Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yuma]

sure, but that wasn't what I was suggesting

Then why even suggest it when (I think) he never said he was against it?

What?

Let galz speak for himself. I don't know what you are saying, but I appreciate the effort.

[Voltgloss]

My upcoming game is obviously Semi-Open, which I think is a significant enough difference between "Open" and "Closed" (and a well-defined enough difference) that we should keep that taxonomy.

And I agree it is Invented.  It's clearly not Standard by the "on mafiascum wiki" rubric.  And some (arguably most) of the roles are newly devised for this game.

That all said, I still think it qualifies as "Normal," for two main reasons:

1.  In an Open or Semi-open setup, you can have more leeway with "Invented" roles in the mix without running afoul of players' expectations.  They know exactly what to expect because every possible role is public knowledge.  And there are, I think, no roles in my game that clearly cross the line into "role madness only" or "bastard only."  And everyone playing will know those roles, and if the community disagrees, we can hash that out before the game is played.

2.  There will be a sizable contingent of Vanilla roles.  This was mentioned upthread but I think bears repeating.  I agree that the key hallmark of a RM game, as opposed to a Normal game, is that the focus/emphasis shifts to roles and role interactions, rather than day scumhunting.  However, that's a fairly difficult standard to objectively apply.  What is more objective?  The number of Vanilla players.  The more Vanilla players (and by that I mean both VTs and Mafia Goons), the less emphasis there will be on role interactions, and in contrast the more emphasis there will be on the day game.

So how much Vanilla is enough Vanilla to be a "Normal" game?  This is of course open to discussion, but I think the minimum baseline should be about 30%.  In a 13-player game, that means at least 4 Vanilla players (VTs/Goons).

PPE: 6.  Haven't read them yet.

[sudgy]

sure, but that wasn't what I was suggesting

Then why even suggest it when (I think) he never said he was against it?

What?

Let galz speak for himself. I don't know what you are saying, but I appreciate the effort.

Then I'll go to what I would say.  If I played a game and it seemed like it should be in a category different than what I thought the game's category said, I wouldn't like it.  I felt like that is what happened in MXXXI (I still liked the game though, don't get me wrong on that!).  If a game said what type of game it was beforehand and was was it had in the game, I don't care what's in the game as long as it was expected.

And sorry to Galz if I didn't say what you meant, I had just skimmed everything.

[Voltgloss]

A corollary issue to my #2 above is "what about Vanilla roles with a twist."  I'm specifically thinking of Major Arcana II, where there were several VT players, but they were given extra information about the setup.  We should talk about whether a role like that is truly a "Vanilla role" for assessing Normal vs. Role Madness.  (I would argue it's not, but I admit up front I'm biased on that question because I personally was burned on that score in MA II, so I am not the best choice to lead that discussion.)

[Galzria]

I don't know Yuma. Like I said, if I encountered another game with a similar setup to MC, in a Closed format, and it was rated "normal" and used for stat purposes, it would be my last.

Ash says people spent too much time worrying about roles... well, maybe you need to stop and wonder why that was. It wasn't just because none of us here know how to scum hunt or play the social side of a game. The setup dictates the style of game. And that style, closed, role heavy, without restriction, is going to produce a game where the focus is no longer on the social aspect of the game, but the role aspect. And that's RMM to me.

And again, I don't think you or Ash set out for MC to be this way, but it's just the way it is. I went on my first major mafia hiatus shortly following MXI (Robz first big game), despite winning and being a heavy favorite for MVP because it left me feeling put out about what I got compared to what I signed up for. I didn't play Bankers for the same reason.

Cayvie's I was happy with, despite the imbalance, because I knew full well what to expect ahead of time. Joth's is a bit harder for me to judge, because I never went back and really analyzed it after dying N1, but it probably should've been RMM.

My point is that, from a player standpoint (and there are 9 to 13 players per mod), if I sign up for a normal game, my expectations are preset a certain way. That the game isn't going to circle around role discussion. That the game is instead going to revolve around social deduction. And I think that any setup that is closed but role crazy (such as MC), even if balanced, is going to devolve into what we just had.

Now I feel like you aren't reading my posts:

If a game said: "This is a game that is considered normal for stat purposes, but is a closed setup with a wide range of roles. We expect this game to be balanced, so be prepared for almost anything in this game--aside from obvious RMM features--including new roles, modifications and all or nearly all players have some sort of a role." You probably wouldn't play in it right?

