Defining DM Mafia Roles and Balance

[Clovdyx]

I don't mind making what would essentially be a new player's guide to "DM Mafia" to include roles and mechanics.  What it would attempt to do would be explain what is TYPICAL for a game here (and the differences withn roles/mechancs between basic and advanced games can explained, too).  For example, it might say "Doctor - Prevents a nightkill on the targeted player, should they be targeted for a kill that night."  This information can be used to make a relatively informed decision.  What it DOESN'T do is make it set in stone.  If I want to run a game and the doctor prevents all abilities, all negative abilities, or even all abilities performed by people whose names begin with letters in the first half of the alphabet...I can.  It's my game.

 

Similarly, it would establish how mods TYPICALLY resolve actions and reveal information.  It can explain lynch systems, etc.  But again, it's not imposing regulations.  It's there to inform.  Because, like Nyn said, there are very few guarantees in mafia.  If you want a "simple" round (all vanilla, or maybe all vanilla save one cop, something like that) and want it to be open...that's fine.  There's nothing preventing it.  But there's also nothing preventing a mod from including an unkillable except on every third nght, unlynchable role that forces miscellaneous post restrictions on targets of their choosing without restriction while manipulating the lynch totals and results as they feel fit.

 

I'm also all for putting a "game survey" in the sign ups.  This is used on another site I play on.  It looks like this:

 

-GMs: 

-Phase Lengths: 

-Phase Change Times: 

-Communication Allowed: 

-Role Ratio: 

-Roleset:

-Potential for hidden mechanics:

 

It's up to the individual mod whether they reveal anything regarding roles/numbers/mechanics, but it DOES obligate the moderator to confirm/deny whether they're revealing it.  Basically, are you going to have an open game?  Nope.  This doesn't waste the time of people who want to play purely open games.

[WWWwombat]

 

DM is more used to closed setups and mechanics.  I have no problem with individual mods opening up some of those things, but enforcing strict community definitions is going too far imo.  Personally, when I mod, I inform everyone of the mechanics of their role, and answer reasonable hypothetical questions about other mechanics.  I try to spell out as much as I can in the rules and role PMs.  But if you're basing decisions on mechanical assumptions that you haven't checked with the mod of the game, then you kind of deserve to get burned.  And that goes doubly so for people who lynch based solely on "gaming the mod."

 

You know what's sad? That it took me countless posts to basically say this. Then again, I was sleepy and on my cell.... and in a bit of pain.... so we'll let it slide this time around >.>

 

 

I've also spent most of my mafia career trying to say as much as possible in as few keystrokes as possible.

[Nynaeve]

I've also spent most of my mafia career trying to say as much as possible in as few keystrokes as possible.

 

Laconic is hot

[Yates]

there is a moderator for mafia on this board. not just a veteran of the forum but someone whose job it is to do stuff like this if he thinks it needs doing. if there were any systematic changes to be implemented for the mafia board (and that would never be forum wide) the moderators and admins would be the ones to do that.

 

if you seriously wanted any of these changes you'd approach a mod about them and not try to roflstomp The New World Order onto a forum outside of the chain of command.

Yup. Verb asked me to make a post about this for discussion after we had a chat about bastard roles at the end of another game. So I'm following his lead as you have suggested.  

[Yates]

DM is more used to closed setups and mechanics.  I have no problem with individual mods opening up some of those things, but enforcing strict community definitions is going too far imo.  

Closed setups are absolutely fine.  What I'm suggesting here, again, is to define BASIC roles for BASIC games.

 

Let's say we decide to define "Doctor" as someone that can block only 1 night kill, for example.  If you want to have a role LIKE a Doctor but he can save ALL kill attempts?  Why not call him a "Surgeon?"  The point is, if you call someone a "Cop" or a "Doc" in a basic game, the player base shouldn't have to guess what that means.  Again, I'm not suggesting we subjugate creativity.  I'm only suggesting that we have a handful of roles that are clearly defined and if THOSE SPECIFIC role names are used?  Please use them as defined.  That's all.  

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

 

there is a moderator for mafia on this board. not just a veteran of the forum but someone whose job it is to do stuff like this if he thinks it needs doing. if there were any systematic changes to be implemented for the mafia board (and that would never be forum wide) the moderators and admins would be the ones to do that.

if you seriously wanted any of these changes you'd approach a mod about them and not try to roflstomp The New World Order onto a forum outside of the chain of command.

