Thread: Mafia Philosophy

Honestly, I see it as being a bit like D&D in style. You're the GM. You created the game. You designed the roles. If you made a mistake or think that something needs to be done during play to cover for one side being horribly outmanned or outgunned, than you reserve the right to do so. Hell, most GM's I see include the statement that they reserve the rights to change or add rules as the need presents itself. In the end, it's a game. It's meant to be fun. If you as the host see there is not a lot of fun to be had or are able to make the game more fun or more enjoyable in the long run, you reserve the right to do so. This does not mean the host can screw with both sides just because. It should be for a reason. But as many of you may remember, I FREQUENTLY inserted my own little comments into my game in the forms of flavor text hints and maniacal laughter. I like to enjoy my games just as much as the players. And I'll be honest, if I could have done anything to make Falconwing 2 a better game I would have. What happened in that game was ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Ryuutakeshi

Honestly, I see it as being a bit like D&D in style. You're the GM. You created the game. You designed the roles. If you made a mistake or think that something needs to be done during play to cover for one side being horribly outmanned or outgunned, than you reserve the right to do so. Hell, most GM's I see include the statement that they reserve the rights to change or add rules as the need presents itself. In the end, it's a game. It's meant to be fun. If you as the host see there is not a lot of fun to be had or are able to make the game more fun or more enjoyable in the long run, you reserve the right to do so. This does not mean the host can screw with both sides just because. It should be for a reason. But as many of you may remember, I FREQUENTLY inserted my own little comments into my game in the forms of flavor text hints and maniacal laughter. I like to enjoy my games just as much as the players. And I'll be honest, if I could have done anything to make Falconwing 2 a better game I would have. What happened in that game was ridiculous.

Except mafia is not really close in design to Dungeons and Dragons, for all that I've never played it. Next to nothing is similar, except that you have players and you have a GM. If you made a mistake, that's your own fault and you'll learn for the future; if one side is getting completely annihilated, then so be it. It's not necessarily a case of 'reserving the right' to do anything -- granted, you're able to do what you want, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Of course it's a game, but that doesn't really mean you should go around doing things based on how you judge the situation -- you don't, strictly speaking, know what any of the players are really thinking, for all that you're an omnipotent, omnipresent supervisor. They could be on the verge of tipping the tables for themselves or something like that -- the host's judgement is probably a very, very flawed thing. Sure, you'll get it right now and again, but tampering with the game, even for the sake of making it 'more fun', is likely to make it more confusing and therefore less fun for the players, especially if the tampering led to the course of the game being altered majorly.

In short, just leave things be. Step in where you're actually required, rather than when you deem you should 'throw something in' or 'make it more fun'. If you made a mistake in preparation, then hopefully you won't make that mistake again.

If say, the Town is winning, and you pity the Mafia, then you shouldn't be giving the Mafia any last minute power ups to make it "more fun" for them. In doing so, you ruin the Town's fun in favor of a group of players who do not deserve it.

^ That basically says it all. Ok, people may feel they had more fun with the changes, but you're also going to have people feel they were cheated out of a win.

Like I've said before, if the host has included something gamebreaking, then by all means, change that as soon as they realise it. But if one faction is winning through their own skill, or through the opposing faction's lack of it, then the host has no legitimate reason to change it, because as Buoy said, no-one can determine what others find fun.

If it is reasonably possible for any faction to win the game given the information available to them and the abilities/mechanics at their disposal, then the setup should remain as-is; regardless of one faction annihilating another. If anything, the game balance may be off, but honestly, in any game with power roles this can arguably be said. Unbalanced =/= broken or unwinnable. The game should come down to skill, not statistics anyway, so being a little off-balance isn't the end of the world and altering the setup to rebalance the game will likely break players' gambits or otherwise confuse everyone involved. At that point, I feel you (the Host) come dangerously close to becoming an active participant in the game, helping decide the winner, rather than an overseer.

Originally Posted by KidBeano

^ That basically says it all. Ok, people may feel they had more fun with the changes, but you're also going to have people feel they were cheated out of a win.

Interesting. So what if the host manages to mess with the game in such a way no one ever figures out he messed with it? Example! The game reached a set-up in which there are 4 innocents and 2 mafia left. Everyone votes for innocent X, who turns out to be the bomb who takes down one of the people who votes for him at random. Everyone else is vanilla. For whatever reason the host decided to not roll the RNG, but rather kill off one of the mafia so that the next dayphase is a LYLO with 2 town and 1 mafia.

Would this be allright to do since no one feels cheated out of a win this way since no one knows the game was tempered with? Or is this still not ok simply because of the principle of the thing?

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Originally Posted by KidBeano

^ That basically says it all. Ok, people may feel they had more fun with the changes, but you're also going to have people feel they were cheated out of a win.

Interesting. So what if the host manages to mess with the game in such a way no one ever figures out he messed with it? Example! The game reached a set-up in which there are 4 innocents and 2 mafia left. Everyone votes for innocent X, who turns out to be the bomb who takes down one of the people who votes for him at random. Everyone else is vanilla. For whatever reason the host decided to not roll the RNG, but rather kill off one of the mafia so that the next dayphase is a LYLO with 2 town and 1 mafia.

