Print

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

[ashersky]

f.ds Mafia Community Game Descriptor Definitions:

Open: A game with this label means the setup 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 a Tweaked Open game, see: M29: Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey Dinner Party.  For an example of an Invented Open game, see M28: Harry Potter Mafia.

Semi-Open:  A game with this label means the setup 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 a Tweaked Open game, see: M4: Within These Estate Walls.  For an example of an Invented Semi-Open game, see .

Closed:  A game 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 or Tweaked Closed games.  For an example of an Invented Closed game, see: M25: Mean Girls.

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.

Tweaked:  A game with this label means the setup is based on an accepted Standard setup, but includes deviations from the norm.

Invented:  A game with this label means the setup is an original creation of the mod.

[ashersky]

As two of the more active mods and mafia community members, we would like to host a discussion that aims to reach a consensus on defining the game categories currently in use at f.ds.  By doing this, everyone benefits: mods will know what is expected of them and their games if they want it to be in a certain category; players will be know what to expect to be included (or not) when they sign up.  What follows is a breakdown of the game categories, with the defining elements as agreed upon by the two of us.  We think they are good starting points for finding a consensus.

Bastard

We're starting with the furthest out instead of with normal, because it's actually easier to define things by what they include, not by what they do not.  We feel that a game must be classified as a Bastard Game (BM) if they include any of the following:

--"false" roles (most famously millers, but also jesters, false PRs that are actually VTs, etc.)
--alignment changing, other than traitors or survivors (i.e., Cults)
--mod lying of any kind
--posting restrictions
--balance alterations mid-game (such as adding roles, modifiers, etc. for the purpose of messing with the progress of a game)

If your game includes any of the above, it is automatically a BM game.  If you can safely say it contains none of the above, move on to the next category.

Role Madness

Role Madness (RMM) is a category that generally includes more roles, variety, and creativity than a normal game.  It's defining factor is the interaction of the players through their role actions, usually but not only at night.  The line between Role Madness and Normal is fuzzy, but generally these characteristics would classify your game as RMM:

--nights take center stage in the game to diminishment of days
--no "vanilla" roles such as Vanilla Townie or Mafia Goon
--minor alignment changes, specifically traitors and survivors
--greater focus on "fun" even at a cost to "balance"
--frequent role interaction above and beyond the "normal" investigation/protection/killing triad

The keystone to an RMM game is how the players use their roles to affect the outcome of the game.  This is in contrast to a normal game, where good scumhunting during the day will always be enough for town to win.

Normal

And we come to normal games.  These are the hardest to define in spite of being the most restrictive category.  Normal games focus on the days, and the "essence" of social deception games.  The roles and their actions should not overshadow good scumhunting, normal interaction during the day in the game thread, or be able to thwart great town or scum play in thread.  The list for this category includes what "may" be part of the game, as opposed to the restrictive nature of the two categories above.

--may use a prepared set-up such as C9++
--may have fewer power roles than vanilla roles
--may be an "open" or "semi-open" set-up with all information available to the players ahead of time

Generally, if you've ruled out RMM or BM, you've got a normal game.  You should work through it in that manner, though.  Rule out the more complicated categories first, then settle here.

There are three other categories on f.ds, which are Blitz, Newbie, and Drunk.  They are self-explanatory.  We would note only that "Blitz" games are generally always "normal" games on fast forward.

We look forward to a civil discussion on these categories, and how to better define them.  We clearly disagree with most of you, so hopefully this will help.

Best,
ashersky and yuma

[ashersky]

Note, the above was a work in progress and also meant as a springboard for discussion.

[Jimmmmm]

I think we should think about having some sort of strictish convention that mods can use if they want to. Like, they can say, "We're using the [name] convention" and people will know exactly what possible roles/actions etc can be in the game. And if they don't choose to say that then expect anything that falls within the definition of normal.

[ashersky]

I mentioned in the speccy my idea for a two-queue system, which I want to repeat here.

I think the normal queue should be split into a "Standard/Open Queue" and a "Invented/Closed Queue" for sign-ups.  One game from both queues should be running at any given time.  They would share the current normal game numbering system, and just take the next available number when it opens for sign ups.  Then they become one list again in the finished games section.

We'd need to define those two categories, and RMM might fold into the second, but it would help ensure mods meet player expectations.

I would add that I think all new mods should follow a progression of: back-up/co-mod with an experienced mod, then host a Standard/Open Game.  After that, invented games, RMM, BM are all fair game.

[Jimmmmm]

Is the point here to define what mods are allowed to do to have their game in a particular queue, or what the expectation should be unless stated otherwise?

[ashersky]

Is the point here to define what mods are allowed to do to have their game in a particular queue, or what the expectation should be unless stated otherwise?

I don't know...both?

I think it would be good to have clearer definitions for the types of games we mod, both for mods and players.  It would help avoid the "huh, I thought I signed up for an X game but it turned out to be more like a Y in my opinion" situations.

I do think that means restricting what can be included in a category, and the categories become more liberal as you move away from "Standard/Open."

[Voltgloss]

/tag for later discussion.  I have thoughts on this, already broached elsewhere to some extent; don't have time to post here at this point but will in the near future.

[liopoil]

/tag

[Twistedarcher]

I think the main problem was that the norms Yuma and ashersky had were different than the norms the majority of the players had, due to time playing in the community. For a lot of the newer players this game was way out of left feld. Having no vts was a shock to me, at least.

I don't know that anything needs to change, other than players being more aware that there's a difference between open and closed set up games.

[Eevee]

I'm in agreement with yuma and ash.

[mail-mi]

/tag

[Voltaire]

I'm still working through the Mod QT to read all the PMs for M31 - it still reads as RMM to me, but very lite RMM. To the point where it might be up to the mods to call it normal or RMM, and I might disagree, but I wouldn't feel the game was mislabeled after the choice is made.

Yuma talked a lot about how RMM games can be really out there, and this game wasn't, so it's normal. I contend that RMM games can be really out there, and this RMM game wasn't, but both are RMM. (though the distinction is now blurry enough on this one I don't mind nearly as much)

To me, the defining feature of RMM is everyone has a role. In a normal game, therefore, I'm expecting a decent number of VTs/goons. To not see that in M31 is what really threw me. That realization on D2 (or whenever it was) that everyone had a role made the game clearly RMM to me, because that is where I was coming from.

I don't think we need to split the normal queue. Games are closed, semi-open, or open, and that's fine. It's already easy to tell which kind a game is before signing up - it's impossible to accidentally sign up for one you don't like unless you're really not paying attention.

And for the record, I think that in the past f.ds has allowed some RMM games to be played as normal, and I think that's a misleading precedent. I'd rather sort the situation out now than justify more mis-classifications based on that fact.

[Twistedarcher]

I agree with everything Voltaire says.

[Jimmmmm]

I'm not discussing RMM games until RMM 9 is over, so I request that we withhold judgment on them until then.

[Twistedarcher]

I think the mods of recent RMM games have done an awesome job lately, and their games have been veering away from bastard, and that's pushing the rmm/normal line further towards normal and the reaction to m31 is a result of that.

[Voltaire]

Oh, yuma - I saw in the mod QT you were thinking of changing AD to get it in a certain category. Please don't!!! I want that game to be your vision, and whatever category it goes into is the category it goes into, and I'm playing either way.

[Twistedarcher]

On a specific note, mafia scum says normal games shouldn't have survivors. Personally I have no problem including survivors.

[Voltaire]

On a specific note, mafia scum says normal games shouldn't have survivors. Personally I have no problem including survivors.

Agreed.

Also, I do agree with having a ninja requiring having a watcher/tracker, and other pairings, unless the setup is open (I always think open and closed are the opposite of what they mean - I mean the one where you know all the possible roles) like C9++.

[Robz888]

Cross posting

To me, a normal game has to be balanced. We are counting it for a victory tally spreadsheet, so everybody should have a decent enough chance (though not equal chance) of winning, based primarily on normal mafia strategy rather than some other consideration (like, solving flavor related puzzles, a la eHalcyon).

Now, not all of our "normal" games have kept to this impeccably. I think this game was clearly better balanced than Mafia XIX (which wasn't a really imbalanced game, just a game tilted in a small way toward the scum faction that did indeed win), for what's worth. Really, scum may have been underpowered in this game, considering how close it actually was and the fact that town lost so many strong PRs early.

(To my mind, there are only two games that were billed as normal games but didn't end up balanced enough to deserve to be counted: Blitz2 and Mafia XVIII.)

Anyway, it's clear we need a new categorization system.

I would do this:

Blitz -- Must be normal/previously-approved/minor tweaked setup. Counts for spreadsheet.
Normal -- Must be mafiascum style setup with minor tweaks, examples: Jk++, Pick Your Poison. Counts for spreadsheet.
Invented -- Encapsulates games that strive for balance and come at least close to achieving it, but are role madness in nature. Counts for spreadsheet?
Bastard -- Everything else.

