suggestions(Some of which kdogg suggested) 2 inspectors? Instead of guesses, give the inspector a specific name. Do the inspectors get the same name at the same time? I think yes. One, the inspectors would have more teeth.. but two, it would be easier to spot them I'd think This round only: Time limit for mafiosi discussion: After a set time, if the mafia have not responded with who dies, a random citizen will be selected.
Post by handgunhipster on May 28, 2008 17:14:09 GMT -5
I don't know if the addition of another inspector would help or hurt... No one listens to the inspector as is.. or usually thats the case-- and it could make them look like mafia from the get-go. I might be wrong.
But I DO think that there should be a set time limit for mafia.
I'm in for next game, and I'll ref if no one else wants too.
hm... i'm not sure how to fix the inspector role. because handgunhips is right, seems if they speak up they get mistaken for mafia.
but let me just say, we [mafia] we're annoyed that kdogg was able to say in the middle of the game that handgunhips wasn't mafia. cause that changed the direction of the game. i really think if you aren't playing the game, you should be very limited to what you get to say.
like, megs last post. normally i would have said something, but i was ready for the game to be over. hahaah but, i dont think input that can change the game should be allowed unless it is given by someone still alive. haha
Post by strumntheguitar on May 28, 2008 17:29:13 GMT -5
count me in for mafia 11.
A few suggestions/comments from my end, feel free to dismiss them:
-No withdrawing your vote. Change votes all you want, but I think if you want to change your vote you need to have someone else in mind and not just delay the game more by holding out on a vote. Sure the extended time for discussion and persuasion is dandy, but the only problem with that is the word "extended" :p
-I really like the idea of the time limit on mafia decision or else random citizen gets the ax
-Instead of making the inspector guess or just give them a name, I think a clue could be better/more fun. That way the inspector still has to think... The format of the clue could be up to the person running that round or there could be a set form of giving clues... if there's enough interest in this I could ponder up some ideas and run them by everyone
-Although at the time I was merely kidding, I do think it would be interesting in a way to incorporate a revival of a citizen to be voted on by all remaining members... not sure exactly how we could go about doing that really tho...
Good game everyone. I think people should be able to withdraw their votes but we should have a predetermined time for voting to end... say 24 hours for daylight rounds and 12-18 for mafia rounds. I realized when I changed mine that I could have attempted to filibuster until I got my way, that's a flaw ( however I admit I was quick to try to use it).
I played a similar game called Werewolf once. It had the Doctor as an additional role. Each night he could pick one person to protect. If the mafia tried to kill that person then it was listed as a miss although only the mafia and the Dr. know who was targeted.
Strum, I agree with your logic about the inspector's voting in the first round, however at that point I was grasping at anything to save my own ass. Initially I was just trying to get votes away from me in any way possible.
Last Edit: May 28, 2008 17:57:16 GMT -5 by Guest - Back to Top
I think expanding the player roster to 13 and keeping the same number of roles is the best way to go about things, at least for a starting point.
It's simplest. All the other rules stay the same, except there's two more citizens. I suspect some confusion might be generated by some of these other ideas, at least for starters. A lot of these other ideas are good, but I think some of them might be too-specific solutions to some general problems.
If we're going to alter the nature of the game, we should probably first have a consensus as to what the problem is first. As I see it, there's two main aspects of the problem that need to be addressed. 1. The mafia is favored by the game's time-frame. 2. The Inspector role is kind of weak.
I think 13-player games w/ same rules would go farthest in addressing these two issues without creating much confusion.
It essentially gives the citizens another round to figure things out, so the 11th hour won't come as soon. Extra time for deliberating these decisions could lead to better decisions being made. It would extend the time it would take for Mafia to outnumber the citizens, countering the inherent time-frame advantage the mafia apparently has. The Inspector isn't necessarily strengthened by it. Instead, I think it would make the Inspector less weak. More citizens for Mafia to suspect as Inspector, I think, makes the target on the Inspector's back a bit smaller. Additionally, more voices in the discussion might make future Inspectors less fearful of being singled out.
