Cards on the Table Mafia: TOWN WINS

[JackSlack]

Yeah. So, I personally count this game a good concept but failure in execution. In hindsight, I should have realised putting the ACTUAL CARDS on the image created a very simple way to check the townsfolk. D'oh!

I plan to run this game again sometime, but that time I'll be more careful on that. To my Jokers and Aces, apologies.

[AdmiralMemo]

Well, I liked it, and my attempted gamble/power play paid off, and I survived to see the end for once.

[romangoro]

I was pretty sure I was going to die the night after we killed Kapol. Also, I had no idea who the Joker was, so I was worried about that.

[Jamfalcon]

Yeah, I'd agree that the idea was sound, but it turned out (to someone that was mostly just an observer, admittedly) to be a lot less strategic than regular games. The relative ease with which town aligned players could prove themselves innocent meant made it perhaps a bit too simple.

Still, I'll be interested to see your next iteration on the idea!

[romangoro]

Also, I half-expected someone to immediately call my card, although that would have painted a target on them for the following round.

[Hepheastus]

We didn't Target you because we knew you weren't a power card

[Phailhammer]

I came so close to discarding Conoros on the first night, but reconsidered. XD

[Duckay]

I actually misread the joker card role until more than halfway through the game. Shame on me.

[Kapol]

I'm just happy that I was right about Duckay being the Joker. I felt pretty confident about that. Not enough to convince people to lynch her, mind you, but still.

As for the game... I feel like I played it as best I could. I feel like, had we not been given the extra time, I'd have at least not died the day I did. I'd been trying to stall the day I died to hit the time limit. I realized once everyone notice they could just role-claim to win the entire thing that the aces were lrrEFF'd.

Like I really felt that the aces managed to do VERY well all things considered. Hitting two power roles without actually knowing who they were seems good, as was not being blocked at all. But yea, as pointed out, it got really hard to win once everyone was just like 'let's just reveal our cards.' Honestly, I'd hoped people wouldn't do that just because it really isn't that fair to the mafia. There's no way to lie our way out of it for the first three or so days of the game.

[AdmiralMemo]

Kapol: I only realized that blatantly role-claiming was the way to win the game after I was targeted. I tried to be sly with my first post, then work out if anyone else might've been sly as well, but I didn't see any hints.

I still don't understand why my behavior was suspicious at the beginning, especially with 3 townies (korvys, Jam, and Ix) targeting me, while the Aces and Joker sat there and implicitly defended me with "No One" votes.

I should've seen that was the tactic, and seen through it earlier. Mafia just want to delay the game.

And to be perfectly honest, when I was accused, I was actually personally offended, so that's why I reacted so strongly. After a couple of days, though, I realized I was being kind of stupid about that. However, I had already committed to a course of action, and rational thought told me it seemed to be a good one, and it paid off in the end.

If I could get some tips on how to "not act suspicious" that would be great for any future games of Mafia, whether I'm a townie or a Mafia. Apparently, acting "normally" for me is "suspiciously" for everyone else.

[Ptangmatik]

Can someone do the math; if we all just put our cards on the table, do we just win? Obviously the Aces will lie, but can we get through that before we lose?

I did the maths, and realised the best way to root people out was to let people debate and see who was staunchly against claiming a card. Spelling this out would have given it away though, of course.
t
I think there was a slight problem with quantifying the townies, it gives the town a remarkable power when it comes to the vote.

Memo: There's nothing more suspicious than someone putting a concerted effort into acting natural

Finally, Conoros: you shouldn't have lynched Preacher, you could have sold being the doctor and having been previously afraid to declare, but claiming the seven was stretching it.

Edit: finally finally: Thank you jackSlack, good game!

[romangoro]

After lurking on the previous game and playing this one I'm not sure about the neutral player (the joker on this one), I don't really see what it adds to the game.

I think we got her by pure luck this time, although someone said he had his suspicions already. And I felt like having to keep killing one another after we killed all the aces (had we missed her) is ... kind of silly?

Shrug, i guess.

[Ptangmatik]

Yeah, I made up some rubbish about being suspicious of the conversation between Ducks and Kap just to make sure the suspicion stayed on her because she was so definitively anti-role claiming. I should have thought of some more convincing reason really, but I couldn't say the real one without making the Aces consider claiming a number.