[Robz888]

And now having read the thread, it looks like my recommendation is at least fairly close to what ash proposed.

[Voltaire]

That puts, like, almost everything we play in Invented.

[Robz888]

That puts, like, almost everything we play in Invented.

Um, not true? We run regular mafiascum setups all the time.

[Robz888]

Actually, invented setups that are fully open can go in the normal queue, I would say. The reason is that they are subject to scrutiny ahead of time and people know fully what they are getting into. I'm thinking Mafia XIV and XVI as examples.

[sudgy]

Alright, here is what I've always thought normal games and RMM games being:

Normal games have a focus on scumhunting/day.  There isn't too much role discussion, because there shouldn't be too many roles.  To ensure this, more than 50% of the roles should be VTs/Goons.

RMM games have a focus on role interactions/night.  Most of the discussion (past D1 at least) is role discussion, because there there should be a lot of PRs.  To ensure this, everybody should be a PR/Mafia PR.

The main thing that pushed MXXXI into RMM for me was that everybody had a role, and especially that that took up the main discussion.

I think all games that are finished (including MXXXI) should stay in their categories, but all future games should fit into whatever categories we decide.  I'm fine if the community standards are different than what I made here as long as we have a community standard.

[Galzria]

My personal feelings:

If a setup is closed (What is included in the game is unknown):

It needs to adhere to a setup closer to that of an accepted Mafia Wiki "Normal" setup. The players should not be left feeling like they have no idea what to expect. "Anything" should not be out there. There's still room for the mods to play around with just how many PR's are in the setup (PR heavy does NOT = RMM), but the types of roles that can appear should be within a reasonable standard. I look to setups like C9++ (the most common "normal" setup run) as a great example of what "normal" roles to expect would be. Certainly this can be expanded SOME, but not heavily. If I'm in a closed setup and cannot have a basis for expectations at night, or how to explain things, then I feel like I'm in an RMM game.

If a setup is open (What is included in the game is known):

I think a "Normal" setup here can get a lot more leeway. Here mods can have fun and explore unique mechanics and still call the game "Normal". Because at the end of the day, as a player, I can come up with reasonable explanations for any set of events. Maybe the whole setup here isn't spelled out. Maybe just what COULD be in the setup is (see C9++ for a great example). But as a player, I know what to look for inside the game, and this makes my ability to PLAY the game, especially in a straight scumhunting manor (something I think "Normal" should strive for) much more functional. Had Modern Community fallen under this category, I wouldn't have any problem with it being called "Normal". The same goes for Robz' games in the past, or any of the others that have been run that push the limits. This is actually why I find Cayvie's games (while not always BALANCED) to absolutely be of a "Normal" variety of game. Everything that COULD be in the game was pre-stated.

Anything falling into the above two categories to me is a fine and "Normal" game. Both categories can push PR heavy, or PR light, to whatever degree the mods feel like doing. They can be flavor heavy, or flavor light, and they can be a lot of fun. The key to both is that the players should never feel shocked or surprised. They should come into the game knowing what to expect. If that's a closed setup with more standard roles, great. If it's an open setup that could have crazy shenanigans, that's fine as well. What crosses over into RMM territory for me is when a setup is closed (what's in the game is not known), and the mods push the boundaries of Role creation.

Basically, to paint things in a very broad brush:

Normal Games with a Closed Setup may contain:
Cop
Doctor
Roleblocker
Vigilante
Godfather
Rolecop
SK
IC
Mason
Neighbors
Neighborizer
Tracker
Watcher
JoAT (with listed roles above)

Modifiers:
1-shot
x-shot
Bulletproof
Godfather (in the case of, say, a SK)


Maybe a few other standard roles/modifiers that I've forgotten. But a fairly tight format. What's possible is within reasonable expectaions, even if the number of each is unknown (PR heavy // PR light). I do think a normal setup should strive to contain at least a HANDFUL of VT's or Goons. Especially in a closed setup.

Normal Games with a Semi-Open / Open Setup may contain:
Anything short of alignment switches or cults. I tend to disagree with the community here in that I dislike busdrivers or janitors here (I feel they start to stretch the imagination on what's possible within the game a bit too far), I wouldn't throw a fit to see them included, as long as it was stated that they are possible within the setup. The basic goal here isn't to state exactly what's included, but at the very least what may be included.

RMM games to me should almost always be Closed Setup, unless the mod really wants it open for some reason. I think alignment switches and cults are both acceptable here, as long as they don't go overboard. I think RMM games should still STRIVE to be balanced, but that shouldn't get in the way of the Mods having fun with their creation. PINL is ALWAYS a rule in RMM games.

Inventing / Tinkering: If you are planning on running a closed setup, and wish to label it "Normal", I do not think any Inventing / Tinkering should be done. This goes back to the players knowing what to expect. If I come out and claim "Investigator", I think the reasonable expectation in a closed setup is "Cop". If it turns out I'm a gunsmith (I investigate for clues to see who might have guns), then I feel like the mods have put something in to mislead reasonable expectation. If this were an Open/Semi-Open setup however, maybe Cop/Investigator/Tracker/Whatever are all possibilities. At least I know ahead of time that there's a difference between Cop/Investigator. Further, if you're going to modify a role that already exists on the Mafia Wiki, I think the modification needs to be spelled out ahead of time (even in an Open/Semi-Open setup) - because you, as a mod, know for a fact that players will refer to the Wiki when they see that Role. And reasonable expectation is that the role does what it says.

Essentially, this all comes back to "Reasonable Expectation". As a player in a game rated "Normal", I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to solve the mod. I don't want to feel like I've got no idea what could possibly be out there. I don't want to feel like I need to account for "everything". If I'm unable to get the most basic of handles on a game, then I feel it's no longer "Normal", because I can't play as if it is.

Lastly, on the point of "Reasonable Expectation", I think this is where Voltgloss got upset in Modern Community. He felt that, if you include a role like "Ninja", there's a "Reasonable Expectation" that there's a Watcher/Tracker. That's a fence that I sit on both sides of, but it's not an issue to me that makes or breaks "Normal" vs "RMM". I've no issue with a setup that contains a Godfather, but no Cop. So I shouldn't have a problem with a setup that contains a Ninja with no Tracker. I shouldn't have a problem with a setup that contains a Strongman, but no Doctor/Bulletproof. Yet I DO feel like all three examples LEAD the players to believe the existence of A means B. Which I think brings me back to the two setups of "Normal" that I think should exist: If you're playing a closed setup, the mods should strive to avoid any misleading. If A exists, then B probably should. However, if you're running an Open or Semi-Open (C9++) setup, I think it's perfectly reasonable for one to exist without the other - because it's prestated ahead of time that this could be the case. There's no expectation upon seeing Ninja, or Godfather, or Strongman, that there MUST be a counter-role in the game.

Lastly Lastly: BM:

First off, I don't like the PINL rule that we have. I think mods in ANY game, of ANY format, should adhere to this. The BM games where this is not the case I have found systematically fail to be fun for the players. Players need at least SOME structure. And that structure needs to come from the mods. BM games to me are games that have completely wacky GAME mechanics. There should be no expectations on the roles, and the game may play in very weird ways. This is why mods must always remain truthful. Because you actually get MORE creative room when you are. Let BM games be anything they want to be, but be honest with the players at all times, and you can really have fun with them. BM games generally don't try to be Mafia games. They follow a Mafia format of Day/Night with lynches, but beyond that, my expectations here are "Have no reasonable expectations".

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Ok, so this might not be the best place for this, but while we're having a discussion I wanted to pose some thoughts:

Let's say you're designing a Mafia setup. You want it to be "balanced". What does this mean exactly?

Does it mean that every faction has an equal chance of winning? This leads to some strange situations with one-man factions like SKs--should one person have the same chances as a whole team? It might be kind of unsatisfying to declare "X wins--everyone else loses!" on a regular basis.

This suggests another possibility, where winning percentages are proportional to the size of the team. This would make scum teams less likely to win and might diminish the suspense. Also it leads to degenerate situations like "100% town, everybody wins!"

Or something in between? Certainly shared wins complicate the discussion as well.

I know this isn't exactly what we're talking about in this thread, but it does have some bearing on the discussion--a totally normal game, with just VTs and Goons, verges on Bastard if 80% of the participants are Mafia! As an extreme example.

Which leads me to my next point: how do we determine if a setup will conform to the established fair win rates? Do people run simulations of their setups beforehand? (I wouldn't be surprised in such a code-happy forum.) Or analyze with other techniques? I was thinking of a simple simulation where all lynches and night actions are essentially random, and see how the win rates turn out on average. Then (un)skillful human play could shift the balance one way or the other. But is adding that human element more likely to give more of an advantage to scum, town, or both equally, when the time actually comes to play?