The biggest downside to this plan that I can think of is time. If you guys thought games could go long with 11 players, I don't think 13 players is going to go any more smoothly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A few other thoughts
I want to go on the record as officially opposed to Strum's suggestion: No withdrawing your vote. Change votes all you want, but I think if you want to change your vote you need to have someone else in mind and not just delay the game more by holding out on a vote. Sure the extended time for discussion and persuasion is dandy, but the only problem with that is the word "extended" I like the null vote option, but it needs some changes. Rather than prohibit it entirely, there should be some kind of check on it. I instead suggest that we add some kind of over-ride in the event there's a holdout voter. Perhaps after X amount of time (24 hours?) from the casting of a null vote, the number of votes needed to close voting could be reduced by one. That would give holdouts time to speak their piece, but still has a mechanism for moving the game along.
Speaking of moving the game along, another couple thoughts: Instant +1 vote added for any player who doesn't vote within 24 hours of a new round's posting. Time limits for mafia hits - again, maybe 24 hours. If they don't meet the deadline, they don't get to whack someone. If Mafia is disorganized enough to be unable to make a decision within 24 hours, let them elect a leader to make those calls in the absence of consensus. Or if you guys prefer a "random citizen gets the ax" approach, let me suggest an alternative: a random player gets the ax, with mafia being included in that random choice. I don't think it's fair to exclude them from harm for a problem they've caused. The Inspector would have to get some kind of time limit, if everyone else does. Perhaps they could get an actual guess within 24 hours, and after that only get to ask a Yes/No question, "20 Questions" style. What about the possibility of casting two half-votes? That gives those on the fence between two particular players an option to keep things going.
I'll ref a 13-player game with some time limits if we can agree upon some. And Sadie, like I said this game - I couldn't exactly put the toothpaste back in the tube. All I can do next time I ref is vow to only post for vote totals, progress updates and in response to inquiries specifically addressed to me.
Or if you guys prefer a "random citizen gets the ax" approach, let me suggest an alternative: a random player gets the ax, with mafia being included in that random choice. I don't think it's fair to exclude them from harm for a problem they've caused..
I feel that could thoroughly confuse the citizens though because who the mafia kills is a huge part in figuring out their identity.
I think the best way to do this would be similar to whoever suggested the "misfires" idea. If the mafia doesn't get the vote in on time then it's recorded as a misfire. Now we all know schedule conflicts arise and sometimes the mafia can't all get together and vote in a timely manner, but that's when giving one mafia member the title of spokesperson and he/she can have the power to make the decision themself if necessary. Usually within 3 people picked as mafia there's somebody who is on inforoo relatively frequently...
There are three mafia, but more than three rounds to a game.
Maybe this distinction will clarify, because I think this is just a vocab mix-up. Here's where I'm coming from, word-wise: Game: playing Mafia, start-to-finish. Round: a period of time within a game, consisting of one Day and one Night.
I am talking about the procedure of the game in general. You suggested giving the Inspector one Mafia name each round of a game. But a game may last longer than three rounds. If the Inspector has all three Mafia IDed in three rounds, what happens in the fourth round of a game? That's what I was asking about.
The Inspector definitely stops getting names. Does this privilege simply cease with Night 4, or does the Inspector get some other benefit in rounds subsequent to Night 3 upon receiving the final Mafia ID?
At that point the inspector just knows who all the mafia are, there are no other benefits. I just think it would be beneficial that the inspector know Mafia IDs sooner rather than later as later their chances of getting offed increase significantly
I'm up for reffing another round. I think it'd be interesting to have the ref's vantage point in consecutive rounds sandwiched around a rule change. It could help in figuring out whether things are working or not.
But I still think we should seriously consider eliminating guessing, especially with 13 players.
On the first night, the inspector (assuming they don't guess themselves) is faced with 12 possible guesses. Thats around an 8 percent chance of a correct guess. The second night would be a 10 percent chance. The third night would be a 12 percent chance.
By the time the game gets into the later rounds, the chances are of course much better... but by then the inspector is usually dead.
An alternative would be giving the Inspector a list of possible mafia each night.. then continuing to narrow the list, so the Inspector could try to defend a citizen he/she knows is innocent, but I would much rather go back to the original system.