But just because you don't want to play in it, doesn't mean there shouldn't be room for such a type of a game. Because this game doesn't fit your specifications for a "closed, normal game" "open-semi open game" or a "RMM game."

Now maybe your argument is... to bad. Make your game so it fits one of the categories or don't run it. That is a fair arugument and if the community as a whole decides it so be it. But I feel that such a ruling stifles creativity because some mods want to both be creative and host games that qualify for stats w/o going into the RMM stereotype.

My thought on that is, "Why can't it be rated RMM then?", and if the answer is "Well mods want it to count for stats", then yeah, my general response would be "Too bad". No, not exactly that, but I feel that mods are putting their own priority ahead of the community at that point. They're looking to create a justification for RMM games to be counted for whatever reason they want them to be.

If a game is closed, inventive, crazy, balanced, fun, and all the things you ARE suggesting, I just don't understand why a mod would care about "Oh, but it wasn't an official normal game!". A good game is a good game. I'm sure MC would've been great if the expectation going in was "This is going to be RMM", yet everything else remained exactly the same.

Basically what I see you suggesting is "We want a category where we can run RMM games, but count them for normal stats... but because it's in this category you'll know it's RMM ahead of time!"

... and at that point, sure, if that's what the community wants, fine. I really don't give a damn about the stats, which seems to be where much of the debate is stemming from. I just don't understand why we need the justification for not calling RMM games what they are.

[yuma]

because there is a huge difference in my mind from games like MC to say... Innovation or other games called RMM in the past... and I think they should be separated out.

[ashersky]

A corollary issue to my #2 above is "what about Vanilla roles with a twist."  I'm specifically thinking of Major Arcana II, where there were several VT players, but they were given extra information about the setup.  We should talk about whether a role like that is truly a "Vanilla role" for assessing Normal vs. Role Madness.  (I would argue it's not, but I admit up front I'm biased on that question because I personally was burned on that score in MA II, so I am not the best choice to lead that discussion.)

Or Macho Townie in M31.  Is that a vanilla role or an RMM PR?

[Voltgloss]

A corollary issue to my #2 above is "what about Vanilla roles with a twist."  I'm specifically thinking of Major Arcana II, where there were several VT players, but they were given extra information about the setup.  We should talk about whether a role like that is truly a "Vanilla role" for assessing Normal vs. Role Madness.  (I would argue it's not, but I admit up front I'm biased on that question because I personally was burned on that score in MA II, so I am not the best choice to lead that discussion.)

Or Macho Townie in M31.  Is that a vanilla role or an RMM PR?

Yep, that's another good example of "Vanilla with a twist."  Same for shraeye's Ninja-but-it-didn't-matter Goon.  Maybe also the Enablers.

[liopoil]

haven't read this whole thread, so not entirely sure what standard/open means, but my setup will be completely open, at least half the players will be VTs, and it will be created by me. I assume that means it is S/O.

[ashersky]

How about some definitions?  Can we agree on the following?

Open: A setup with this label means the game has no hidden mechanics, roles, or possibilities.  All Role PMs are public and full setup information is known before the game begins.  For an example of a Standard Open game, see: M5: Emptying the Apothecary.  For an example of an Invented Open game, see M28: Harry Potter Mafia.

Semi-Open:  A setup with this label means the game allows for a distinct set of possibilities, all of which are known to the players before the game starts.  While a semi-open setup should have no surprises, it also has no guarantees.  Semi-open setups usually involve a random system for determining which roles are included in the game.  For an example of a Standard Semi-Open game, see: M24: Samurai and Ninjas (C9++).  For an example of an Invented Semi-Open game, see M18: Major Arcana II.

Closed:  A setup with this label means limited to no information about the roles, interactions, or possibilities is given before the game starts.  Generally, there are no Standard Closed games.  For an example of an Invented Closed game, see: M25: Mean Girls.

[ashersky]

And PPE liopoil's well-timed post.

[ashersky]

Two more:

Standard:  A game with this label means the setup is not an original creation of the mod, but is an accepted setup at mafiascum.net or has been accepted as a standard f.ds setup.