Would this be allright to do since no one feels cheated out of a win this way since no one knows the game was tempered with? Or is this still not ok simply because of the principle of the thing?

just don't get caught ;p

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Originally Posted by KidBeano

^ That basically says it all. Ok, people may feel they had more fun with the changes, but you're also going to have people feel they were cheated out of a win.

Interesting. So what if the host manages to mess with the game in such a way no one ever figures out he messed with it? Example! The game reached a set-up in which there are 4 innocents and 2 mafia left. Everyone votes for innocent X, who turns out to be the bomb who takes down one of the people who votes for him at random. Everyone else is vanilla. For whatever reason the host decided to not roll the RNG, but rather kill off one of the mafia so that the next dayphase is a LYLO with 2 town and 1 mafia.

Would this be allright to do since no one feels cheated out of a win this way since no one knows the game was tempered with? Or is this still not ok simply because of the principle of the thing?

I'm shocked you even asked that...

Originally Posted by KidBeano

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Originally Posted by KidBeano

^ That basically says it all. Ok, people may feel they had more fun with the changes, but you're also going to have people feel they were cheated out of a win.

Interesting. So what if the host manages to mess with the game in such a way no one ever figures out he messed with it? Example! The game reached a set-up in which there are 4 innocents and 2 mafia left. Everyone votes for innocent X, who turns out to be the bomb who takes down one of the people who votes for him at random. Everyone else is vanilla. For whatever reason the host decided to not roll the RNG, but rather kill off one of the mafia so that the next dayphase is a LYLO with 2 town and 1 mafia.

Would this be allright to do since no one feels cheated out of a win this way since no one knows the game was tempered with? Or is this still not ok simply because of the principle of the thing?

I'm shocked you even asked that...

Why? Also this is no response to the question.

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Originally Posted by KidBeano

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

Originally Posted by KidBeano

^ That basically says it all. Ok, people may feel they had more fun with the changes, but you're also going to have people feel they were cheated out of a win.

Interesting. So what if the host manages to mess with the game in such a way no one ever figures out he messed with it? Example! The game reached a set-up in which there are 4 innocents and 2 mafia left. Everyone votes for innocent X, who turns out to be the bomb who takes down one of the people who votes for him at random. Everyone else is vanilla. For whatever reason the host decided to not roll the RNG, but rather kill off one of the mafia so that the next dayphase is a LYLO with 2 town and 1 mafia.

Would this be allright to do since no one feels cheated out of a win this way since no one knows the game was tempered with? Or is this still not ok simply because of the principle of the thing?

I'm shocked you even asked that...

Why? Also this is no response to the question.

Shocked because that game doesn't fit into either of the proposed scenarios - the host hasn't included something gamebreaking as I suggested, nor has there been a sweep on either side as Feli suggested. Why would you think my only problem is that people feel cheated? Of course it's the principle of it that's the issue, people feeling cheated is just one consequence.

Originally Posted by KidBeano

Shocked because that game doesn't fit into either of the proposed scenarios - the host hasn't included something gamebreaking as I suggested, nor has there been a sweep on either side as Feli suggested. Why would you think my only problem is that people feel cheated? Of course it's the principle of it that's the issue, people feeling cheated is just one consequence.

It's a simplified scenario, but meddling with the RNG can be done for whatever reason, like for instance counter-acting a gamebreaking role, or a sweep from a side. But then tell me, what are your other problems besides people feeling cheated? No one is ever going to find out the RNG was tampered with. What you don't know can't hurt you. Unless you're gonna have a problem with something that might just as well not have taken place (since there's no way for you to know if it has).

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

It's a simplified scenario, but meddling with the RNG can be done for whatever reason, like for instance counter-acting a gamebreaking role, or a sweep from a side. But then tell me, what are your other problems besides people feeling cheated? No one is ever going to find out the RNG was tampered with. What you don't know can't hurt you. Unless you're gonna have a problem with something that might just as well not have taken place (since there's no way for you to know if it has).

The only problem I have with this situation is that it creates a scenario where the Host is lying to a player - in their Role PM. If you tell someone that their ability has a random consequence, but that consequence is not in fact random, you have deceived them. You might as well just tell them that their ability is going to benefit whichever faction is losing, since that's what you're planning on doing anyway.

Players should be able to have a reasonable expectation that, "Random," events are in fact random, and could potentially benefit or cause detriment to any player with equal probability.

@Master Mew; Again, why? Since the result is indistinguishable from a real RNG roll no one knows you "lied" to them. You'd have a problem with something that may not even have ever happened.

Not to mention that if we're talking semantics about the word random, random doesn't neccesarily mean "through the use of an RNG". As a matter of fact most RNG's aren't even truly random.

Originally Posted by Mijzelffan

@Master Mew; Again, why? Since the result is indistinguishable from a real RNG roll no one knows you "lied" to them. You'd have a problem with something that may not even have ever happened.

Not to mention that if we're talking semantics about the word random, random doesn't neccesarily mean "through the use of an RNG". As a matter of fact most RNG's aren't even truly random.

Random in this case would mean the host isn't picking exactly what will happen by his own discretion. A third-party (RNG usually) has to decide that.

Wait, RNGs aren't random?

Originally Posted by J J M

Wait, RNGs aren't random?

Not truely random. A computer can never be truely random because it needs to determine its variables for its calculations somehow and those aren't random (for example, it may take the current date).

There's more on wikipedia with a better explanation.

Pseudorandom number generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, its good enough at being random to use.