@colborn (or colbot)

Welcome to webdip... are you playing any games yet?

The thread you are writing is is dedicated to Mafia. Many of us have played werewolf, but are playing mafia here, based out of this thread, dedicated to mafia, with tradition and infrastructure built around that game. We do not see it as luck oriented, but rather deduction and induction.

If you desire to start a forum werewolf game, feel free to do it on the forum game section of the forum.

Also, are you a bot?

im not saying this guy is a bot but

Hi. I'm new to wD and have not played Mafia before, but I looked over the game and thought it's kind of fun. Unfortunately it seems pretty luck-based IMO (unlike Diplomacy!) because there are few pieces of genuine, verifiable information.

Here in China we have our own Mafia variant and we call it Werewolves. Since the variant rules are known by basically everyone across the entire country (worth more credit than Westerners usually give – China is very culturally diverse and anything shared across the country is hence definitely very influential), I believe they have proven to be fun and sophisticated through test of time & natural selection.

Hence here I put forward a proposal for a 16-player game of Werewolves! There are many different sets of Saints and special Wolves which can alter the gameplay drastically, but here I'm suggesting one that I find the most interesting.

Roles: 18 roles (for only 16 people), of which the Ghost and one other role will be discarded after Night 0 (see "Thief" character description for details).

Good Guys: 5 x Peasants, 5 x Saints (Prophet + Witch + Hunter + Guardian + Knight)
Bad Guys: 3 x Werewolves, 1 x Mutant, 1 x Devil
Neutrals: 1 x Ghost, 1 x Angel, 1 x Cupid

Also, the GM is usually called "Arbiter," "Judge," or "God." I personally prefer "God".

Backstory: Our story is set in a Victorian village after the Black Death. Due to [insert weird and super duper cool plot excuse here], an ancient and deadly virus has infected some of the people in the village... The Werewolves, worshippers of Satan, swear to curse and bring down the village! The Saints vow to protect everyone with their powers, and some other people, possessed by spirits, have their own schemes...

Game Cycle:
The game starts with Night 0, which involves a lot of uninformed guesswork and pre-game preparation. It's like the opening of Gunboat Diplomacy, where the tone is set without much real info appearing. Then the game goes Day 1, Night 1, Day 2, Night 2, and so forth.
Night 0 Procedure: Ghost chooses identity, Cupid chooses Lovers, Lovers see each other's identities (also sees who Cupid is only if they become Sinners), Bad Guys meet and decide on who to kill, Witch learns of the werewolves' kill decision and decides whether to potion, Prophet checks.
Day Procedure: Discussion, Voting
Normal Night Procedure: Bad Guys meet and decide on who to kill, Witch learns of the werewolves' kill decision and decides whether to potion, Prophet checks

MECHANISM: If multiple people tie in the vote they have another round of speaking and getting voted on. If it's still a tie no one dies.
MECHANISM: Prayers. People who die on Night 0 and people who get voted out can state their prayers (i.e. share info) after being declared dead – before actually being out of the game. Anyone who dies on nights besides Night 0 have no prayers.
NOTE: You can always still participate normally until you are officially declared dead by God, even if you have been killed and no one saves you. (for instance, on Night 0 even if the Bad Guys kill the Prophet and the Witch does not use the elixir, the Prophet – not knowing their fate – still gets to check during the night, so he can still leave a prayer to convey the result of his night check).

Goals (Win Conditions):
Good Guys: If all Bad Guys AND Sinners are dead, the Good Guys win.
Bad Guys: If all Sinners are dead AND the village is paralyzed, the Bad Guys win.
DEFINITION: The village is paralyzed if all villagers are dead (so there is no one to be protected) or if all saints are dead (so there is no one to protect).
Sinners: You win only if everyone else is dead! This is like a solo win in Diplomacy – very hard to pull off but super duper cool if you manage to!

