CMP Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I'm not sure I get what you mean. If you discover one scum, you will still have to find the others, or you won't win. And if the scum outnumbers the total of the 4 towns, they will win, so you have to make sure you vote for the right persons. But please clarify, as I don't understand Maybe you misunderstood my idea, I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly. You say one entire side is scum. If the townies convict that one, couldn't just convict the other members of it easily?
Peanuts Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) You say one entire side is scum. If the townies convict that one, couldn't just convict the other members of it easily? Actually, I meant that people don't know each other's side. It's like normal mafia games, but instead of one side town and one side scum, the town is divided into 4 sides. So, normally it's Town vs. Scum. In my idea, the town sonsist of four sides, so it was Town 1, Town 2, Town 3 and Town 4 vs. Scum. To differ, each of the towns has a special winning condition and a special bonus, and the members of one town side don't know each other, only the scum is of the knowledge of themselves. Example role: You are NAME, [characterization of the role]. You win if the whole scum dies and your groups passes it's winning condition. Allegiance: Town 2 (in a themed game, the groups would get names) Your group's special ability: It takes two more votes to convict someone of your group (or something else) Your groups special winning condition: Your group's members only win if those players get killed: (or something else)Your night action: You may attempt to investigate someone at night to learn his allegiance. (or something else) Or however you want to write a role PM. Just to explain how this was meant. The scum would be as in usual games, they would just have to figure out the town's night actions, prevent their men from being killed and finally outnumber the town. Of course you would have to make sure that the conditions are possible and the special abilities aren't too imbalancing. A possible background would be French Revolution, with Royalists as scum, and Girondists, Jacobins, Enragés and Indulgents as four townsides. This would have to be more worked out, as it's just an idea, and I don't have the figures to realize it, but you can transfer it into another theme. Edited January 27, 2011 by Peanuts
Hinckley Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Ugh. The more you complicate things, the harder it is for town to win. So stop it.
Peanuts Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Ugh. The more you complicate things, the harder it is for town to win. So stop it. Don't worry, it's just an idea, and I most propbaly won't even get to use it, as I have a much easier and much more worked out idea for a mafia game, in case I should ever host one. Which I'm not gonna do yet, as I have only played two games so far.
CMP Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I'm still not getting that. I was just gonna have the scum spread out over the groups, so it'd be a bit more mysterious. And yea, about half of the groups would have extra winning conditions.
Peanuts Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I'm still not getting that. I was just gonna have the scum spread out over the groups, so it'd be a bit more mysterious. And yea, about half of the groups would have extra winning conditions. Well, I think it's hardly possible to understand my weird mind I'll try to explain this a last time, and then it goes into my brain's recylce bin. Overall there's the struggle scum vs. town (or roylists vs. revolutionists, staying with my French Revolution background, to do it more concrete). The town (revolutionsts) consists of four smaller partys (Girondists, Jacobins, Enragés and Indulgents). The townies know no nothing but their own party, not even the other party members. The scum knows only who's the other scum. The townies have to work together to kill all the scum, and the scum has to outnumber the town.(as usual). Each party has a seperate winning condition and a seperate party bonus. I think that sums up my idea totally, if it's still too weird to understand, relax and try not to think about it anymore.
CMP Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Well, I think it's hardly possible to understand my weird mind I'll try to explain this a last time, and then it goes into my brain's recylce bin. Overall there's the struggle scum vs. town (or roylists vs. revolutionists, staying with my French Revolution background, to do it more concrete). The town (revolutionsts) consists of four smaller partys (Girondists, Jacobins, Enragés and Indulgents). The townies know no nothing but their own party, not even the other party members. The scum knows only who's the other scum. The townies have to work together to kill all the scum, and the scum has to outnumber the town.(as usual). Each party has a seperate winning condition and a seperate party bonus. I think that sums up my idea totally, if it's still too weird to understand, relax and try not to think about it anymore. I see. I thought you meant 5 parties, and one of them was entirely scum.
Shadows Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Ugh. The more you complicate things, the harder it is for town to win. So stop it. And then there are tantrums and rantfests and people get new titles, like @Dragonator... Seriously people, keep it simple until you've hosted a few games and played a lot more. It can be challenging to host, especially your first game. Don't make a fool out of yourself and piss everyone off by trying to do something incredibly original with the rules and setup. Make the setting and story the focus and let the game play naturally.