Of course that doesn't capture a lot of the game, but you could tinker with the program to include claims, revelations of night results, belief in others' claims, focused targeting, etc. I guess my overall question here is, have these sorts of simulations been attempted before, and if so how'd they turn out? Otherwise, what heuristics are you using to determine if these setups are properly balanced?

[Robz888]

In Mafia, balance is semi subjective. Town and mafia do not have equal chances of winning given setups, and SK has a worse chance of winning all the time.

My own view would be this: In a game with only two factions, no faction should have a stronger than, I don't know 60-70% chance of winning, probably.

In a game with three or more factions, no faction should have like a better than 50% of winning, and no faction should have less than a 20% chance of winning.

These numbers are totally invented and made up, but I don't know, that's what I would consider fair, at least.

[Jimmmmm]

In a game with three or more factions, no faction should have like a better than 50% of winning, and no faction should have less than a 20% chance of winning.

I feel like SKs normally have less than this, but that's just sort of the way it is.

[Archetype]

I think that regardless of your experience, any closed setup should be run by at least one other person. I made that mistake with DoMafia and don't want to see it happen again.

Also: SKs should get a bigger boost in closed games. Juss sayin'.

I know ashersky/yuma didn't do this (largely because the idea hadn't been brought up yet), but in closed normal games, roles, for the most part, should be used as-is on Mafiascum. So no 'Godfatherer' 'Claimed Cop' or anything like that. I say that if you do use slight deviations from common roles, you should let everyone know so in the OP of your game.

[yuma]

I guess I'll tag. I kinda want to join into this conversation but am somewhat hesitant to do so.

Maybe later.

[yuma]

Ok: I am going to try and express my thoughts.

I feel that what we are looking for is a way to standardize that still encourages creativity and forward thinking in games, but still allows people to at least have a generally good idea of what they are getting into.

I like Robz's suggestion probably the most out of all that I have read:

Blitz -- Must be normal/previously-approved/minor tweaked setup. Counts for spreadsheet.
Normal -- Must be mafiascum style setup with minor tweaks, examples: Jk++, Pick Your Poison. Counts for spreadsheet.
Invented -- Encapsulates games that strive for balance and come at least close to achieving it, but are role madness in nature. Counts for spreadsheet?
Bastard -- Everything else.

The only thing that I would suggest changing is that Invented should be split. There should be "normal invented" and "RMM invented"

I suggest this because I think we want to be a proactive community. Yes we can use mafiascum, but we are an independent entity and shouldn't be completely reliant on them to come up with new ideas and new setups.

I think there is room out there for "normal invented setups" both open and closed. I am looking at Harry Potter, Mean Girls, liopoil's open game, Insomniac's MIII, and Jorbles MXIV--although there is one part I want to note about that, but I'll get to that later.

I even think that for the most part (a few things aside) I would consider Modern Community and MXIX to be "normal invented."

So if you you join a "normal invented" game, it counts for the stats. But you basically agree that you don't have a reasonable expectation to there being an established set of roles.

I think Galz's set of roles is far too restrictive. And I think the idea of moving all other games that have unique roles or slightly modified roles to only RMM kills creativity among our moderators. How do you think mafiascum creates new roles? Do they just sit around and use the same roles over and over and over and over again? No. They have been looking at roles and variations of roles for a long time and when they do sometimes something sticks that is awesome and is used more and more and more and becomes standardized. I think saying that only normal games can have a set type of roles kills off a chance to create something new and fun.

Now I think there are some roles that should not be considered for normal mafia, of either type "invented" or "normal-open"

However, any setup that introduces a new mechanism... so Robz's map moving in Bankers, Jorbles' chicken talk in MXIV, dice rolling (sorry Jimmm, won't talk beyond this mentioning) and I would even say Hangman style (for EFHW blitz game) should be considered RMM... As well as the mechanisms in innovation mafia, Domafia, pokeman mafia... All of that is RMM.

I am not sure I explained myself very clearly. Obviously there will be people that will probably disagree. And that is OK. I am not demanding to get my way. I think continuing to be a part of this community, even if I have to accept something I don't agree with, is more important that getting my way.

[yuma]

A counter argument that I just thought of is something that maybe I would prefer more:

The idea is that all RMM games are potentially eligible for stats... But first have to be approved by some sort of a panel (obviously players not playing in it) before or after the fact. If it meets certain criteria it can be labeled as a RMM(stat) game. I think this would allow for the experimentation and creativity, but doesn't mess around with the "normal" designation.

Or maybe we should just stop doing the stats altogether. I am happy to keep doing them, but just to create designations around the stats that I created on a whim one day last year is a bit silly...

But one thing I will say is that we shouldn't just let all RMM games be counted as stat games.

[liopoil]

I think we should add an extra category. example:

bastard: the same as it is right now.
RMM: more like the older RMMs, really crazy. Night is super important, etc.
Role games: Everyone has a role, neat interactions, but the focus of the game is still scumhunting.
normal: either an established mafiascum setup, or some different open setup. Setup is (relatively) simple, at least half of the players are VT. If closed, we're told how many scum there are and how many teams, maybe a list of possible roles (though potential modifiers may not be listed, if this is the case, we're told that there may be modifiers).

blitz and newbie games are both normal. Maybe have a separate queue, but same category of setup.

The line between role games and normal games in this case is pretty close to the line between "closed" and "open".

In terms of stats, I'd think that role games and normal games can both be included, probably not RMM.

And yes, SKs absolutely need more of a boost. And I'm not talking like 1-shot bulletproof, I'm thinking a full strongman kill AND a full bulletproof.

[yuma]

Really good suggestions from liopoil. Only thing I would change is that "everyone has the potential to have a neat role" The mystery of how many VTs is part of the fun I think... And if people come in expecting a "neat role" and get VT they would be mad as it wouldn't meet their expectations. Sometimes VTs (or VTs or Goons) are needed to round out a really interesting setup. Like, ~2 VTs in a role game of 13 players should still be a role game.

I think SK needs to be in setups less often frankly. I think they might be overused.

One more thing that I want to address however is the ninja/watcher issue:

I think that the dynamic of not knowing what a mod put into the game could be an interesting element that has the potential to be really fun, and as such I think it shouldn't be restricted to just Bastard games.  I think that given our discussion it should only be in RMM games and that the mod should state that it is possible that this could happen. Doing so adds another layer of trying to figure out the game (figure out if the watcher is claiming because he is the watcher or if it is because it is the most convenient claim) as long as players know it is a possibility they can't be stunned and overly surprised by it.

[Twistedarcher]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

[liopoil]

but there aren't really games with just a couple VTs. Pretty much all games are either no VTs, or at least almost half-VTs. That's because it's kinda not fun to be one of just a couple people who are VT.

[Robz888]

Yuma, I really love having the spreadsheet stats. It's not important, you can't have really an objective ranking for mafia the way you do for Dominion, for example... but I really like having it nonetheless. I like the very small incentive it provides to like, try to win. I'm a big fan. And I want to count and continue counting balanced and close-to-balanced games.

[Robz888]

As for the panel idea... I don't know. I mean sure, it's a possibility, and it would probably be fine. But there are a lot of things at work, I mean we all have this tendency after a game where e lost to go, "Man, no fair!" Now I respect the people here a lot and I do think we can control that, but not totally ignore it. So, I do think it's a little potentially problematic to decide whether to count a game AFTER it's finished.

So, I do think I would rather decide what constitutes a certain kind of game, and what kinds of games are going to be counted.

But like, a "ratings commission" is a fine and possible idea, I just don't know whether it would be the best thing.

[Galzria]

I'll put it another way for me, and let that be it:

If I signed up for another closed normal game, and got anything like what we had with MC, it would be the last normal game I played here.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but if a setup is closed, yet rated "normal", then I need to know ahead of time what I'm looking at getting involved in. Not the exact setup, no, but a reasonable expectation of range for roles to fall under.

Yuma, I feel like you didn't bother to read the entirety of my post. In saying that it's completely restrictive and new roles would never get created... well, no. That's completely wrong. I think I left a wide avenue for creationism and inventiveness within normal game parameters. It's as an open or semi open setup. So that players who join aren't completely ****ed over by something they had no idea to expect.

And yes, I do absolutely believe that new roles aren't just thrown into closed setups on mafia wiki. The site basically says that's not the case. Every setup run must be approved by a board there. Yet as you say, New roles get created all the time. That's great. But it needs to come in the right format. Closed Setups should not be that format.

[yuma]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

We could do an "every-other" sort of thing...

[yuma]

If I signed up for another closed normal game, and got anything like what we had with MC, it would be the last normal game I played here.

What if it was categorized as a "closed role" game? My point, which like I said wasn't perfectly expressed, is that there should be room for games with tweaks and new elements within an area that can be considered for stats and that isn't specifically RMM... I fear we might be talking past each other, as I think we seem to agree for the most part?

[Twistedarcher]

I think possibly the best answer is for mods to try to be more specific as to what their games entail, and players being more aware of the risk when they sign up.