Character Descriptions:

Peasants: You know nothing. Vote, think, and stay alive!
Prophet: Every night you can check one person (you can also choose not to). God will tell you whether he scans good or bad. (Note: Lovers scan as their original allegiances even if they become sinners. Angel and Cupid always scan good. Ghost scans as the allegiance of whoever he becomes.) But if you try to check the Devil, you die.
Witch: You have an elixir of life (a.k.a. good potion) and a venom of death (a.k.a. bad potion). On any night you can choose to use one of them on one person (you may not use potions on yourself and you may not use both potions on the same night). Note you only have one potion of each kind for the entire game! Use once and they are consumed forever. Whoever gets killed by werewolves during the night can be saved by the elixir (every night you will know who the werewolves want to kill). Anyone except the Devil who gets killed by you using the venom will die no matter what, and may not shoot during the day if they are the Hunter. But if you try to poison the Devil, you die and the Devil will not die. If you use the elixir on someone who is being guarded by the Guardian, that person still dies – very cool death! (because the death requires being killed by werewolves + guarded by the Guardian + elixired by the Witch).
Hunter: During the night, if you die, God will tell you whether you can Last Word or not (you can Last Word as long as the cause of death is not being poisoned by the Witch). If you can, during the day you can (you can also choose not to) reveal your identity and shoot someone before you die. Anyone who gets shot will die no matter what. If you die in the day (from Mutant's lunge or from being voted out), you can also shoot.
Guardian: During the night you can choose to guard one person (you can also choose not to). Anyone who gets guarded during the night is immune from werewolf kills (but not from the Witch's venom). Whoever gets guarded for two nights in a row dies from overprotection. However, if the person you guard is targeted by werewolves and the Witch also tries to save them, that person still dies – cool death! (because the death requires being killed by werewolves + guarded by the Guardian + elixired by the Witch).
Knight: At any time in the day before voting, you can reveal your identity and duel anyone. If they scan good, you die. If they scan bad, they die. See Prophet for scanning rules.

Werewolves: You know your teammates and their roles (the other 2 wolves plus the Mutant and the Devil). Kill wisely and speak wisely to win! During the night, all Bad Guys will gather to discuss who to kill. But this is not a vote: if the Bad Guys fail to decide on who to kill, no one gets killed by werewolves on that night. The killed person can also be a fellow Werewolf (but not the Devil and Mutant)! (Commonly this is done on Night 0, betting that the Witch wastes the elixir on saving that guy. Or on deciding that that person is a Sinner.)
Mutant: If you get voted out, you can reveal your identity and lunge for anyone, killing them before you die. Any other way of death (including getting shot by the Hunter) does not get you the chance to lunge.
Devil: You are the core of your team! You will not die during the night. If the Prophet tries to check you or the Witch tries to poison you, they die.
MECHANISM: Sacrifice. During any time in the day before voting, Werewolves and the Mutant (but not the Devil) can single-handedly declare self-sacrifice. You immediately die, but there will be no voting / discussion and the game directly advances to the night phase.

Ghost: If your identity is Ghost, God will come to you at the very beginning of Night 0 and show you the two remaining identities. If both the identities are Good / Bad / Neutral, you get to pick. Else, you must pick the Neutral over anything else, and pick the Bad over the Good. The other identity, plus the "Ghost" identity, will then be lost forever, and you become the identity you chose.
Angel: You solo win (yeah, only the one you!) for being the first person to be voted out. If you are not that person then you're the same as a normal Peasant for the rest of the game.
Cupid: On Night 0 you choose two people to become lovers (you cannot choose yourself!). If the lovers both scan good or both scan bad you're the same as a normal Peasant for the rest of the game (you do not know what scan result it is specifically, only that the results are the same). If one scans good and one scans bad, you and the two lovers become Sinners, who must to kill everyone else to win. Sinners will know the specific identities of the other two. Sinners or not, if one of the lovers dies for any reason the other immediately also dies.

