Mafia: general discussions. Auto-translated

Ruddy, it depends on the GM's personality. Some adhere to the rules more strictly, while others are more lenient. For example, when Hostor ran his game, penalties were constantly being issued to players.

Ruddy, it depends on the GM's personality. Some adhere more strictly to the rules, while others are more lenient. For example, when Hostor ran his game, sanctions were constantly being issued to players.

I'm not arguing. I'm just saying that now, people only get punished for blatant rule-breaking. And I'm suggesting that even hints should be penalized. Specifically in this game, I considered the hints from Tox and Gumer to be at least punishable.

I'm just saying that nowadays, people only get banned for extremely blatant violations.

That's exactly what I'm talking about! I think Hostor would even ban people for such subtle hints.

That's exactly what I was talking about! I think Hostor would even ban someone for such hints.

Okay, so now, in addition to my previous nagging, the GMs can expect a ton of stupid questions about autopsies. Personally, from my brazen self.

Even Hostor managed to defeat Jack Gurr with fewer modifications.

Nah, Red, that's nonsense. In the late game, everyone still speaks in character, so what, are we supposed to kill off all the roleplayers?

Whose faction is next?

Amko should celebrate the anniversary, at least I asked him to!

I still haven't seen Amka's setenk. Amka, where is your setenk?

Why is Amko next?

Why is Amko next?

He scored earlier and decided to skip a few games. captain

No, Rudy, that's nonsense.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "that." If it's a modkill, where the GM understands it's a hint, then it might not be nonsense, because role elements are often revealed during the game, which contradicts the rules. In that case, the rules need to be changed, and I'll stop complaining.
if you learn from "What?", then "am I a lawyer or not?"

In the late game, everyone speaks in the voice of their roles anyway, so should we modkill everyone?

Exactly. You do it once, and that's it; the intrigue remains until the very end. Or, see "the rules need to be changed."

Yeah, and those who are silenced should just stay quiet, because their roles are obvious. Hints are a natural element of the Mafia game. In the end, you get exposed not only by the town but also by the Mafia when you give hints. It's all fair. This Mafia game is a clear example. I got exposed and paid the price. I don't consider this a flaw in the game.

Yeah, and the blocked players should keep quiet, because their roles are obvious.

except for justified statements based on an act

Hints are a natural element of the Mafia game.

They become excessively obvious. And you need to keep an eye on the figure!

In the end, when you give hints, you are exposed not only by the town, but also by the Mafia. It's all fair.

I consider the concept of "fairness" to be relative. And in my understanding, it is not fair, because the Mafia loses the opportunity to logically fit into a certain peaceful role, and it turns out to be a complete giveaway or an open confrontation with a peaceful player, which is completely disadvantageous at the beginning of the game (well, they execute a peaceful player and that's it, you're exposed, and the composition of the peaceful players and the Mafia is not 1 to 1), and at the beginning they are often exposed, and you are the first.

This Mafia is a clear example of that. I was exposed and got punished for it.

Stop, you forced the Mafia to kill a role that it is not profitable to kill. And they had to do it because you tightened the noose around them with your exposure, so why should they narrow it down even more by killing a role that they can hide under, if there is already an exposed one?

I don't consider this a flaw in the game.

That's your right. And I have the right to express my opinion. Maybe someone else will say something.


Now, a little more from myself.
1) To Toks. As a remark from my side. When we played as a team with Rimple (a guy with some crazy uncles in his avatar), there was a conflict between you. The reason was a violation of the rules. You acted as their defender. Now let's look at the situation here. When people are exposed, they violate the rules. If there is a sanction after that (like from Adeptus), then that's fine, it's a balance, but if the GM is indecisive (this is not against Vish, I'm considering an amorphous situation), then it doesn't turn out very well, it's still a violation of the legal norm. Conclusion: change the rules or come up with a new system of milder punishments (deprivation of Night Defense, votes, etc.)
2) To everyone. There is a question about the elements of the role. This probably refers to stats, Night Defense, group, Night Defense results. But should we allow statements like "let the doctor not come to me"? This thing, in a way, says "I'm not the doctor," which is already significant information. And if this thing is used in a certain context, it can be a hint that there is protection. And this is already an element of the role. So, how is this interpreted as a violation?

Red, you're the only one complaining here; notice that everyone else is satisfied.