 

Yup. Verb asked me to make a post about this for discussion after we had a chat about bastard roles at the end of another game. So I'm following his lead as you have suggested.

iirc and if you're talking about what he said in the last post game, he asked you to make a thread about roles that might be included in games, might be considered bastard, etc.

 

you started this thread over an issue you have with a particular role mechanic in an ongoing game that you're in right now.

 

you announced in that game that you were starting it and you did.

 

they're two different issues and the way you're posing this isn't a list of roles that might be in games, it's lets enforce rules on how mods can set up games in this forum.

[Nynaeve]

Agreed. I don't mind guidelines but trying to force them down mods' throat is unacceptable, laughable and just won't happen. The board already has an approval process for setups and that's as far as it will get.

[Tommyrod]

But someone smarter than you needs to do the thinking for you.

[Nynaeve]

Not gonna happen.

[Yates]

iirc and if you're talking about what he said in the last post game, he asked you to make a thread about roles that might be included in games, might be considered bastard, etc.

 

you started this thread over an issue you have with a particular role mechanic in an ongoing game that you're in right now.

 

you announced in that game that you were starting it and you did.

 

they're two different issues and the way you're posing this isn't a list of roles that might be in games, it's lets enforce rules on how mods can set up games in this forum.

Nope. He asked me out of thread. Current game was just a reminder. I'll let Verb confirm/deny after he's seen the thread. I'm sure he'll let me know if I misinterpreted or overstepped. Thanks.

[Tommyrod]

It's nothing personal guys, it's just that you're not very good at thinking for yourselves! This is the best solution for everyone!

[Nynaeve]

You dont get a say in other people's setup when it's not on a need to know basis. Players are entitled to know the level of the game. That's it. Frankly your obsessive need to know it all and your annoyance with PAFO is not my problem.

[Nynaeve]

Just can it, Tommy. This just makes you look tacky :P

[Tommyrod]

Just can it, Tommy. This just makes you look tacky :P

 

Let me help you help yourselves!

 

lol

[Nynaeve]

So you're trying to snuff out the discussion by calling everyone stupid? I'm sure that'll go a long way to get people to agree. Best of luck.

[Tommyrod]

>_>

[Yates]

I would like to specifically address this concern:

...the way you're posing this isn't a list of roles that might be in games, it's lets enforce rules on how mods can set up games in this forum.

This makes me think you aren't reading anything Tommy or I wrote with an open mind or you are misunderstanding our points terribly. If this wasn't the case? You wouldn't be coming to this conclusion. And I wish I knew how to make this more clear.

 

I absolutely do NOT want to impose rules on how mods set up games in this thread.

I absolutely DO suggest we define BASIC roles. Just a handful, really, of roles that are basic and have sort of a universally understood mechanic across mafia sites.

I am RECOMMENDING that if people want to deviate from these basic roles, that's all well and good but PLEASE call it something else. This shouldn't be a big deal or hassle. Calling someone "Surgeon" instead of "Doctor," for example, is an easy way to let your game know that you are using a Doc that MAY or MAY NOT follow the standard Doctor definition. So you still get the games you want.

I have also RECOMMENDED that we create a new category of mafia game that relies on basic roles but isn't all vanilla because I think it's a great way to learn mafia or to brush up on BASIC mafia skills that aren't reliant on gimmicky roles. Gimicky roles are fine and dandy but sometimes people want a straight forward mafia game and that's what I'm hoping to create from this.

[Yates]

Cindy - I'll tell you where this is coming from...

Verb and I met up one night for a romantic interlude beer. Not surprisingly, the subject of forum mafia at DM came up. It became a sort of overview of the way mafia has evolved on this site as well as a metaphysical rumination on the direction the site is headed in.

In summation, Verb has done a good job of birthing forum mafia on this site. Since inception, it has grown and evolved quite a bit as the influx of newer members has demonstrated. So, DM mafia is now square in the middle of it's awkward teen development cycle where it's maturity as a forum mafia site is about to be determined.

Verb suggested I post something like this for discussion as it's kind of a big project and probably too much for one person. He had even mentioned something about potentially setting up a "group" of people who could weigh in on some of these thoughts and help define what "DM Forum Mafia" will be. If this happens? I will absolutely throw my hat in to the ring and offer my assistance and opinions. I *think* I'm a pretty considerate and reasonable guy and wouldn't want to support anything that would subtract from the fun of the games here. I'm part of this community now, and really spend the lion's share of my time in the mafia boards as opposed to elsewhere. So I guess I have a vested interest in seeing the mafia board succeed.

