Defining DM Mafia Roles and Balance

[Nynaeve]

It's cool that you think I only have one justification even though I'm pretty sure I explained myself pretty clearly. But whatever. I feel like I explained myself to the best of my ability so I'm happy with that.

[Nynaeve]

Also why be mad? I have Thakander to mod in and at least two other sites I'm active in that has a mafia section. It's not like there's a lack of modding opportunities anyhow. So if things work out in a way that I disapprove of, I'm not really gonna sweat it.

[Yates]

You know what's another cool way to avoid game mechanics influencing your playing? having a mental capacity bigger than a tea cup...

Nyn....  

 

Let's try to keep it civil and respectful please?

 

If I wanted to define the "issue" in the broadest possible definition?  It would be this; when a mod uses a role called "Commuter" and it doesn't act like a "Commuter," it's LIKE the mod is lying to the players and thus BASTARD modding.

 

For me, it's that simple.  

 

You can try saying the players are daft because they are entering a mafia game with certain expectations about how roles should work but you would be wrong.  The MODS are being daft by not adhering to standard definitions that are accepted across multiple forum mafia sites.  Period.  

 

You are LITERALLY saying that you are in support of changing the rules from game to game and trying to shrug it off as if the players just have to "deal with it" when each mod has "House Rules" that you don't know about.  Well, that's not how GAMES are supposed to work.  That's not fair.  And I think you know that.  

 

Something as fundamentally important as knowing what a "Commuter" is isn't giving the player base too much information.  You are simply defining a rule.  I don't think it's part of mafia to have to GUESS what a "Commuter" does any more than it's part of Monopoly to have to GUESS what happens if you land on "Free Parking."  

 

Sorry.  But on this issue I don't think you guys are right at all.  I think mods are being bastard [albeit unintentionally] in non-bastard games and I don't think that's fair.

[Nynaeve]

That's incorrect. A doc is a doc. Whether it can protect from one kill or multiple kills doesn't change the fact that it's a doc. So there's details in roles that change between mods. It doesn't change the basic definition of a role and it's definitely not bastard modding. Town gets a role that either benefits them or doesn't according to their choices. There isn't an actual intervention by the mod to screw them over. Ergo it's not bastardizing and I think it's a complete stretch to try and use this to excuse enforcing rules on mods.

[Yates]

My way of thinking allows every mod to approach their setup as they wish to. Each to their own as there are a ton of different opinions of what's fair, what's more balanced and so on. What is propsed in this thread agrees with some people but severly restricts the rest. Ergo I would never support it. Or follow it.

And this is all fine.  Just don't call it a Basic game, then.  Also, you probably shouldn't call a Doc a "Doc" if it isn't acting like a "Doc" is supposed to act.  Or you are lying.  

 

If you want to lie?  Make sure the players know in advance that it's a bastard game.  That way the players can decide if they want to sign up for a game that they are going to be lied to by the mod.  I'll typically sign up for one of those once MAYBE twice a year.

[Nynaeve]

If players want to make decisions based on gaming the mod, it's on them. Trying to think... oh wait there was no kill... maybe it was doc protected... but no wait maybe a person was both NKed and shot by a vig so we need to find out if doc protection like.. protects from one kill or from all kills or wait... I'm so confused.

 

All town needs think is wait... there was no kill? Maybe doc protect. Maybe scum holstered. Maybe there's a roleblocker. It doesn't MATTER if a doc protects from all kills or from one. And even if a situation arises where it is important, then you can always ask the mod and then the mod chooses if he/she wants to answer or PAFO. It doesn't HURT the game. It just means the players need to not jump into conclusions and weigh in the options.

 

I like completely disagree with your post.

[Nynaeve]

 

My way of thinking allows every mod to approach their setup as they wish to. Each to their own as there are a ton of different opinions of what's fair, what's more balanced and so on. What is propsed in this thread agrees with some people but severly restricts the rest. Ergo I would never support it. Or follow it.

