly more exciting game?

Someone playing well or poorly isn't a balance issue - it's the crux of what we do in Mafia games: You play well in hopes of winning, and if you play poorly you lose. The Host cannot and should not compensate for this.

Or do you let one faction or the other get completely swept, which usually leads to ill-will among the players who lost?

I disagree with the last bit - if, as you mentioned in your hypothetical situation, "one faction screws itself," and this results in them losing, there is no reason for ill-will: they played poorly and they lost, why would they blame the Host or the opposing faction for that?

On the other hand, if one faction, "screws itself too early," and then the Host intervenes and modifies the setup, resulting in the, "screwed," faction winning, there will almost certainly be ill-will.

In other words, I don't think Hosts should rebalance games once they're under way just because someone is playing too well or too poorly, because player-competence isn't a balance issue in the first place, nor is it the Host's responsibility to account for it.