JJJ's Hosting Balance Worksheet

[Golden]

As for the red - I generally draw the line here. People who were lynched on day one and were town may sub back in - they have no info, they weren't killed by the mafia, I don't really see any way their reintroduction negatively influences the game. But I don't like to let people back in who have any insight as a result of ability use or being killed.

[dunya]

I disagree with the green most wholeheartedly, but I understand the rationale. When you host, what I find is that in most cases they slowly drop away anyway, but if they do stay it's generally not to plot, it's to hang out, and it keeps the morale high associated with being mafia (which is a rather thankless task). As a civilian, I don't really agree that the reason you lynched someone was to get them out of chat. It was because you caught them and they were bad. Or to get rid of their ability.

I don't mind if they stay to chat or whatever. But a dead scummer is dead and the players in the game believe him or her to be out of it and not influencing any scum decisions. He or she should have no influence on the game just like a dead townie shouldn't. Just cos they have BTSC and not a public thread doesn't make it ok.

It's like if there were two masons, and one died, does s/he go on playing the game in BTSC with the other mason, cos why not?

nah, it's bad.

[dunya]

As for the red - I generally draw the line here. People who were lynched on day one and were town may sub back in - they have no info, they weren't killed by the mafia, I don't really see any way their reintroduction negatively influences the game. But I don't like to let people back in who have any insight as a result of ability use or being killed.

what about a vanilla civ who was killed/lynched on N3/D3, replacing no-show player on D4?

[Golden]

As for the red - I generally draw the line here. People who were lynched on day one and were town may sub back in - they have no info, they weren't killed by the mafia, I don't really see any way their reintroduction negatively influences the game. But I don't like to let people back in who have any insight as a result of ability use or being killed.

what about a vanilla civ who was killed/lynched on N3/D3, replacing no-show player on D4?

Perhaps if every single role was vanilla. If not, whose to say they weren't targeted etc.

[speedchuck]

Chainkill for every role you successfully match. Until you get it wrong or stop.

And this is done only once, or whenever the witch wants?

On any night, the scum can forgo their nightkill and try to chainkill the townies.

Downside: No guaranteed kill at all. If the first choice is wrong, then there is no kill. If mafia get greedy and guess wrong on any guess but the first, they get revealed.
Upside: If mafia knows/guesses 5 roles correctly, for example, they can kill five roles in one night.

Here's a game where myself and a scum partner sealed our victory by chainkilling 4 townies in one night.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

they get revealed.

The whole team, or the player doing the guessing?

[speedchuck]

they get revealed.

The whole team, or the player doing the guessing?

The player.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

they get revealed.

The whole team, or the player doing the guessing?

The player.

It's an interesting dynamic. I struggle to gauge its balance validity without seeing it through a few times at least. The credit hunt game you linked made it appear as though the civilians weren't surprised when the avalanche fell upon them to end the game, suggesting perhaps many of them role claimed late out of desperation and it didn't work out?

As I sit here trying to poke holes in it, I am able to answer my own questions. That's a good sign. Examples of things I have asked myself:

~ "Could the civilians just mass-claim in a 4 vs. 3 or 3 vs. 2 LyLo scenario to out the bad guys and call it a day?" No, because at least one mafia survives another day and soups them all to death.

~ "Could the civilians capitalize in a 3 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 1 LyLo scenario with mass claims?" Theoretically yes, but a prepared mafioso will be prepared to claim a living civilian role and leave the game in a claim-counterclaim deadlock. That does however reduce the suspect pool from three to two overall, because the third individual will be confirmed civilian.

~ "Is there sufficient incentive to prevent sub-mass role claiming?" For stronger roles, yes. Only weaker roles will be eager to claim, particularly under duress. This might rob the mafia team of mislynch targets though, and only provide them with unwanted soup kill targets.

If I have a concern, it's that this mechanic might invite claim behavior which ends up dictating who the mafia team has to kill to survive. Without that free agency, they are handicapped.

[speedchuck]

In that game, we had two townclaims I think. Hard to recall.

I find the dynamic of the mechanic good because there is no toeing the line without possibly alerting the mafia. And the punishment for claiming is natural, out of the hands of the host.