And this is all fine.  Just don't call it a Basic game, then.  Also, you probably shouldn't call a Doc a "Doc" if it isn't acting like a "Doc" is supposed to act.  Or you are lying.  

 

If you want to lie?  Make sure the players know in advance that it's a bastard game.  That way the players can decide if they want to sign up for a game that they are going to be lied to by the mod.  I'll typically sign up for one of those once MAYBE twice a year.

 

 

I will call it a basic game because if it only has a doc and a cop, for instance, IT IS A FREAKING BASIC GAME.

[Yates]

That's incorrect. A doc is a doc. Whether it can protect from one kill or multiple kills doesn't change the fact that it's a doc.

Yes it does make a difference.  What's the difference between a Cop and a Watcher?  Or a Watcher and a Voyeur?  The MECHANIC.  They functionally serve similar purposes but they don't ACT the same so they AREN'T the same.  You can't call a role a "Cop" but make it act like a "Watcher" and expect people NOT to be confused just because some of you think players should be more "agile" in their expectations for how a role works.  It's lying.  It's changing the rules.  And it isn't fair.

[Nynaeve]

Yates, if you want to run a game the way you please, that's fine. You don't get to enforce your opinion when someone else is modding a game. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, then don't play in their game. You don't get to TELL them how to run their game, short of the approval process that this board already has.

 

That's the bottom line.

[Nynaeve]

You're missing the most basic of points that you don't GET to make that call.

[Nynaeve]

 

That's incorrect. A doc is a doc. Whether it can protect from one kill or multiple kills doesn't change the fact that it's a doc.

Yes it does make a difference.  What's the difference between a Cop and a Watcher?  Or a Watcher and a Voyeur?  The MECHANIC.  They functionally serve similar purposes but they don't ACT the same so they AREN'T the same.  You can't call a role a "Cop" but make it act like a "Watcher" and expect people NOT to be confused just because some of you think players should be more "agile" in their expectations for how a role works.  It's lying.  It's changing the rules.  And it isn't fair.

 

 

It doesn't make a difference. The game is gonna roll the way it does and things are gonna happen and the doc role will work the way the mod intended it to work pre-game and that is that. It's not bastard modding.

[Nynaeve]

Cop and Watcher are two DIFFERENT roles that do two different things. A doc is a doc. Whether it protects from one shot or multiple is up to the mod but the role is still a PROTECTIVE role.

[Nynaeve]

I can't even believe you're taking two roles that do two completely different things and trying to compare it having a doc that protects from all shots or from one shot. That's like mind boggling to me and completely funny.

[Nynaeve]

Anyways, I really don't feel like keeping discussing this. I've already expressed my opinion. Repeatedly. So I'm done with this thread.

 

I'll keep an eye out to see if this change actually happens. Fingers crossed that it doesn't.

 

 

Toodles.

[Yates]

What I think it comes down to is that uniformity in the roles would be convenient for some players, but kind of unfair to mods who like to think outside the box.

I think we are arguing two different points.

 

The first point has to do with basic roles and definitions.  It isn't about "convenience."  It's about basic rules.  If you are playing chess, for example, you go in to chess knowing that a knight moves two squares in 1 direction then 1 square in another direction.  You know that because that's how a KNIGHT is defined as working.  So when I make my next move, I make my move based on how I know each piece on a chess board should work.  If I go to your house and you are like "LOL - Knight can move as many spaces as it wants in ANY direction!" I'll be pretty ticked because that's how a QUEEN works, not a Knight.

 

Now, if you want to be CREATIVE?  If you want people to think outside the box?  That's great.  I support that.  I think you can have tons of fun in those games.  Just don't call a Cop-like role a Cop.  Go whole hog with your creativity.  Call your Cop-like role an "Investigator" or "Police Officer" or "Security Guard" or "Galvatron."  I don't care.  I won't feel like I'm being lied to if one of those roles doesn't act they way I think the role will. And in that instance? You guys will be right. It would be on me for making assumptions.