As for keeping the joker around after the Aces were gone, I think the Joker is supposed to be like Loki, the God of mischief

[Kapol]

Kapol: I only realized that blatantly role-claiming was the way to win the game after I was targeted. I tried to be sly with my first post, then work out if anyone else might've been sly as well, but I didn't see any hints.a townie or a Mafia. Apparently, acting "normally" for me is "suspiciously" for everyone else

My point is that being able to role-claim with certainty made that an unfair strategy. A design mistake rather than an intentional option. That said, I don't really blame people for using it. It's still a competition, and it was the easy (Edit: and a natural) way to win.

Honestly, I feel like everyone could have role claimed the first three or even four days (if there were no lynches for four, and two for three) and been fine. You only needed to kill three people to stop the night killings. And you'd normally have a 50/50 chance to hit the right one. So it seems like there was no way to lose with that strategy. Especially since the investigator would get one chance to check. Hell, if the vigilante was alive, it'd be pretty easy to kill off the Mafia.

As for strategy... my strategy is to play the game like I'm town no matter what. If I find someone suspicious, I say so, even if I'm Mafia. I also push for lynches whenever possible due to my own preference (I actually do feel no lynch days are purely wasted days). I also try to be honest. Hence why I wouldn't reveal my role, mentioned being against doing so, and generally tried to go with my gut.

For what's happened to you, Memo, I feel like the big thing is how you seem to get more combative when accused. I feel like that's due to the fact you were actually offended. But that reaction sends up a bit of a red flag for most people. It's also possible it's just because of how people interpret your posts rather than getting it the way you intended.

Plus, keep in mind, early accusations are normally meant to get things moving more than anything. Nobody has a base for information. So they're going with their guts, or something that seems off to them. Something like that can really come down to a simple case of 'the way you phrased this seems off.' It's not a good reason to try to lynch someone, but there's not going to be any real information to work off early game anyways. So getting the discussion started is at least something.

EDIT: One other thing about the game. I feel the balancing was off for this one. To win, the Mafia had to get the town down to six people without losing a single member, AND kill the vigilante. I kind of feel like the number just made it awkard. Four would have been too much (though made it harder to be safe with the role-claiming) and three was too little..

[Duckay]

And I felt like having to keep killing one another after we killed all the aces (had we missed her) is ... kind of silly?

Shrug, i guess.

I honestly didn't realise that at first; I misread it as "when only the joker and town remain" rather than "when the joker and one town remain". That reading may have been too powerfully in my favour, though. I'm not sure I much like the role of the joker either, but that's just personal preference. Overall, the game was fun.

[AdmiralMemo]

Plus, keep in mind, early accusations are normally meant to get things moving more than anything. Nobody has a base for information. So they're going with their guts, or something that seems off to them. Something like that can really come down to a simple case of 'the way you phrased this seems off.' It's not a good reason to try to lynch someone, but there's not going to be any real information to work off early game anyways. So getting the discussion started is at least something.

Well, it just feels wrong to me to say "You're not acting 'normally' so we're going to kick you out of the game" if you're neither acting suspiciously nor are you in a role that's hiding something. That probably could be an extension of my own real-life issues of not even being close to normal. I have gotten ridiculously harassed and picked on due to my abnormality all through middle and high school, and also at my last 2 jobs. So, from 1992 to 2010, I guess it's just that I've built up very aggressive defense reactions whenever I'm accused unjustly. I guess some of that happened to come out during the game.

Though, looking back, I see part of what triggered me: 3 near-simultaneous accusations at once. Within about 2 hours, it went from "Maybe we've got something here with romangoro? Let's see what he says..." to "Aha! Fool-proof logic that Memo is the culprit! GET HIM!"

[Duckay]

The downside to that idea though is that if we refrain from accusing anyone until we have solid proof, we durdle around forever and the mafia win by default. Obviously if anyone is saying something insulting or crossing a line, that ought to be called out and dealt with, but accusing people in the early phases of the game to force discussion is sort of the best option we have.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

From my experience Memo, that's just Mafia

[Conoros]

Finally, Conoros: you shouldn't have lynched Preacher, you could have sold being the doctor and having been previously afraid to declare, but claiming the seven was stretching it.

