The Syndicate

Law wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.

This statement is all that I need to know that I would never host a game where you had to be alive to win. It's all anyone should need, to understand why it's a terribly flawed notion.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about incentive and intent. If your townies aren't playing properly, then it's not the same game anymore. If I enroll in a game and I'm later informed that I need to be alive to win, even if I am technically a Town role-- as far as I'm concerned, I'm a survivor Indie. And like it or not, that's how the majority would think, whether they talk about it or even realize it. That's basic human psychology at work.

I've not seen one person here refute this most basic detractor from that style of hosting. I've seen some people try, and ultimately fail.

Everything can be refuted if you create a setup that matches it. I don't like this mechanic myself for the most part, but even it can lead to good games if used properly.

For example, an example of a very good game I played that had the alive-to-win mechanic applied in a creative way:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... f=28&t=672

In this game, every townie IS an indie. The power roles with specific wincons but no need to survive, and the weaker townies with survivor wincons. This is balanced by the fact the mafia/town ratio is very small.

Only a sith deals in absolutes. If you create restrictions to what a mafia game should be, you are only making yourself miss some great games.

I think one explanation for why our ways of thinking are different is how you guys treat winning in the syndicate as opposed to me and the people from the forum I came from.

In the Syndicate, winning seems to be a bigger deal, with signature banners and hall of fame and everything.

In my original forum, it's not. If I am killed Night 1 as a townie then one month later hear that town won, I'd be like "oh cool, town won. Okay, back to Pokemon". And if I lose, I won't be very sad either. In the former case, I technically won the game, but that doesn't mean anything.

We don't give people respect because of games won. We give it because of memorable performances. Like, that guy who stayed alive to Day 10 and almost caught the entire scum team. They are not getting a banner for it but they will be talked about for years. On the other hand, I have no idea how many games I "won" at NF last year.

Now, while I am still alive, the fact I know I can win even if I die is the real game changer. Because I know I can give my all without having to worry about being night killed as a losing factor, and I am a part of a team that is ultimately expendable, so I should try my best to team-work. I'm not an indie, I am Town.

The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.

S~V~S wrote:

Law wrote:I will never host a game where Townies or Mafiosos need to be alive in order to win.

That type of win-condition belongs in 3rd party/Independent faction, not the main two. Sometimes sacrificing yourself is the smart play, and you should win with your team.

I'd rather take wins away from players who stayed alive but didn't deserve to win than those who played hard for their team, but got killed for it.

I totally agree. No guts no glory. I think people take bigger risks and play harder if they don't have to be alive. In games where people have to be alive I think they worry too much about staying alive to take chances and make big plays.

Another think I dislike is protector roles that can protect themselves. My protectors usually have an NK protection built in, and are required to protect others.

I don't mind it as long as you forbid them from targeting the same player twice in a row (including themselves).

Because it kills cop-doctor combos as a bonus. And any doctor combo that would allow some player to be immortal.

Sloonei wrote:I don't like restricting win conditions only to those (town/civ) players left alive at the end of the game. I like to play the game in reverse, looking for townies instead of bad guys, and most of my strategy is heavy on townie teamwork. Only counting people as winners if they stay alive until the end discourages this in some ways.

I expect this will not be a popular opinion here

I agree with this point.

I do think it can be beneficial in some situations, like Epi's Watchmen game, because it allowed for some different wincons.

But as a general town rule? Meh.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Public lie detectors as a whole, honestly.

A non-public LD is essentially a weaker cop, so it can be dealt with even if it can be used every day.

A public one is so OP it hurts.

I have a standing rule that I refuse to make statements for the purpose of being checked by the lie detector- my alignment matters not.

When I am mafia, I enjoy making obvious lie-detectable statements with the expectation that the lie-detector will not call my bluff.

Honestly if I ever get a cop role here you'll be a top 3 priority for investigation. Including lie detect.

Public lie detectors as a whole, honestly.

A non-public LD is essentially a weaker cop, so it can be dealt with even if it can be used every day.

A public one is so OP it hurts.

In that version the game ended. I don't know if that's better or worse, it does add a certain thrill to the game.

The game had a few other weird roles that balanced it though. Like, there was an indie survivor who knew every role in the game.

Here is the game, if you wanna see it: http://www.narutoforums.com/showthread.php?t=1006205

I've once played a game that had a jester cult.

Basically, the cult could recruit someone every night, and they won the game if they managed to lynch the most recently recruited player in the next day.

They won in day 3.

Also has there ever been a games with jesters in the syndicate? I've never seen people here talk about it.

I've seen jesters in two games hosted by you

(though technically one of them was made by me )

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:A few months ago I started making a chart for my own reference when designing games which shows my perspective of balance and imbalance in setups. I actually don't agree with my prior self on all of these, but a lot of it holds. It'd be cool to build upon this with this discussion.

Keep in mind this was made with a mindset for RYM-styled games and certain Syndicate norms aren't acknowledged.

Spoiler: show

I'm sure there'll be some disagreement with certain things here.

Ok, I actually agree with a lot of this. It probably explains why mafias win so much at the Syndicate, compared to other sites. The rules most hosts use here tend to be strongly anti-town.

Golden wrote:And you also need another chart "Pro-casual" and "anti-casual", because my favourite thing about non-changeable votes is when I don't have to check in 5 minutes before lynch to know I'm not being lynched.

In that sense, I think changeable votes are among my least favourite mechanics... even though I value their strategic worth.

I personally love changeable votes. It lets me do the 4 vote changes per day I'm known for in NF.

Yes.

In fact, all the vampires turned into dust if the initial recruiter died.

Though he had bulletproof status, iirc.

On the rezz + recruit thing, I once made a cult where every member of it was a ressurected, immortal player, but nobody was allowed to vote except for the cruit recruiter. So it was balanced. It was a vampire cult.

Ricochet wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I've played games with recruiters (called cults), but they usually come with restrictions that balance them. The cult is independent from mafia, and can't recruit members of mafia, as well as some of the civs.

Yeah, guess which faction got smoked and burned once for not being able to be recruited by the cult, which also had night kills every two nights. The mafia.

Cults should NEVER have kills, unless they are lucky enough to recruit a vigilante.

Turnip Head wrote:I wouldn't say role claiming is really a mechanic, so that's a cheap answer :P And most hosts tend to be very strict about it here because everyone hates it. I have a game in the queue that will allow it, but I have mechanics in place to make it risky.

The Syndicate is the exception.

Elsewhere, people will be quick to tell you the reason you are not allowing role claiming is that you are a lazy host who could not balance your game the proper way and is trying to hide that by removing a fundemanetal mechanic from mafia.

And I disagree with that. Some games are only balanced if they don't have role claiming, yes, but you are missing so many cool game possibilities if you limit yourself like that.

As for cop reveals, I'm more neutral about that. I think allowing people to dump information is okay as long as they don't say how they got that information in the first place. But hosts need to be careful to make sure the game can't be solo'd by cops. Like adding godfather/miller roles and such.

I've played games with recruiters (called cults), but they usually come with restrictions that balance them. The cult is independent from mafia, and can't recruit members of mafia, as well as some of the civs.

My least favorite game mechanic would be allowed role claims in games with named roles. it breaks the game by turning it into a claimfest. Role claims should be allowed in some games that were specifically designed for that, not every single one of them.