Interesting, BlaM, because I thought you were playing too safely to be Town. If you were actually Townie, you should have been in a few contentious arguments. And that also goes for Squid, who is usually more gungho.
The Scum played well enough that they would’ve won under most circumstances. But I wonder a little about game balance. The Scum side had a lot more powers than typical, while the Town’s power roles were less. And I see that the balance thread on mod’s board also discusses if the Scum weren’t over powered. I think the third-party doc was rather unhelpful to the Town. I guess this counters the usual pro-Town bias our rules tend to have.
And it might be Vig’s remorse, but I’m not sure how the Board Doc and Celebrity Al roles were supposed to avoid the Vig’s hammer. Unconfirmable roles are perfect hiding spots for scum and therefore must be considered by a Vig. The two players both came up as very scummy voters in my Night-time analyses, and so I felt I needed to take them out. Ultimately to the Town’s detriment.
I was in a few arguments, but mostly of the type like I was talking about with Zsofia and ok11. Either way, not having contentious arguments isn’t necessarily scummy, it’s just one of those things that looks scummy, but that you can’t actually make a case out of. It’s one of those things I’ve struggled with pinning on people while playing town before and can never really find a way to make it stick. If someone had used that in a case against me, I easily could have pointed to several places where I was aggressive in pursuing people.
I do feel like the scum were a little OP, but it’s hard to judge. I do think the PFK Doc was somewhat of a boost to town because his block was more likely to hurt scum and his win condition was difficult to achieve without living until late game and doing a good job of playing scum. Also, the town got incredibly unlucky with several key roles dying early, specifically the watcher and detective. Games with detectives can easily be turned in favor of scum if they die early and town if they live a long time.
I didn’t read that part, but was that something used to balance those roles? I think the manner of Fretful’s claim was pretty pro-town, obviously you didn’t think so. I think Santo’s 12-hour gambit didn’t go over well, so I can understand why you pulled the trigger there. I think you actually did better than most other Vigs I’ve seen, having killed a PFK and scum, but I also think if you hadn’t been so loose on a couple earlier Days, it might have made a significant difference in the outcome of the game.
After one side demolishes the other you have to take another look at the balance, but I don’t know that the game was unfair. The town was both unlucky and outplayed. I don’t think this should have been anything but a convincing scum victory. This game had:
A detective who was killed night 1 giving town nothing
A watcher who was killed night 1 giving town nothing
Masons who were all outed day 1
A board doctor who decide claiming otherwise, was never able to use his power.
A role blocker and a doctor who never successfully made a block giving town nothing. Including the night where they both protected one mason, and the other was targeted
A vig who killed three townies and a pfk who would have died naturally on the first four nights. The successful kill was too late to be of much use. I would call the Vig a net negative to the town in this game.
A successful false claim by the scum.
A town that never lynched a scum during the day.
Does anyone think the town should have had a chance to win this game? I also don’t really think scum really had that much in powers. They had two vanillas, one slightly ramped up godfather, an independent detective a situation that often causes more harm than good (they almost targeted him night one), and a day/night blocker. The only thing the powers helped with is identifying Pleo and silencing AMRussell once. Scum, didn’t win due to superior use of extra powers. They won by controlling the day.
The fact that the roles weren’t confirmable wasn’t accidental. Too many the town has been able to win late not due to superior play, but rather there are confirmable townie then unknowns. I wanted townies to have to prove their towniness, and not just rely on a power that does it for them.
I was surprised OAOW got lynched without claiming. A doctor claim would have kept him alive, and forced the scum to attempt to deal with him. I still think that was a pro-town role, but in retrospect it was probably easier for OAOW to follow the Vig than follow the scum, at current points.
I also wouldn’t call losing the detective + doctor unlucky. There deaths were the result of delibrate actions by several players. Neither got killed at random. The detective got killed because scum though that he was the detective, while the town didn’t know enough to protect him. Peek died because Pleo didn’t think the power was worth the distraction.
Normal Al was balanced as a vanilla townie. Terry was balanced as weak power role (2)
I have a question–was the Guest role inspired by my false claim in the Gastard Mod game? Because that’s the only other time I remember a role being based in real-time.
I’d recommend you re-read this (or other games) knowing who has what role in advance. It lets you see a lot of things that you wouldn’t normally otherwise notice. As for balancing I just tried to estimate how helpful each role would be for each side. You can see more on how we specifically balanced these roles in the spoiler board.