I also think that many of the problems with MC were caused by the fact that it's a 21-player game. I'm sure those larger games are HARD to get right. There's just too much to do without making 12-15 players VTs (which I do agree is kinda lame).

[Robz888]

I think possibly the best answer is for mods to try to be more specific as to what their games entail, and players being more aware of the risk when they sign up.

I also think that many of the problems with MC were caused by the fact that it's a 21-player game. I'm sure those larger games are HARD to get right. There's just too much to do without making 12-15 players VTs (which I do agree is kinda lame).

I really think the only two major problems with the game were 1) EFHW's role was too weak, and 2) It was not what most people were expecting, evidently.

It was really fairly close to what I expected, since I expected something like Mafias XI and XIX, which were considered normal games, and it was.

[Archetype]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

[Robz888]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

Who should decide it, though? Frankly, I don't think it should be everyone, and it certainly shouldn't be just everyone who was in the game.

[Archetype]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

Who should decide it, though? Frankly, I don't think it should be everyone, and it certainly shouldn't be just everyone who was in the game.

Yeah, that's the problem. Those who won want it to count, and those who didn't don't want it to count. And of course there is always mod bias. Maybe it really is best someone else just checks before hand. But sometimes it's hard to tell how crazy a game can be until after it's over.

[Robz888]

I think after a game ends, regardless of whether its RMM or Normal, we should decide whether to include it or not.

Who should decide it, though? Frankly, I don't think it should be everyone, and it certainly shouldn't be just everyone who was in the game.

Yeah, that's the problem. Those who won want it to count, and those who didn't don't want it to count. And of course there is always mod bias. Maybe it really is best someone else just checks before hand. But sometimes it's hard to tell how crazy a game can be until after it's over.

If we can't definitively say ahead of time that it is balanced, it probably shouldn't be in the queue that counts for stats.

[Galzria]

If I signed up for another closed normal game, and got anything like what we had with MC, it would be the last normal game I played here.

What if it was categorized as a "closed role" game? My point, which like I said wasn't perfectly expressed, is that there should be room for games with tweaks and new elements within an area that can be considered for stats and that isn't specifically RMM... I fear we might be talking past each other, as I think we seem to agree for the most part?

That's why I felt like you hadn't read my post.

I think we are speaking past each other.

I can't quote easily from my phone but basically I said that I feel that an open (or even semi-open) setup could be considered normal with almost any amount of tinkering/inventing/creativeness - Anything really, short of alignment switches.

The point being, at least the players have an idea of what to expect within the game.

Take MC as a great example: In an open / semi open setup I would absolutely consider it a normal game. I've no problem with that. Stats would be included and everything. But as a closed setup where the players know nothing about it going in or what to expect? It's definitely RMM.

Breaking it down:

Closed Normal should be a little more strict than we've allowed previously. The players should have a community approved expectation of what the game MIGHT have (not does, but might).

Open / Semi Open Normal can basically be RMM. The point here is that expectations on the setup are set beforehand - as wild and wacky as they may be (ok, within reason still. No BM. )

RMM is basically an Open Normal game, held in a Closed format - except that I feel alignment switching is ok here whereas it isn't in Normal Games.

Maybe I'm mixing up Closed/Open, but I think my point is clear. Hidden Setup can be Normal if it's within certain boundaries set by the community. Explained Setups can be called Normal as long as they're fairly balanced and don't contain Alignment Switches.

[sudgy]

I think the big thing that made MXXXI feel not normal to me was that most of the discussion was about roles.  I think that should only be in RMM.

[ashersky]

I think the big thing that made MXXXI feel not normal to me was that most of the discussion was about roles.  I think that should only be in RMM.

Well, what the players discuss is up to the players.  As a mod, I definitely thought there was way too much claiming/role talk too.  Hurt town, for sure.

[ashersky]

Bastard

We're starting with the furthest out instead of with normal, because it's actually easier to define things by what they include, not by what they do not.  We feel that a game must be classified as a Bastard Game (BM) if they include any of the following:

--"false" roles (most famously millers, but also jesters, false PRs that are actually VTs, etc.)
--alignment changing, other than traitors or survivors (i.e., Cults)
--mod lying of any kind
--posting restrictions
--balance alterations mid-game (such as adding roles, modifiers, etc. for the purpose of messing with the progress of a game)

If your game includes any of the above, it is automatically a BM game.  If you can safely say it contains none of the above, move on to the next category.

In an effort to maybe be able to create some definitions we can agree upon, maybe we can tackle the easier categories first?  I'd like to take the above text and re-write it with suggestions and stuff.  Like, maybe the format could be:

Your game must be categorized as Bastard (BM) if:

and then list the stuff under here, like I did above.

Thoughts?

[Robz888]

I think the biggest thing that constitutes a bastard game is extreme mod discretion, rather than like set in stone rules.

[ashersky]

I think the biggest thing that constitutes a bastard game is extreme mod discretion, rather than like set in stone rules.

I agree, but I think there are some things that would require your game to be bastard.  Like, lying is one.  False roles in closed set ups.  Jesters?

[chairs]

I think the big thing that made MXXXI feel not normal to me was that most of the discussion was about roles.  I think that should only be in RMM.

Well, what the players discuss is up to the players.  As a mod, I definitely thought there was way too much claiming/role talk too.  Hurt town, for sure.

I think the reason roles got discussed so much, though, is that they felt important in-game.  Godfatherer in particular feels awfully strong for a Normal game, and I don't think it would have been possible for any of Town to anticipate that role.

[sudgy]

While people would probably kill me for this, I would maybe say that jesters are okay in normal games if you say beforehand that a jester will be in the game.

[Jimmmmm]

While people would probably kill me for this

Why, do you want us to kill you?

[mail-mi]

While people would probably kill me for this

Why, do you want us to kill you?

Hehe.

[Voltgloss]

I plan to go back through all games played to date in the "normal" queue and classify them by the taxonomy we're discussing.  I think such a list may be helpful for us to focus our analysis.

[Archetype]

I like the alternating idea. So like one standard game (C9++, Matrix, etc.) and then one crazier/invented normal game (Mean Girls, Donner Party, etc.).

[mail-mi]

I like the alternating idea. So like one standard game (C9++, Matrix, etc.) and then one crazier/invented normal game (Mean Girls, Donner Party, Donald's Greater Idea etc.).

[ashersky]

For this exercise, if the mods of the following games could answer if they think their game would be either Standard/Open (S/O) or Invented/Closed (I/C) (for lack of better titles), that would be helpful for this discussion (I've labeled the obvious ones):

Mafia XXXV: Stack the Deck by yuma.  S/O
Mafia XXXVI: Matrix (Twistedarcher/nkirbit)  S/O
Mafia XXXVII: Base Dominion, First Game by Voltgloss
Mafia XXXVIII: sudgy
Mafia XXXIX: raerae
Mafia XXXX: Adventure Time! or MU (ashersky)  I/C
Mafia XLI: Avalon Mafia (Tables)
Mafia XLII: Greater Idea Mafia (mail-mi)
Mafia XLIII: Justice League (yuma)
Mafia XLIV: mcmcsalot
Mafia XLV: A fresh start (9 players, closed setup), by Galzria
Mafia XLVI: Archetype
Mafia XLVII: Survivor Mafia (16 players, open setup), by Galzria  S/O
Mafia XLVIII: liopoil



The interesting this is, for example, Voltgloss's Base game.  It's based on C9++, it's mostly open.  I'd put it in the standard queue based on my own sensibilities, but given some changes to a standard set-up a bit being hidden, do people feel it should be Invented?

Most importantly, what does the mod of the game feel?

[yuma]

Mafia XLIII: Justice League (yuma) I/O
Arrested Development: (yuma) I/C this one under the previous system would be considered RMM... But it is basically a smaller version of Modern Community so I wouldn't specifically call it RMM under the new system. My goal is to get it so that it would be eligible for stats and would have some interesting roles, but would not be billed under the RMM-crazier umbrella

[yuma]

Volt's I think should be Invented. I think even minor changes should be under the Invented status, for example Volt's MIV which was a very slight variation of C9++ with 15 players instead of 13.

[yuma]

I like the alternating idea. So like one standard game (C9++, Matrix, etc.) and then one crazier/invented normal game (Mean Girls, Donner Party, etc.).

And I think that Donner Party should be considered standard. It is a mafiascum setup with open roles and everything, so I wouldn't consider it "invented/crazier."

I think ash's exercise and voltgloss's with older games should tell us a lot about where we think we stand.

[yuma]

Closed Normal should be a little more strict than we've allowed previously. The players should have a community approved expectation of what the game MIGHT have (not does, but might).

Open / Semi Open Normal can basically be RMM. The point here is that expectations on the setup are set beforehand - as wild and wacky as they may be (ok, within reason still. No BM. )

RMM is basically an Open Normal game, held in a Closed format - except that I feel alignment switching is ok here whereas it isn't in Normal Games.

