Mafia: general discussions. — Mafia

Registered: 1/30/2006

Posts: 5,812

#463 12/23/2009 6:37 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Regarding the executions: Initially, the rule was that once a player reached the required number of votes, everyone would be sent to the gallows. However, with the sixth Mafia game, a 24-hour period was introduced to allow players to change their votes, as opinions can change drastically in just a couple of hours: someone might find a powerful artifact, and that could completely change the situation. So, in my opinion, nothing needs to be changed regarding the daytime phase – everything is already working well. Regarding the rule about voting against oneself: it's an interesting rule, but it's often forgotten and ignored. Regarding the rule about discussing the game with other players in private chats: this is something that can't be regulated, so it's up to the players' integrity. Regarding the role reveal: I can't say anything about that. Regarding Mafia 13: usually, the break between Mafia games is at least a week, but Mafia 12 was scheduled too soon. In my opinion, we need to give the players a break so they're more eager to play, and also to avoid burnout if the games are scheduled too close together. We're planning to start the next game next week. Ideally, registration will open on Tuesday or Monday. However, I'm concerned about the turnout on January 31st. In principle, we could consider those 24 hours as one day or do something else, as I'm worried about low participation. Art even suggested starting the game on January 3rd, but I think the players won't mind waiting a bit. So, there's still time to develop the rules and come up with more balance suggestions.

Added after 37 seconds
Oh, yes, some changes were made to the roles, specifically, Vegtam's suggestion was taken into account, the description of the Rebel Soul was made clearer, and Paradise was slightly adjusted

Registered: 9/16/2009

Posts: 1,126

#464 12/23/2009 6:40 PM UTC

Auto-translated

8. It is forbidden to reveal your own/another player's role, or its elements, as well as any information obtained about it, in public places or among players who are not in the same group as you. The same applies to information about other players. Phrases like "well, I know something about him that I can't say" are a violation, regardless of whether you actually know something or are lying.

Statements like "I checked," "according to my information, which I cannot disclose," "I know for sure," etc., are prohibited. Unsubstantiated shouts like "he's MAFIA!" or "I'm a VILLAGER!" are allowed.

To avoid violating this rule, try to express your thoughts as assumptions or as IMHO, based, for example, on clues or behavior.

It is allowed to refer to the rules, the GM, your own posts, or the posts of other players, as well as to any external sources where you found information about the clues.

This wording eliminates the possibility of bluffing and also negates the actions of city-based investigative roles (since checking a mafia member who hasn't killed anyone yet won't provide useful information for the investigation, and voting against him is prohibited by the rules, which, in my opinion, is not good). I would suggest the following wording (while still adhering to the current rules):

It is forbidden to directly reveal your own/another player's role by shouting things like "I'm the Doctor," "He's Mafia," or to directly transmit information you have obtained, indicating the type of action: "I checked Kolya," "I healed," "according to my information, which I cannot disclose," etc.

Hints (even very obvious ones) about your own/another player's role/actions are not prohibited, whether true or false. ("It is quite possible that the investigator was with Vasya, and judging by the votes against him, the investigator may be among them - therefore, let's execute Vasya," "I think Kolya has information, which is why he is voting like that - let's listen to his opinion," etc.)

It is also allowed to refer to the rules, the GM, your own posts, or the posts of other players, as well as to any external sources where you found information about the clues.

• Discussing the game outside of this thread (i.e., in private messages, ICQ, etc.) is only allowed if you have a role that permits it. In this game, only the Mafia has this possibility.

It seems impossible to fight this =/ What are the lists?

1. The GM is always right.
2. If the GM is not right, see rule 1.

The GM is always right in situations not covered by the rules.
If you have written something in the rules, you should follow it until the end of the game.

• A player who does not vote after 12 hours of the game day is considered to have voted against themselves.

IMHO, this is not necessary. Because who knows what problems might arise?
_ I sleep for 12 hours on weekends....

I would suggest allowing players to cancel their votes and, in no case, reduce the length of the day.

+1 (based on my experience as a GM)

And finally, a question: what is the point of investigative roles in the current rules? To obtain information for yourself, but not to be allowed to use it? Because attempts to find flimsy evidence can lead to accusations of searching for barbarians and being a member of the Mafia. It's easier for investigators to remain silent.
P.S. Of course, to understand how the rules work, they need to be tested in practice, which I hope to do after the game *who is last in line?=*.

Let's discuss...

