Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
Can we add the rule I proposed? I don't see why anyone would oppose.
I'm opposed to this rule.
Why are you opposed to it?
I moved this from the Mafia 86 thread to here. We are discussing that once it becomes mathematically impossible for the town to win, the game is ended by the ref.
I moved this from the Mafia 86 thread to here. We are discussing that once it becomes mathematically impossible for the town to win, the game is ended by the ref.
I'm generally against rules for this game - I think they are fine as is. If everyone else wanted this rule, I wouldn't throw a fit or refuse to play or even say anything snarky (probably).
Post by potentpotables on Nov 12, 2015 14:53:01 GMT -5
By the way, I was afeard of a real problem on Day 2 - when the first runoff was 3-3-3. My instinct was to just let it ride out and someone would move eventually to break the standoff, but it's something that at least should be discussed, though I have no ideas for recompense.
I moved this from the Mafia 86 thread to here. We are discussing that once it becomes mathematically impossible for the town to win, the game is ended by the ref.
Define mathematically impossible. Or is it redundant since if Mafia outnumbers town they win anyway?
I moved this from the Mafia 86 thread to here. We are discussing that once it becomes mathematically impossible for the town to win, the game is ended by the ref.
Define mathematically impossible. Or is it redundant since if Mafia outnumbers town they win anyway?
Mathematically impossible, like any circumstance in which either side has a 0% chance of winning.
I moved this from the Mafia 86 thread to here. We are discussing that once it becomes mathematically impossible for the town to win, the game is ended by the ref.
Define mathematically impossible. Or is it redundant since if Mafia outnumbers town they win anyway?
As in, there are seven players left with all 3 Mafia alive. Then two townies go into a runoff. The townies no longer have a chance of winning because one will get voted off and one will be whacked. The game is essentially over as soon as that runoff begins.
An example would be two townies were lynched in the first two rounds, leaving 4 dead townies at the start of round 3. Then during round three, the final runoff involves only townies. At that point, the town has a 0% chance of winning.
In such a circumstance, the game should be over. Townies shouldn't be led to believe their time is well used by reading through the thread and trying to convince people to vote one way or another. It's just a huge waste of time.
For some reason, Potent prefers to let these types of circumstances occur.
Personally I'm in favor of that rule addition. It's a small rule only applicable in certain situations, and doesn't in any way affect the outcome of the game.
potentpotables could you please tell why you think this rule addition would be a detriment to the game? I agree with you that the game works just fine as-is, but a lot of people put considerable time and mental energy to this game, and while I can see the humor in it if you're Mafia (sadistic as we all can be sometimes), I think that in the spirit of sportsmanship it's better to spare the doomed townies their wasted time and energy. Plus then we can move onto the next game more quickly.
And for those of you thinking that it's hypocritical of me to talk about sportsmanship when I told our newest player to suck my ass in the last game...well you'll just have to figure that one out for yourself.
Also the 3-3-3 thing is a potential issue, but I don't know if there needs to be any sort of change because of it. The players know that someone has to make a move, so a move will be made eventually. Neither townies nor Mafia would enjoy a hung round where all nine players refuse to move their vote, so I feel like it's safe to assume that the players wouldn't let the game come to a complete and utter standstill. I'm open to other opinions though.
potentpotables could you please tell why you think this rule addition would be a detriment to the game? I agree with you that the game works just fine as-is, but a lot of people put considerable time and mental energy to this game, and while I can see the humor in it if you're Mafia (sadistic as we all can be sometimes), I think that in the spirit of sportsmanship it's better to spare the doomed townies their wasted time and energy. Plus then we can move onto the next game more quickly.
And for those of you thinking that it's hypocritical of me to talk about sportsmanship when I told our newest player to suck my ass in the last game...well you'll just have to figure that one out for yourself.
I never said it would be a detriment to the game to adopt this rule; in fact I specifically said that I don't really care, I just think it's a solution in search of a problem. I just think there are times when people are acting dick-ish enough during the game that they might piss off a mafia or the ref and they might want revenge, and I'd probably get a little joy out of that. I'm going to refrain from naming names or citing examples.
I can tell you that there's no way I would allow a mathematically finished game to continue when I was ref, mostly because I'm itching to play again. Also, this last game was equal amounts dull and stressful as the ref and I wanted it to be over as quickly as possible beyond wanting to play again.