Maybe I'm mixing up Closed/Open, but I think my point is clear. Hidden Setup can be Normal if it's within certain boundaries set by the community. Explained Setups can be called Normal as long as they're fairly balanced and don't contain Alignment Switches.

I guess all I am saying is that I think we need another slot inbetween open normal and RMM... I think we need a slot for closed games that can have some things that you wouldn't have in a "closed normal" game that doesn't have the elements that I think qualify them as RMM craziness. MC would fit in here, as would joth's MXIX. These would be games that would still qualify for stat keeping purposes as opposed to RMM games which do not qualify.

I think the distinction needs to be made because Open Setups with multiple roles are extremely hard to balance and create. Really hard! Because of its openness they are more susceptible to game breaking strategies that can be figured out beforehand if roles are known.

Now if you mean that an expectation in an open/semi-open setup could be "This game can have A-Z roles with modifiers 1-35, so be prepared for almost anything that isn't explicitly RMM or BM. Oh and there may be invented or modified roles" then we are in complete agreement.

And I for one think that RMM should almost always be closed. Otherwise we again have to deal with the gamebreaking issue.

Please let me know if I am being clear. I am reading your posts and want to make sure that I am understanding you and you are understanding me.

[mail-mi]

Donald's Greater Idea mafia: kind of like C9++except with a lot more roles, so IDK

Review mafia: Uses roles from all the old games, so IDK also.

[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.

[sudgy]

For this exercise, if the mods of the following games could answer if they think their game would be either Standard/Open (S/O) or Invented/Closed (I/C) (for lack of better titles), that would be helpful for this discussion (I've labeled the obvious ones):

Mafia XXXV: Stack the Deck by yuma.  S/O
Mafia XXXVI: Matrix (Twistedarcher/nkirbit)  S/O
Mafia XXXVII: Base Dominion, First Game by Voltgloss
Mafia XXXVIII: sudgy
Mafia XXXIX: raerae
Mafia XXXX: Adventure Time! or MU (ashersky)  I/C
Mafia XLI: Avalon Mafia (Tables)
Mafia XLII: Greater Idea Mafia (mail-mi)
Mafia XLIII: Justice League (yuma)
Mafia XLIV: mcmcsalot
Mafia XLV: A fresh start (9 players, closed setup), by Galzria
Mafia XLVI: Archetype
Mafia XLVII: Survivor Mafia (16 players, open setup), by Galzria  S/O
Mafia XLVIII: liopoil



The interesting this is, for example, Voltgloss's Base game.  It's based on C9++, it's mostly open.  I'd put it in the standard queue based on my own sensibilities, but given some changes to a standard set-up a bit being hidden, do people feel it should be Invented?

Most importantly, what does the mod of the game feel?

I'm doing whatever the community wants to do, so it will be Standard/Open.

[Archetype]

My game will most likely be Invented. It will not be closed.

For Normal Games, are we disallowing seperate mechanisms used in conjunction with Mafia? Like Robz's Bankers Game? I've been toying with a sort of Stock Market and Mafia hybrid game (majority stock holder in each of the different companies gets some sort of power role), but I don't want to put too serious of work into it if it won't be allowed.

[yuma]

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.

[yuma]

My game will most likely be Invented. It will not be closed.

For Normal Games, are we disallowing seperate mechanisms used in conjunction with Mafia? Like Robz's Bankers Game? I've been toying with a sort of Stock Market and Mafia hybrid game (majority stock holder in each of the different companies gets some sort of power role), but I don't want to put too serious of work into it if it won't be allowed.

I would argue that new mechanisms should only be found in RMM games. Bankers style, chicken speak, the floating potion in masquerade, the inventing of roles (innovation) etc, etc... dice rolling... That sort of stuff should be for RMM

[sudgy]

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.

I think he was saying was that if he signed up for a game that he thought would be a simple setup with only a few PRs, and it was like MXXXI.

[yuma]

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.

I think he was saying was that if he signed up for a game that he thought would be a simple setup with only a few PRs, and it was like MXXXI.

sure, but that wasn't what I was suggesting

[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?

[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.

[Jimmmmm]

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

Perhaps semi-semi-open?

You're right that we need to define that. At this stage I think of semi-open as meaning that players know all the possible setups and one of these setups is randomly chosen.

[Voltgloss]

Medical Mafia is an interesting example.  It's Open and Standard, yes, but I actually think it's closer to Role Madness than Normal.  Or maybe even Bastard (in that most of the players don't actually know what their roles are).

[Voltgloss]

Maybe the Major Arcana games should be thought of as Semi-Closed.

[ashersky]

I put the current working definitions in the OP, for ease of reference and editing.

I don't want to get into semi-semi-open and semi-closed...seems to be too many.

[ashersky]

Medical Mafia is an interesting example.  It's Open and Standard, yes, but I actually think it's closer to Role Madness than Normal.  Or maybe even Bastard (in that most of the players don't actually know what their roles are).

We're discussing setups though, not roles.  Medical Mafia is definitely "standard" and "open" per our definitions.  And since it is all out in the open, players can't complain.

[yuma]

So I think, after analyzing my discussion with Galz, that I am defining RMM more about the mechanics of the game than about the roles.

I mean look at our history of RMM games. What really made them standout wasn't so much the roles, but the new mechanics that were introduced in the process. Yes there were roles, and there was crazy roles (that obviously shouldn't be in "normal" or "stat" games, but ultimately it was these new mechanics that made it RMM in my eyes.

Ozle - The murder mystery
Ozle1 - The island and the events
eHal's first - The VP system
Morgrim's - Dominion cards=roles
eHal's second - I have no memory of this game and didn't play in it, but I think there was something unique beside roles?
DoMafia I - Again the Dominion cards equal roles mechanism
RMM4 PokeMafia - didn't follow, but the winvote, losevote mechanism
RMM6 Mafia Noir - This game was Galz's game and I think based off what I remember from it would be comfortable with it being a stat based game were it to be played under our new categorization scheme. It had no crazy mechanics, and while the roles were a bit wild, they weren't completely out there and it was balanced.
RMM6 - Shakespeare - no new mechanic that I can remember, probably would be ok going into the stat category except for raerae's ghost role. I think that was a new enough mechanism that would disqualify it from being a statRMM game.
RMM8 - Innovation - mechanism of creating roles was new
RMM7 - LOR1 no new mechanism I think, would likely be eligible for stats (there was the hammerer role, but I think that is acceptable) and it was very well balanced.
RMM10 - LOR2 only new mechanism was the idea of the Ring. Other than that, probably acceptable for stats, but with it, I think not.
RMM9 - won't talk a lot, but dice rolling and fighting monster, new mechanism

So all of the games above introduced a NEW MECHANISM except for Noir, and LOR1. Under our new system (that I am proposing) those would be the games that would joining Arcana, MXIX, MC as Closed Invented (stat allowed) setups. whereas I would not include games like Bankers and maybe even Masquerade because both introduced a new mechanism.

Maybe I am off base here, but I think for me what disqualifies a game from being stat eligible is a new mechanism that changes the game from a mafia game to a mafia-hybrid. If it is RMM and just has a bunch of of fun roles, as long as it is properly balanced, why shouldn't it be eligible for stats?

[yuma]

And to be clear about the post above:

I am not suggesting calling Noir or LOR "normal." No. They are not normal. But I would call them "closed, invented (stat-approved)," or "Closed, RMM (stat-approved)." Whatever the system.

And I feel that the line that Galz used in his setup description needs to be added (or a variant of it) to the setup so people know going in what they are getting into...

This setup IS a Role-Madness game, so nothing of the roles will be published. I cannot promise that it will be completely balanced, but I can promise it'll be fun and I anticipate that it will be eligible for stats! Voltgloss and eHalcyon have both looked things over, and as such won't be able to play. Because of this, they've been unknowningly drafted into being back-up mods. This role requires no actual work, but they are allowed to Lock/Troll/Update anything important to their heart's content.

There will be nothing Bastard about this setup. No Jesters. No Alignment changes. No tricks. I will not lie in any fashion (PINL). Some roles ARE made up, and the generic theme to the game is a little bit different than most, but it should become clear to each player upon receiving their PM. The game itself is a pretty straight-forward and standard game of Mafia.

The addition in bold is mine.

I get that some people could care less about the stats. I am obviously not one of those people. I care a lot about it. It isn't the only reason I play, but it is a large part of it and I think it is for others as well. So I think it is something to take into consideration. If it isn't, if most people could care less then lets get rid of the "stat-approved" label and get rid of the stats as well. I don't think that is the case, but it very well may be and I don't want to seem like I am forcing the stats on this community.

[Archetype]

DoMafia was broken and shouldnt be kept for stats. Innovation was fine, but I'm eagerly awaiting EFHW's version of it.

eHalc's second game had no new mechanisms but had a heavier emphasis on theme.