Если кто-то тебе противоречит, подумай: может, он не прав? (с)

Говорят, что рыжие не плачут,
Говорят, душа у них - огонь.
Если влюблены, то любят значит,
Если ненавидят - их не тронь!

"Не заблуждайтесь. Рыжие - это зло! Знаете кто был рыжим? Иуда... Что сделал Иуда? Иисуса предал - вот что! Я говорю вслух то, о чем другие только думают. Рыжие опасны. И однажды ночью, когда вы будете спать в своих кроватках, рыжие придут за вами... Они придут за вами!!!"
(с) Эрик Картман

Registered: 9/3/2007

Posts: 5,679

#465 12/23/2009 6:50 PM UTC

Auto-translated

This wording eliminates the very possibility of bluffing and also negates the actions of town roles that investigate (since checking someone who hasn't killed anyone yet won't provide any useful information for the investigation, and voting against them cannot be justified according to the rules, which, in my opinion, is not good). I would suggest the following wording (while still adhering to the current rules):

It is forbidden to directly reveal your own or someone else's role by shouting things like "I am the Doctor," "He is Mafia," or to directly transmit information you have received, specifying the type of action: "I checked Kolya," "I healed," "according to information that I cannot disclose," etc.

Hints (even very obvious ones) about your own/someone else's role/actions are not prohibited: whether true or false. ("It is quite possible that someone investigated Vasya, and judging by the votes against him, the investigator may be among them - therefore, let's execute Vasya," "I think Kolya has information, which is why he is voting this way - let's listen to his opinion," etc.)

It is allowed to refer to the rules, the GM, your own posts, or the posts of other players, as well as any external sources where you found some information based on the clues.

That's why I suggested several variations of rule sets.
Not everyone likes psychological Mafia - this option is in the minority here, but it is not rejected.
In the right hands and with the right mindset, even under these conditions, you can share investigation results. Moreover, investigation has another purpose - understanding other roles, narrowing the circle of suspects.

Added after 49 seconds

It seems there is no way to fight this =/ What are these lists?

Lists of notorious offline players and rule-breakers. It's a necessary thing.

Наше оружие - неожиданность! Неожиданность и страх, страх и неожиданность - это два наших оружия! Плюс безжалостность - три наших оружия: страх, неожиданность и безжалостность! И ещё фанатичная преданность Папе - четвёртое! Наше оружие включает в себя... наше оружие включает в себя... страх, неожиданность... я сейчас!

Registered: 10/28/2007

Posts: 61,831

#466 12/23/2009 7:02 PM UTC

Auto-translated

• A player who doesn't vote after 12 hours of the game day is considered to have voted against themselves.

This rule doesn't really make sense. It only adds one vote to the NNV (No Night Vote).
I understand that it was created to encourage activity, but... you get the idea.

It's a necessary thing.

On a forum where new users are constantly joining, and there are a lot of participants in general, yes. But not here. Such strict rules will only further kill the atmosphere. It's as if "Mafia" was initially intended "for its own."

Added 2 minutes later

What if the day ended immediately after the required number of votes was reached?

I'm in favor of this option.
Let the townspeople think before they vote, and let the Mafia devise "quick" tactical moves.

Стартовый пост - Квенты - Разное - Список НПС -
Резара - Аксель - Орвальд - Эмилия - Стэфания - Амвросий - Лестер - Альсира - Алария -

Registered: 9/3/2007

Posts: 5,679

#467 12/23/2009 7:10 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Lists of notorious offline players and rule breakers.

This is a method to deal with rule breakers – "Break the rules, and I'll put you on the list!". It mainly serves as a warning and a slight threat, rather than an actual action.

• A player who doesn't vote after 12 hours of game time is considered to have voted against themselves.
This rule doesn't really make sense. It's just one vote for the "No New Votes" option.
I understand that it was intended to encourage activity, but... you get the idea.

In that case, it could be replaced with another option that promotes activity – "A player who doesn't vote for two game days will be mod-killed." This would be much more effective.

Наше оружие - неожиданность! Неожиданность и страх, страх и неожиданность - это два наших оружия! Плюс безжалостность - три наших оружия: страх, неожиданность и безжалостность! И ещё фанатичная преданность Папе - четвёртое! Наше оружие включает в себя... наше оружие включает в себя... страх, неожиданность... я сейчас!

Registered: 10/28/2007

Posts: 61,831

#468 12/23/2009 7:12 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Then you could replace it with another option that encourages activity - "Those who don't vote for two game days will be subject to a modkill." That would be much more effective.

