The Syndicate

Law wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.

This statement is all that I need to know that I would never host a game where you had to be alive to win. It's all anyone should need, to understand why it's a terribly flawed notion.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about incentive and intent. If your townies aren't playing properly, then it's not the same game anymore. If I enroll in a game and I'm later informed that I need to be alive to win, even if I am

I've not seen one person here refute this most basic detractor from that style of hosting. I've seen some people try, and ultimately fail.

I see how the alive-to-win wincon turns a game from a group of civvies into a group of indies. I don't think that can be refuted because many of us have or had played that way for years. I think it was a function of people creating more intricate games with role mechanisms that could possibly break a game too early if powerful civvie roles outted themselves. In our quest for creativity, we felt it necessary to ban claiming, clinting, and info-dumping to ensure (in hosts' minds at least) that both sides of the game had a chance to both win and enjoy themselves.

Without the ability to claim and whatnot, the imperative to contribute may have been lost along the way. Without the chance to break a game, there was less chance to put yourself out there and take a stand. In this way, would anyone agree with me that the drive for complexity and uniqueness in our games years ago may have led us to this point where we find this culture clash taking place?

I like complexity in games because they lead to fascinating roles. The more fascinating, intricate, and nuanced a role I am given, the less likely I will be to take a chance and die early. If I have an awesome role, I want to stay alive as long as possible to use that role.

What I think I disagree with in this discussion is the seeming assumption that a DoA wincon will result in players collaborating and engaging more. I can agree that civvie-survival wincons will lead to less risk-taking. Without hosts having the ability to pick and choose which civvies deserve win credit, I cannot agree that DoA wincons lead to more risk-taking. In my mind, unregulated DoA can yield just as much nonparticipation. Maybe that's a product of the mafia cultures I have played in over the last eight years.

Law wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.

This statement is all that I need to know that I would never host a game where you had to be alive to win. It's all anyone should need, to understand why it's a terribly flawed notion.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about incentive and intent. If your townies aren't playing properly, then it's not the same game anymore. If I enroll in a game and I'm later informed that I need to be alive to win, even if I am technically a Town role-- as far as I'm concerned, I'm a survivor Indie. And like it or not, that's how the majority would think, whether they talk about it or even realize it. That's basic human psychology at work.

I've not seen one person here refute this most basic detractor from that style of hosting. I've seen some people try, and ultimately fail.

Nonsense. It's not a "terribly flawed notion" to require someone to be alive to win. It's just different. I understand the points in favor of both approaches, but it's narrow minded and foolish to say that one is right and the other is wrong. It's up to the host and the kind of game they want to run. I personally think those in favor of the dead or alive wincon overestimate the effectiveness of so-called teamwork on the part of the civvies, and neglects the free rider problem ofpeople who realize they can win without contributing.

Law wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
The prize itself doesn't matter much, but my wincon while I'm still playing the game does.

This statement is all that I need to know that I would never host a game where you had to be alive to win. It's all anyone should need, to understand why it's a terribly flawed notion.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about incentive and intent. If your townies aren't playing properly, then it's not the same game anymore. If I enroll in a game and I'm later informed that I need to be alive to win, even if I am technically a Town role-- as far as I'm concerned, I'm a survivor Indie. And like it or not, that's how the majority would think, whether they talk about it or even realize it. That's basic human psychology at work.

I've not seen one person here refute this most basic detractor from that style of hosting. I've seen some people try, and ultimately fail.

Everything can be refuted if you create a setup that matches it. I don't like this mechanic myself for the most part, but even it can lead to good games if used properly.

For example, an example of a very good game I played that had the alive-to-win mechanic applied in a creative way:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... f=28&t=672

In this game, every townie IS an indie. The power roles with specific wincons but no need to survive, and the weaker townies with survivor wincons. This is balanced by the fact the mafia/town ratio is very small.

Only a sith deals in absolutes. If you create restrictions to what a mafia game should be, you are only making yourself miss some great games.

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:An unlimited recruiter, whose recruitment power passes to the recruited players upon the recruiter's death. Unless the recruiter is lynched Day 1 (or blocked Night 1 and lynched Day 2), the recruiter wins. This mechanic is inherently game-breaking.

This. I would understand if it just slipped the host's mind the first time this sort of mechanic popped up, but I've seen it twice recently and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. The one time I saw a recruiting team work was in LOST Mafia on LP, where the recruiting power died with the recruiter, was every other Night, couldn't recruit roles with BTSC, and the recruited players lost their old roles.

My least favorite mechanic is silencing. It can make a player completely lose interest, and it's always used on an active poster so participation drops as a whole. I prefer insanifiers and cursers.

I have to agree on this. Although from a host stand point I will use it, there is strategy in it. Should be a Mafia power. From a player stand point it's hard for me to stay interested. I'm more like silenced for 48 hours? See you in two days and then I fall behind. I used to keep up but that just frustrated me.

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:An unlimited recruiter, whose recruitment power passes to the recruited players upon the recruiter's death. Unless the recruiter is lynched Day 1 (or blocked Night 1 and lynched Day 2), the recruiter wins. This mechanic is inherently game-breaking.

This. I would understand if it just slipped the host's mind the first time this sort of mechanic popped up, but I've seen it twice recently and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. The one time I saw a recruiting team work was in LOST Mafia on LP, where the recruiting power died with the recruiter, was every other Night, couldn't recruit roles with BTSC, and the recruited players lost their old roles.

My least favorite mechanic is silencing. It can make a player completely lose interest, and it's always used on an active poster so participation drops as a whole. I prefer insanifiers and cursers.

I have to agree on this. Although from a host stand point I will use it, there is strategy in it. Should be a Mafia power. From a player stand point it's hard for me to stay interested. I'm more like silenced for 48 hours? See you in two days and then I fall behind. I used to keep up but that just frustrated me.

I remember Secret Mafia when you were the baddie silencer. You were doing good until the night you silenced yourself the same night you got sent into the future. They didn't even care that you couldn't speak when you returned to the game. They lynched you straight away.