Sandy Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Seriously people, keep it simple until you've hosted a few games and played a lot more. It can be challenging to host, especially your first game. Don't make a fool out of yourself and piss everyone off by trying to do something incredibly original with the rules and setup. I don't think I pissed anyone off with Hogwarts Mafia, let alone made a fool out of myself. So I disagree with Slim Shady there. If you ever get a chance to host a game of your own, make it unique and exactly the way you want it. Life's too short (and internet life is much shorter) to waste your time on something that's done a million times before (unless you want to do a simple, basic game, of course, there's nothing wrong with them per se). Sure, it requires a lot of dedication and planning and effort, but in the end, if done right, it's much more rewarding to both the host and the players. And if it turns out to be a total train wreck, then so be it - nobody has died from playing a poor game so far. On the other hand, I don't think anyone who's unsure of their idea or skills should even plan on hosting anything.
Quarryman Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Sure, it requires a lot of dedication and planning and effort, but in the end, if done right, it's much more rewarding to both the host and the players. And if it turns out to be a total train wreck, then so be it - nobody has died from playing a poor game so far. On the other hand, I don't think anyone who's unsure of their idea or skills should even plan on hosting anything. Yes, if done right. That's a pretty huge if, and it's a fact that the more complex the game, the harder it will be to balance it. And an unbalanced game isn't fun. Though I agree about nobody dying from playing a poor game it does suck a lot to have to wait maybe six weeks for a game to end that was doomed from the start. So I guess what I'm saying is, don't be afraid to try new stuff, but think things through, and make sure the game ends up balanced, because balance is everything.
ADHO15 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 because balance is everything But how can one be sure that their game is balanced until they see it in action? It's not the kind of game you can practice or test out beforehand. It might be difficult to know how big of a majority the Innocents should be and how small of a minority the Scum should be. And how do you know if a neutral stands a chance? Is it not just luck if that player manages to keep themself alive?
Rick Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I think the trend lately has been to make EB mafia games more and more 'complex', i.e. further removed from standard setups. And whereas I don't think Sandy's (from the sidelines) or def's game have been unbalanced, I would like to see a more standard game again. In my view, complexity doesn't say anything about your hosting abilities. Things I consider important are good player selection, random role assignment, a tight schedule (I'm in favor of 48h days and 24h nights), and consistency of things like night action results. Nice scenes, photography, and photo editing are a big plus, but the basics come first. Not that I think I'm ready to host any time soon, maybe I should say ever, just offering some insights from a player perspective. But how can one be sure that their game is balanced until they see it in action? There are odds. And it isn't getting easier when you add even simple power roles. Even in simple setups the odds are largely influenced by whether the town gets to lynch first (as in most EB games) or the scum get their night kill first. What you call 'luck' is heavily influenced by your odds at the start of the game.
ADHO15 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) There are odds. And it isn't getting easier when you add even simple power roles. Even in simple setups the odds are largely influenced by whether the town gets to lynch first (as in most EB games) or the scum get their night kill first. What you call 'luck' is heavily influenced by your odds at the start of the game. Okay, thanks. But correctly working out the odds of a much bigger example game with non-standard roles would be almost impossible. Do you have a good ratio of Town:Mafia:Neutrals, assuming the basic power roles are evenly spread? Edited January 29, 2011 by ADHO15
Rick Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Do anyone have a good ratio of Town:Mafia:Neutrals, assuming the basic power roles are evenly spread? I've seen discussions on the mafiascum.net wiki or forum. There is no easy to apply general rule, because - as the most basic example - a cop and a doctor are 'worth' more than their sum. Also, a miller among the town reduces the 'value' of a cop. But scores have been developed, you may want to browse mafiascum.net a bit, here's an example of a thread. Also, they have a page with a number of 'open setups' that have been played there.
ADHO15 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I've seen discussions on the mafiascum.net wiki or forum. There is no easy to apply general rule, because - as the most basic example - a cop and a doctor are 'worth' more than their sum. Also, a miller among the town reduces the 'value' of a cop. But scores have been developed, you may want to browse mafiascum.net a bit, here's an example of a thread. Also, they have a page with a number of 'open setups' that have been played there. Thanks a lot for your help, Rick. I think what I have so far is along the right lines.