It still requires balance, possibly even more meticulous balance than with a normal open setup. I wouldn't know how to balance it, due to those strong/weak roles you're talking about.

[Golden]

If I have a concern, it's that this mechanic might invite claim behavior which ends up dictating who the mafia team has to kill to survive. Without that free agency, they are handicapped.

It would probably dictate mafia kill strategy from the off. You are forced to kill people who don't claim or hint over people who do. Conversely, as a civilian, it would potentially behoove you to claim or hint in the short term, or create a metagame in which you claim or hint at things you are not. It's certainly an interesting mechanic, but I tend to think town playing well could virtually ensure it was effectively Fool's Gold.

[Jackofhearts2005]

Soup kill reminds me of the parting kill in Assassins in the Palace. Have ya’ll played that?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

The philosophy to me is to counter both inactivity and also strategic non-use of abilities. Sometimes people get roles they don't like and they'd rather not lose, and although that sucks a little for that person - my philosophy is sort of 'you don't always get what you want, but you still have to use it'.

I don't have a problem with this. Some abilities are not good to use every night. A vig kill, for example. Or a redirecting ability.

And if I designed an ability that a player would rather not use, it's my fault not theirs.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

strategic non-use of abilities.

I don't care for this either, or deliberately skipped night kills.

One of my least favorite dynamics is when a civilian is inactive and only one mafioso is still alive. The mafioso is forced to either skip the kill or kill the inactive player to prevent confirming him or her as a civilian. That should never happen -- the civilians shouldn't benefit from one of their own failing to play the game. In situations like that, a randomized kill mechanic eliminates all these problems.

Easy.

Modkill the inactive civ.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I just remembered to add another item too:

• A rule which allows mafia members to submit actions on behalf of their teammates

I have placed this in the "moderately pro-mafia" category, though it could also probably fit in the "slightly pro-mafia" category. I think this is a significant allowance for a mafia team in that it allows them to forego any team member who is inactive -- a luxury which a civilian faction simply cannot enjoy when its members are inactive. The lack of a viable counter can be very beneficial to the bad guys.

ehhhhh. it sucks when you have a team of 3 vs 16 for example and that random scum team of 3 have 2 inactives and 1 active player and no replacements in the game. sometimes the mod makes exceptions to balance the game out. I don't fault them tbh.

I hate it when town kills a scum and a mod allows them to stay on and chat and plot. or when mafia kill a townie and then that townie replaces another inactive. THOSE should both be banned forever. We got rid of you for a reason: you shouldn't be impacting the game imo.

Nah I disagree

I have an order for undesirable things to have in a game, from least undesirable to most undesirable. it goes like this:

- Everyone is active (YAY!)
- Early-game replacement (new player)
- Early-game replacement (dead player)
- Modkill
- Late-game replacement (new player)
- Late-game replacement (dead player)
- Inactive player staying in the game for multiple days

If I'm the host, the last 3 will never happen. Because I'll modkill people to prevent it. But early-game replacements are a way to avoid modkills, which are a less desirable outcome.

For me having a late game replacement is worst thn having an early game replacement of any type. First, because they are almost never able to catch up, so they miss whatever argument and events made someone look like civ or bad, and make worse votes/decisions because of it. Second, because they make a big change on whatever was the narrative of the game at the time, without giving living players time to adapt, which may give the civs a sudden win or defeat.

An early game replacement has an effect too, but it's likely to be dampaned over time, as the game narrative is still being built and they can catch up and insert themselves into the old narrative easily. A dead player replacement is not nice, but its effects are small enough if it's early game.

A modkill is horrible because it artifically changes the setup in a random way. But it's still preferrable to allowing Mr. Lurker to make zero posts from Day 2 to Day 9, because that affects the game negatively in so many ways it's ridiculous.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Easy.

Modkill the inactive civ.

The civilian can be active the entire game and then have an Internet outage for one night phase and end up confirmed.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm not against modkilling though. I modkilled a civilian at LyLo once.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Easy.

Modkill the inactive civ.

The civilian can be active the entire game and then have an Internet outage for one night phase and end up confirmed.