[yuma]

DoMafia was broken and shouldnt be kept for stats. Innovation was fine, but I'm eagerly awaiting EFHW's version of it.

eHalc's second game had no new mechanisms but had a heavier emphasis on theme.

I am not talking about broken or not broken. (and none of these games are going to get retroactively added to the stats, I don't have that sort of time or willingness to do that, plus people played with the expectation that it wasn't going to be a stat based game) I am talking about whether a game had a dynamic that in my mind changes it from mafia to a mafia-hybrid. I believe that Innovation, while not broken, had that mechanism (the creation of roles from base "elements" ... not the right word, but good enough for my purposes). This new element changed the game significantly enough that I am no longer able to consider it for stat purposes.

[mail-mi]

WoT mafia will probably be stat-approved.

[Galzria]

Yuma, let me clarify what I said.

I do care about stats. From a players perspective though, and not a mods. I think it's great you keep them and hope that you continue to do so. I love knowing how right or how wrong I've been.

But that's the crux of my issue here regarding stats. I want to know that I was wrong 89% of the time because I had bad reads, not because I didn't buy that the mod would put role 'X' in the setup.

I didn't say it after MC, but I honestly don't think Robz played the best game there. I think that TA did. I do believe that Robz was, perhaps, the most valuable player, and he certainly didn't play a bad game... but the best? No. His ability to mislead me was, I felt, not entirely (or even mostly) his own doing. The reason I defended him so hard D2 was because I didn't believe the mods would put in a Godfathered Mentor, nor a Godfather granting role. So his willingness to be investigated - his insisting on it D1 - made me think he was town. At the end, I felt beat by Yuma and Ashersky, not Robz.

Now, maybe Robz does the same in any situation. He certainly played a very good game. But the reason I was so adamant he not get lynched had nothing to do with how scummy I found HIS play. How is it fair to count that, or any setup that promotes that sort of play, in with games that are designed to support actual scum hunting? Because the truth is, I thought he was scum D1!

I just don't see how the two can be equally compared or counted together. I don't think it's fair to count my correct or incorrect lynch percentage using games where I lynch or don't lynch based on my read of the mods. And "Well you shouldn't have ruled Godfatherer out" really isn't a good enough answer when we're talking about what the stats say about me as a player. I want them to indicate my relative skill at Mafia, which I don't feel games like MC, or Bankers, or Robz' first game, or what you're suggesting actually do.

And I'll use Robz first game as another example. Yes, we used reads to get f.ds's first ever scum D1 lynch. But we continued to do so well because we were able to accurately guess setup information, and what fit vs what didn't. It had very little to do with scum hunting. ftl almost won out because we didn't believe Robz would put a scum lightning rod into the game. He survived like 4 days of straight mislynches riding his claim. Not his play, which was nonexistent, but his claim.

There's still room on f.ds for these games, sure. And if you want to keep their stats, that's fine too. But I ask that they NOT be called Normal, nor added to normal game stats. Because to me they play as very different games.

[Archetype]

DoMafia was broken and shouldnt be kept for stats. Innovation was fine, but I'm eagerly awaiting EFHW's version of it.

eHalc's second game had no new mechanisms but had a heavier emphasis on theme.

I am not talking about broken or not broken. (and none of these games are going to get retroactively added to the stats, I don't have that sort of time or willingness to do that, plus people played with the expectation that it wasn't going to be a stat based game) I am talking about whether a game had a dynamic that in my mind changes it from mafia to a mafia-hybrid. I believe that Innovation, while not broken, had that mechanism (the creation of roles from base "elements" ... not the right word, but good enough for my purposes). This new element changed the game significantly enough that I am no longer able to consider it for stat purposes.

Aw, I see. While I don't agree with you that a game with a special add-on shouldn't automatically disqualify it, you are the stats guy. So since you put the time and energy into inputting the info, I'm a-ok letting you decide what goes in and what doesn't.

[Robz888]

Yeah, so there's a bit of a purity argument here.

I understand Galz's position, and I don't find it unreasonable. He is saying he wants the main statistics of normal games to really just correspond with how well each player judged the other players' truthfulness. How often did you correctly determine who was lying to you? How often did you vote correctly? How often, if you were scum, did you correctly deceive someone else. In vanilla mafia, of course, that's the only mechanic--reading other people and determining whether they are truthful or lying.

Now, vanilla mafia would be rather boring if played as frequently as we play it, so we have added to it and expanded the strategic landscape of the game. Now, taken all the way to a game like MC, a significant aspect of the game is judging powers--what does the overall PR puzzle look like, what would the mods do? And yes, judging the mods is like one of those strategic considerations here.

Then we can go even farther, and have strategic considerations than a majority of us do not think merit consideration on a master statistics list, like some of the dynamics in Ehalc's games, or Domafia.

The question is: where do we draw that line? So Galz would like to draw the line closer, excluding games that move a certain distance beyond the primary strategic landscape of mafia.

Yuma would push the line further out then that, although not actually beyond where it's at currently.

I think the best thing to do is really just to hear what everyone wants, first of all. Now, keep in mind that we aren't going to retroactively disinclude or include games (I oppose this, at least). Do you want a main mafia stats sheet that includes games like Modern Community, Mafia XI and Mafia XIX (Bankers I agree is too radical even to fit this description), if these games are better advertised for what they are, or would you prefer if normal, approved setup games with minor tweaks, Jk++, PYP, etc., were the max? Remember, this consideration is just for stats purposes.

[Robz888]

And to clarify, of course yuma can decide to include whatever games he wants on HIS spreadhseet, but I get the sense that he wants to generaly please the community.

[sudgy]

I think that a simple solution would be splitting Normal and Role Madness into three, Normal, Role Normal, Role Madness.  Normal is mostly VTs, Role Normal is normal game with roles, and Role Madness is new/interesting mechanics.

[Robz888]

I think that a simple solution would be splitting Normal and Role Madness into three, Normal, Role Normal, Role Madness.  Normal is mostly VTs, Role Normal is normal game with roles, and Role Madness is new/interesting mechanics.

That doesn't answer the question, though. Yes, we are going to make categorization more logical and upfront.

For the main, unified statistics, what is the limit of games you would like counted?

[Galzria]

I think that a simple solution would be splitting Normal and Role Madness into three, Normal, Role Normal, Role Madness.  Normal is mostly VTs, Role Normal is normal game with roles, and Role Madness is new/interesting mechanics.

That doesn't answer the question, though. Yes, we are going to make categorization more logical and upfront.

For the main, unified statistics, what is the limit of games you would like counted?

Even to your point, I don't think you've encompassed my argument fully. I think that MC, or a game like it, has a place in our stats and normal queue, as long as they're open or semi-open, that way "solving the mod" isn't a part of the game. I've no problem with all the crazy shenanigans, just as long as it's presented up front if it's going to be "Normal", so that the focus can still be on the scum hunting, and not the mod solving.

[Robz888]

I think that a simple solution would be splitting Normal and Role Madness into three, Normal, Role Normal, Role Madness.  Normal is mostly VTs, Role Normal is normal game with roles, and Role Madness is new/interesting mechanics.

That doesn't answer the question, though. Yes, we are going to make categorization more logical and upfront.

For the main, unified statistics, what is the limit of games you would like counted?

Even to your point, I don't think you've encompassed my argument fully. I think that MC, or a game like it, has a place in our stats and normal queue, as long as they're open or semi-open, that way "solving the mod" isn't a part of the game.

Yes, I understand your argument. But MC did involve some degree of solving the mod, so in the form it was run, it would be outside your consideration. I don't think everyone would agree wit you, and I'm not sure I agree with you, which is why I am asking. I am not as bothered by "solve the mod."

[ashersky]

For my own personal stats, I count anything that is not BM.  That's me, though.  So Normal, RMM, and Blitz, where I have an expectation of balance (even if it isn't always acheived) and honesty.

Clearly that isn't what most people would want.  For that, we have yuma's spreadsheet, or just win/loss histories, or whatever else you want.

The amount of work yuma puts into his sheet says, to me, that yuma has absolute control over what counts on it.

If someone else starts another spreadsheet that is more liberal or more conservative, awesome.

If someone wants to build an "official" one that the community approves, great. 

This feels like Qvist vs. WW all over again.

[Robz888]

I agree that yuma has absolute control over his rankins, but I get the feeling he would like our consensus as to what games go into his rankings.

I prefer having one central list including worthy games we have agreed on.

[chairs]

I personally feel MC is interesting in that it's right there straddling that "solve the mod" line vs that "scumhunt" line.  Anything less 'out there' than MC is definitely Normal, anything more than MC should (imho) not be stat-counting.

MC itself should probably be counted for stats but noted that it is effectively the border.

[chairs]

Or rather it should be RMM (I'd personally be interested in seeing an RMM stat sheet - I haven't actually seen the stat sheet we're discussing, so...)

[sudgy]

I still think MC was too crazy to be normal, and not crazy enough to be RMM.

[shraeye]

On a specific note, mafia scum says normal games shouldn't have survivors. Personally I have no problem including survivors.

