wD Mafia Master Post

by **Chaqa** » Wed May 22, 2024 7:32 pm

sweetandcool wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 6:40 pm
I keep seeing this crop up as a talking point and I just want to reinforce that when the GMs participating in this conversation say they may reroll because a Mafia team consists of all new players, they are not talking about players that have played 1-2 games.

They are talking about completely unknown people on the Forum who have yet to prove that they will actually commit to a game of Mafia. Imagine they all either sub out or worse completely ghost the thread D1.

This is what GMs would want to prevent and I fully support that.

Nobody is saying they would reroll just because the Mafia Team consists of extremely inexperienced players. Nobody is saying if a completely new player does roll Mafia or PR that they would automatically reroll to prevent it (in fact, I rolled a PR my very first game here. I guess that means we can trust worcej as a GM).

I thought this was self-evident, but yes this is accurate to what I mean.

by **Kakarroto** » Wed May 22, 2024 6:59 pm

colborn wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 3:37 am
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.

Heya and welcome o/

It's always nice to see a new face (or profile picture) (or lack of profile picture) in here! Hope you will enjoy your stay here.

Though, I've seen you wrote that you might have time issues to play a game. Normally, a day phase is 48 hours and a night phase is 24 hours, and the pages ramp up pretty quickly. Also, the turnover is usually at North American afternoon, which probably isn't the best for your region? I'm from Europe, so it's quite late for me, normally midnight or around it. It should be around early morning for you?

But feel free to sign up for a game and play along if you can make it, it can be quite fun! Be aware thought that there are usually some posting requirements, and more involvement is, at least in my personal opinion, always better then less.

by **sweetandcool** » Wed May 22, 2024 6:40 pm

I keep seeing this crop up as a talking point and I just want to reinforce that when the GMs participating in this conversation say they may reroll because a Mafia team consists of all new players, they are not talking about players that have played 1-2 games.

They are talking about completely unknown people on the Forum who have yet to prove that they will actually commit to a game of Mafia. Imagine they all either sub out or worse completely ghost the thread D1.

This is what GMs would want to prevent and I fully support that.

Nobody is saying they would reroll just because the Mafia Team consists of extremely inexperienced players. Nobody is saying if a completely new player does roll Mafia or PR that they would automatically reroll to prevent it (in fact, I rolled a PR my very first game here. I guess that means we can trust worcej as a GM).

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 6:39 pm

I am certain you all want to talk more about that. but in the meanwhile, on another subject I am reviewing our mafia scoresheets and finding alot of issues within them.

I want to first ask if people have any interest in volunteering to help work on the scoresheet and refine it.

And also ask if we want to formally get rid of winrate, as it tends to just be subjective, and focus instead on total wins, total losses, total rands as, and games played. Making the scoresheet less of a contest and more just a way to track frequency of rands.

I think this may actually help with some of our other concerns, because in a random math calculation a person should usually be about 50/50 as far as what theyve randed, much like how a coin is flipped x number of times.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? want to help work on it? or ideas for changing how to score games, or if we even should score them at all.

or is this a huge waste of time with no reason to do it at all

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 6:26 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 3:30 pm
I am already shuttering at the idea of playing a game where it would be helpful to do research on the GM and on what sorts of role assignments seem okay with them and what sorts do not.

Well, first of all, being fearful of having to prove that there has been mass handpicking and game altering just to validate your own suspicions would probably be your first step rather than taking peoples statements and placing an onus of guilt on them. If you suspect that something deeper, more problematic was taking place, maybe actually produce examples of patterns, or rands you think look handpicked.

Do they allow super new, quiet or controversial players to be strong PRs?

No one as far as I am aware would ever have a problem allowing someone new or super new to be a strong PR.

No one as far as I am aware would ever have a problem allowing a quiet person to be a PR. ive had countless games where rdrivera, lfishcl, have been PR, ive had games where first timers were mafia, and games where first timers were PR. I cannot name a single GM who would change a result based on this criteria.

Do they allow people with known public animosity to be on a mafia team together?