I don't modkill people because of one night phase. I'm more lenient. My current criterium is two days, maybe more if you let me know about your predicament in advance.

But in this site it's common for someone to sign up for a game, and still be in it 2 months after it starts, without making a single post. It's ridiculous.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I think I've been lynched as a civ 3 or 4 times in this site. 2 of them were because of late game replacements.

It usually goes like this. I start the game and everyone suspects me because I say scummy things. Then as it goes people get a better grasp of me and I get civ read. Replacement joins on Day 6 and has the initial DDL suspicion he should have had on day 1. He voices it. People remember their old suspicons. Tinfoiling ensues. DDL is lynched. Town lost the game both times this happened.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I disagree with the green most wholeheartedly, but I understand the rationale. When you host, what I find is that in most cases they slowly drop away anyway, but if they do stay it's generally not to plot, it's to hang out, and it keeps the morale high associated with being mafia (which is a rather thankless task). As a civilian, I don't really agree that the reason you lynched someone was to get them out of chat. It was because you caught them and they were bad. Or to get rid of their ability.

I don't mind if they stay to chat or whatever. But a dead scummer is dead and the players in the game believe him or her to be out of it and not influencing any scum decisions. He or she should have no influence on the game just like a dead townie shouldn't. Just cos they have BTSC and not a public thread doesn't make it ok.

It's like if there were two masons, and one died, does s/he go on playing the game in BTSC with the other mason, cos why not?

nah, it's bad.

Well obviously you exclude players who have info.

- Mafia
- Anyone with BTSC
- Cops/tracker/watcher with unclaimed results
- Anyone whose role was hidden when they died.

[speedchuck]

If I have a concern, it's that this mechanic might invite claim behavior which ends up dictating who the mafia team has to kill to survive. Without that free agency, they are handicapped.

It would probably dictate mafia kill strategy from the off. You are forced to kill people who don't claim or hint over people who do. Conversely, as a civilian, it would potentially behoove you to claim or hint in the short term, or create a metagame in which you claim or hint at things you are not. It's certainly an interesting mechanic, but I tend to think town playing well could virtually ensure it was effectively Fool's Gold.

That's a good thing, in my opinion.

[dunya]

I disagree with the green most wholeheartedly, but I understand the rationale. When you host, what I find is that in most cases they slowly drop away anyway, but if they do stay it's generally not to plot, it's to hang out, and it keeps the morale high associated with being mafia (which is a rather thankless task). As a civilian, I don't really agree that the reason you lynched someone was to get them out of chat. It was because you caught them and they were bad. Or to get rid of their ability.

I don't mind if they stay to chat or whatever. But a dead scummer is dead and the players in the game believe him or her to be out of it and not influencing any scum decisions. He or she should have no influence on the game just like a dead townie shouldn't. Just cos they have BTSC and not a public thread doesn't make it ok.

It's like if there were two masons, and one died, does s/he go on playing the game in BTSC with the other mason, cos why not?

nah, it's bad.

Well obviously you exclude players who have info.

- Mafia
- Anyone with BTSC
- Cops/tracker/watcher with unclaimed results
- Anyone whose role was hidden when they died.

that's not what I meant. I meant the mafia team wanted a player dead, they sacrificed a NK to kill that player and were successful. Having that player, even if he/she is eligible because they didn't have any background power role info, replace an inactive or whatever, isn't fair on the mafia team. The player who was killed and is now a replacement, with his/her reads and biases that the mafia team didn't want influencing the game anymore and successfully got rid of, has returned. To haunt them a second time!

I would never allow dead players to return, personally.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I disagree with the green most wholeheartedly, but I understand the rationale. When you host, what I find is that in most cases they slowly drop away anyway, but if they do stay it's generally not to plot, it's to hang out, and it keeps the morale high associated with being mafia (which is a rather thankless task). As a civilian, I don't really agree that the reason you lynched someone was to get them out of chat. It was because you caught them and they were bad. Or to get rid of their ability.

I don't mind if they stay to chat or whatever. But a dead scummer is dead and the players in the game believe him or her to be out of it and not influencing any scum decisions. He or she should have no influence on the game just like a dead townie shouldn't. Just cos they have BTSC and not a public thread doesn't make it ok.