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:11 am

dargorygel wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 11:38 pm

a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

Nay, it must be thirdcoming, for three is the magic number! The number thou shalt count! the number of the counting! the third number! four shalt thou not count (and neither count thou 2, excepting that thou then proceed to three). Five is right out.
thus, I request that a response be thirdcoming, for that is the proper way...

attempting to inject some light hearted humor into this discussion, since it seems several people (NOT NAMING ANYONE) got a tad agitated. So enjoy a quote from peak comedy :).

And God said to John, “Come forth, and you shall receive eternal life”

But John came fifth, and won a toaster

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑

Wed May 22, 2024 1:11 am

dargorygel wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 11:38 pm

a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

Nay, it must be thirdcoming, for three is the magic number! The number thou shalt count! the number of the counting! the third number! four shalt thou not count (and neither count thou 2, excepting that thou then proceed to three). Five is right out.
thus, I request that a response be thirdcoming, for that is the proper way...

attempting to inject some light hearted humor into this discussion, since it seems several people (NOT NAMING ANYONE) got a tad agitated. So enjoy a quote from peak comedy :).

One, Two, Five!

dargorygel wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 11:38 pm

a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

Nay, it must be thirdcoming, for three is the magic number! The number thou shalt count! the number of the counting! the third number! four shalt thou not count (and neither count thou 2, excepting that thou then proceed to three). Five is right out.
thus, I request that a response be thirdcoming, for that is the proper way...

attempting to inject some light hearted humor into this discussion, since it seems several people (NOT NAMING ANYONE) got a tad agitated. So enjoy a quote from peak comedy :).

Rest assured that the Kouncil, new and older, are considering, reading, discussing, pondering, and rolling random numbers: a response is forthcoming, or fifthcoming,

Kakarroto wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 10:40 pm

I think I haven't moved on from this topic. I think we haven't had enough people talk about it and give their thoughts and inputs in. I think we haven't found a perfect solution yet.

Though I think no single person can call exactly what to do here, and given it has grown this big, I think the best idea is for the unified council to either give their final ruling on that matter, or let discussion/input still happen, or call for a "please be silent about it now, we heard you all but we need to figure this out so please just wait a bit".
And please, don't misinterpret this against you, or any of our usual GM's, personally I have no problem trusting you all and letting it go without a ruling if it's just our usual bunch. But, I'm sure there will be a time newer people and GM's will step up for a game, and I think it is best to plan for a framework for that time, so they have some guidance, and players at the time can also put easily trust into them. And we can't have a special ruling to include/exclude a certain group of people, so our solution should be steadfast and include everyone.

I heartily concur. This topic should be properly resolved. And the onus is on the Kouncil to provide a response. Only then can it be put to rest.

This will be a good challenge to test the mettle of our freshman Kouncil-hat, damo

I think I haven't moved on from this topic. I think we haven't had enough people talk about it and give their thoughts and inputs in. I think we haven't found a perfect solution yet.

Though I think no single person can call exactly what to do here, and given it has grown this big, I think the best idea is for the unified council to either give their final ruling on that matter, or let discussion/input still happen, or call for a "please be silent about it now, we heard you all but we need to figure this out so please just wait a bit".


And please, don't misinterpret this against you, or any of our usual GM's, personally I have no problem trusting you all and letting it go without a ruling if it's just our usual bunch. But, I'm sure there will be a time newer people and GM's will step up for a game, and I think it is best to plan for a framework for that time, so they have some guidance, and players at the time can also put easily trust into them. And we can't have a special ruling to include/exclude a certain group of people, so our solution should be steadfast and include everyone.

I think weve all moved on from this topic. It is clear that players think something unethical has been going on. People keep saying they dont think something unethical was happening, but that something now will be unethical.

I am quite sure the GMs would do whatever the players want to keep people playing, and keep the games fair the way the players want. Thank you for the feedback. now we can retire this topic and just assume that the message is received.

