# MAFIA: The Road to Canterbury - Game Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 21, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807 "2012-06-21T01:57:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 63
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/1241 "2012-08-21T15:29:22Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I think you misunderstand here sachertorte. **gnarly** tried to direct the other investigators to avoid overlap. That’s the part town couldn’t trust. Trust has nothing to do about it. The idea should have been evaluated independent of who proposed it. > [@](#): > > The issue of investigative strategy is separate, and has nothing to do with who proposed it. I guess I am confused. That’s what I was trying to convey. > [@](#): > > In theory, it pretty much nulls out. By agreeing an investigation strategy, the risk of overlap is eliminated, but the scum could have deployed the cloak more intelligently. And my point is that Town tends to get all wound up about what scum might possibly do when the danger as stated is inflated. In this specific case the danger of the investigators hitting a cloaked player was 2/20 (1/10) since one investigator was scum. In the division of labor the chance switched to 2/13 or 2/14 (about 1/7). That isn’t a big shift, but Town likes to paralyze itself in fear of what might possibly happen versus what is likely to happen. > [@](#): > > In practise, the investigators weren’t acting randomly, so the risk of overlap was higher. I suppose we could simply chalk up the doubling up on investigations to bad luck, but I think you are precisely right here. I may be seeing some confirmation bias on my part, but I have the impression that multiple investigators wind up overlapping more often than one would expect from random investigation. Hence, an even greater motivation to divide and conquer. > [@](#): > > No-where did I say the probabilities were equal. The salient point in this case is that **fubbleskag** changed a detail of his claim after **gnarly** made his PM public. I didn’t follow everything to great detail. I’m responding to the post where it was stated that you were acting based on your night action PM. My point is that we tend to inflate the importance of our night action results beyond what they realistically mean. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/1242 "2012-08-21T16:06:11Z")
So looking back at this game, I think I’ve learned a few things. First, my votes were shit. I mean absolute rubbish. Even I could look at them and say “holy crap, I’m all over the place.” Part of the reason why is I placed way too much concern on not wanting a tie vote at the end of the night. That never occurred and it really wasn’t in danger of a occuring but I kept feeling like I needed to “break a tie” for some reason. I should have just voted how I needed to vote and let the chips fall where they may. The other part was that I placed too much emphasis on people “acting scummy.” It’s been mentioned already upthread, but we get lulled into what we _think_ scum would sound like, when in reality scum’s just hiding in back not causing waves. It’s just really hard to separate the lack of concrete participation from the not making waves people. The other problem is that I kept imagining a scum board where they’re all laughing their asses off at us for the boneheaded plays we kept making. It was strange to read through that thread and see that wasn’t the case at all. Overall, though, a fun game. I’d be up for more. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/1243 "2012-08-21T16:55:52Z")
The other thing I’ve noticed is that scum seem to plan out their moves way less than town thinks. We’re always postulating crazy hypotheses and convoluted scum plays. Generally, they slink about the thread trying not to attract attention, and they kill people they think might turn into problems, not necessarily because of what they’re saying in-thread right now. That’s something I’m weak at. I always assume there’s some grand scheme for why they’ve killed X on Y day, and in the first 2/3rds of the game, it’s because a scum said “Hey, kill Z?” and the other scums say “sure, why not?” ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/1244 "2012-08-21T16:58:28Z")
I still need a few players for [Conspiracy 6](http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=27099). ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/1245 "2012-08-21T17:26:05Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I suppose we could simply chalk up the doubling up on investigations to bad luck, but I think you are precisely right here. I may be seeing some confirmation bias on my part, but I have the impression that multiple investigators wind up overlapping more often than one would expect from random investigation. Hence, an even greater motivation to divide and conquer. **Stanislaus** is a good player who recently won a game as scum, which I think is why both our investigators picked him. Personally, I try not to worry too much about the very town-ey players early in the game, as if actually town there is a good chance they will be night killed. And indeed, in the scum thread they were talking about killing him on Night 1. If they are still alive late in the game I start to wonder why. I’d probably have tried to investigate in a way to extend the voting record, or target a lurker, but I’d have been worried about scum anticipating my strategy and deploying the cloak. In game theory terms, that’s why adding a small random element to actions can be beneficial. > [@Enderw24](#): > > So looking back at this game, I think I’ve learned a few things. First, my votes were shit. I mean absolute rubbish. Even I could look at them and say “holy crap, I’m all over the place.” Well, you were in good company. > [@Enderw24](#): > > The other part was that I placed too much emphasis on people “acting scummy.” It’s been mentioned already upthread, but we get lulled into what we _think_ scum would sound like, when in reality scum’s just hiding in back not causing waves. It’s just really hard to separate the lack of concrete participation from the not making waves people. I think that’s a common failing of town, related to positive confirmation bias. If someone posts something that reads a bit off, it’s easy to read everything else in a negative light. Hence the tendancy to lynch the loud. I try to think in terms of motivation. For example, **Kelly** joined my wagon after I claimed. That would have been a bold gambit for scum to make, knowing I was town. Similarly, **Babale** ’s vote against me stood out as the most likely scum as my wagon. I’d been applying pressure to the other voters, which was a bad reason to vote me, but a reason nonetheless. **Babale** ’s vote came out of nowhere, and he was under some pressure of being lynched himself. > [@Enderw24](#): > > The other problem is that I kept imagining a scum board where they’re all laughing their asses off at us for the boneheaded plays we kept making. It was strange to read through that thread and see that wasn’t the case at all. From the scum-boards I’ve seen, and the one I’ve played on, scum are usually too busy worrying about their deck of cards collapsing on them to gloat. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > The other thing I’ve noticed is that scum seem to plan out their moves way less than town thinks. Yes. I think it’s due to time pressure, just keeping up with the game is time-consuming enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=62)