But what's the point? I'm active, and I even think that's quite enough, but sometimes I just don't want to vote. There are no suitable options, and I don't want to leave the "No New Votes" section. So what then? (:

Added after 33 seconds

This is a method against rule-breakers - "If you break the rules, I'll put you on the list!"

But still, is this something like a "blacklist"? :)

Стартовый пост - Квенты - Разное - Список НПС -
Резара - Аксель - Орвальд - Эмилия - Стэфания - Амвросий - Лестер - Альсира - Алария -

Registered: 1/30/2006

Posts: 5,812

#469 12/23/2009 7:16 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Then you can replace it with another option that encourages activity - "Those who don't vote within two game days will be subject to a modkill." This would be much more effective.

Not a very good suggestion. Because there isn't always a choice, and no one wants to leave the NNV (No New Voters) thread, you can adjust the rule differently: those who don't respond within two days will be given a distant BB (Ban).

Registered: 9/3/2007

Posts: 5,679

#470 12/23/2009 7:23 PM UTC

Auto-translated

What’s the point? I’m active, and I even think I’m quite active, but sometimes I don’t want to vote. There are no suitable options, and I don’t want to go to the NNV. What then? (:

Not a very good suggestion. Because there isn’t always a choice, and I don’t want to go to the NNV, so you can adjust the rule differently: whoever doesn’t respond within two days gets a distant BB.

Three days. You will definitely vote within three days. (especially since they usually hang you on the third day (: )
Very low activity was observed from players Freud and Drnik in round 12 (the Mafia boss, by the way, so activity is necessary from the boss). We sent a reminder on the first day. On the second day, when I told them about a possible modkill, they responded, but only “to cover themselves.” How to deal with this? Both rules don’t help much.

Added 1 minute ago

But still, is this some kind of “blacklist”?

Yes.

Наше оружие - неожиданность! Неожиданность и страх, страх и неожиданность - это два наших оружия! Плюс безжалостность - три наших оружия: страх, неожиданность и безжалостность! И ещё фанатичная преданность Папе - четвёртое! Наше оружие включает в себя... наше оружие включает в себя... страх, неожиданность... я сейчас!

Registered: 3/5/2007

Posts: 60,123

#471 12/23/2009 8:34 PM UTC

Auto-translated

if it will be possible to hint at one's role, bluff, etc., then the others still won't believe it, because everyone will start doing it, i.e., it will be the same situation as now, when no one trusts anyone... in general, I don't see the point in changing this item) (by the way, this question was discussed after the 3rd Mafia game or before it)

P.S. I agree with the other points) 12 hours, no way, 24 hours, maybe, you can leave it as is, and a blacklist is needed.

Be strong. Believe

Registered: 3/3/2006

Posts: 1,548

#472 12/23/2009 8:36 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I agree with Arandor regarding the issue of hinting at one's role. Sincerely, Gur

"Пришел, увидел и пропил..."

Хай Гурий Слесарь

Registered: 9/16/2009

Posts: 1,126

#473 12/23/2009 9:40 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Try it yourself;). There is a difference, and it's a significant one. Here, you'll have a choice – to believe or not, and that's better than having no choice at all. Anyway, I won't insist: those who are interested can try it out by playing a game where I'll be the GM.

Если кто-то тебе противоречит, подумай: может, он не прав? (с)

Говорят, что рыжие не плачут,
Говорят, душа у них - огонь.
Если влюблены, то любят значит,
Если ненавидят - их не тронь!

"Не заблуждайтесь. Рыжие - это зло! Знаете кто был рыжим? Иуда... Что сделал Иуда? Иисуса предал - вот что! Я говорю вслух то, о чем другие только думают. Рыжие опасны. И однажды ночью, когда вы будете спать в своих кроватках, рыжие придут за вами... Они придут за вами!!!"
(с) Эрик Картман

In reply to Гур

Registered: 8/31/2008

Posts: 4,408

#474 12/23/2009 10:03 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Regarding that rule about making correct statements about one's role, bluffing, and so on. I looked through the previous Mafia game and decided to show what I consider to be acceptable and what isn't.

Wedma

By the way, it's strange that no one went to Cash...

This was already a hint, a very subtle one, but it spoke volumes. I don't know about others, but it became clear to me that this phrase wasn't accidental :) I liked it.

Wedma

By the way... What if the GM doesn't name the blocked killers? (If you can answer this question, then SNOW-GIRL! answer...) That is, if someone else was going to kill Kyle/Arandor, but was intercepted, then they simply reported that someone was lurking in the distance, so as not to reveal the person... Could this be the case? Then all our guesses will be shattered by the lack of information=)

Added after 53 seconds
This explains the absence of an obvious move from the Investigator and the Snow Maiden.

