~~~
Principles of Town Leadership
After playing just a few iterations of this “Mafia” thing, we tend to begin building mental categories to describe types of play, both with respect to specific factions and in general. A popular term is the player “archetype” and for the purposes of this piece that is the term I will use. Some players tend toward slow, methodical analysis. Some are more inclined to play the game in real-time like a live chat. Others favor the silly, or that which is “outside the box”. There are countless possible archetypes we might describe, and these examples all invoke some notion of how does a player play Mafia?. That is perhaps the most general notion of “archetype”. There may be a certain hierarchy, however, and if we follow it down to the subordinate archetypes we ask a different question: what does a player think is the best way to play Mafia? Some keep a low profile. Some engage the game thread with constancy and reckless abandon. Some wait patiently for the opportune moment to attack the game with fierceness. And many seek to lead. The “leader” archetype is a broad one, and sometimes it’s a controversial one. The very existence of “leadership” within Mafia begs a question: is this really necessary? That question will be a core theme of what I discuss here, and I will focus specifically on the town expression of leadership.
What is a leader in Mafia?
This question might initially strike you as trivial, or as so basic that it needn’t be addressed. I believe, however, that there is at least one critical distinction within the possible conceptions of “leadership” in a forum game that drives to the very essence of how it will be interpreted. I see a minimum of two loose definitions to describe a leader:
1) A town leader in Mafia is a player who makes a concerted, conscious effort to influence its direction for the betterment of the town faction by way of guidance, command, motivation, or encouragement of other players.
2) A town leader in Mafia is a player who becomes, by the natural progression of game events, a focal point of the broad town effort who would be able to (or be expected to) influence its direction by way of guidance, command, motivation, or encouragement of other players.
The difference is stark. Indeed, there’s a decent chance that some of you reading this might have clearly and distinctly different emotional responses to each of these descriptions. Generally I would anticipate that those who have doubts about the necessity or the wisdom of allowing a town leader to exist would view #1 with derision and #2 with less derision or even acceptance.
Who died and made you Dictator of the Thread?
If you have ever made the effort to take town by the horns and guide it, even with the best intentions, it’s quite likely that someone has expressed some form of this question directly or at least thought about it in response to your behavior. This is a natural human response to the presumption of authority. Many people will not respect such behavior in the general worldly environment – it may be viewed as arrogant, disrespectful, or dangerous. Consider then how such a perception may be amplified when it is placed in the context of a game designed around the unknown. All of the same criticisms and interpretations may still apply, but now we also add the elements of suspicion and competition. This is a completely reasonable and understandable response to behavior associated with Leader #1. All too often, however, prospective or aspiring leaders fail to respect that. Through the lens of their motivation their perspective becomes colored, and negative reception of their behavior may become unfair or suboptimal or suspicious in their eyes. We have then already established a recipe for a splintered town and perhaps diminished our chance to win the game.
So is Leader #1 just wrong, period? I don’t think so. Sometimes it really takes a player with the personal drive and motivation to lead to fill that role when town needs them. Suppose a game is played where town is struggling and without a general sense of cohesion. Some player or subset of players is trusted enough that they could lead in some capacity, but they have no desire to do so – they may find it unenjoyable or they may distrust their skills. If town needs leadership, sometimes a player must take it. There then emerges our next core question.
Does town need leadership?
To answer this, we are forced to segment our thoughts into contextual spaces. Let’s reframe the question a number of ways that might help us to answer it conclusively, and I will attempt to provide concise perspectives (now purely my own opinions).
1) In a vacuum, with all other factors disregarded, does town benefit from a player or players serving in a deliberate leadership capacity?
I believe it would be too great a leap to suggest that in a vacuum town benefits from leadership full stop. There are situations where it is not needed. There are also situations where it is needed.
2) Is there a clear and visible distinction between a game where a leader would be beneficial and a game where a leader would not be beneficial (or perhaps detrimental)?
I believe there is a visible distinction, but it may not necessarily be clear. Mafia posts can exist in essentially infinite permutations, and our capacity to grasp precisely the correct permutations where leaders are good is going to be limited. Still, I think we can see the need where it exists at least some of the time.
3) Is the necessity for town leadership better assessed within game stages rather than generally?
Yes, I believe so. It is not necessarily a good idea to enter a game with a prepared mindset for asserting immediate town leadership. This inherently implies that you distrust your teammates to handle their business appropriately without your guidance. However, one is still well-advised to compartmentalize that leadership energy so that it may be harnessed when the game calls for it. A game that doesn’t need a leader one day may absolutely need a leader the next day.
4) If there are cases where town does need leadership, when and how do they occur?
Opportune moments for leadership can come in a thousand forms, so isolating this question to consistent conceptual truths is difficult. I believe though that a few general themes apply. If a game feels as though it is meandering in that the broad hunt is not coalescing upon any kind of agreement, consensus, or teamwork – a leader might help. If a game is adverse for town, perhaps after one or two mistaken eliminations, the paranoid energy and toxicity can accelerate the problem – a leader might help. If a game is sputtering toward inactivity and/or there is a general atmosphere of demoralization – a leader might help. If a leader already seems to exist, but you have strong and compelling reasons to believe that they might not be genuine or that their leadership is harmful – it may be prudent to step in and usurp.
Okay, so how do I lead?
Here I will make many of you groan by borrowing some terms from popular leadership research/presentation. I draw this personally from my own experience in military leadership training. Please note that I employ these terms because they are easy to understand – you don’t have to use them specifically. If you’ve seen them in unbearable seminars at work, I understand if you don’t want to. I want to focus on four general styles of leadership:
Autocratic – generally characterized by authoritarian command or control. Autocratic leadership is heavily leader-centric, and external perspectives receive low emphasis. I’m going to veto this suggestion right now. We’re simply not doing this.