As far as I am aware I have never paid much attention to who hates who. If I saw a scumteam with ND, Jamie, Durga and RagingIke I would probably laugh histerically and force them to be in a scumchat called the incel chill spot. All jokes aside, no, I have never rerolled a setup for this listed reason above. I have seen it mentioned as a possible reason for a reroll, and I dont really see why that would need to be a reroll. But, if the GM thinks it should, and there is a level of hatred that is truly that bad, then we are in rough shape as a community because no matter what teams those ppl end up on the games gonna suck and its gonna make our community look bad no matter how that rand ends up.

Do they seem to make sure teams are balanced in terms of experience and activity?

I dont see how there could even be an exact science to the GM knowing what would produce a balance of these things. Ive seen the example of an all newb scumteam which in M21 happened and the game was over by day 3. Thats fine, I was happy as hell to be town in that one let me tell ya!

My position is that none of this should be part of any game and GM-preference in role assignment is the wrong way to approach the edge-case problems that have been mentioned here.

Ill agree with a few of your talking points, but the rest just feels like a war on a GMs authority over their own game and im not interested in watching us turn into a community where the GM has no say in emergency matters.

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 6:06 pm

Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 3:39 pm

I am not suggesting that GMs ban players or ask players not to play. I am saying that allowing someone to play, but only on the condition that they get a certain role or faction is a poor solution and has the potential to break or diminish the game. I think that if we allow someone to play, it should be on the same terms as every other player. If it isn’t, it injects GM preference into the role sorting process in a way that goes against the spirit and object of the game.

I completely and fundamentally disagree with everything said here. It is the GMs job to handle these types of scenarios and use their judgement to ensure a quality game. This absolutely would make for game breaking draconian policing of the ability of the GM to govern the facets and nuances of their own game. Furthermore to even attempt to apply this level of handcuffing to setups would once again require designations, of game types, layers, massive kouncil oversight, and would lead to people just not wanting to play or not wanting to GM at all.

Absolutely 1000% against what is being decsribed here as I have presented you a VERY reasonable justification for an occurance in a game where my judgement was accurate. I was unwilling to risk game integrity on making a certain player in my rand a PR, and because I had 2 other rands at my disposal I was able to remove the problematic option and allow my co gm to pick the two that were not problematic. I would encourage every GM that they should have this authority over their own games as needed. The scope of how much control is certainly worth debating but I refuse to accept an answer where the GM is forced to either tell a player they cant play or just let the rand make that person whatever and just be stuck with a dice roll.

In dungeouns and dragons as a DM, I never roll just one dice roll. I roll multiple depending on how many facets there are to the situation. If a player wanted to send 300 orcs into a cave to challenge a troll, I would let at least 3 or 4 dice determine result, casualties, and other factors of what happens because I can tell you im not gonna spend 6 hours rolling a battle of some loser ass orcs individual attacks on a fucking troll.

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:55 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 3:46 pm
Mafia is a social game, if you cant play nice in the sandbox, then it should not diminish the game experience of everyone. Which would happen when we know GM's are using outside considerations to make sure certain kinds of people have certain kinds of roles.

When I invite a kid to play in my sandbox there is a chance that kid might step on my Tonka Truck and smash it to peices, then kick sand in my face for not sharing it with him.

I can still invite him to play in my sandbox and put my nicest toy somewhere he cant destroy it. Then I have a chance to see if that kid is actually a decent kid or not and prevent myself from also losing my favorite toy all in one

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:44 pm

If you are saying that what I did was inapporpriate and you dont want to play in a community where a GM would protect their game then I may very well have to rethink if id ever want to GM at all.

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 5:42 pm

The player in question got modkilled and then banned from the forum.

Are you saying I acted inappropriately in randing my setup by excluding a sample of my 3 where he was a Pr?

Are you saying I acted inappropriately in failing to anticipate he would screenshot his role pm and then get himself banned from webdip?

Was I supposed to “know” that would happen and this be able to deny his enrollment

I thought there was a chance given his flaking he would need to be subbed but never. Anything that egregious.