The next post made everything clear: Wedma is the Investigator. It's not difficult to put the two posts together to get the name of her victim. However, this is only obvious to me. The hints are still subtle and within the rules. Although it's already close to the limit... But I like this kind of game; it's dangerous :)

I continued to search through the posts about my execution, but I didn't find anything compromising. There are some vague hints, but everything is within the rules. I apologize to Wedma for complaining back then.

P.S. It's easier to kill me; it will be difficult to hang me, I warn you)

This is an obvious bluff. Of course, I wasn't going to skip my turns. And I was "peacefully" sleeping, probably because I was trying to kill Wedma. Well, I was peacefully sitting in ambush at my home :) (aside)

Wedma

Wesker is not a confectioner.

Wedma

If I argue, then according to the current rules, I will be modkilled =) Because I cannot reveal other people's and my own roles. Those who need to will understand.

And this is clearly too much. It's written in plain text: I, the Investigator, checked Wesker - he's bad. And a fair modkill was issued for that.

What I'm getting at. :) I don't know how you will formulate the rules, but there should be opportunities for both subtle role reveals and bluffing. But it shouldn't be possible to reveal a role in the way it was done in the last example

Registered: 9/16/2009

Posts: 1,126

#475 12/23/2009 10:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In my opinion, it's a perfectly acceptable acknowledgment. It doesn't violate any rules, not even a little bit. If it's obvious from the hint, that doesn't mean I explicitly admitted it – you saw it, good for you! Pat yourselves on the back and enjoy life.
I think that mod kill was unfair and didn't align with the rules that were in place in that mafia game.
I don't think it makes sense to dwell on the past game. I've already said everything I wanted to say to the GM.

Если кто-то тебе противоречит, подумай: может, он не прав? (с)

Говорят, что рыжие не плачут,
Говорят, душа у них - огонь.
Если влюблены, то любят значит,
Если ненавидят - их не тронь!

"Не заблуждайтесь. Рыжие - это зло! Знаете кто был рыжим? Иуда... Что сделал Иуда? Иисуса предал - вот что! Я говорю вслух то, о чем другие только думают. Рыжие опасны. И однажды ночью, когда вы будете спать в своих кроватках, рыжие придут за вами... Они придут за вами!!!"
(с) Эрик Картман

In reply to Wedma

Registered: 8/31/2008

Posts: 4,408

#476 12/23/2009 10:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Yeah, it's okay. :)
Let's say I'm a checker. I go and check Wesker, then I just write in the thread, "Wesker is not a pastry chef, I can't explain why because the rules don't allow it."
The rules say: "smarter, more cunning..."
And to write "Wesker is not a pastry chef" - sorry, but it takes a little bit of intelligence.

I remembered the previous game because we're discussing a rule that was violated in it. I won't remember anything else, only this one moment didn't appeal to me. Otherwise, everything is great. :)

Registered: 10/28/2007

Posts: 61,831

#477 12/23/2009 10:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Wesker wants to summarize all his thoughts on this. And he hopes you don't mind. Although, of course, it's important to him... :D

* Let's scrap the rule about "mandatory voting within twelve hours." No one needs it... And you understand that yourself.
* Role revelation. As Zubr said, Mafia isn't just about solving clues (literally ;)). In other words, simply guessing clues is boring and uninteresting. What's much more important is the game itself, from an intuitive point of view. That is, a "eloquent" Mafia member or serial killer will use all available means to make people follow them, to listen to them. This opens up new possibilities, new options. Because it's more interesting than just searching through wikis and seeing what this or that word means in a newspaper.
* The day should end as soon as the required number of votes is reached. Again, this expands the tactical side of the game. And I think it would be a shame if the Mafia carried out an excellent "setup" operation, everyone votes, and then someone comes along and ruins everything :)
* I am strongly against a blacklist. I remind you that everyone on the forum is "one of us," and no one here needs that. I wouldn't want to see my friends, or God forbid me :smile04: in some list of offenders (also, you could think that rules are being broken at every turn and complete lawlessness is happening:smile04:)

P.S. Sorry for the punctuation. It's night, after all :)

Стартовый пост - Квенты - Разное - Список НПС -
Резара - Аксель - Орвальд - Эмилия - Стэфания - Амвросий - Лестер - Альсира - Алария -

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Mafia: general discussions. Auto-translated