Transactional – generally characterized by reinforcement and punishment. Transactional leaders motivate others with the promise of reward. If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.
Democratic – generally characterized by greater involvement from the group. Democratic leadership is less leader-centric, and external perspectives receive high emphasis. So what do all of you think would be the best way to handle this?
Transformational – generally characterized by an effort to change the core motivational dynamic within the team for the better by way of inspiring a sense of team identity. We’re in this together, and we’re going to do amazing things.
Now, when these sorts of terms are presented in abysmal leadership seminars, there tends to be a common theme: some of the styles are frowned upon, and others are praised. You’ll be hard-pressed to find an office that at the corporate level brazenly encourages autocratic leadership. However, when I discuss these styles as Mafia constructs, my perspective is quite different. Which one is the best for Mafia? All of them are important, at least given contextual considerations. There is a time and a place for each of these to apply and to be beneficial to town. Does that mean any player focusing on any one of them is justified? Nope, at least not necessarily.
Suppose a game is progressing with a relatively clear mechanical structure that facilitates something to close to objective optimality and suboptimality. A large portion of players begin to engage in behaviors that could be called objectively suboptimal – almost certain to cause harm to the town win chance. In such a situation, is it prudent for a leader to enact a democratic approach and be highly receptive of the views of those engaging in the behaviors? I would argue that no, this is a scenario where autocratic leadership might truly be needed. In such a situation, town must be made to see the error of their ways and corrected, otherwise they may run the game into the ground inadvertently. Letting them to do so by way of democratic acquiescence is no better. It is very important though that in any moment of autocratic command, a leader be mindful of how they are perceived. It is possible to be firm and persuasive without being a huge asshole. Indeed, being a huge asshole will likely discourage anyone from heeding the concerns of the leader. That isn’t entirely their fault – it is also the failure of the leader to grasp basic human nature. Be firm, be authoritative, be assertive, and also be respectful. It’s not just about flowers and daisies. It’s about winning the game. Any other mindset is atrocious. That may be the most severe sentence I write in this thing.
I believe that all four of these forms of leadership have a place in town Mafia play, and that all of them can be beneficial to town when they are employed appropriately and responsibly. Even the oft-maligned transactional leadership has many important Mafia applications. Indeed, I find myself employing this style quite a lot. Some players simply aren’t responsive to cheerleading, inspirational speeches, and certainly not autocratic dictation. It may be prudent sometimes to consider ways to sweeten the deal when you are asking for something from someone else. This might come in the form of a trade in literal hunting effort. If you agree to look at Player X’s ISO and tell me how you feel, I will do the same for you with Player Y’s ISO. It might even take a less game-relevant form: If you agree to look at Player X’s ISO and tell me how you feel, I will write you a lovely poem. If that feels absurd to you, dear reader, then that’s okay. But an optimal leader is willing to do what it takes, at least within reason (but never engage in angleshooting please).
That said, I find myself personally employing the democratic and transformational styles (or some vague approximations of those) the most consistently. It’s simply common sense that most people will be more inclined to respect the leadership of anyone else if that leader is receptive to what they have to say. If a leader is dismissive, then a leader is maligned. A maligned leader is going to struggle more to promote their own perceived pro-town agenda than a leader that has earned the respect of the group. More importantly, the game is more fun for everyone including the damned leader when the leader does not come across like a jerk. What’s more: a town that is having fun is generally going to play better than a town that is miserable. Do you want to have more fun and win more games? Then take heed. It is the transformational style that most describes my own efforts – if I am able to contribute in some meaningful way to the development of a cohesive, congenial, and effortful town team, then I feel that my leadership had a positive impact. Motivate your friends and they will in turn motivate you. Perhaps the most obvious example in my own Mafia history of this coming to fruition was in the Season 7 Game 6 Mafia Championship qualifier: Click here. You needn’t read the whole thing if you don’t want to. What’s important is that in my efforts to lead by example, I eventually found myself square in a town machine that outworked me. We played the game as a team with absolute love, and the result was beautiful to behold. Most games won’t end up so perfect, but if you can manage to capture even a spark of that flame then you have something good cooking.
It's almost over
I haven’t written this thing because I perceive myself to be an optimal town leader. Rather, I write it because I have learned the hard way time and time again what it’s like to be a terrible leader. I have made some god-awful, supremely arrogant, and suboptimal posts in my efforts to be a leader of town. I like to think that, or I hope that, I have grown from those experiences, and that I have begun to piece together a better way. Everyone’s mileage may vary, as with just about any Mafia strategic approach. I welcome dissenting views with enthusiasm. In this thread, my leadership is democratic. Thanks for reading, especially if you made it all the way to this sentence.
Cliffs
• A leader can be the product of one’s own motivation to win or of the natural progression of game events. The former brings more controversy and demands more care.
• Leadership isn’t pre-ordained or imbued into the basic makeup of a player. It should be earned, or at the very least necessitated.
• The need for leadership is best assessed at the local level within game situations. It is important to understand how a game looks when a leader might be beneficial to it.
• Leadership ought to be dynamic. Understand what style the game situation calls for, and know your audience. Tailor your leadership to the needs of the game and to the personalities of your potential teammates.
• Don’t be a jerk. It isn’t fun, and it will help you lose.
• Towns are at their best when they feel like they are truly enduring the struggle together, and that their collective efforts contribute to a team.
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
