What is Your Least Favorite Mafia Game Mechanic and Why?

[Golden]

My least favourite mechanic is vanilla civilians.

Lol heaven forefend a townie need to just analyse the game to find bad guys.

I do that all the time...

But having some kind of role power is fun, even if it doesn't help you analyse the game. I'm seen too many vanilla civilians not engage. I mean, I've seen plenty of people with role powers not engage too. It works both ways. But I understand why a vanilla townie doesn't engage in a game that is role power heavy.

[G-Man]

I'm a bad mafia player because I'm not good at analyzing other players. I can look at vote patterns and use process of elimination to track who other players might be but making a good/bad judgement call based on post content is not my forte. Thus, being a vanilla civ is something of a chore for me. I need secret stuff to decode or a power to play with to keep my mind off of my inability to analyze people's posts. It does at least allow you to be completely honest and not fall under any suspicion for someone seeing that you used a power or whatever, but it's challenging. Given how few vanilla roles are in games these days, I'm not sure I remember the last time I was a 100% vanilla townie.

I guess hammer lynching isn't such a bad sounding idea but it allows the baddies to skip a vote with no consequences should the poll be heading toward a civvie lynch. A hammer would allow hosts to post at their convenience- a lynch deadline also brings with it the expectation of a lynch post following shortly thereafter. But I also like the expectation that must vote because the data freak in me wants a trail on everyone I'm playing with/against. I also like my votes to be final, not changeable.

[Soneji]

I would have to say the jester role as a whole. In games where if the jester wins the game ends its terrible due to the nature of the game being to lynch scummy players, which the jester will try to appear as without making things too obvious, hinging the entire game continuing on a crapshoot. At least in those games though it has a purpose, if the presence of a jester is made known to the players as it always should be when lynching the role ends the game. Its in games where a jesters death just wastes town's time by taking up a phase lynching it or debating on peoples jesterhood that really grinds my gears. The whole role just goes against the spirit of the dayphase and is just a boring role that takes little effort to win as.

As a host, I have only used it once, announcing to the thread that a jester was present and lynching it may have consequences, for town or mafia. If 70% or more of town were on the lynchwagon, three town members would be killed at random. This made it more of a challenge for the jester and town. Mafias negative was that if they had too many members on the jester lynch, that condition of its role being shown upon death is fairly damning. The jester still won but had to put effort into it. I still think the role is terrible though, even with my adjustments.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I've seen jesters in two games hosted by you

(though technically one of them was made by me )

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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

[Soneji]

I don't count Gohan because 1) he was made by you and 2) it was an in-joke due to SoulTaker submitting Gohan into Favorites for a third time straight. It served a comedic purpose and you added a nice twist to it compared to the standard jester.

[Marmot]

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

We do have a tendency to not use the traditional names of roles on this site, so if there was a jester, it wouldn't be obvious.

In Watchmen, my win con was to get nightkilled. A variation of the standard jester.

I can't recall a regular Jester cropping up anywhere, but I'm sure it has.

[Tangrowth]

I had a jester in Super Meat Boy... Tofu Boy!

He started out as a regular civilian, but once he lost just one life (i.e., received one vote against him), he became suicidal and could only win if he was lynched.

[Tangrowth]

Pretty sure that's the only jester I've seen on this site, or even on other LP-based sites beforehand, though.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[S~V~S]

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.

[Marmot]

I agree with SVS, that's a neat idea, and would be more awesome if the game didn't just end, and any cult members that don't get lynched have something else to play for.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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

[Sorsha]

Least favorite: secret recruits. I think if a recruit is possible, especially by a mafia team, that the players should be aware that it's a possibility.

[DharmaHelper]

Mafia spies.

[S~V~S]

Silencing.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Anything that corrupts voting or lynch results for either faction.

[G-Man]

Anything that corrupts voting or lynch results for either faction.

In light of this, you might not want to play my Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3 game coming up later this year.

[S~V~S]

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

[Law]

Lie-detectors that can be used every single day, so you end up with everyone in the game clamoring to be detected.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[Epignosis]

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.

