The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Hell, if a town team can literally dictate their opponents' kill choices in any way then that is a meaningful advantage.

I never even considered this, but it's an excellent point. I remember an RYM game (in which I was scum) where dunya pulled off some crazy maneuver in the thread to make us believe a certain player was a power role. We attempted to kill that player that night and had it blocked and whoever was doing the kill got caught in the act. It was the coolest thing I've ever seen.

thellama73 wrote:I have a question for the group. I always hear people attack the "you have to be alive to win" condition on the grounds that it keeps the civilians from playing like a team and encourages every man for himself tactics. My question is his: what does "playing like a team" look like for civilians? How, specifically, is it different than what we see now? How can you play like a team when you don't know who your teammates are?

I don't think I've ever heard this explained.

One of the main points is a willingness for a town player to risk their own neck for the benefit of the whole team. For instance, one point I immediately noticed when I joined the Syndicate is that some players avoid making big posts or lots of posts because of an admitted preference to stay alive rather than put all of their cards on the table. This is not a completely foreign idea on RYM, but it's been taken to much greater lengths in the couple of games that I've played here compared to over there. It was especially visible in Economics, when Jay and I and a few other RYMers came over and caused a bit of a stir by throwing up way more posts than everyone but MP on Day 1. The strategy is that if every townie is being vocal, it becomes harder for the bad guys to hide because they'll either have to keep up and make bigger and bigger lies, or fall behind and get called out for their silence.

A townie can be identified by a willingness to help their team, regardless of whether or not they know who their teammates are. Sometimes you have to trust that certain other individuals are also town. I always remind myself in tense situations that, by rule, townies have to outnumber scum in every game, so there is always a greater likelihood that the person I'm interacting with at a given time is good rather than bad.

Turnip Head wrote:This debate is why I'm a big proponent of MVP awards or (something I haven't tried yet) alternate win conditions. MVP can recognize someone who didn't make it to the end but was a vital part of the winning team. Conversely if the game allows dead civilians to win it can recognize the player who was most instrumental in that victory.

Alternate win conditions would be cool in a situation where a civilian dies but the team still won, and this player was able to accomplish such and such, so they still win.

As The Syndicate evolves I think we'll see more stuff like this.

We used to have MVP voting after every game on RYM. Not sure why it stopped. I liked it, it was a fun way to recognize players who did exceptionally well in a game.

I guess I assumed, incorrectly it appears, that "you can only win if you're alive" was a more popular thing here because 3 of the 5 games I've been involved in here used it, and the only 2 that didn't were Talking Heads (an RYM crossover game) and Arrested Development (hosted by JJJ, an RYMer). Epignosis' Watchmen game was unique in that individual players all had individual win conditions, which was very neat and something I'd like to work into a game if I ever get the chance. But the other two (Economics and Bullets Over Broadway) completely restricted win conditions to the players who survived the whole game, and this seemed like the norm around here. Not to say I didn't love those games. Bullets Over Broadway was one of the funnest Mafia games I've ever played, and I never stopped to worry about surviving til the end in order to win. Economics, likewise, was a lot of fun for the two days that I was alive. This is a very minor point that has not actually affected my enjoyment of my time here at all. It's just a thing I don't agree with, for reasons already stated. I think Jay's philosophy on this and mine are completely identical. A team can only win if it functions as a team, and I prefer to permit all members to earn a share in the victory (though I wouldn't be opposed to restricting players who show up for 1 day and then disappear from winning, or something along those lines, not that it truly matters in the end).

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