Agreed.

Also, I do agree with having a ninja requiring having a watcher/tracker, and other pairings, unless the setup is open (I always think open and closed are the opposite of what they mean - I mean the one where you know all the possible roles) like C9++.

I do not agree with this.  this sort of inference will make there be too much concrete evidence in some scenarios.  If a game is closed, there is no reason that we should be able to deduce existing roles from the flipped roles.  closed means closed.

[shraeye]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

I don't quite understand why we need two categories now.  I thought the system we had was doing just fine.  right?

[sudgy]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

I don't quite understand why we need two categories now.  I thought the system we had was doing just fine.  right?

Some people (including me) think MC is too crazy for normal and not crazy enough for RMM.

[shraeye]

oh, i see that you said we don't want seperate queues.  then I agree with you.

[shraeye]

I think the big thing that made MXXXI feel not normal to me was that most of the discussion was about roles.  I think that should only be in RMM.

Well, what the players discuss is up to the players.  As a mod, I definitely thought there was way too much claiming/role talk too.  Hurt town, for sure.

definitely agree.  if y'all had talked about roles less, people would have been more focused on regular scumhunting.  the "quick, everyone claim but with no plan!" idea was not good from town perspective.

[mail-mi]

I'm waiting for Voltgloss' analysis on past games. Interested to see what he does!

[yuma]

Yuma, let me clarify what I said.

I do care about stats. From a players perspective though, and not a mods. I think it's great you keep them and hope that you continue to do so. I love knowing how right or how wrong I've been.

But that's the crux of my issue here regarding stats. I want to know that I was wrong 89% of the time because I had bad reads, not because I didn't buy that the mod would put role 'X' in the setup.

I didn't say it after MC, but I honestly don't think Robz played the best game there. I think that TA did. I do believe that Robz was, perhaps, the most valuable player, and he certainly didn't play a bad game... but the best? No. His ability to mislead me was, I felt, not entirely (or even mostly) his own doing. The reason I defended him so hard D2 was because I didn't believe the mods would put in a Godfathered Mentor, nor a Godfather granting role. So his willingness to be investigated - his insisting on it D1 - made me think he was town. At the end, I felt beat by Yuma and Ashersky, not Robz.

Now, maybe Robz does the same in any situation. He certainly played a very good game. But the reason I was so adamant he not get lynched had nothing to do with how scummy I found HIS play. How is it fair to count that, or any setup that promotes that sort of play, in with games that are designed to support actual scum hunting? Because the truth is, I thought he was scum D1!

I just don't see how the two can be equally compared or counted together. I don't think it's fair to count my correct or incorrect lynch percentage using games where I lynch or don't lynch based on my read of the mods. And "Well you shouldn't have ruled Godfatherer out" really isn't a good enough answer when we're talking about what the stats say about me as a player. I want them to indicate my relative skill at Mafia, which I don't feel games like MC, or Bankers, or Robz' first game, or what you're suggesting actually do.

And I'll use Robz first game as another example. Yes, we used reads to get f.ds's first ever scum D1 lynch. But we continued to do so well because we were able to accurately guess setup information, and what fit vs what didn't. It had very little to do with scum hunting. ftl almost won out because we didn't believe Robz would put a scum lightning rod into the game. He survived like 4 days of straight mislynches riding his claim. Not his play, which was nonexistent, but his claim.

There's still room on f.ds for these games, sure. And if you want to keep their stats, that's fine too. But I ask that they NOT be called Normal, nor added to normal game stats. Because to me they play as very different games.

Galz you certainly have a valid point. And I think if it is one that the majority of the community ends up agreeing with we will go with it. But I personally disagree.

I think I disagree because people do place too much emphasis on claims and less on play. You give the example of ftl. What happens if people don't try and figure out the setup or try and out guess the mod (which in a closed setup... it just isn't possible to outguess the mod I think) and actually scum hunt? ftl would have been lynched. You can't blame the mod for bad play by town, and by bad play I mean focusing more on claims and trying to figure out the setup than actually scum hunting. Sure, part of that is that people didn't know what was possible in the given setup. But if you explicitly state at a beginning of a game that anything, barring obvious and specific RMM or BM features, hopefully people stop trying to figure out the setup and figuring out mod WIFOM and just lynch based off reads, because I think that is the optimal play in that scenario.

That is my take at least, but like others have said, I want the stats to be what the community wants.

One thing I will say though, is that I will not be doing more than one spreadsheet, if we do decide to separate the games out. That doesn't interest me. Someone else can feel free to do so, but it isn't something that I want to do with my time.

[ashersky]

Just as an experiment, if we used my idea of two separate but connected Normal Queues, it might look like this (games slotted with guesses, obviously not set or anything):

Normal Queue (Next Number: 35):

Standard/Open Games (* denotes Tweaked)
Stack the Deck, by yuma.
Base Dominion, First Game*, by Voltgloss
Community's choice, by Sudgy
Unknown, by raerae
Adventure Time Mafia*, by ashersky
Donald's Greater Idea Mafia*, by mail-mi
Justice League Mafia, by yuma
Unknown, by mcmcsalot
Survivor Mafia (16 players, open setup), by Galzria
Unknown, by liopoil
Unknown C9++*, by Twistedarcher/nkirbit

Invented/Closed Games
Avalon Mafia, by Tables
Monsters University Mafia, by ashersky
Arrested Development Mafia by yuma
A fresh start (9 players, closed setup), by Galzria
Unknown, by Archetype



I would propose that at any given time, the top game from each of those separate designations is open for sign-up.  The one that fills, takes the next number (or takes a number at sign-up stage, whatever).  As one starts, the next on from that queue opens.  We continually have one of each style open, and they all count for stats.  If you don't like closed version, just don't play, because an open game will always be available.

We could probably move some RMM to Invented/Closed (like LOTR1 might have) or people might tweak invented RMM games to not be so crazy that they would fit in the normal Invented queue.

I think something like this could keep both mods and players happy.

[yuma]

So after thinking things through I think I am actually starting to lean toward the side of Galz on the question of what should/shouldn't be stat based... And as a result I don't really see a need for a separate category for RMM games and games like MC.

I won't go into exactly what changed my mind, but a lot of it had to do with me tinkering around with my Arrested Development game and I caught myself starting to worry about how this game would work with stats... that is... I began to try and manipulate it so that it would be on the stat side of the imaginary line I had created in the sand. As a result the game that I had envisioned originally was starting to move toward something different because I wanted it to be "stat worthy"

This was exactly my concern originally, that not allowing these sort of games would stymie creativity, but it was more that my attempts to change my original creativity to adapt was what was stymieing my efforts. I think AD mafia is better left to just be a RMM game and I wonder if all such games are better off left as just RMM games...

I do think that perhaps the list that Galz gives for Closed Normal roles could be expanded

Normal Games with a Closed Setup may contain:
Cop
Doctor
Roleblocker
JK
Vigilante
Godfather
Rolecop
SK
IC
Mason
Neighbors
Neighborizer
Tracker
Watcher
JoAT (with listed roles above)

Modifiers:
1-shot
x-shot
Bulletproof
Godfather (in the case of, say, a SK)

Galz himself says that there are a few he may have forgotten himself, especially as RMM roles are explored by the community and hopefully become accepted as standard... For example in O's game there was the letter writer. I don't remember how people felt about that role, but if it was positive and felt to be balanced, it could be added to the list. That is just an example, I am sure there are others. Perhaps this is where our discussion should turn to as we come closer to coming to a consensus?

[ashersky]

Any thoughts on the split queue idea?

[mail-mi]

Normal Games with a Closed Setup may contain:
Cop
Doctor
Roleblocker
JK
Vigilante
Godfather
Rolecop
SK
IC
Mason
Neighbors
Neighborizer
Tracker
Watcher
Follower
Voyeur
JoAT (with listed roles above)

Modifiers:
1-shot
x-shot
Bulletproof
Godfather (in the case of, say, a SK)
Strongman and Ninja Kill Modifiers

Galz himself says that there are a few he may have forgotten himself, especially as RMM roles are explored by the community and hopefully become accepted as standard... For example in O's game there was the letter writer. I don't remember how people felt about that role, but if it was positive and felt to be balanced, it could be added to the list. That is just an example, I am sure there are others. Perhaps this is where our discussion should turn to as we come closer to coming to a consensus?

My opinions added in bold.

[Twistedarcher]

The problem with a standard list like that is that it ruins adding new roles that are certainly "normal", yet aren't established/accepted/discovered yet. For example, look at the enabler role from M31. I think that enabler is a great role, and I was very happy to see it included, even though I'd never been exposed to it before. But the role isn't "normal" by mafiascum standards.

If a mod wanted to introduce a role such as enabler into a standard game, what's the appropriate way to do it? If it's a closed setup, people might be caught off guard because they didn't expect it. But it's a role that I think it good to have, and there's nothing wrong with including a role such as enabler in a closed game.