It's like if there were two masons, and one died, does s/he go on playing the game in BTSC with the other mason, cos why not?

nah, it's bad.

Well obviously you exclude players who have info.

- Mafia
- Anyone with BTSC
- Cops/tracker/watcher with unclaimed results
- Anyone whose role was hidden when they died.

that's not what I meant. I meant the mafia team wanted a player dead, they sacrificed a NK to kill that player and were successful. Having that player, even if he/she is eligible because they didn't have any background power role info, replace an inactive or whatever, isn't fair on the mafia team. The player who was killed and is not a replacement, with his/her reads and biases that the mafia team didn't want influencing the game anymore and successfully got rid of, has returned. To haunt them a second time!

I would never allow dead players to return, personally.

Lesser evil theory applies.

Having an inactive player exist in the game is more damaging to whatever faction they are in than a dead replacement is.

[dunya]

I'm not talking about lesser evil on the whole here, I'm just saying that rule is always pro-town and anti-mafia.

[Golden]

If I have a concern, it's that this mechanic might invite claim behavior which ends up dictating who the mafia team has to kill to survive. Without that free agency, they are handicapped.

It would probably dictate mafia kill strategy from the off. You are forced to kill people who don't claim or hint over people who do. Conversely, as a civilian, it would potentially behoove you to claim or hint in the short term, or create a metagame in which you claim or hint at things you are not. It's certainly an interesting mechanic, but I tend to think town playing well could virtually ensure it was effectively Fool's Gold.

That's a good thing, in my opinion.

I agree, it's a mechanic that can be self balancing if it's designed into the game well.

[speedchuck]

I disagree with the green most wholeheartedly, but I understand the rationale. When you host, what I find is that in most cases they slowly drop away anyway, but if they do stay it's generally not to plot, it's to hang out, and it keeps the morale high associated with being mafia (which is a rather thankless task). As a civilian, I don't really agree that the reason you lynched someone was to get them out of chat. It was because you caught them and they were bad. Or to get rid of their ability.

I don't mind if they stay to chat or whatever. But a dead scummer is dead and the players in the game believe him or her to be out of it and not influencing any scum decisions. He or she should have no influence on the game just like a dead townie shouldn't. Just cos they have BTSC and not a public thread doesn't make it ok.

It's like if there were two masons, and one died, does s/he go on playing the game in BTSC with the other mason, cos why not?

nah, it's bad.

Well obviously you exclude players who have info.

- Mafia
- Anyone with BTSC
- Cops/tracker/watcher with unclaimed results
- Anyone whose role was hidden when they died.

that's not what I meant. I meant the mafia team wanted a player dead, they sacrificed a NK to kill that player and were successful. Having that player, even if he/she is eligible because they didn't have any background power role info, replace an inactive or whatever, isn't fair on the mafia team. The player who was killed and is now a replacement, with his/her reads and biases that the mafia team didn't want influencing the game anymore and successfully got rid of, has returned. To haunt them a second time!

I would never allow dead players to return, personally.

What if that player got lynched the first time?

[dunya]

I disagree with the green most wholeheartedly, but I understand the rationale. When you host, what I find is that in most cases they slowly drop away anyway, but if they do stay it's generally not to plot, it's to hang out, and it keeps the morale high associated with being mafia (which is a rather thankless task). As a civilian, I don't really agree that the reason you lynched someone was to get them out of chat. It was because you caught them and they were bad. Or to get rid of their ability.

I don't mind if they stay to chat or whatever. But a dead scummer is dead and the players in the game believe him or her to be out of it and not influencing any scum decisions. He or she should have no influence on the game just like a dead townie shouldn't. Just cos they have BTSC and not a public thread doesn't make it ok.

It's like if there were two masons, and one died, does s/he go on playing the game in BTSC with the other mason, cos why not?

nah, it's bad.

Well obviously you exclude players who have info.

- Mafia
- Anyone with BTSC
- Cops/tracker/watcher with unclaimed results
- Anyone whose role was hidden when they died.

that's not what I meant. I meant the mafia team wanted a player dead, they sacrificed a NK to kill that player and were successful. Having that player, even if he/she is eligible because they didn't have any background power role info, replace an inactive or whatever, isn't fair on the mafia team. The player who was killed and is now a replacement, with his/her reads and biases that the mafia team didn't want influencing the game anymore and successfully got rid of, has returned. To haunt them a second time!