From my point of view I saved my game from damages.

by **FlaviusAetius** » Wed May 22, 2024 3:46 pm

Mafia is a social game, if you cant play nice in the sandbox, then it should not diminish the game experience of everyone. Which would happen when we know GM's are using outside considerations to make sure certain kinds of people have certain kinds of roles.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Wed May 22, 2024 3:39 pm

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 1:50 pm
Now, as far as a solution to the perplextiy problem. The GMs can refuse a player to play, and in the past these actions have been toxic and met with backlash. It is alot of drama. It is bad publicity, and it reflects poorly on the community to have to publicly tell a player they cant play. As we have seen even with this current issue happening there is a herd mentality here. "US" vs the "GM", or "US vs the "Kouncil" and it spreads like wildfire. it becomes easy and fun and popular to rush to the defense of some thing.

A gm tells someone they cant play, and a flood of people rush to join the disenfranchised person: "if he cant play then im not playing either", "why isnt he allowed to play why are you denying someone from playing".

And of course there is also the opposite "why is he being allowed to play he should be banned", "if he plays im not singing up, nope, not dealing with that".

A GMs game should not become a forum for exacting players personal desires for retribution upon other players. Our job as a GM is to act as a recruiter, a creator, an administrator, a judge, and a caretaker. We have plenty of duties. Deciding on if a player is maybe too unethical to allow to play when they maybe dont even have a formal sanction from the kouncil is going to create toxic drama and negativity, right smack in the middle of when the GM is just trying their heart out to fill their player lists.

As such, I am opposed to the GM telling people they cant play as any solution to how to avoid reranding a setup, or handpicking a rand that causes less damage. I still think this falls under the GM may make these decisions as needed in extreme situations clause.

The only other solution would be the kouncil can bar players from playing who they feel would complicate things.

The only person this level of authority was enacted on was chippeerock who the ban for signups when even above the kouncil, and became an issue for the actual moderation team of webdip, saying he would not be allowed to post or try to signup in these games.

I havent heard someone suggest how to create a fair and drama free system for this. but I also am aware there have been mafia invitational games where only certain players were permitted to sign up, and that was also somewhat shitty as it created cliques within the community of "acceptable" player types, and left out people who were basically just degenerate in their play style. I of course was not invited to that game, and I think doing games like that should probably just be done somewhere else or on a discord, and not meant to make people feel unwelcomed.

thoughts?

I am not suggesting that GMs ban players or ask players not to play. I am saying that allowing someone to play, but only on the condition that they get a certain role or faction is a poor solution and has the potential to break or diminish the game. I think that if we allow someone to play, it should be on the same terms as every other player. If it isn’t, it injects GM preference into the role sorting process in a way that goes against the spirit and object of the game.

As for other solutions to toxic players or blood feuds, I think that’s outside the scope of the issue I wanted to raise — that player-roll assignments should be random.

by **Balki Bartokomous** » Wed May 22, 2024 3:30 pm

@brainbomb, on Monday you posted the quote below. Just seems very different from the idea that you create three rands and pick randomly between them.

I think this discussion shows there are pretty significant differences in how people think players should be assigned to roles and it would be a good idea to have some guidance.

I am already shuttering at the idea of playing a game where it would be helpful to do research on the GM and on what sorts of role assignments seem okay with them and what sorts do not. Do they allow super new, quiet or controversial players to be strong PRs? Do they allow people with known public animosity to be on a mafia team together? Do they seem to make sure teams are balanced in terms of experience and activity?

My position is that none of this should be part of any game and GM-preference in role assignment is the wrong way to approach the edge-case problems that have been mentioned here.

brainbomb wrote: ↑
Mon May 20, 2024 6:39 pm
As was stated in discord, I think the following opinions reflect responsible GMing standards that are intended to provide the least amount of handpicking or tampering.