A big gamble, but I'm not sure it would have made too much of a difference. I gamed it out after Duckay died and realised that there were too many cards revealed for me to hide long enough to win.

If I killed someone else, Then the final day it would have been either myself of Tapir accused directly as the only unrevealed cards, so I was always going to be forced to claim a card then. Could I have swing the vote against preacher? Maybe, but then I thought I could have done so against Tapir aswell
As soon as Preacher died everyone would know I was the Ace, and with one more night cycle it would be 3v1 on the following day

All in all, very fun game

In retrospect, I would hold off killing Aeric90 and kill a revealed player instead

[Phailhammer]

I hope next time I last more than one night.

[romangoro]

To counterbalance my sinful (?) pride at picking two aces in a row, I was 90% sure that aeric90 was the doctor.

From my experience Memo, that's just Mafia

I agree, in person and between people that know each other, arguments like "you stole a course" (i.e., got a passing grade without actually studying) is good enough to lynch someone, and "you are all accusing me because I'm 20" (in my 28th birthday) is enough to stop defending that someone.

[korvys]

I'm sorry you felt attacked, Memo. My motivation was literally this:

Plus, keep in mind, early accusations are normally meant to get things moving more than anything. Nobody has a base for information. So they're going with their guts, or something that seems off to them. Something like that can really come down to a simple case of 'the way you phrased this seems off.' It's not a good reason to try to lynch someone, but there's not going to be any real information to work off early game anyways. So getting the discussion started is at least something.

The downside to that idea though is that if we refrain from accusing anyone until we have solid proof, we durdle around forever and the mafia win by default. Obviously if anyone is saying something insulting or crossing a line, that ought to be called out and dealt with, but accusing people in the early phases of the game to force discussion is sort of the best option we have.

I could have just said, hey, that's a bit odd. But that gets no where. Everyone was making puns, and what-not, and we'd have got no information at all if we passed the day. Instead we learned more about you, and by extension the people who you voted with, or who voted with you, etc. Plus, if we actually get people talking on day one, then the death on night one can give some clues too (did they say something the mafia didn't like?).

Unfortunately, you were the first to do something I thought seemed odd. In this case, it was rapidly changing your vote, based on what I thought was rather flimsy arguements by others to do so.

As I said, I fully expected I could be wrong, and would be putting my neck on the line to do it. I felt it was the best way for the town to get information, even if it cost town lives, including my own.

[AdmiralMemo]

The downside to that idea though is that if we refrain from accusing anyone until we have solid proof, we durdle around forever and the mafia win by default. Obviously if anyone is saying something insulting or crossing a line, that ought to be called out and dealt with, but accusing people in the early phases of the game to force discussion is sort of the best option we have.

Well, I wasn't saying "Don't accuse anyone without solid proof." I was saying something more like "Don't immediately lynch someone without solid proof." And, yeah, looking back, that's kind of hypocritical of me, since I went on the "lynch romangoro" train right away, but I didn't realize how bad it was until that gun was pointed directly at my face. I should have done a Finger of Suspicion instead.

I hope next time I last more than one night.

Getting killed off in the first day or night in Mafia feels like dying to the first Goomba in Super Mario Brothers to me. It's not fun, at all, and you feel like "Welp... There's a couple of weeks I'm out of playing the game now..." and "Why did I join this game in the first place if I can't play it?" Unless the game only takes another week or so to resolve, that's a long time out of a game for a player. (And also, extended and repeated apologies for my several-month absences in the game I attempted to run. Looking back as a player now, that must have seemed horrible. It's just that: One, I signed up for it before real life went ridiculous for a while there. Two, it was my first GMing experience of anything, ever, and I didn't realize there was nothing for the GM to do while play was going on, so I lost focus on the game after a couple of days. (Bad for someone with ADD.) Three, real life is still being ridiculous.)

Maybe playing this IRL might be better, where you're only out a couple of minutes, but I have zero people to play anything with IRL. (This is why I'm so sad that the MaryLRRnd thread hasn't gotten off the ground in getting a meet-up organized.)

From my experience Memo, that's just Mafia.

Hunh... So basically, this is you saying that from your experience, I should stop playing, then?