I would now ask all of you who listed repeatedly that you want 100% automation to now go back and read the offered solutions and exceptions, and please do respect that GMs should still be allowed to request anything they want and the kouncil can approve or decline it. and please respect that process we have in place. It already exists and if anyone was ever worried that something bad was happening, thats why we have a co gm, who can flag something they see that looks iffy.

Lets retire this dialogue now and move on to M89! a game where I am pledging to give you exactly what you want. a 100% fair rand with no tampering.

I have reconsidered my stance on this. I think that if we're not having Kouncil members check the randomization, there's no point in taking the precaution of having GMs reveal whether they modified the role randomization. However, having established rules, even if they're only a guideline that GMs can ignore, will be good so GMs know the boundaries of what they should be doing.

Proposal 14:
GMs must randomize role assignment.
GMs must only reroll random role assignment in extreme cases, such as the entire mafia team being new players. In such cases, GMs must completely reroll the randomization.

Chaqa wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 2:50 pm

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 is the problem though, because of this we now have outside considerations to take into account, that make the game less than, we know X & Y will never be mafia together, so if X is mafia, then Y is now a guaranteed safe person.
We know people who get modkilled for inactivity wont be mafia, well now look at that, we know their safe!

Also about this bad blood stuff, maybe just maybe they don't resolve this badblood because they don't go through a baptism of fire that is playing mafia together. Maybe being forced to work together is just the problem.

Also if two people can't play together then they just need to grow up I'm sorry but there is no scenario where that is acceptable.

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 12:21 pm

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

Put a Kouncil member on it to verify it, it doesn't have to be done by a bot if you don't want to use a bot. No one is saying your previous games were flawed, they weren't, but in the future they now will be. Outside considerations are now going to be in play, and that's a problem

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 12:01 pm

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

1. Not every single Kouncil member(or representative of one) is going to be playing every single game, I'm sure one person can verify the randomization
2. If you have 36 roles and want to randomize to see which ones to cut, then that's fine, no one ever had a problem with that. The problem is when that happens to **people**

sweetandcool wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 5:33 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 5:18 pm

NOTE: Also, I am only talking about role assignment here. If there is some complex item madness or other mechanical structure to a game that requires something other than RNG, I don't have any view on that at all. That is a game structure balance issue, and it's well above my pay grade.

Thanks. I think it's a bit of a mess intertwining the discussions. I think to address your concern about this particular issue, we come up with a standard, like you've said.

Possible standards for player assignments:

1. Absolutely pure RNG, one random roll.

2. If the GM has concerns about the roll (the setup is somehow degenerate), then they are allowed one reroll of the random roll. This reroll has to be for the entire game's player assignment, not applied to particular players.

3. Same as (2) but GM gets N number of rerolls, where N>1 and can be infinite.

Others ideas?

What do you think, Balki?

I think the best rule for player assignments is the following:

Role allocation is completely random.

I'm not convinced that there are any edge cases that should change this clear rule, or for which it is worth muddying the clear rule.

Like anything else, I presume, if there is some role assignment that a GM thinks would break the game for some reason, they should just bring it up to the Kouncil and propose a solution, but these seem like issues that have more to do with player toxicity or inactivity, and I don't think that modifying roles is the best way to deal with them.

I think, there are two different things that are intertwined in this discussion, and I have different thoughts on each:

-) random assigning the chance of roles/items/etc. to be in the game (like, there is a list of 40 roles, but 20 player spots); I think, in that case, to roll and find out which game set-up will actually happen, it is fine and encouraged by me to reroll, if there is a balancing issue, or something like that. However, I think that needs to be happening BEFORE putting player into the set-up, like in a two staged system. First, define what the actual set-up will be, and if it looks fine and works, then roll the people random into the slots

-) randoming players into slots, and then 'tweaking' the result. (And as a disclaimer, this is not games, where you want to invite players and manually pick everyones role, that is fine too if communicated first.) But, looking at a set-up you thought works fine and then after player distributing thinking 'I don't like this' and fudging with it, feels so bad from a player side. Maybe the GM has the best intentions to do so, maybe it's to prevent a likely, but still only potential, break-down between two players ... still, this is a pretty big blow and shakes up trust in GM's.

