I’m reminded of a long-ago Vampire the collectible card game I participated in. At one point, we had four players sitting in a circle, when a friend of one player walked in. We explained that A and C were allied-- Enemy of my enemy is my friend theory. “Ok, I get it B and D are allies, too.”
Um, no. B was winning by a wide margin, and D would have been helping A and C except that there wasn’t really a whole lot that D could do to help A or C that wasn’t blatently self-destructive, which usually didn’t happen. B eventually won, presumably–I don’t really remember the game, just the look of befuddlement on the passerby.
And I can recall more than one game featuring more than 4 players where people sometimes strategized in ways that irritated their neighbors. (In Vampire, at least as we played it, one started out sitting in more or less a circle. Your prey was to your left, your predator to your right, and gameplay moved clockwise around the table. Your goal is to kill your prey, then your prey’s prey, then your prey’s prey’s prey, until finally you are the only player standing. )
In one memorable game, my predator did something stupid–or maybe his predator did something clever, I don’t recall. I just know that my prey offered to do something which benefited me greatly in the short run, and theoretically himself in the longer run, and someone else got really mad, because that’s not the way that predator-prey relationships are supposed to go.
But somehow,at least to me, there’s a difference between what my prey was offering, and the situation storyteller mentions of people making absurd offers in Monopoly, that makes one ok and one “so why did I agree to play this game with you?”
I think it’s the same kind of thing which makes Drainbead’s theoretical suicide because it helps the wolves ok, and suicide to aid the Cabal infuriating.
There’s a balance somewhere between any tactic not explicitly forbidden by the rules is ok, and exploiting loopholes such that the first 90% of the game becomes meaningless. And a balance somewhere between winning or the hope of winning is everything and making sure that the rules are enforced strictly and completely. I guess everyone doesn’t have to take the game with the same degree of seriousness, but when people don’t, that’s when people go whining to the authorities, or announce that it’s not fun anymore.*
If all the scum except Cabal suicided the first Day of the game under the idea that all scum win if any scum faction wins, I’d find it pointless and game breaking. But I think a Conspiracy Game with a mass scum role claim on day 1 would be interesting–because I think it would be in the interest of both Town and the smaller scum factions to know exactly who the Wolves are but not to let the Wolves know who exactly is Town and who are other scum. Which in turn makes it undesirable for the Wolves to announce their roles too quickly, less they all die too soon.
*Trust me, I recently played games with a 3 year old and a 5 year old. My goal was to entertain all three of us without bloodshed, and keep the little ones out of other people’s hair. The 3 year old tried hard, but has a limited grasp of the rules/strategy. The 5 year old has a better grasp of such things, but it is balanced by her need to have people do what SHE wants them to do. I think her ideal game would feature her making a move, then her telling you which move you should make, then her making a move, etc. so that she won every game in a repetitive manner. When I wouldn’t enforce rules I didn’t understand, she went whining to her Daddy, who opted not to come make me follow her rules.