MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

Forum rules
This is an area for forum games. Please note that to support mafia games players cannot edit their own posts in this forum. Off Topic threads will be relocated or deleted. Issues taking place in forum games should be dealt with by respective game GMs and escalated to the moderators only if absolutely necessary.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by teacon7 » Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:09 am

I agree with that - I really liked the evolving mafia powers, as well as the press rules for the reaver team. I'd love to try out both of those mechanics again.

BH with bounties seems like a fun idea as well, though perhaps that'd be a good 3rd party for a relatively vanilla game.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by Jamiet99uk » Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:51 pm

As a somewhat grizzled GM myself these days, I'd like to endorse Chaqa's comments here.

While I enjoy crafting somewhat complex setups myself, I agree with Chaqa that they are at greater risk of imbalance. I also agree that there were too many PRs, and this not only encouraged a massclaim but also made town, quite frankly, a bit too strong. The backups actually significantly increase town's strength in the long term.

I would also strongly agree with Chaqa that the Roleblock mechanics (including specifically the notifications), and the captain voting rules, were unusual and somewhat confusing. Normal mafia practice across several sites distinguishes between "powers" which need to be directly activated by the player, and "modifiers" which are passive and always active. Usually the latter cannot be Roleblocked.

I hope this feedback is seen as constructive.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by Chaqa » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:30 pm

I've GM'd a lot of games and built a lot of setups. Balance can be a hard thing to achieve, and even in M50, EMC and I were lucky enough to get a second chance to re-balance a few small things when we had to restart the game. I think this game had some really cool stuff going on, but I want to lay out a few notes for future GMs/setups I think would help:

More Complex != A Better Setup - new (and experienced) GMs are often wanting to make the coolest/most complex/interesting setup. I get the appeal, and I've gone that route once or twice with my role madness games - but we've all seen how wild and unbalanced those are. Even M19, which had Vash, Captainmeme, and I spend months planning, wound up with a horribly unbalanced role that auto-won for town. The more complexity you add, the harder it is to predict any balance issues that will arise.

Mitigating Massclaim - typically this is not the ideal town strategy because if there are a limited number of town PRs, then scum can hide in the VT pool while killing off the PRs one by one. In general, you don't want too many easily-confirmable PRs. Semi-open setups, sometimes coupled with giving mafia fake-claim roles (as we did in M50).

For good examples of balanced setups, look at M48 and M49. M48 (Gladiator) game had 5 Mafia, 5 PR, 8 VT. This was a decent mix and led to a fairly balanced game. M49 (Infinity War) had 4 mafia, 1 SK, 4 PR, and 13 VT, though some of these VTs had items.

In general, the number of town PRs with active abilities shouldn't be more than the number of mafia+third parties. The number of VTs should also be about half of the total players, though it can be a little more or less depending on the setup.

Departure From WebDip "Norms" - This one was felt a bit this game. We have some general ways we play the game that, when departed from, can cause confusion. I'm not saying not to go in a different direction, but it needs to be made clear in the pre-game and game start. Examples:

1. Typically we inform about roleblocks regardless of whether anything has been blocked or not. This game, you were only notified if you had an action to be blocked. Additionally, the roleblock extended into the next day, which I didn't actually have much issue with.

2. The Captain's additional votes being ambiguous. We've used "Mayor" roles before, so this one was odd, and if we had a way to deduce it anyway through clever voting, it was kind of just... tedious. Though, it did allow for some possible EoD shenanigans. Again, the main issue was - it wasn't obvious.

3. Related to the above - and I don't think this is necessarily set in stone, but from my perspective, the Captain's votes shouldn't have been able to be blocked at all. Roleblocks prevent active abilities - things you consciously choose to do. They normally do not effect passive ones. I.E., you can't roleblock away a Bulletproof, or a *factional* night-kill, or nullifying the win condition of a role that wants to be night-killed, or something.

All this said - I LOVED some aspects of this setup.

The Alliance's shifting roles were inspired.

The Reavers press restrictions created a fun element I'd like to see again.

The Backup roles were neat as always.

Overall it was a fun game, and I'm excited for KIt's next one (possibly because I'm her co-GM lol).

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by Chaqa » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:07 pm

worcej wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:24 pm
damo666 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:41 pm
Banning massclaims unworkable imo. I think it should be incumbent on GMs to consider a mass claim when devising the set up.

Anyway, who's up next?
Mini-game and Chaqa. My setup is ready to follow Chaqa.
Technically, Neph was supposed to be M52, but due to traveling he bumped back to M53. So M53 will either be him or me, depending on if he's ready yet, which would mean M54 is the other, and M55 is worcej.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by teacon7 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:26 pm

re: prohibiting massclaims -

It's not feasable to prohibit the gameplay action - PR participated in the mc because it played (quite well) towards their wincon.