It started off fine, with two good games... Then, I had that game where I was confused the whole time... (I still haven't been able to read the whole thread again and sort that out.) Then, there was this game... So, maybe the two games I started with in were very abnormal?

I agree, in person and between people that know each other, arguments like "you stole a course" (i.e., got a passing grade without actually studying) is good enough to lynch someone, and "you are all accusing me because I'm 20" (in my 28th birthday) is enough to stop defending that someone.

I don't even understand what you're saying here, let alone trying to understand why it may or may not be good logic in the game... Clarify, please?

I could have just said, hey, that's a bit odd. But that gets no where.

I disagree. I think it would've spurred discussion, which is what you need when you have no information.

Everyone was making puns, and what-not, and we'd have got no information at all if we passed the day. Instead we learned more about you, and by extension the people who you voted with, or who voted with you, etc. Plus, if we actually get people talking on day one, then the death on night one can give some clues too (did they say something the mafia didn't like?).

I still don't feel that consigning me to death was necessary to do that. I think a Finger of Suspicion would've sufficed until I could have explained myself.

Unfortunately, you were the first to do something I thought seemed odd. In this case, it was rapidly changing your vote, based on what I thought was rather flimsy arguments by others to do so.

I was ready to do the traditional "No Lynch First Day" thing, which is what I thought was typical of these games? I thought that, since you rarely have any solid information on Day 1, No Lynch is just what you do. Am I wrong about this?

But then, Kapol swooped in with what I saw as a strong (not "flimsy") argument against romangoro and genuinely convinced me, so I was like, "OK... I can see that." Hindsight shows that I probably shouldn't've gone straight for the discard, but I'm a relative n00b at this, having only played 3 games of this prior.

Also, I thought that I was completely safe from Town at that point. The reasoning in my mind for that was you saying this:

(No hidden messages, it just means we can ask someone we're suspicious of to claim an actual card, and see if anyone else wants to claim the same card. I mean, it's then each person's word against the other, and risks exposing the Doctor/Investigator/etc, but it's something.)

Right afterwards, I said this:

(Or someone could just claim a card right away...)

So I was thinking everyone would be like "Claim a card right away? What does he mean by that? Let me check his first post." Then, after you checked my first post, you'd see that I was the 4 of Clubs immediately.

So then, my logic was "korvys is accusing me! Since I'm safe from Town lynchings now, that must mean he's Mafia! Ix and Jam are supporting him, so that must mean they're Mafia, too! Mafia knew from the start I'm not Mafia, and by role-claiming on my first post, with no one countering my claim, everyone else knows I'm not Mafia either. Therefore, Mafia has found out I'm not a power role, and thus, they're eliminating me, since they have nothing else to go on, and will pick randomly tonight."

As I said, I fully expected I could be wrong, and would be putting my neck on the line to do it. I felt it was the best way for the town to get information, even if it cost town lives, including my own.

I don't mind losing, but I do mind losing unfairly and it simply seemed unfair to me at the time.

[JackSlack]

Memo, I'm going to side with everyone else here. That's just mafia. Wild accusations, finger pointing and gambits are all par for the course. You might wildly accuse someone just to see if someone else leaps on board with it. (Classic mafia move, especially early on.) It's a game of lies, deceit and detective work. I know you dig the third part, but the lies and deceit are a big part of the game.

[AdmiralMemo]

Well, from my first game, the MLP game, you can see that I'm down with deceit as well. I'm even fine with expecting others to lie, even when I don't outright lie myself. I question. I misdirect. I confuse. I hedge. I make others question. If I'm Mafia, I might even try to convince others to do some lying. But I don't lie. And perhaps I thought, after 3 years of being here on the forums, everyone knew me better than they really do, and wouldn't expect me to lie. (This just makes me even more depressed and alone... )

If that means that I'm not right for this game, then I guess you guys should just kick me out and have me not play anymore.

As I said, maybe IRL Mafia might be better for me, with its much quicker games, but that just means that unless we have another LRRcon, I will never play Mafia again. (And I didn't even get to play Mafia at this past LRRcon. I was having too much fun playing Cards Against Beejanity... Though, there hasn't been a Runners' "Hangouts Against Humanity" in a good long while, either, like there used to be.)