Eskallon Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I have always wondered about how Host's work out how many votes are needed to convict someone, is it based on how many townies are left, scum or both put together...? Eskallon
Professor Flitwick Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I have always wondered about how Host's work out how many votes are needed to convict someone, is it based on how many townies are left, scum or both put together...? Eskallon I do believe it is half the amount of players, plus one. As seen here - 12 players/7 votes, and here - 8 players/5 votes, and on every other Mafia day.
def Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I have always wondered about how Host's work out how many votes are needed to convict someone, is it based on how many townies are left, scum or both put together...? Eskallon It depends on the game. EB games are generally as Flitwick wrote, but games can be done all different ways, as Zepher did in his (1/3) and in mine, highest number gets it. It's up to the hosts discretion, but I favor what I did (duh!), with highest number getting voted out, since it keeps the pace up.
CMP Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 It's up to the hosts discretion, but I favor what I did (duh!), with highest number getting voted out, since it keeps the pace up. I think that's a good idea. It did make the game keep going.
Scouty Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 It's up to the hosts discretion, but I favor what I did (duh!), with highest number getting voted out, since it keeps the pace up. I agree with that, too. When I hosted my game, I had majority necessary. It literally stopped the game from progressing meaningfully during the day. I really liked this system of voting, which creates a nice edge and keeps the game moving. Nothing worse than no convictions.
Quarryman Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Have to say I disagree with the no minimum required for conviction, as I think it favours the scum a bit too much. When 1 vote is enough to convict it's a lot harder to find voting patterns, something that should be the primary way of finding scum. But yes, I do see the point about keeping up the pace, but I think that can be achieved by other means as well, such as having a pretty hard penalty for not convicting someone. But as long as the EB crowd realizes that convicting someone isn't dangerous I'm all happy really
Walter Kovacs Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Have to say I disagree with the no minimum required for conviction, as I think it favours the scum a bit too much. When 1 vote is enough to convict it's a lot harder to find voting patterns, something that should be the primary way of finding scum. I agree with this sentiment. 1 vote for a conviction is too few, but a majority can really bog down the game. The 1/3 rule seemed to work pretty well in Eurodina. Perhaps 1/3 + 1 is a good way to go. That way it doesn't take a lot of votes, but it does take some sort of consensus. then again in Bloodbrick there were a lot of runaway votes, even with the low minimum vote, so perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing after all.
Shadows Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 So I disagree with Slim Shady there. I won your game, so clearly it was fine, I'm talking about all those other ones where I didn't. Actually, your use of the ghost was horribly unbalanced and almost gave the game to another damn neutral who was able to abuse that imbalance. So even with as well as you did, there was still that, I just don't complain about it for the aforementioned qualifier (I won). If you ever get a chance to host a game of your own, make it unique and exactly the way you want it. Life's too short (and internet life is much shorter) to waste your time on something that's done a million times before (unless you want to do a simple, basic game, of course, there's nothing wrong with them per se). Problem is that most hosts can't handle a complicated game on their first go. Trying might seem like living your dream, but it usually turns out to be a nightmare for both the host and players. Don't make me give examples. I got you converted to scum in one, and I was ... a damn neutral. nobody has died from playing a poor game so far It's been pretty close ... But as long as the EB crowd realizes that convicting someone isn't dangerous I'm all happy really We'll be sure to vote for you on day one next time. At least you won't defend yourself by claiming it's a dangerous decision.
def Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Problem is that most hosts can't handle a complicated game on their first go. Trying might seem like living your dream, but it usually turns out to be a nightmare for both the host and players. Don't make me give examples. I got you converted to scum in one, and I was ... a damn neutral. A major point, and let me underscore that, a major point, and the reason I'm going to side with Sandy here; EB does only about 4-6 games a year. That is a very low number, and few chances to make an impression on people. I was lucky to get a chance to host, and having that rare chance, I wasn't interested in making a text book game. In other sites where they run a game every two weeks or so, I think it's entirely reasonable to make a first game very straight-forward. But EB expects MOCs and a narrative from its hosts, and for that reason, a chance to host would be somewhat wasted in a straight-forward game. Perhaps if EB had some sort of Mafia Academy where people could sharpen their teeth on hosting fundamentals...
Alopex Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Perhaps if EB had some sort of Mafia Academy where people could sharpen their teeth on hosting fundamentals... That would be fun. I've got a pretty good idea for a Mafia but I'm not sure I could do the hosting well...
Recommended Posts