[Yates]

Cop and Watcher are two DIFFERENT roles that do two different things. A doc is a doc. Whether it protects from one shot or multiple is up to the mod but the role is still a PROTECTIVE role.

A Cop and a Watcher and a Voyeur are all INVESTIGATIVE roles. So your supporting logic is fundamentally flawed. Whether a "Doctor" protects from a single shot or multiple shots is ABSOLUTELY essential to the definition of what a Doctor role is in that a Doctor role is DEFINED by its mechanic.

[Yates]

I'm sorry if I came across as hostile to anyone. I just have a strong opinion on this topic and have asserted it.

You and me both, kid.  

[Yates]

Yates is the kind of person I know I can respond to in earnest. I don't need to sugar code it.

This much is true.

[Yates]

if I want to run a basic game, I will run it with basic roles but beyond that it's my call. That's the bottom line.

 

As for having more mods, definitely couldn't hurt. But that's up to Verb and not really up for discussion, IMO.

 

As for defining games properly, agreed.

 

So my opinions is: I'm fine with 1 and 2. Huge freaking no way on 3.

Good.  I'm proposing 1 and 2.

 

I think you are being too defensive to be open to option 3.  So let me try this...

 

Instead of thinking of it as something "CHANGING" the rules here, think of it as adding a NEW game type.  We've been calling it "Basic" but that's just an off the top of the head term because that's a term other sites use.  We can call it "Kindergarten Mafia Rules" if it makes you feel better.  It makes no difference to me.  What we are asking for is a TYPE of game where there are roles that have a strict definition.  The idea here is that by having ROLES that you don't have to guess at, EVERYONE knows where they stand and what to expect MECHANICALLY from the game when someone claims a PR.  This way, EVERYONE has a fair shake at figuring out the game from a game MECHANIC standpoint and can instead focus strictly on game play for finding scum.  

 

Would THIS be more agreeable?

 

Edit:  Oh I just read the rest of 3.  I wouldn't support a hard schedule about what type of games get played when or anything like that.  I just want there to be the option to play a "Kindergarten Mafia Rules" game and want to define what that is so mods and players know what's up.

[Yates]

Yates, if you want to run a game the way you please, that's fine. You don't get to enforce your opinion when someone else is modding a game. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, then don't play in their game.

I wouldn't - if I knew in advance. But when I don't know in advance, how do I know to avoid it? THIS is precisely the option I'm trying to create, actually. Thank you for making the justification for my proposal more clear!  

 

Currently when I get duped by a role in a game my options are to suck it up and roll with it - which I typically do out of respect for the mod and the players in that game - or quit/replace out.  I don't feel like I like either of these options when I just want to play a straightforward game and get blindsided.

 

I see that some of you are threatening to leave the game forever and never mod here if this new type of game is created.  I would put that on par with me quitting every game I feel like the mod lied to me about because the roles don't work right.  If you want to play Gandhi, I'll play Dr Martin Luther King.  And we can totally have a nonviolent WAR!  

[Tommyrod]

I don't understand the resistance to standardizing templates for a specific game type. There is no restriction to your ability to run more customized games.

 

But for example -- I hate lie detectors. With a passion. But I can't ask a mod "is there a lie detector in this game? I won't play if there is" because then if there is not, I'm given too much info.

 

But I would love to be able to play and know they aren't there. Just like that Vent role. And knowing exactly what to expect from the roles that could be in the game is helpful for me to deal with the possibilities of the game.

[WWWwombat]

Mentoring can be cool but I'm not sure how serious some people take it.

 

I take it pretty seriously when I do it.  Which is why I get kind of annoyed when a mod tells me I can't talk about certain specifics of the game, because there's really no point in spouting general advice when I can't clearly explain how it applies to the specific game.

[Yates]

 

Mentoring can be cool but I'm not sure how serious some people take it.