[Law]

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.

I'd rather people not know there was a lie-detect in the game right up until that one moment they pop in and fire it off, without hinting or asking people obvious, pointed questions.

In a big, big game, I'm cool with a One-Shot public lie-detect. Generally, I like to keep them private though.

[S~V~S]

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

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't like lie detectors either regardless of their publicity. I've seen hosts try to limit them by restricting them from checking statements that are conclusively alignment-indicative (like "I'm a civilian"), but even that leaves room for loopholes. I'd prefer just not have them.

I don't like dead baddies being allowed to continue BTSC with their team. I guess the same goes for BTSC in any faction.

[Marmot]

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.

[Sloonei]

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

[S~V~S]

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

[Law]

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.

[Epignosis]

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.

[S~V~S]

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.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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 an interesting clash of culture, because prior to coming here I'd never encountered the same sort of disdain for revealed information. I've always felt that, as a mafia-aligned player, being subject to information-based accusations is the result of a misplay on my part (even in otherwise strong performances) and not just bad luck or cheap townie tactics. Cops choose their ID targets for reasons; trackers track people for reasons, watcher watch people for reasons. I think there's an art to being conscious of those things and maneuvering around them to prevent being found out by a night action.

That's not to say I hate the concept of a game with no info-dumping though. I do think it's a very good practice for a complex, role-heavy open setup (as is common on The Syndicate). I don't think it's necessary in vanilla-heavy open setups though, and I agree that it's not necessary in a closed setup.

[thellama73]

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.

[Marmot]

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.

Your teammates would be much less willing to let you bus them if they knew they couldn't win. :P

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I honestly don't think the civilian faction exists in a game where only living players win. It's mafia vs. a ton of independents, even if the rolecards say otherwise.

[S~V~S]

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.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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.

[Marmot]

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.

Agreed. Could you imagine if you and I were the only winners at the end of Talking Heads Mafia? We were the only two players to survive. That would have been devastating to many who did deserve it.

And there are ways to punish players that just don't participate at all. There's Participation Rules. Hosts have the option of modkilling players. They can also just deny the win to a player that cheats or breaks the rules, or is being a clear asshat. There's still plenty of discretion there.

[Law]

Agreed with S~V~S and JJJ.

Needing to be alive to win is called a Survivor. It has no place in Townie/Mafia win-conditions, imo. It's not a game I'd want to host or play in unless I was Independent.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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.

Agreed. Could you imagine if you and I were the only winners at the end of Talking Heads Mafia? We were the only two players to survive. That would have been devastating to many who did deserve it.

I probably wouldn't accept the banner because my role would be a literal cheat code with that rule in place. :P

To be fair, if I were to play in such a game my methods would be very different. I would be much more selfish and probably a lot less useful, but I'd still want to win the game -- even if at the expense of people who think they're aligned with me.

[Epignosis]

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.

Agreed. Could you imagine if you and I were the only winners at the end of Talking Heads Mafia? We were the only two players to survive. That would have been devastating to many who did deserve it.

I probably wouldn't accept the banner because my role would be a literal cheat code with that rule in place. :P

To be fair, if I were to play in such a game my methods would be very different. I would be much more selfish and probably a lot less useful, but I'd still want to win the game -- even if at the expense of people who think they're aligned with me.

Trust me, if anyone should be staunchly in the "Win Dead or Alive" camp, it's me. I get Night killed all the time, especially when I'm on the right track. But like I said, I'm only averse to it when there's info involved + an open setup. My view comes from many examples when a civilian effectively outed himself or dumped info into the thread to score the win. That method takes no skill whatsoever, and spoils the game for the Mafia. Mafia should have the recourse to punish the info-dumper and take away his win (as well as remove his ability from the game).

In a closed setup with a cop (i.e., the cop isn't tied to one specific role), it's different because the civilians have to work together in trying to steer the Mafia's kill away from the cop on top of catching the Mafia. This worked out perfectly in Arrested Development, and the entire civilian team deserved the win.