Nope. I didn’t read Gastard. The guest role actually comes from my first Mafia game. I joined the Dope in order to play. At the time guest memberships lasted 30 days. Naf was worried about letting me play, if I was going to drop out mid-game. I did officially join, but figured it would be appropiate to have a role of someone who didn’t.
I definitely don’t think the game was unfair, but I do wonder if there was a slight bias against the Town. But because of:
Any effect of bias was swamped by excellent play by the Scum. The Scum won the game, and should have, no doubt about it.
Well, I’ll have to disagree on that. Vigging Nanook removed him from the Town’s attention and gave them a chance to find real Scum. Can’t blame only the Vig if the Town didn’t capitalize on it. And I killed more Scum then the Town, even if it was late. My win-loss-tie killing record was 1-3-1, versus the Town’s 0-5-1, if I counted right?
I agree. The problem for me is that unconfirmable Town claims look suspicious, while a vanilla claim does not. And the players that did make the claims seemed very suspicious to me. I think this probably falls under the category of “Scum out-playing Town”.
Actually, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad a ploy as I made it out to be. Unfortunately, our group has the mantra of lynch all liars so codified, that there wasn’t anything to do other than lynch you.
Trust and reliance on the same roles popping up time and time again, balanced and fair set-ups by well intentioned mods, and the fact that these games are epic in proportion (in my real-life gaming group, we’ll go through three set-ups on a dedicated Mafia Night, compared to the months invested here) means that some fun and off the wall things just aren’t worth the risks.
Fair point, OAOW should have claimed Doctor, I hadn’t considered that.
A slight confusion in usage. I meant unlucky, not in that they were moves that were based on luck, but unlucky in the general sense that the town got a bad break. But yes, both were the result of deliberate actions, and not a roll of the dice.
I agree with the balance on Normal Al, I think Terry probably wasn’t worth 2 points, but we’d only be arguing about half a point or so anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.
I agree here. I actually think the gambit was a fine move and, had I been town, I really would have pushed a lot harder to get the lynch off of you, but the bottom line was, I saw an opportunity to get a good player lynched, so I went for it. I think you were mostly unfortunate because all of the experienced players who would have seen the move for what it was were either dead, scum, or completely drowned out by scum who wanted to take the opportunity to get you killed.
If anything, I hope that this occurence leads to some reevaluation to the unconditional lynch all liars rule, because there are definitely legitimate times when it’s pro-town to lie, the JSexton gambit being something a vanilla townie an do, but also in situations like I pointed out in my conversation with Zsofia earlier.
I’m quoting this because it’s exactly where I was. I actually wrote out a fairly detailed post against you twice, only to read it over and think, “Nah, not solid enough.” Should have gone for it. In general, I think I am too hesitant to attack people.
I guess I’m stubborn, because I’m still happy with lynch all liars. Sometimes a Townie should withhold the truth, but lying should be a no-go. It’s hard enough to catch Scum without having to sort out lying Townies. The only exceptions I can see is if the liar can be confirmed. That may mean confirmation by death.
You should have posted. You were our confirmed Townie. Even if you couldn’t convince anyone, you had absolutely nothing to lose. I made similar mistakes in the first games I played, where I had a mason position. Masons need to be attack dogs–you won’t be lynched.
Thing is: I didn’t lie. Lynch All Liars is meant to apply to those caught in a lie or contradiction, which is simply not the case here. There’s nothing intrinsically anti-town about running a bluff, whether it’s a vanilla hinting at a power, or a doc claiming to be able self protect, or a claimed-and-true cop bluffing about who he investigated. Yes, I strongly implied that I had some knowledge that I didn’t. In this game, it’s a critical distinction between implying and stating.
Sure, if you catch someone out in a lie that you can prove, lynch them. If someone runs a gambit you’re not comfortable with, force them to commit themselves. But, and this is the big one, if a player is engaging another player, you really ought to give them some room to maneuver. Give them a little time to lead up to wherever they’re going, instead of interfering and “correcting” them.
I’m also blown away at how readily Hal’s claim was accepted. You had two dead investigators. You know (or strong suspect) that you’re at lynch or lose. Yet Hal claims that ShadowFacts, a player who has been generally on the accurate side of things all game is scum, and the votes just pile on with hardly a word of discussion?
I really fail to see the distinction between your move in this game and an outright claim of some sort of knowledge. Was it your intention that anyone not assume that you had some sort of watcher/strongman/protective role? Would it be reasonable for players to assume that, given your statements?