If we don't want games with massclaims, then it's gotta be taken care of by reviewing setups ahead of time. A "balanced" game could mean a certain ratio of PR:VT. It could also provide scum with some means of escaping. Give scum a godfather, for example. Or have PR that are easily a liability (judge, for example, or an insane cop).

Props to kit and ike for GMing. My comments below are no criticism of them, but rather thinking through how setup review can be improved.

This setup was constructed thus that a massclaim was advantageous for town, but wasn't an auto-win. Town won because they outplayed scum (think: xorx calling the mc d1, or jamie docsaving, or darg getting the right watch, or damo scanning really well). Town won because they created clears, and then worked together. Yes, scum had an uphill battle, but town really capitolized on its advantages and made them work.

maf1 had it hardest this game due to the mc. I think they would have had a better chance this game if their godfather had been left in the vt pool. Otherwise, maybe they should have had four members? Or fixed so their factional nk didn't count as a "visit" to be watched? taken a chance on killing a more powerful PR? idk.

The BH had it rough too - it's a role that asks for pure persuasion in a world of mechanics. I'm really intrigued by the idea, but it had to be difficult to do when town's wincon meant creating mechanical clears. some of the bounties were really... people/roles who normally get NK'd quickly, so it might just have meant engineering a ML on chaqa. I thought gold did as decent a job as anyone could expect. tough luck, but there it is.

Reavers could have held off recruiting until later, and that may have helped get even deeper cover. If we had been more careful with the press, we might have been able to use level 1 vio's tactically to engineer lynches. Having 2 violations before being outed would have allowed for that: 1 because accidential, 1 for tactical use, and the last to be the consequence. That might be a fun way to play in future games - a cultist mechanic as a separate mafia team. Coordinating the intentional rule vios would be hard to do without a QT, but not impossible. Bunny getting shot was basically game over for us though. @bunny @temasek : good job guys. As least we tried.

All told, I had fun and I'm glad I played. Thanks @Kitsune and @RagingIke for GMing. See you all around... :-D

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by teacon7 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:20 pm

xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:54 pm
How was there a rule violation when none of you posted though? Was the rule that you *had* to post something?
xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:06 pm
The second one, announced sometime during D4. None of you had posted so far that day. So it was weird that the rule violation was announced way after GM had posted EON, if the violation had happened before EON.
bunny had an even numbered wordcount for his posts n3.

xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:47 pm
Reaver QT:
"If you die, this space will be inherited by the new Reaver Prime, who will then (presumably) be aware of their team mate as well as your existing thoughts and plans."

Tricky, tricky. Town was led to believe that Reaver2 would not be aware of who Reaver3 was unless it was through their public press and restrictions.
tbh, once I knew the press rules you were looking for, it wasn't too terribly hard to figure out who was who. It took me a little longer because bunny had a rule vio, and I wasn't quite sure who had caused it yet. Otherwise, it just meant scanning "first 5+ sentence posts" for the appropriate characters.

Chaqa wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:48 pm
Ah, I feel I could have gotten that alphabetical one. Oh well.
yeh that was the real liability. It made it very difficult to argue things like "let's lynch peter and if he flips, have him shoot jamie" etc.

rdrivera2005 wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:09 pm
GG Town. I still don't get why scum decided to kill me N1.
idk. Take it as a compliment though?

xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm
The Reaver rules were a real nuisance for Reavers, but also uncrackable for town. I don't think I would have been able to figure them out even if I had had the time to try harder. Even the timing of the warnings was very misleading: the second warning came in the middle of D4 when the infraction had happend N3 or before. That was the only reason I started doubting that teacon was a Reaver at the end.
Agree for two of the rules: masking characters was easier than I expected it to be. The liability was that playernames had to be alphabetized within entire posts. That actually changed the way my press looked, and even changed the kind of arguments I was able to make (i.e., "let's lynch peter and if he's town, have him shoot damo" wasn't something I could say).

I think both bunny and I said it prior to being reaved, but one aspect we followed up with the reposts was - get the reavers to break the press rules. Town didn't need to figure out the rules, just force them to be broken again, as the GM would (eventually) out the reavers due to that.


brainbomb wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:32 pm
who won
Town. Also: The people who, because of this game, go watch the show firefly.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by worcej » Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:24 pm

damo666 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:41 pm
Banning massclaims unworkable imo. I think it should be incumbent on GMs to consider a mass claim when devising the set up.

Anyway, who's up next?
Mini-game and Chaqa. My setup is ready to follow Chaqa.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by damo666 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:41 pm

Banning massclaims unworkable imo. I think it should be incumbent on GMs to consider a mass claim when devising the set up.

Anyway, who's up next?