Also, some arguments for doing a post-random change aren't good. Like "Oh, if we put those two together as mafia, they will fight" ... well, what happens if both are town? Wont they fight then too? This is, in my opinion, not a duty for the GM, but for the players in the game. We are all adults here, or at least have an adult enough mindset to play a fun game together. People can see the sign ups, they know who is in the game. It is the players duty to either make amends to the other players, at least enough to play together so everyone can have their fun, or, if they absolutely can't play together, just don't play in the same game. The GM isn't here to babysit, but to enforce the rules.

If there is someone that can't be trusted to play a certain role, maybe, just maybe, that is a hint that this someone can't be trusted to play any role. People might think that VT's or other similar roles are expendable, but they are not, right? Each set-up slot is there intentionally to present a balanced game. So redirecting roles is just not the solution for providing a balanced game. Or do people plan set-ups intentionally with the thought 'oh, so many people can drop out and the game is still balanced'? If game balance is that flexible, we don't need to focus that hard on it, I suppose?

And also, what is wrong with an all-team of new players as mafia? They don't know how it is done? Well, maybe they have an idea or unique approach to the game we never had seen. Who says that the experienced players know all there is to the game and no other way will work. Is there a potential that they mess up? Sure, but that potential is always present with every mafia team.


And from a personal point, there was a long period where I only drew VT or goon, nothing else. At least from my memory, and I haven't checked or made a special list, but it felt like a very, very long dry period, where only in full PR or full item set-ups, I got something more to do with the role. Until now, I thought I just had bad luck. With this all, I have to say, the thought that I was role fixed into those VT/goon spots came up. And I don't like it. I want to trust you, and I don't think any one had bad intentions, but it still feels bad. And I know I can't prove any one has done something like that, but then again, you can't prove to me you haven't done that. And I think that is a totally avoidable issue, to be in this mindset.



So yeah, I have no problems randoming set-ups and tweaking them for balancing, as long as it is just roles/items, and not players.
I do not have any problems with choosing a few set-ups manually, and then randomly rolling which set-up will be taken to put players into.
I do not have any problems with rerolling a player set-up, if there have been a mistake (not enough/too many slots, wrong role range, etc.).
I do not have any problems with a game where everyone is manually given a role, if it is communicated beforehand.

I do however think, that there is a problem, with rolling a random role assignment, and THEN manually changing something. I don't know what the solution for that is exactly, however. I think though, we should have a civil discussion about that, for the future, and let the past be the past, with the thought, that so far, everything went okay, but for the future possibility, it could go wrong, and we should be prepared.

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 5:18 pm

NOTE: Also, I am only talking about role assignment here. If there is some complex item madness or other mechanical structure to a game that requires something other than RNG, I don't have any view on that at all. That is a game structure balance issue, and it's well above my pay grade.

Thanks. I think it's a bit of a mess intertwining the discussions. I think to address your concern about this particular issue, we come up with a standard, like you've said.

Possible standards for player assignments:

1. Absolutely pure RNG, one random roll.

2. If the GM has concerns about the roll (the setup is somehow degenerate), then they are allowed one reroll of the random roll. This reroll has to be for the entire game's player assignment, not applied to particular players.

3. Same as (2) but GM gets N number of rerolls, where N>1 and can be infinite.

Others ideas?

What do you think, Balki?

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 4:38 pm

unecessary toxic drama happening.

That absolutely never happens here and least of all not almost every single game.

brainbomb wrote: ↑

Tue May 21, 2024 4:38 pm

I think if you sub out of a game you should probably sit out the next game regardless of WHY.

Huh?

NOTE: Also, I am only talking about role assignment here. If there is some complex item madness or other mechanical structure to a game that requires something other than RNG, I don't have any view on that at all. That is a game structure balance issue, and it's well above my pay grade.