The Syndicate

I usually set my protectors up with one auto NP, and that role specifically cannot self target. I think strategic self targeting has a place.

Law wrote:

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.

If I roll a generic role as a Townie, I will do everything in my power to get myself killed instead of someone with a Power role.

Same goes for being a mafia goon and taking attention away from stronger members.

Inviting your mafia teammates to bus you in a smart way to help the team overall.

There are dozens, these are just the first ones to pop into my head as I read your question.

I intentionally tried to draw the kill in a recent game, more to try to frame the person I was very vocally going after than anything. If I had to be alive, I would have been less likely to try that.

My pet peeve with alive to win win cons is the civ protector who protects him/herself every other night. I think the protector should be trying to protect OTHER people. That is less likely to happen in win dead or alive set ups.

If I played my ass off for 10 days, got NKed night 10, and my civs won day 11, I deserved to win.

Epignosis wrote:I don't usually share my...strategies in Mafia, but the wine tonight has warmed me, and I'm feeling generous.

On the rare occasion that I nab a lie detector role or a role check, I almost always check a female player.

This is kinda creepy, lol. Why?

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis 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.

That depends on the setup. In an open setup in which information is in play (role checker, lie detector, civilian BTSC, etc.), having to be alive in order to win keeps civilians from getting Mafia lynched just because they dump info into the thread. There's an art to lynching Mafia without drawing the Night kill yourself. It's one I myself have not mastered and probably never will, but I think it keeps blabbermouth civilians from ruining the game for the Mafia.

No info or a closed setup? That's different.

I think this is a really good point. I also like having a smaller number of winners in general. In a 30 person game, a townie victory (to me at least) feels more hollow if it's shared among 22 people, some of whom didn't play, contributed nothing, and got killed on Day 1, than if only the survivors win. I can see merit to both arguments though.

I think it is better to give a win to 10 people who did not deserve it than to deny it to one person in the winning faction who did, tbh.

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.

Why? Lots of us prefer dead or alive win conditions for civs as well as baddies.

I dislike lie detectors of all kinds, just another form of info. But if you are going to have one, it should be known, imo. But just yuck :P

Or any game I ever host, where I give out extra votes like Candy (that was not the case in GOC; TH restrained me )

Silencing.

That would be AWESOME!!

So long as it did not end the game for everyone else, I think I would actually like that in a game.

Being town makes me want to bang my head into the wall, lol, and being vanilla town makes me want to bang it harder. So for me the best civ role is a civ BTS role. I can say all the stupid ridiculous things I say to them instead of to the thread and not get suspected as much. I react really poorly to suspicion when I don't have BTSC.

My favorite game of all time I was a BTSC civvie, that is a dream role for me.

Once GOC is over we can restart that.

I have had a couple of games with a cult, but only one where the cult won. He was basically bulletproof (it was a Cthulhu like role; if he was targeted with anything, who ever targeted him was insanified). But he had a lot of restrictions on how he could recruit and who he could recruit. Plus his recruits were vulnerable. The problem with that role was, I think, that noone knew he was in the game. If you have a cult, people should know about it.

I like rezzes only of NKed players. It does not put a target on rezzed civvies backs, and it gives baddies a chance. If you have a civ rezz, I will have one team with a rezz, usually not both. The second will have a recruit.

I seriously dislike games with one bad team, unless it is a tiny game. I totally hate info. I have seen too many good baddie games trashed by a clumsy role checker.