Yeah,potentpotables, I for one can't remember this occurring.
*slowly fades into background, whistling what is unquestionably a nonchalant tune*
Actually I think both games where you got some heat, I was ref (when Rummy came out as inspector like 5 seconds before the deadline, and last game when you were inspector).
I do remember you being evasive one of my first games, but it just turned out that you were mafia. With Krissy and Jim, I believe.
Actually after seeing it in terms of being dickish to the ref, I kinda agree with you potent. The ref really has very little power over the game (or shouldn't, anyway), so if you're a dick to them and they choose to let you anguish for a little bit in this one unlikely scenario...eh I'm kinda okay with that lol.
Actually after seeing it in terms of being dickish to the ref, I kinda agree with you potent. The ref really has very little power over the game (or shouldn't, anyway), so if you're a dick to them and they choose to let you anguish for a little bit in this one unlikely scenario...eh I'm kinda okay with that lol.
I think it's highly unlikely - I just want to have the option!
Actually after seeing it in terms of being dickish to the ref, I kinda agree with you potent. The ref really has very little power over the game (or shouldn't, anyway), so if you're a dick to them and they choose to let you anguish for a little bit in this one unlikely scenario...eh I'm kinda okay with that lol.
I think it's highly unlikely - I just want to have the option!
Don't take away his freeeeeeedom.
I could go either way on this one. Personally, I like the idea to add this rule, but it won't bother me too much if we choose to forego it.
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
As someone who took FULL advantage of such a situation and milked it for all its worth, for one evening of laughs, and the eventual guilty and regret of getting carried away, I say make it a rule.
Define mathematically impossible. Or is it redundant since if Mafia outnumbers town they win anyway?
As in, there are seven players left with all 3 Mafia alive. Then two townies go into a runoff. The townies no longer have a chance of winning because one will get voted off and one will be whacked. The game is essentially over as soon as that runoff begins.
Technically you should allow the night phase to happen at 50/50 because it's generally plausible that a town power role could have an affect that would keep town in the game for the following day.
As in, there are seven players left with all 3 Mafia alive. Then two townies go into a runoff. The townies no longer have a chance of winning because one will get voted off and one will be whacked. The game is essentially over as soon as that runoff begins.
Technically you should allow the night phase to happen at 50/50 because it's generally plausible that a town power role could have an affect that would keep town in the game for the following day.
if it's 50/50 going into night, mafia whack a townie and the game is over. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?
Technically you should allow the night phase to happen at 50/50 because it's generally plausible that a town power role could have an affect that would keep town in the game for the following day.
if it's 50/50 going into night, mafia whack a townie and the game is over. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?
I can't speak to how the hosts set up games here specifically, but in games I have played in college and on other forums, there are fairly often town roles that could affect the ability of the mafia to make a successful kill. Doctor is a pretty common role. Bulletproof comes up occasionally. A town vigilante or paranoid gun owner could potentially kill a member of the mafia.
Of course, it could just be that I'm used to playing more complex games of mafia and you guys never use anything out of the ordinary, but I've always had the impression that communities that exist for as long as this one seems to have tend to grow into enjoying some degree of advanced logic and decision making in their games.
if it's 50/50 going into night, mafia whack a townie and the game is over. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?
I can't speak to how the hosts set up games here specifically, but in games I have played in college and on other forums, there are fairly often town roles that could affect the ability of the mafia to make a successful kill. Doctor is a pretty common role. Bulletproof comes up occasionally. A town vigilante or paranoid gun owner could potentially kill a member of the mafia.
Of course, it could just be that I'm used to playing more complex games of mafia and you guys never use anything out of the ordinary, but I've always had the impression that communities that exist for as long as this one seems to have tend to grow into enjoying some degree of advanced logic and decision making in their games.
If that's not the case, disregard all of this!
I'd say that's the case for some players. Some just fly by the seat of their pants and wing it. I wasn't aware of the different roles or complexities of different variations of the game. We're just plain Jane in here.
I once had an idea of a "witness" role, where a townie would "see" another get whacked. Aka, the ref would tell them the name of a Mafia.
It could be the same name as what the inspector had. This role may not need exist unless the inspector gets whacked. There's a few ways to play with it.
