Askthepizzaguy's thread about overpowered roles, and the discussion therein, got me thinking. More specifically, it got me thinking most notably about one thing in particular:
Do detective roles actually enhance the game experience?
Now, I know what a lot of you are probably thinking. Of course they do! They're as much of a part of mafia as the mafia themselves are! Before you scream bloody murder, listen to my ramblings.
~~~~~~~~~~
To me, the entire point of mafia is to have fun. Yes, winning is nice (and, don't get me wrong, every player's goal should definitely be to win), but I would much rather have a blast losing than have a terrible time winning. I think it's safe to say that I'm in the majority of Gameroom players with this philosophy; after all, according to Romanic's fabulous statistics thread, the average player loses significantly more than they win. Or, if you want that in cold numbers, out of a sampling size of three-hundred and twenty-seven players, the average player wins only 42.1% of the time -- less than half. Clearly, players aren't coming back to play more games because they're an unstoppable winning machine. Rather, it's typically because they had a fun time.
If the players keep playing games because they're fun, then it logically follows that the duty of the host is to craft a game which is fun for its players. Here's where the detective part comes in.
Do detective roles actually make the game more fun? Or are they only part of the game because it's such a traditional role?
Detectives often spiral games into "lynch whoever the detective tells us to lynch" mode, which I personally find boring. Mafia thrives when it is a game based on inferences and conjecture, and the inclusion of a detective role completely eliminates that inference and conjecture which makes the game fun. Putting together a case to nab a mafioso is one of the most thrilling and rewarding experiences a player can have; something a detective removes from the game. Why bother making a case when Mr. Detective will swoop in with his confirmed results, when he knows with certainty that a certain player is a scumbag? Where is the thrill and reward in lynching a mafioso because the host confirmed to you that player was, in fact, scum?
I know there are false detectives, but these raise problems in themselves. First, there is the problem that the host is outright lying to the player. Do we really want that in our games? I'm not talking about the host misleading the player; I have no quarrel with that. But lying -- not a half truth, not a red herring, not misleading, but LYING -- are we really okay with that? Secondly, who wants to receive a false detective role? If a false detective receives confirmation from the host that so-and-so is scum, when he actually isn't, that's two wasted lynches right there -- one to lynch so-and-so, then another to lynch the false detective the next day phase. Again, who wants to be a false detective?
Perhaps most importantly, there is also the issue of utterly ruining the game for the mafia. Getting caught out by a detective is the worst feeling in the world as a mafioso, because you did nothing wrong; one lucky player simply received confirmation from the host that you're scum.
That last point also leads to some players rarely being able to successfully win as mafia due to metagaming. Ask Askthepizzaguy about getting scanned on night one when he's mafia, it's happened to him several times.
More personally, I came this close to leaving mafia forever after this happened to me:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...6#post10881656
Granted, not all of those were your typical detective results (mafia/scum), but still:In four nights of play, I was...
Scanned: 7 times!
Attacked: 3 times!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=898
I can't put into words how utterly frustrating discovering that was for me. I by no means played a perfect game, but no matter how perfectly I played, there is no way I could have gotten away from seven scans without getting lynched. I had no way of avoiding the onslaught of scans, and it was for no other reason than because I'm me.... scans Zack for items
... role scans zack
... faction scans zack
... scans zack for religious items
... scans zack for injury
... attacks zack
... faction scans zack
... attacks zack
... attacks zack
... PG scans zack
I know for a fact I'm not the only player with such horror stories to tell. There are plenty of people who likely have much worse stories.
Now tell me, is a role that eliminates a person's chance of winning as mafia, simply because of their username, a role which enhances the mafia experience?
~~~~~~~~~~
There is a relatively popular sports writer named Bill Simmons, someone I'd wager most of you have never heard of. He has a method, called "The Table Test", of determining the merit of a basketball player. "The Table Test" essentially states that a valuable player brings more to the table than he takes off. If a player brings a deadly three-pointer and a wicked crossover to the table; but takes defense, passing, discipline, chemistry, and rebounding off of it; that player, even though they bring a ton to the table, fails the Table Test.
What I ask, mafia players of the Gameroom, is whether or not detective roles pass the Table Test (the enjoyment of the players being the "Table"). Does it bring more to the Table than it takes off?
Me? I'm convinced that the detective role fails the Table Test. Miserably.
Discuss.
Bookmarks