wD Mafia Master Post

[FlaviusAetius]

How do you feel knowing this has always been how it is, and you were just blissfully unaware?

I don't think it's super common, but it's a tool in the GM's toolbox like any other.

I don't feel great about it. It makes me think back to some things that happened over and over again in games I recall playing here (e.g., Fluminator was always a PR, demonoverlord was always VT).

I am surprised that I seem to be the only person who thinks this is a problem.

I think you are looking at the trees instead of the forest here. I am also curious to hear others' opinions on it. For me it is just a way to ensure a game doesn't turn into a dumpster fire immediately if we had for example a mafia team made up of all people who had never played before.

But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn

[FlaviusAetius]

FWIW... or maybe more than that...
While I agree with Balki's concerns about manipulation, I am fairly sure that I have never seen this being abused. I think I have GM'ed OR Co-GMed at the top end of numbers in here.

I would never have stood for (as Kouncil or player) a 'favorite' mentality. I would never have stood for (as Kouncil or player) a "try to make it completely perfectly balanced' mentality.

If some have been softer on this in the past, let's do better.

(Captain meme aside)

No but that's not the point, sure there's a scenario where this could be abused and you can give people fun and interesting roles. But that would probably be caught on pretty quickly.

The issue is the integrity of the game itself, outside considerations now need to be considered when deciding if someone is a mafia or not, that is the problem.
and to the person who said "oh my intentions are forever inexplicable you cant figure them out"
well that's the problem isn't it? everyone is now going to be trying to figure them out, instead of actually considering the mafia game at hand, in a vacuum(as it should be), the game is lesser for it, and that isn't good. Randomization must be ensured.

[FlaviusAetius]

First off dont come flying in here calling my games bastard and my methodology bastard. Show me real examples of bastard games ive run. No backpedalling. No whataboutisms. Prove your talking point that used as toxic of verbiage as possible.

The problem isn't that your method was faulty, the problem is that its been revealed now and a pervasive habit of GMs to do things such as this. So now outside considerations are going to come into games you GM, your past games are not ruined or should be called into question. Future games done in this method without an assurance of randomization, are

[Jamiet99uk]

First off dont come flying in here calling my games bastard and my methodology bastard. Show me real examples of bastard games ive run. No backpedalling. No whataboutisms. Prove your talking point that used as toxic of verbiage as possible.

"Bastard mod" is common terminology in the Mafia community.

In any case I did not call you a Bastard Mod. The only time that has ever truly happened (outside of Wjessop, probably), is when Captainmeme tried to be funny.

[Jamiet99uk]

What are the rules about this anyways? It seems like there is a consensus that GMs handpicking players for roles is bad, and randomization is good. "Rerolling" randomized roles is sometimes acceptable. Is there a rule or Kouncil decision that GMs cannot handpick players for roles? I've seen (and read) the official rules doc, but people seem to be referencing other Kouncil decisions. Is there, like, a record of past Kouncil decisions or...?

The Kouncil is not quite that formal.

However in this case I think some guidance from them (after due consideration) would be helpful.

Chaqa is right that this has been left to "trust the GMs" in the past, but now that the box has been opened, and some quite forthright views expressed, I don't think we can just close that box, so we probably need a framework, set by the Kouncil, to which GMs should adhere.

[brainbomb]

Weve played nearly 120 plus games if you count mini games. What you are asking for does exist, its called modbot on mafiauniverse. If you want games with 0% chance of mod reroll or tampering you can play on epic mafia and mafiauniverse and there is a bot that does it all.

Otherwise no matter what solution you do all you are doing is just altering the gm role or altering the kouncil role to be an order taker. And that will never be a 0% risk of tampering either.

If what you want is the GMs to provide some idea of what their setup distribution methodology is; that can easily just be included in the rules posts.

For over 120 games webdip has been a premier site to play on. With people who have been here since M1 and M2 in ghug and chaqa: both kouncil members; both explaining to you that no one is handpicking roles.

To provide you an example of why what you are asking for is totally absurd. Im running a semi open setup and I ran a randomization to see what roles to put in play, not even what players get the roles but just to see what 4 roles it popped up. Discovering I had 36 roles and needed to cut it in half.

Under the rules being thrown out here I wouldnt as a gm even be allowed to run a test rand on my own setup to see what happens in a what if scenario.

I ended up cutting the setup in half in size and reranded what would be in play. Under sanctions you are proposing my testing my own setup would be called unethical and you would have me stuck with my original rand

[damo666]

Imo the assigning of players to roles should be completely random and never rerolled in any circumstances.

Knowing the scum tean cannot be 100%% new players is an unnecessary advantage to town.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

Proposal #12:
GMs must randomize role assignment.
If a GM must reroll random role assignment due to extreme issues, the GM must, after the game is concluded, reveal that they rerolled the setup and why to the players and to the Kouncil.

