Posts from Mafia: general discussions. Auto-translated

Ara, but we're talking about the role itself.

It shouldn't be a mandatory element. The GM decides which roles to include, and balance needs to be maintained, as such a role might hinder someone. If there are two Mafia factions in the game, then it could work. In general, many interesting things can be added to a game with two Mafia factions. It's a shame that it's hard to find enough people for such a game these days.

The best reward for a good player is their result.

Those who missed it can skip it, but newcomers should keep it. Otherwise, someone might come along and get immediately killed, without even understanding what kind of chaotic and absurd environment they've stumbled into.

Or leave it to the killers’ conscience.

Clearly against immunities. The role of the Necromancer seems interesting. I myself once created a Necromancer, but I perceived his role in exactly the opposite way...

You could borrow the idea regarding the resurrecter from the 16th game. This is the only positive aspect of that game.

I used the 16th skill. As far as I remember, it doesn't resurrect, but heals, right? It's just named in a pompous way.

This is what a psycho would have.

Well, just ban him from leaking information, and that's it.

So, does that mean you can't say that "those guys are, in my opinion, Mafia"? Then what's the point of Necromancy?

It's better to leave immunities only for GMs and those eliminated in the first night. If someone missed a few games, it's their own fault.

Hmm... There can be different reasons for missing games...

I also think it would be better to remove immunities altogether.

Hands off the immunities

So? It's still the player's problem. Only in-game reasons should remain, such as game mechanics and dying on the first night.

I blasted them with the 16th spell. Isn't it more of a healing spell than a resurrection spell? It's just named in a grandiose way.

I was resurrected in the sixteenth. I was killed on the first night and resurrected on the second.

Ah, I see, through sacrifice... Well, then it's okay.

Then, resurrecting a level 16 maniac is perfect for maniacs. Just like necromancy.
Although, yes, resurrecting testers doesn't work well. You need as many as Revnya has newspapers.

A Necromancer is not a maniac. He is a handsome man.

We have another round of unclear players in the queue.

By the way, who's next in line?

Regarding immunities, I would leave them as they are. We definitely don't need more immunities, and fewer... well, we could probably remove them from those who missed their turn, although I'm fine with the current setup.

Sharing my experience: in our games, the GM gives tasks to solve. The first one to solve it (or not necessarily the first) gets a bonus, such as immunity for the night or the day. Not for the _first_ night, but for the night/day _following_ the task's solution. But honestly, I doubt this would work well in HvH.

Regarding the necromancer. It's pointless to forbid the moderator from speaking and hope that he won't circumvent this ban. It's easier to introduce restrictions on resurrection, exactly the same as for replacements. That is, you can "resurrect" (in quotes because I remember - resurrection without voice and no new information, just for chatting) a player who, according to their role, does not receive additional information. That is, all kinds of blockers, shooters, healers... Moderators and mountain dwellers are out. You can also resurrect mafia members, why not? It's just for fun. Although if there are two mafia members in the game, you need to think carefully before allowing this.