Invented:  A game with this label means the setup is an original creation of the mod, or includes deviations from a Standard setup.

[Jimmmmm]

M20: Masons and Monks.

For the record, that was actually tweaked slightly from the mafiascum version.

[Voltgloss]

I agree with all of those definitions ash, except for Major Arcana II being an example of Semi-Open.  It's very close to Semi-Open, yes:  but the problem is the Major Arcana roles.  Because what those roles could entail were NOT known to the players ahead of time, I think the two Major Arcana games don't quite fit the Semi-Open definition.

[Voltgloss]

What about Casino Helsinki as Invented Semi-Open?

[ashersky]

M20: Masons and Monks.

For the record, that was actually tweaked slightly from the mafiascum version.

Doh. 

[ashersky]

What about Casino Helsinki as Invented Semi-Open?

That's Pick Your Poison, isn't it?  I don't think it's invented.  Just semi-open.

For Standard Open, I changed it to M5, which was Medical Mafia.  Odd setup, but standard with no deviations.

[Voltgloss]

What about Casino Helsinki as Invented Semi-Open?

Scratch that, I forgot that was actually using a standard setup from the wiki.  My bad.

[ashersky]

I agree with all of those definitions ash, except for Major Arcana II being an example of Semi-Open.  It's very close to Semi-Open, yes:  but the problem is the Major Arcana roles.  Because what those roles could entail were NOT known to the players ahead of time, I think the two Major Arcana games don't quite fit the Semi-Open definition.

I picked Major Arcana because literally all roles are published and they are chosen randomly (drawn cards), so it's basically a supercharged C9++ with no balance protection.  Which is still both semi-open and invented.

[Voltgloss]

I agree with all of those definitions ash, except for Major Arcana II being an example of Semi-Open.  It's very close to Semi-Open, yes:  but the problem is the Major Arcana roles.  Because what those roles could entail were NOT known to the players ahead of time, I think the two Major Arcana games don't quite fit the Semi-Open definition.

I picked Major Arcana because literally all roles are published and they are chosen randomly (drawn cards), so it's basically a supercharged C9++ with no balance protection.  Which is still both semi-open and invented.

But all the roles weren't published.  The Major Arcana roles were not published. 

If they were, I'd agree with your assessment.

[Voltgloss]

To be clear, I'm talking about O's High Priestess role, my Death role, Insomniac's Magician role, and whatever the second one was in MA II (Moon?).

[Voltgloss]

Should we differentiate between "Invented" and "Tweaked"?  An "Invented" game being a whole cloth creation of the mod.  A "Tweaked" game being an otherwise Standard setup with one or a couple slight changes.  Like Jimmmmm's Masons and Monks, and like my M-IV (which was Tweaked C9++).

[sudgy]

If we're having this many different types of games, why not have each be their own category?

Somewhat joking, but I think it kills the purpose to have 2834 different categories.

[ashersky]

I agree with all of those definitions ash, except for Major Arcana II being an example of Semi-Open.  It's very close to Semi-Open, yes:  but the problem is the Major Arcana roles.  Because what those roles could entail were NOT known to the players ahead of time, I think the two Major Arcana games don't quite fit the Semi-Open definition.

I picked Major Arcana because literally all roles are published and they are chosen randomly (drawn cards), so it's basically a supercharged C9++ with no balance protection.  Which is still both semi-open and invented.

But all the roles weren't published.  The Major Arcana roles were not published. 

If they were, I'd agree with your assessment.

Oh, you are right.  We'll need to change that.  Well, I mean, it was still "semi" open though.  Hmmm.

If we're having this many different types of games, why not have each be their own category?

Somewhat joking, but I think it kills the purpose to have 2834 different categories.

Agree, too many categories gets crazy.

Too many definitions can't happen though.  We should know what we're talking about.

[Voltgloss]

If we're having this many different types of games, why not have each be their own category?

Somewhat joking, but I think it kills the purpose to have 2834 different categories.

Well, not everything we're talking about here are "categories."  Some of it is descriptors.  How do you define a particular game?  There are a few descriptors you can use:

1.  Is it Open, Semi-Open, or Closed?
2.  Is it Standard, Tweaked, or Invented?

And then the "category" is Normal, Role Madness, or Bastard.  The category is what matters in terms of stat tracking.