Now, the same argument can be applied to godfatherer, a role which had less of a positive reaction. No one had any complaints about enabler, though, and for most of the players, they were both roles that were unknown previously.

What makes enabler OK, but godfatherer not OK? How would people personally like to see these roles introduced?

Personally, I'm fine if mods running more vanilla setups want to include a list of potential roles. If a mod doesn't want to include that list, though, I'm ok with them including roles such as enabler and godfatherer or whatever else our creative mods can come up with.

I think the solution isn't to shackle mods, but instead for mods to just be a little bit more communicative about the type of game they're running in their game threads, and for players to be a little more honest with themselves on whether or not they want to join closed setup games. I think even including a line saying "This game is a closed setup, and may or may not include roles regularly played in past F.DS games" would be helpful both in helping players identifying the games they want to play and for helping mods effectively communicate the type of games they are trying to create.

[ashersky]

I think the standard list of roles could work for "Standard" games, instead of all "normal" games.

If the split-queue system were to roll out, for example, games in the first queue would abide by the roles list while the second queue wouldn't.

[sudgy]

I think that all games from normal through RMM can have the same roles, it's the interaction between them and scumhunting that changes the setup.

[Jimmmmm]

I think that all games from normal through RMM can have the same roles, it's the interaction between them and scumhunting that changes the setup.

I think that defeats the purpose of having a normal category. In RMM invented games, you can have literally any role you can dream up, so long as it doesn't cross into the bastard category.

[yuma]

The problem with a standard list like that is that it ruins adding new roles that are certainly "normal", yet aren't established/accepted/discovered yet. For example, look at the enabler role from M31. I think that enabler is a great role, and I was very happy to see it included, even though I'd never been exposed to it before. But the role isn't "normal" by mafiascum standards.

If a mod wanted to introduce a role such as enabler into a standard game, what's the appropriate way to do it? If it's a closed setup, people might be caught off guard because they didn't expect it. But it's a role that I think it good to have, and there's nothing wrong with including a role such as enabler in a closed game.

Now, the same argument can be applied to godfatherer, a role which had less of a positive reaction. No one had any complaints about enabler, though, and for most of the players, they were both roles that were unknown previously.

What makes enabler OK, but godfatherer not OK? How would people personally like to see these roles introduced?

Personally, I'm fine if mods running more vanilla setups want to include a list of potential roles. If a mod doesn't want to include that list, though, I'm ok with them including roles such as enabler and godfatherer or whatever else our creative mods can come up with.

I think the solution isn't to shackle mods, but instead for mods to just be a little bit more communicative about the type of game they're running in their game threads, and for players to be a little more honest with themselves on whether or not they want to join closed setup games. I think even including a line saying "This game is a closed setup, and may or may not include roles regularly played in past F.DS games" would be helpful both in helping players identifying the games they want to play and for helping mods effectively communicate the type of games they are trying to create.

Maybe someone answered this below, but I'll take a whack at it. I think the answer is to experiment with those roles in either RMM setups or in open setups or semi-open setups. For example, the enabler role. Lets say you create it and put it in an open setup, it runs smoothly. It gets community approval and is approved to be in a closed setup and added to the list. Or you create "godfatherer" and put it in a RMM game. It gets approved and is added to the list.

I agree that such a line as you include below is appropriate. But I am starting to think that such a setup automatically constitutes as RMM...

[yuma]

Any thoughts on the split queue idea?

I think it works personally. Remember that a lot of where I am coming from is how to look at things stat wise and I am not sure how to use the split queue around that... mostly because we are working from two different vantage points on two different goals and haven't quite met in the middle, but I expect we will at some point as things get fleshed out.

[sudgy]

I think that all games from normal through RMM can have the same roles, it's the interaction between them and scumhunting that changes the setup.

I think that defeats the purpose of having a normal category. In RMM invented games, you can have literally any role you can dream up, so long as it doesn't cross into the bastard category.

And, I think that in normal games you can have anything.  It's just if the focus is more on the roles in general or scumhunting is what I would say.

[sudgy]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

[mail-mi]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

Would greater idea be standard? Would review mafia be standard?

[Twistedarcher]

I don't think the system is like in dire need of an overhaul or anything, though. I think one queue is fine, and less confusing, and easier for everyone involved.

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

Would greater idea be standard? Would review mafia be standard?

Review is the old roles one, right?  That's a no.

I think the biggest question we need to agree on is whether "tweaked" set-ups count as standard or invented.  That's the hardest one.

I mean, if you you took a standard set-up and added one role, is it completely invented?  Probably not.  But we need a standard.

asher9++, which I'll be rolling out soon, is a heavily-tweaked C9++.  It's changed enough that it needs to be run as an invented game.  But it's completely open in the way that C9++ is, so it's good for normal.

[sudgy]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

The difference in those to (to me) is closed scumhunting-heavy games are Invented Normal and closed role-heavy games are RMM.

[sudgy]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

The difference in those to (to me) is closed scumhunting-heavy games are Invented Normal and closed role-heavy games are RMM.

Then MC should have been RMM, since it was closed role-heavy.

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

The difference in those to (to me) is closed scumhunting-heavy games are Invented Normal and closed role-heavy games are RMM.

Then MC should have been RMM, since it was closed role-heavy.

That's why we're having this discussion now.

[sudgy]

If, in the future, MXXXI would not be in normal games, that would be all I need.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

I think it's extremely heteronormative to be labeling these games in this fashion. Role madness is a spectrum, not a binary, and these games should be free to discover who they are for themselves, without the burdens of societal expectations pressing down on them. Do you know how psychologically damaging it is for a game to be told it's not "normal"?

[Voltgloss]

I'm not caught up.  I worked over the weekend to try to classify our historical "normal" queue games according to the rubrics we're discussing.  It's an interesting exercise that isn't yet complete, but hopefully will be tonight.  (For example, I never thought about this before, but did you realize that all of our Newbie games are Semi-Open?  Both 2of4 and Matrix fall in that category.)

[Voltgloss]

Any thoughts on the split queue idea?

I haven't thought deeply about it but I like it as a concept.  Personally, I think the key criterion for distinguishing between the queues is "open" vs. "closed," rather than "standard" vs. "invented." 

[Voltaire]

I truly think splitting cues isn't needed, just clearer communication by mods going into signups. We've hashed out pretty good definitions we can all agree to use to classify our games. I say we keep using our normal, RMM, and BM queues, but simply that each game is labeled as "invented whatever" going into signups.

[Jimmmmm]

Any thoughts on the split queue idea?

I haven't thought deeply about it but I like it as a concept.  Personally, I think the key criterion for distinguishing between the queues is "open" vs. "closed," rather than "standard" vs. "invented."

I think a large part of it is needing to distinguish between closed games. Open games don't really matter from a signing up player's point of view - you know exactly what you're going to get. Whereas different categories of closed games might appeal more or less to different players at different times.

[Robz888]

We should no longer use the term "role madness" at all. It never properly described the games that it covered, and "how many roles there are" isn't the key piece of information we want to convey.

[Voltaire]

Role Mafia, then?

[Archetype]

I think they should be considered "Madness" games. Like, take Jimmmmm's game. It's certainly a RMM game, but it had VTs. And Major Arcana II was pure madness, but it was listed as normal. So I don't think their should be a split in the queue, but I think that mods should tell the players what to expect.

[yuma]

I think they should be considered "Madness" games. Like, take Jimmmmm's game. It's certainly a RMM game, but it had VTs. And Major Arcana II was pure madness, but it was listed as normal. So I don't think there should be a split in the queue, but I think that mods should tell the players what to expect.

again telling players what to expect is all well and good (I am all for it) but from my vantage point in regard to the stats--Sorry about constantly harping about the stats... but I feel like I need to speak up for it if we are going to continue it--we need to be able to differentiate between games that are stat appropriate and those that aren't and I think different queues are the best way to do that.

[ashersky]

Over in the mafia queue, I redid the normal queue with guesses and such, in italics and small text, right under the actual queue, just to see how it would look.  Take a look and say here what you think.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9677.msg308501#msg308501

Remember, the idea is one from each set would be running and open for sign-ups, and numbers just get assigned as we go.  If standard goes faster, no big deal.  We still keep RMM as a separate category for inventive, untested, or just out there games.  A few of the RMM games would probably shift to Invented normal, though.

[ashersky]

Over in the mafia queue, I redid the normal queue with guesses and such, in italics and small text, right under the actual queue, just to see how it would look.  Take a look and say here what you think.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9677.msg308501#msg308501

Remember, the idea is one from each set would be running and open for sign-ups, and numbers just get assigned as we go.  If standard goes faster, no big deal.  We still keep RMM as a separate category for inventive, untested, or just out there games.  A few of the RMM games would probably shift to Invented normal, though.

So, for example, with the updated queues, I'd say that Tables's Avalon Mafia should open next, to get an invented game out there.