I like both setups, and I think both types of win conditions have their place.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[Epignosis]

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.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

[S~V~S]

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?

[Ricochet]

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.

While I must note beforehand that I have so far never expressed any opinion on whether any player "deserved to win" a game or not (although you know who you are), nor did I feel the need on even a handful of occasions to privately judge a player's performance in such words, if the hypothetical situation would be "I won a game together with 10 people who did not deserve it", I would profoundly dislike the 10 wins granted to those who did not deserve it. Civs, mafia, indies, no distinction. You don't play, I don't like. There's absolutely no variation to this, as far as I'm concerned.

On a personal level, if I would die on Day/Night 1 and win with the rest of the civilians after a 12-cycle confrontation or so, such victory would feel completely hollow. Granted, the further into a game I'd fall as a victim, the more losing would very likely start to ache.

I don't feel that Talking Heads is a pertinent example, because it was announced from the get go that it would be DoA - and it being a crossover game with RYM, it wasn't expected to be anything other than that. That beind said, yes, losing the game on Day Fifteen would have been devastating. Would losing the game have had the same impact for Epignosis, a Night 9 victim, though? Dunno, maybe? Would losing the game have had the same impact for a Night 4 victim? How 'bout Night 1?

Epignosis's point of view is quite good. Come to think of it, I've still witnessed cases, even in "survive to win" games, in which civs or neutrals cracked under lynch pressure, getting as close as rolehinting as "legally" possible. Which faction never does that? The one that can always wins as a team. Mafia.

Anyway, for new or conservative players, I could suggest perhaps embracing at least one game that's designed in this fashion (whether you participate or you design it yourself), to get a sense if the disentchantment of losing a game in such way is real or not. For instance, have we actually had civilian complaints or bitter afterthoughts about losing the game due to being killed?

Otherwise, I actually feel the dead-or-alive format is gaining serious ground on the Syndicate, so supporters of this should feel positive about the outlook, they're kinda winning with their cause.

One last factor that I consider relevant to this is the Hall of Fame rankings, which, for some reason, I still value [I'm undergoing therapy to get over it, though]. I have 5 wins, each and every one having absolute sentimental value for me. Instead, I have 7 losses [not sure if Arrested Development counts as an eighth, and I frankly hope not] out of which only one do I consider to have been out of bad luck / bad odds [hint: I was mafia] and six don't stack up one bit to any great performance or legacy in my books. Technically, the civilian faction never actually won a single game of these six I myself lost, so I can't really build a statement of how me not winning with them would have felt disappointing, lol.

But back to the Rankings, they probably require to be slowly devalued by the increase in wins that Heists and Dead-or-Alive formats will influence - which is, again, already happening. I project that in another year or so, the overall leaders will have like 30 wins to their name, at which point these rankings themselves will lose any meaning they had, for instance, during the two-three years in which the victors were few and the ranks were tight.

[S~V~S]

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

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I've never really perceived wins and losses to be highly indicative of a player's skill level. I remember a guy on RYM who played a lot when I was new (RedMosquito to those who would know); he influenced me a lot then with his style and approach to the game. I believe he started his Mafia "career" 0-13.

At the risk of sounding like I'm full of crap, the joy of winning for me is always in the teamwork -- whether I'm town or bad. I love to share the glory with everyone and don't really take much personal pride in it. Nothing in Mafia makes me feel better than knowing I was on a team that worked together, played with respect, and found a way to win against a tough group of opponents. I think that's why I'm always playing the role of cheerleader or coach and annoying everyone. :P

I've never won a game with an independent role before so I don't really know how that feels; in my few opportunities I was more interested in just having fun and screwing around than actually winning.

[Ricochet]

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

Not the point I was making, but sure. (In fact, I myself noted that the emotional loss in such scenario would indeed be very high, under be alive rules.)

What about playing your ass off for 1 day, get NKd night 1, and your civs won day 11?

What about playing your ass off for 1 day, get lynched day 1, and your civs won day 11?

Also, "my" civs, heh. Always worth a chuckle when civs actually believe they're a team. Then they go shoot each other in the foot more often than not.