I would never allow dead players to return, personally.

What if that player got lynched the first time?

same deal for me. It messes up the balance of the game. The mafia could have pushed that lynch. Or even not, town lynched them. They get a second chance at reading that player more accurately.

I don't like it. I also hate late replacements (even if the player is a genuine replacement and not a dead player). Messes up with the balance, and hard to get it right.

Modkills are the unbiased solution, sad as that may be. If modkills were implemented here more, I think there'd be less instances of people dropping off the face of the earth when they know they'd be modkilled and affecting their team that badly. I prefer modkills, regardless of faction.

[dunya]

You have to decide: completely inactive member vs modkill - which one disrupts the game more? I'd say the former considering inactives get policy lynched and a wasted kill on them and talked about and people wasting time on them. Also, when inactives exist in critical game scenarios, mafia have often skipped kills to frame them... It's all unnecessary and the game would be more fluid if modkills were implemented.

[speedchuck]

same deal for me. It messes up the balance of the game. The mafia could have pushed that lynch. Or even not, town lynched them. They get a second chance at reading that player more accurately.

True, but the player could be a different alignment now.

I'm with DDL on this. 3-4 players get killed in mafia games before anyone has really strong, hard opinions. The D1 lynch guy isn't going to break balance if he hops back in, unless he knows something that hasn't been revealed.

I might be biased. I've replaced back into games at least 5 times, because I used to get lynched early as vanilla town every game.

Modkills are better than inactivity or late-game replacements, though.

[Epignosis]

If I'm bringing back a dead civilian to replace in, I clear it with my mafia team(s) first.

[Jackofhearts2005]

If I'm bringing back a dead civilian to replace in, I clear it with my mafia team(s) first.

This is probably a good compromise.

I tend to side with the “don’t let dead civvies return” for reasons Dunya laid out but I’m also less willing to modkill than I used to be.

I don’t suppose “have more replacements than inactive” is anything more than wishful thinking.

[dunya]

If I'm bringing back a dead civilian to replace in, I clear it with my mafia team(s) first.

Good solution actually! I might do this in future if necessary.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I’m curious where [mention]JaggedJimmyJay[/mention] would place the following type roles.

Scum note passer
Town or scum soap box/ghost writer (like K2 with the later not having to be in “this is a letter from K2” form) when the power isn’t stated to be for sure a townie by the host
Town Freddy (Kruger, vig who only targets nonposters, essentially letting the town decide between replacement and modkill)

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I'm not talking about lesser evil on the whole here, I'm just saying that rule is always pro-town and anti-mafia.

And if you don't do it, something that messes up balance even more may happen.

The point here is not whether the thing messes the game or not. We all know it does. The thing is that we want to pick the lesser evil in any given situation.

A modkill is traumatic since it randomly removes a role from an otherwise balanced setup.

That said, I gave my own ranking of "lesser evils" when it comes with dealing with inactives. You guys are free to disagree with it and swap the lines in it. I find this discussion to be fascinating.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

If I'm bringing back a dead civilian to replace in, I clear it with my mafia team(s) first.

I like this.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

It used to be in my other site that dead player replacements were so common that a viable mafia strategy would be to avoid killing good players in the first two nights to avoid letting them replace in.

Nowadays it's much less common as hosts have become more liberal with modkills. Some of them even oppose the concept of replacing inactives altogether.

I find the scenario described above to be undesirable, so I'd limit dead player replacements more. Maybe so only people who are lynched can do it.

[Tangrowth]

I think on the topic of the inevitable replace/modkill/etc. discussion, Jack makes a really good point regarding trying to balance for it. In our role madness games, perhaps
hosts should make a concerted effort to include at least one role that can deal with low/no posters, such as a town vig that is restricted to low-posters. I've experimented with that off and on but not as much as I'd like, so I plan on doing so much more with my future non-Heist games.