I support where a GM gets either 1-2 adjustments, or up to 3 rng rolls
-brainbomb

I will admit i have fully rerolled setups in very rare cases if I find it would be detrimental to a solid game. But I think randomness in role assignment is a cornerstone in mafia and if it isn't officially a rule it should probably be
for example when all mafia and PRs are very new players
-Chaqa

It's going to be a bit of a trade secret for each person
-Chaqa

I've re-rolled when 3/4 members of a scum team were all new players because I didn't think the game quality would be good. Otherwise I stick to my dice rolls
-Worcej

I would never reroll
I think the GM is providing the game. The scum provide the hunt. And rerolling adds a mess of a guess
-Bunnygo

I don't, but if I did, I'd lie about it. Lol
-Eden

Officially, you shouldn't be rerolling if you see something wrong and the assumption is that most GMs aren't, but obviously nobody knows what you're doing, so just keep it that way
What we don't want is a situation where someone can say "well, ghug is GM, so I know that the whole scumteam isn't new/inactive/his lovers/whatever"
- ghug

I think the consensus is, its impossible to police this because the GM can just claim everything is random. I think there is a justifiable methodology not in rerolling but in giving yourself up to three roles, then rnging which one of those three occurs. or allowing a GM to make an adjustment where they see fit for either what roles ended up in the setup or for which players end up as which. But it is just unspoken and never revealed if this happened or not.

Overall, this is a non issue until someone thinks this was an issue. And there is again never going to be a way to verify someone did something unethical.

the only way to enforce this would be that a kouncil member must always be the one to randomize the setup for the GM and take the GM entirely out of it. Then you would need a kouncil member to oversee the kouncil member who rolls it to ensure they also didnt alter anything.

Seems unecessary right? just set a standard of dont ask dont tell

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 1:50 pm

Now, as far as a solution to the perplextiy problem. The GMs can refuse a player to play, and in the past these actions have been toxic and met with backlash. It is alot of drama. It is bad publicity, and it reflects poorly on the community to have to publicly tell a player they cant play. As we have seen even with this current issue happening there is a herd mentality here. "US" vs the "GM", or "US vs the "Kouncil" and it spreads like wildfire. it becomes easy and fun and popular to rush to the defense of some thing.

A gm tells someone they cant play, and a flood of people rush to join the disenfranchised person: "if he cant play then im not playing either", "why isnt he allowed to play why are you denying someone from playing".

And of course there is also the opposite "why is he being allowed to play he should be banned", "if he plays im not singing up, nope, not dealing with that".

A GMs game should not become a forum for exacting players personal desires for retribution upon other players. Our job as a GM is to act as a recruiter, a creator, an administrator, a judge, and a caretaker. We have plenty of duties. Deciding on if a player is maybe too unethical to allow to play when they maybe dont even have a formal sanction from the kouncil is going to create toxic drama and negativity, right smack in the middle of when the GM is just trying their heart out to fill their player lists.

As such, I am opposed to the GM telling people they cant play as any solution to how to avoid reranding a setup, or handpicking a rand that causes less damage. I still think this falls under the GM may make these decisions as needed in extreme situations clause.

The only other solution would be the kouncil can bar players from playing who they feel would complicate things.

The only person this level of authority was enacted on was chippeerock who the ban for signups when even above the kouncil, and became an issue for the actual moderation team of webdip, saying he would not be allowed to post or try to signup in these games.

I havent heard someone suggest how to create a fair and drama free system for this. but I also am aware there have been mafia invitational games where only certain players were permitted to sign up, and that was also somewhat shitty as it created cliques within the community of "acceptable" player types, and left out people who were basically just degenerate in their play style. I of course was not invited to that game, and I think doing games like that should probably just be done somewhere else or on a discord, and not meant to make people feel unwelcomed.

thoughts?

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 1:44 pm

Thanks for the clarification brain.

by **brainbomb** » Wed May 22, 2024 1:36 pm

I was talking to sweetandcool last night and it occurred to me that this whole dialogue began as a result of some things I said that lacked clarity. Specifically when I said I make 1-2 adjustments, or that I rand the setup 3 times.