[brainbomb]

When I have a player list and its filled I take that list over to random.org and I make two rules

Ruleset 1 is the first 7 ppl on the list or depending on setup and setup size the first x number of people will be PR then Scum

rulset 2 is the opposite scum first then PR

And alot of times you have to have that ruleset in mind pre rolling in order to be honest to yourself. The reroll isnt to get a better result per se its just to have two random or three random spreads.

As was previously stated those three then get randed to see which of the three lists is the one actually used.

In rare circumstances if something is egregiously wrong with one of the rolls I would rand between two and exclude one sample or in extreme cases just pick a sample of the three. None of this is done with any specific player in mind or any intent to create a manipulated result. This is just to decide what the game simply is going to be. And it is neutral; it isnt because I care if durga is town or ND is scum. i never care about the specifics of one player being one thing or another. i also dont care if they are new and the scumteam is all new. I dont care if it means a player is scum seven games in a row either. But its also still random and you seem to be forgetting that its random.

Without that initial rule of where scum go and pr go on the list the entire process turns into handpicking right away

[brainbomb]

These rules will not change a single thing if the GM just says ill just claim it was random. This is still an honor code system which is what we have now. The fact you would rather have a computer doing it all for you is loud and clear. i am certain we can make sure of that. And Im sure my games already had basically that same result as ive never once had a complaint; ive ran games that went fast and some took ages to finish. Both sides have won.

Again if you feel my system ive used has produced bastard games, flawed games, please have the results of them overturned and have them nullified. Have a judiciary panel made to review if I caused an unfair role distribution. Go get evidence and show your receipts

[brainbomb]

Proposal #12:
GMs must randomize role assignment.
If a GM must reroll random role assignment due to extreme issues, the GM must, after the game is concluded, reveal that they rerolled the setup and why to the players and to the Kouncil.

Voting nay on this because adding a rule that post game the GM must explain why they rerolled a setup does not solve anything at all, and just opens up the dialogue to keep happening repeatedly.

Proposal #13
The GM must declare in their rules for their game, what their randing policy is, and allow players an opportunity to decide if they want to play in that game. This will just be added to the rules page for any game run by any GM. Additionally games where the GM wants to reroll, or wants the ability to rand the game any way they like will be allowed, and will be classified as "Manual Games" where automated randing is not set at 100%.

For games where there will be a 100% automated rand, no rerolls, no mod adjustments for any reason at all, those will be called "Standard Games".

Mini games and Manual games will still be allowed, and setups still reviewed. THe only difference will be the GM has the ability to make any randing system they want in a Manual game, so that for example if someone wants to run an all stars game, where the roles are pre handpicked for specific players, this should be allowed as it is part of the intent of the setup itself.

[Chaqa]

I don't feel great about it. It makes me think back to some things that happened over and over again in games I recall playing here (e.g., Fluminator was always a PR, demonoverlord was always VT).

I am surprised that I seem to be the only person who thinks this is a problem.

I think you are looking at the trees instead of the forest here. I am also curious to hear others' opinions on it. For me it is just a way to ensure a game doesn't turn into a dumpster fire immediately if we had for example a mafia team made up of all people who had never played before.

But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn

As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.

[Chaqa]

Honestly I find this conversation tiring. We run games because we enjoy seeing the interesting outcomes of the setups we make. There is no personal gain to be had, no money to be made, and no incentive to play favorites. The incentive is to create a fun and un-scuffed environment and I feel we as GMs have done this well over the past 10+ years.

[sweetandcool]

I think you are looking at the trees instead of the forest here. I am also curious to hear others' opinions on it. For me it is just a way to ensure a game doesn't turn into a dumpster fire immediately if we had for example a mafia team made up of all people who had never played before.

But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn

As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.

I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...

[Balki Bartokomous]

Just a quick rule clarification...

[foodcoats]

But SO WHAT! That would be funny! Sometimes games are going to end in a blaze of fire, that's the point of randomization! And its mafia, its really hard to mess up being a mafia so horribly that it ends up into a dumpster fire, everyone makes mistakes everyone has those days. The point is to live and learn

As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.

I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...

I don't mind if GMs want to tailor setups according to specified, open criteria, but I find it very odd that GMs feel comfortable claiming the setup is random when they are secretly adjusting it. That is being dishonest towards the players and treating them as objects to be manipulated according to their personal whims and biases rather than as subjective players of a game with stated rules.

There's a good axiom for the GMs of tabletop RPGs: "If there's a dice result you wouldn't be comfortable with, don't roll the dice." I think that if a Mafia GM feels that a random role distribution needs to be modified, or that they need to hand pick parts of the setup to get a "good game," they should be comfortable sharing that modification with the players. If they're not, maybe they should ask themselves why they want to keep it secret - and maybe they'll realize it's not a good reason, or that there's a better way to go about getting the outcomes they are hoping for.

[Chaqa]

As a GM, I do not find it funny. There are many things GMs deal with and a game like that or a game with lots of drama leads to a ton of work on the GM's part in finding subs, dealing with punishments, and ensuring that all of the hours and days we put into the game are worth it.