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by Temasek22 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:47 am

BunnyGo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:33 am
xorxes wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:16 am
BunnyGo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:09 am


I'll point out here it wasn't uncrackable. Had we actually pushed the repost thing I was proposing in D2, we'd have stopped the reavers before spreading at all. My plan almost worked...
Yeah, we would have forced Temasek to break the rule again, but I wouldn't say we would have cracked what the rule was.
I consider that a "crack". Functionally broken is good enough.
I got really, really scared then, tbh.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by BunnyGo » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:33 am

xorxes wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:16 am
BunnyGo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:09 am
xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm
The Reaver rules were a real nuisance for Reavers, but also uncrackable for town. I don't think I would have been able to figure them out even if I had had the time to try harder. Even the timing of the warnings was very misleading: the second warning came in the middle of D4 when the infraction had happend N3 or before. That was the only reason I started doubting that teacon was a Reaver at the end.
I'll point out here it wasn't uncrackable. Had we actually pushed the repost thing I was proposing in D2, we'd have stopped the reavers before spreading at all. My plan almost worked...
Yeah, we would have forced Temasek to break the rule again, but I wouldn't say we would have cracked what the rule was.
I consider that a "crack". Functionally broken is good enough.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by xorxes » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:16 am

BunnyGo wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:09 am
xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm
The Reaver rules were a real nuisance for Reavers, but also uncrackable for town. I don't think I would have been able to figure them out even if I had had the time to try harder. Even the timing of the warnings was very misleading: the second warning came in the middle of D4 when the infraction had happend N3 or before. That was the only reason I started doubting that teacon was a Reaver at the end.
I'll point out here it wasn't uncrackable. Had we actually pushed the repost thing I was proposing in D2, we'd have stopped the reavers before spreading at all. My plan almost worked...
Yeah, we would have forced Temasek to break the rule again, but I wouldn't say we would have cracked what the rule was.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by BunnyGo » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:09 am

xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm
The Reaver rules were a real nuisance for Reavers, but also uncrackable for town. I don't think I would have been able to figure them out even if I had had the time to try harder. Even the timing of the warnings was very misleading: the second warning came in the middle of D4 when the infraction had happend N3 or before. That was the only reason I started doubting that teacon was a Reaver at the end.
I'll point out here it wasn't uncrackable. Had we actually pushed the repost thing I was proposing in D2, we'd have stopped the reavers before spreading at all. My plan almost worked...

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by xorxes » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:37 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:35 pm
xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm
The Reaver rules were a real nuisance for Reavers, but also uncrackable for town. I don't think I would have been able to figure them out even if I had had the time to try harder. Even the timing of the warnings was very misleading: the second warning came in the middle of D4 when the infraction had happend N3 or before. That was the only reason I started doubting that teacon was a Reaver at the end.
If you read the GM note, the timing of the warnings was deliberately orchestrated to make it harder to pinpoint the exact time of the violation. I think that's fair given the already somewhat townsided nature of the set up.
Yes, I know, that's why I was unsure. But that meant the level 1 violations were really more a distraction for town than any help. The level 2 were really scary for Reavers though.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by brainbomb » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:36 pm

nice. looked fun. glad kit has become a huge part of this society to gm play now mod.

I told her that her battlestar game ill make an effort to play in it someday in the future when wedding stuff and honeymoon is over

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by Jamiet99uk » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:35 pm

xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:25 pm
The Reaver rules were a real nuisance for Reavers, but also uncrackable for town. I don't think I would have been able to figure them out even if I had had the time to try harder. Even the timing of the warnings was very misleading: the second warning came in the middle of D4 when the infraction had happend N3 or before. That was the only reason I started doubting that teacon was a Reaver at the end.
If you read the GM note, the timing of the warnings was deliberately orchestrated to make it harder to pinpoint the exact time of the violation. I think that's fair given the already somewhat townsided nature of the set up.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by xorxes » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:33 pm

brainbomb wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:32 pm
who won
Town won, expertly led by their Captain.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by worcej » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:33 pm

xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:14 pm
rdrivera2005 wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:09 pm
GG Town. I still don't get why scum decided to kill me N1.
From reading their QT, they were going for random PR, unlikely to be protected and possible reader/watcher/something nasty for scum.

I don't think it was a bad choice for them given the info they had at the time.
Also can collaborate this because I made the choice lol

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by Jamiet99uk » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:33 pm

brainbomb wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:32 pm
who won
Town.

Re: MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

by worcej » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:32 pm

goldfinger0303 wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:49 pm
xorxes wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:00 pm
worcej wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:53 pm
Town MVP goes to Damo due to his scan success. Very close runner up is Xorxes for leading pretty well.

Play that decided the game: Fox killing Bunny. If he would’ve gotten damo or darg then it would’ve been more likely that reavers would win.
Mafia killing bozo also helped us a lot by reducing the VT pool.
You're welcome, town. And what did I get for it? A noose.
Gold is 100% why - I had to try to keep my BH claim valid.

Top