What my system entails is I take the list and make three rolls. the adjustments are having the two extra rolls. As was previously mentioned there was only one time ever where a person with severe character issues signed up for a game and I took measures to protect the game by just choosing 2 rands where he was VT. this was however a 1 off scenario.

In all other scenarios, I would rand the setup 3 times and then go to my co gm and ask them to pick 1 2 or 3. they would not be told what was in the rand, and they would not see what they were picking.

So in this case, you were saying I was handpicking which of the three I wanted, what I was actually doing was having my co gm blind pick what rand we are going with. the only handpicking was in the one instance where one of the rands was thrown out that had a problem player put into an important role. the result was forced to make him a vt on the other two rands, not by handpicking but literally by the rand itself.

The other examples of times where this happened was a game where worcej was my co gm, I randed the setup and realized that enrollment was so abysmally low for magic the gathering mafia, that only 10 players had signed up. So I asked worcej to play instead. and the game was able to be 11 players, and we reranded as a result to get more players into the game.

I think what you guys are asking for is well intentioned, but I also think that you are trying to apply a hard rule on top of everything even though you have all accepted there should also be other types of rands, and that it should be part of the setup. In the end, the GM should be the ultimate authority over their own game, its setup, and its responsibly administered rand.

This debate was caused by a joke I made in postgame of M88, one which implied I am handpicking the way my setup randomizes and then moving people around. What my comment about adjustments means is there are three rands, and then they are randomly picked from without much concern for the result. to avoid me handpicking, and to incorporate my co gm being part of the process, this has always been the final step was them to pick a random number.

I hope this clears the confusion up and explains my system better? ive been very confused last few days wondering why any of this was even an issue, and I think this is probably why.

by **DiplomacyandWarfare** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:49 am

Werewolf and Mafia both fall into damo's hat of secret role games. Personally, "Werewolf" reminds me of either Ultimate Werewolf or One Night Ultimate Werewolf, but as far as forum games go they're mostly a choice of flavor.

by **kingofthepirates** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:45 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 11:22 am

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 11:15 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am
There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.
I am not bunny, but from my quick maths, I only got 5 scum teams that need rerolling. Are you using permutations or combinations? I think it should be combinations here, which leads to 5 teams of all new/new people and lurker (pick one person to ignore)
You seem to be agreeing with me.

Pardon me, my brain seems to be a jumbled mess. Yes, your math is mathing. I misread it as 2380 scum teams needing rerolling and skipped over the 5 bit all together. I will now proceed to excuse myself and wallow in embarrassment due to my lack of paying attention and/or sight…

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:22 am

kingofthepirates wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 11:15 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am
There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.
I am not bunny, but from my quick maths, I only got 5 scum teams that need rerolling. Are you using permutations or combinations? I think it should be combinations here, which leads to 5 teams of all new/new people and lurker (pick one person to ignore)

You seem to be agreeing with me.

by **kingofthepirates** » Wed May 22, 2024 11:15 am

damo666 wrote: ↑
Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am
There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.

I am not bunny, but from my quick maths, I only got 5 scum teams that need rerolling. Are you using permutations or combinations? I think it should be combinations here, which leads to 5 teams of all new/new people and lurker (pick one person to ignore)

by **damo666** » Wed May 22, 2024 10:08 am

To put things in perspective I just thought I'd explore how rare a reroll due to an all new player scumteam actually is and its affect.

Let's assume a 13 town v 4 scum game with 5 new players signed up (which in itself is pretty unlikely - but includes say 4 new + 1 notorious lurker/flaker).

There are 2380 possible scumteams of which 5 would lead to a reroll. That is 475-1 against, or 1 chance in 476.

From a town player's pov (who is not one of the 5) it reduces the number of possible scumteams from 1820 to 1815 or 1 in 364.

From the pov of one of the 5 themselves it reduces the number of possible scumteams from 1820 to 1819.

Obviously if there were only 4 new/lurkys the chances are even tinier.

Conclusion: it's not significant.

@Bunny check my arithmetic please.

wD Mafia Master Post

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post

Re: wD Mafia Master Post