[Tangrowth]

Otherwise, as for my two-cents on the matter, there are obviously pros/cons to replacements vs. modkills, especially when those replacements are dead players because none other are available. Each host will find his or her own preference on the matter; like DDL said, it's a lesser of evils kind of situation, and I don't think there's a clear cut solution.

I do think modkills over time have become less used around here though, and while I understand why, I think perhaps there are some games where players are living way too long as inactives and should have been modkilled. IMO the negative consequences as a result of modkilling a player suck, but they suck less than the negative consequences of an inactive player sticking around and mucking the game up.

Just ask people who've played my games (especially in the early ages of this site and even before it), as a host I'm certainly not afraid of modkills.

[Epignosis]

Otherwise, as for my two-cents on the matter, there are obviously pros/cons to replacements vs. modkills, especially when those replacements are dead players because none other are available. Each host will find his or her own preference on the matter; like DDL said, it's a lesser of evils kind of situation, and I don't think there's a clear cut solution.

I do think modkills over time have become less used around here though, and while I understand why, I think perhaps there are some games where players are living way too long as inactives and should have been modkilled. IMO the negative consequences as a result of modkilling a player suck, but they suck less than the negative consequences of an inactive player sticking around and mucking the game up.

Just ask people who've played my games (especially in the early ages of this site and even before it), as a host I'm certainly not afraid of modkills.

>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere
>SpaghettiEverywhere

[Tangrowth]

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Scum note passer

I'd call it a helpful role for the mafia, but not really a "strong" one, depending upon the allowances of the note. The strength increases if the writer is permitted to reveal his/her identity, as that can generate teamwork with the opposing faction in a way that will be more difficult for the civilian to discern. Generally I'd call it a role with positive utility, but weakly so.

Town or scum soap box/ghost writer (like K2 with the later not having to be in “this is a letter from K2” form) when the power isn’t stated to be for sure a townie by the host

The soap box can be strong in an open setup given that there are ways for that player to confirm him/herself just using specific words or sentence structure that people will recognize. In those cases it's a weaker version of an innocent child. In a closed setup the utility is diminished a bit without the capacity for confirmation.

It appears the distinction between the soap box and ghost writer is really just open setup and closed setup respectively.

Town Freddy (Kruger, vig who only targets nonposters, essentially letting the town decide between replacement and modkill)

This is positive utility, with the truth of its strength reliant upon the number of inactives in a game -- and in that regard it kind of balances itself (since a game with more inactives/more vig targets is already inherently pro-mafia because inactives don't hunt). It's weaker than a standard vig, but only a bit. Standard vigilantes tend to focus on inactives anyway.

[Jackofhearts2005]

A soap box is like “Hi! So I think Epi is bad. Go town!”

A ghost writer can create a whole scene that appears in the host post...then again, that’s not as much of a thing since most host posts are pretty minimalistic around here.

I’ve seen ghost writers used to fake doctor saves or sew fear about a nonexistent cult.

[Epignosis]

Lies.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

[mention]JaggedJimmyJay[/mention] where can I find those mafia matrixes you guys use to make games?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@JaggedJimmyJay where can I find those mafia matrixes you guys use to make games?

Click the spoiler:

Spoiler: show

15 players (12 vs. 3):

I don't believe this is 100% current. As we've noticed little issues we have tweaked the matrices, and all of those tweaks probably aren't reflected here.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

@JaggedJimmyJay where can I find those mafia matrixes you guys use to make games?

Click the spoiler:

Spoiler: show

I don't believe this is 100% current. As we've noticed little issues we have tweaked the matrices, and all of those tweaks probably aren't reflected here.

Didn't you have one for 15 players?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Didn't you have one for 15 players?

Yeah, the original matrix was 15 before we decided to generate more for smaller heists. I just added that to the previous spoiler.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Nice. Thanks.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

[mention]JaggedJimmyJay[/mention] what is a sick innocent child? An IC with a deadline to reveal?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

@JaggedJimmyJay what is a sick innocent child? An IC with a deadline to reveal?

An innocent child who dies at the end of the phase of their reveal, generally.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

That 15-player matrix was definitely adapted at some point. It's buried in the PMs between MP and I somewhere. Setup A is probably overpowered for the civilians, for example.