 

I take it pretty seriously when I do it.  Which is why I get kind of annoyed when a mod tells me I can't talk about certain specifics of the game, because there's really no point in spouting general advice when I can't clearly explain how it applies to the specific game.

 

Yeah there's a very fine line between "mentoring" and playing the game FOR the person you are supposed to be helping.  I think from now on if I'm going to "mentor" someone, I'm just going to hydra with them instead.

[WWWwombat]

 

 

I think there's a disconnect here between players who are well versed in mafia not wanting their creative freedoms tampered with and a small group who wish to codify certain things and eliminate inefficiency both to the benefit of mods and newer players. We get it, you don't want people telling you how to run your games or what exactly X role should do. I hope you can understand though that this creates a significant learning curve for newer players that wouldn't otherwise exist while also leading to an uncertainty (ie can a doc protect himself or not?) from regular players that require either explanation every single game or assumptions which are often faulty and can lead to bad gameplay. I think both groups have their points but I don't see why we can't find some middle ground and come up with something that suits everyone. I have a few simple ideas I think could greatly improve things around here without compromising the creative freedom to modify or be experimental with roles that many people are worried about losing.

 
1. Switch To A New Three Tiered System: [basic], [standard], [Advanced]
This idea has been around for a long time and I think there actually is significant support for this idea it's just the people who like it never voice it all at once. What this would do is give a clearer indication what you're getting out of a game. Right now sometimes we play Basic games and either some roles or some mechanics don't quite seem Basic to some people or congruent with learning how to play mafia. Sometimes we play Advanced games and they seem a bit too simple, not the epic kitchen sink game we were expecting. When you move a Standard tier into the middle I think this would help tremendously by sapping the Basic+ and Advanced- games into a whole category on it's own. It's for games that don't necessarily make up roles or mechanics and aren't epic or experimental in scope but are also not geared towards learning the fundamentals of Mafia. I really think this would be helpful for both players and game moderators to better manage their goals and expectations.
 
This also would help up some of the significant backlogging the current queue has. When people sign up to mod a game it will be months before their turn is up. Sometimes people disappear or get busy and when their turn comes they have to drop out or they need to be removed and then if they come back it will be months again before they get another turn. This hasn't been a huge problem in the past but it looks like it's becoming burdensome for people who really want to show everyone their next great idea. They shouldn't have to wait two thirds of a year to do that. Adding a Standard tier will help alleviate the pressure on the Advanced queue because some people just have some pretty mundane games they'd like to run maybe with a certain theme in mind and they only signed up for Advanced because of one role or another. Meanwhile they're waiting behind and ahead of others who have these grand masterpieces that they spent months perfecting. It doesn't make sense for these different groups of people to all wait in the same line. If there's one idea out of what I'm suggesting that I could make happen for sure it would be this one.
 
2. Add New Forum Moderators & Rules
This kind of goes into the backlog and sluggish pace of games thing but as I'm sure many of you are aware it can sometimes take awhile to sticky and unsticky games. Currently this is Verbal's responsibility and his alone I think so the fault is with him. That said...I don't blame the guy. He's the only one who can do this and he has a lot of other responsibilities, some of them significantly more important like child rearing and playing world of warcraft. There's also a problem with people sometimes taking a long time to start their sign ups when they're next in the queue and this has actually been an issue for some time with some people including myself taking it upon ourselves to poke and prod people to start their games. That's not really good because it's not our place and I've seen it cause some sore feelings in the past despite the most harmless and well meaning of intentions. And even with people volunteering to prod it can still take awhile for the people in line to make games or for Verbal to take them out of the queue and OK the next person in line. Again that's not his fault, he can't be here every hour of every day to monitor this stuff some of which happens via PM's. I think adding a couple of mafia board moderators with the sole purpose of helping with sticking/unsticking threads and enforcing a new rule about signups for games would help a lot. It would ease tensions between mods waiting in line for other mods, players poking MIA mods because they want to play a game, etc. And just so it's absolutely clear, I am not putting myself forward and have no interest in being one of these moderators. In fact just because I know with new moderators comes trust issues I would actually prefer these moderators to be current DM moderators if anyone is willing to step up. I don't want to put anyone on the spot but Leelou or Lily for example are long time DM mods and I don't think anyone would have a problem with them helping if they wanted. There are a lot of DM mods involved with mafia so there's lots of options and I'm sure there's at least one or two people who wouldn't mind helping out with this. No need to upset things by adding brand new moderators when current ones would work just fine.
 