I hope you see that I didn't make this thread in an attempt to impose MY will on anyone. I made it so we could have respectful open and friendly discourse.  

[Ithillian Turambar]

Didn't Verb already say that:

 

Verb stuff:

 

There is a website that contains a lot of solid information about the game and how it is played, which is a great place to start as a newbie player or mod. The site is called mafiascum, and can be found by clicking HERE. Also on this site is a solid guide to many roles you'd find within any given mafia game (click here).

 

A Basic game will contain standard mafia roles. There are no recruiting roles or complex roles used, and the mafia/town ratio will be consistent with guides found on the mafiascum site linked above (usually ~25% mafia/scum).

 

So - surely that means a Basic Game contains Roles as describes on mafiascum that don't include recruiting or special made up complex stuff.

 

And Advanced you can basically do what the heck you like as long as you swing it past the Board.

 

Do we need another list when Verb has already clearly laid out what's in a Basic game?

 

Won't this be another case of control for control's sake?

[Nolder]

What do you guys think?

IIRC I wanted to do this a couple years ago.

Verbal told me no.

[Nolder]

Just read through the thread, yeah I've tried this a few times.

From making and defining a role list to restructuring games to [basic], [standard], and [Advanced] and remaking the queue.

Every time I bring them up Verbal was either outright against it or reluctant to try it without community support.

Discussion threads I made never got support and honestly it looks like it's the same people now that it was before who're shooting down the same ideas.

 

If there is going to be change there would need to be a lot of new/middling players speaking up because the old guard here is very set in their ways.

[Darthe]

Yeah I dont much bother with trying new things here. Its essentially an open invitation to get frustrated.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

you try new things all the time and then you get bored and chase another squirrel.

 

this proposal reduces the new things a mod can try and sets up a rigid structure which you'd probably hate more than anyone.

 

and lol old guard and new guard. it's not the same people who don't like the same old attempt at regimentation but it probably is for the same reasons.

 

it's not like the sites owner is going to enforce rules for a game he doesn't care about. and if he does care about it it's because it's come to his attention in a negative way a few too many times.

[WWWwombat]

 

DM is more used to closed setups and mechanics.  I have no problem with individual mods opening up some of those things, but enforcing strict community definitions is going too far imo.  

Closed setups are absolutely fine.  What I'm suggesting here, again, is to define BASIC roles for BASIC games.

 

Let's say we decide to define "Doctor" as someone that can block only 1 night kill, for example.  If you want to have a role LIKE a Doctor but he can save ALL kill attempts?  Why not call him a "Surgeon?"  The point is, if you call someone a "Cop" or a "Doc" in a basic game, the player base shouldn't have to guess what that means.  Again, I'm not suggesting we subjugate creativity.  I'm only suggesting that we have a handful of roles that are clearly defined and if THOSE SPECIFIC role names are used?  Please use them as defined.  That's all.  

 

 

I'm ok with that for Basic games, but it wasn't really clear to me that that's all you were talking about rather than just using them as an example.  It's important to have consistent and well-articulated rules when you are learning.  But for Standard (which hasn't really existed on DM for a while as it kind of got folded into Advanced) and Advanced, mods should have freedom to be more creative as long as they give adequate info to the players.

 

Also, I think a lot of the roles you and Tommy listed as "Basic" weren't really what the Basic category was intended to be.  The category was meant to be easy for new players to figure out both in terms of mechanics and tactics.  Personally, I was a Jailkeeper in my first ever forum game and loved it as I felt like jumping into the deep end was the right move for me, but some people don't like that and they are the sort of players that the Basic queue was made for.  Janitor, for instance, is clearly not a Basic role in that sense.  The only way I could see it working in a Basic game is with an open roleset and mod explanation of some strategic implications.

[Andrej]

I believe having some standardization across the board will be a good thing. I think for some Mods they take creative freedom a little too far and that can cause problems in games where situations aren't really clear and false assumptions can be made because of hidden mechanics/role abilities. Obviously, yes, when playing Mafia you are going to deal with uncertanties but in a way I feel like if wrongful assumptions are made due to bad Modding decisions/structures it becomes a bit unfair for the players involved.