I think the perspective that many here are giving is quite naive and I think it's telling that mostly the people who are saying re-rolling is bad have never GM'd.

I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...

I don't mind if GMs want to tailor setups according to specified, open criteria, but I find it very odd that GMs feel comfortable claiming the setup is random when they are secretly adjusting it. That is being dishonest towards the players and treating them as objects to be manipulated according to their personal whims and biases rather than as subjective players of a game with stated rules.

There's a good axiom for the GMs of tabletop RPGs: "If there's a dice result you wouldn't be comfortable with, don't roll the dice." I think that if a Mafia GM feels that a random role distribution needs to be modified, or that they need to hand pick parts of the setup to get a "good game," they should be comfortable sharing that modification with the players. If they're not, maybe they should ask themselves why they want to keep it secret - and maybe they'll realize it's not a good reason, or that there's a better way to go about getting the outcomes they are hoping for.

I've highlighted in green the section of this I think is mischaracterizing what at least I am saying. I have never adjusted a setup, but I have completely re-rolled (aka still random) the setup. It's no different than if I accidentally double clicked the randomize button and wiped away the first one on accident.

Re: Tabletop GMing (which I have done for close on a decade now), I do agree with that axiom in general, but I don't think it applies in mafia. I worry you are misunderstanding motivation and the reason we do things.

For example, hand-picking the roles for a semi-open setup is not done because randomness is the goal, it is done because semi-open setups disallow town to force a mechanical sole state via mass claiming.

[foodcoats]

I don't think there was a problem to begin with.

I think brainbomb has (unintentionally) stirred up drama by (unintentionally) communicating poorly.

It seems now that there is confusion over whether some people are upset about anything other than RNG used in the entire setup, or if the backlash had more to do with the claim that sometimes role assignment is not purely RNG and subject to GM discretion.

I believe any backlash is focused on the latter. I don't think anyone cares about the former?

I do think that setting some sort of formal standard is not a bad idea...

I don't mind if GMs want to tailor setups according to specified, open criteria, but I find it very odd that GMs feel comfortable claiming the setup is random when they are secretly adjusting it. That is being dishonest towards the players and treating them as objects to be manipulated according to their personal whims and biases rather than as subjective players of a game with stated rules.

There's a good axiom for the GMs of tabletop RPGs: "If there's a dice result you wouldn't be comfortable with, don't roll the dice." I think that if a Mafia GM feels that a random role distribution needs to be modified, or that they need to hand pick parts of the setup to get a "good game," they should be comfortable sharing that modification with the players. If they're not, maybe they should ask themselves why they want to keep it secret - and maybe they'll realize it's not a good reason, or that there's a better way to go about getting the outcomes they are hoping for.

I've highlighted in green the section of this I think is mischaracterizing what at least I am saying. I have never adjusted a setup, but I have completely re-rolled (aka still random) the setup. It's no different than if I accidentally double clicked the randomize button and wiped away the first one on accident.

Re: Tabletop GMing (which I have done for close on a decade now), I do agree with that axiom in general, but I don't think it applies in mafia. I worry you are misunderstanding motivation and the reason we do things.

For example, hand-picking the roles for a semi-open setup is not done because randomness is the goal, it is done because semi-open setups disallow town to force a mechanical sole state via mass claiming.

I don't think I am mischaracterizing the situation. Adjust means to "alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result." The situation you are describing is one where you wanted to slightly alter the random result in order to achieve a fit you envisioned. Perhaps you didn't hand pick a role, but it seems you are dancing around the fact that you deliberately took someone out of a role.

Putting aside semi-open setups, because that has not been the main thrust of the discussion: I agree that randomness is not the goal in role distribution. Fairness is the goal. Everyone has biases, and randomness helps ensure fairness in role distribution. In the above, what was the basis of your vision? Was it fair?

I'm willing to be wrong. Can you give a detailed and concrete example?

[Chaqa]

I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

[damo666]

I've got a few. Some of them I do not necessarily want to point out or call out specific players, but here are two "hypothetical" situations:

1. A game with 4 mafia where the assigned mafia were three brand new players and one player who has to this point been modkilled or replaced for inactivity/disappearing at least three times.

2. A game with 3 mafia where the assigned mafia were two players who had an extremely bad blood between each other (to the point of punishments being handed out to at least one of them) along with a third player who has one of the most argumentative personalities and also does not get along with either other player.

There is not a problem strictly with new players being mafia (KOTP just played an excellent game) but there is also high likelihood new players require subs, so a team of entirely new players and a proven unreliable player is going to lead to a poor game state.

In the second example, it had been previously seen where a certain player would simply sub out of games if forced to heavily interact with another player, and re-rolling was a way to prevent that.

This seems reasonable. What would not be reasonable (of course) would be to reroll because damo drew vig and will shoot food within the first 5 minutes of the game (for instance).