Now the more controversial suggestion here is a new rule but I hope it's not actually that controversial. All I'm thinking is something like when it's your turn in the queue you need to make your sign ups within...three days? That covers weekends should that matter. I also think sign ups should last no longer than 1 week from when it's posted. If you're ready to go then your game starts and if you didn't get enough people it's canceled. Too many games sit in sign up limbo for way too long and I think this is a part of why the queue gets so backlogged and runs so slow. The numbers here are all negotiable of course so don't get stuck on that and say the idea is bad because 1 week is too long/short or whatever. If it's too long/short that's fine maybe we can agree on a different length of time but the point is I think there does need to be a time limit and things need to keep being shuffled forward at a steady pace otherwise things start to slow and backlog and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid with these ideas.
 
3. Change The Way Basic Games Work
As noted before part of the major disconnect here is between people who want to codify roles and have clear expectations on game mechanics and people who don't want their creative freedoms infringed on. I think changing the way Basic games work is the best way to compromise between these two groups of people to the benefit of everyone, especially new players. First of all I think we need to note what the primary purpose of a Basic game is so we're all on the same page. I would argue the primary purpose of a Basic game is to introduce new players to Mafia and teach them how to play the game. With that said, it doesn't make much sense to exercise creative freedom in Basic games. I know we're all very creative people and we want to show off our great ideas but that isn't what new players need. New players need things that are set in stone and easy to understand mechanics. Adding the uncertainty of whether a certain role works a certain way can be too much for some people to take in and make the experience overwhelming or unenjoyable. It's fun for us because we don't have the same pressure of figuring out what the hell you're supposed to say or do, we've been through it many times but a new player can struggle with every post and many do so with the fear that if they mess up they will be ostracized. I don't think we need to add role uncertainty into the mix for them to enjoy the game.
 
That said, here's what I'm proposing. Basic games will run on a schedule. Sign ups will open on the 1st of the month and close on the 7th with the actual game starting on the 8th. The game will run on deadlines that will conclude the game by week 4 at the latest just in time for the new sign ups. The games will have predetermined setups that will rotate and all the setups will be open. All roles and mechanics will be defined and set in stone. This way there is no confusion or guesswork involved for new players with how to play. All of their mental abilities will be focused on figuring out their opponents and outsmarting them.
 
This does not infringe on the creative freedom game mods can express in Standard or Advanced games which, let's be honest, most put their efforts into anyway. We don't see many mods experimenting in Basic games. All this will do is clear up confusion for new players and keep Basic games rolling at a steady pace which is helpful to new players who aren't always sure they want to promise their time to something with an undetermined start and end date. It makes it easy to jump in and learn which is what the primary purpose of Basic games are, right? And I think it's clear how a cut and dry schedule would help a backlog.

 

 

 

I agree with the three-tiered system and providing Verbal with some reinforcements.  I don't think restricting basic games to open setups only is a good idea though.  The vast majority of the games on this site are closed setups so it doesn't serve the new players well to have them learning only open setups.

[Yates]

I don't think restricting basic games to open setups only is a good idea though.  The vast majority of the games on this site are closed setups so it doesn't serve the new players well to have them learning only open setups.

Yeah, I agree with you here. I don't think games should have to have open setups - that's totally up to the mod. I just think they should have defined roles that the players understand going in. Even if all the rest of this fails and it's simply a post 0 stating "May contain the following roles - and this is how they would work if they exist"