Mafia- "Good" players.

This isn't a game but a mafia-related post and possibly a discussion, should it interest folks.

I was talking to one of my fellow players recently who was discouraged by recent losses and just felt like they were no good at this kind of game, and had no business playing. I gave them my thoughts on the subject, I'd like to share some of them here. From my perspective, there are some things about mafia games which are relevant to gauging a "good player", and many things which are not relevant.

Firstly, people often blame themselves for a loss or credit themselves for correct guesses, and so on. I do this myself, especially if I've "lost" a game. I recall a few games where I guessed so wrong and got nothing right and I beat myself up over it. It's an interesting way to gauge how well you're doing, is by your correct guesses or whatnot. But, one could point out that for every correct guess, there are usually a bunch of incorrect guesses, an each one can be considered counterproductive. And in our minds, we remember the successes and they override the failures, and that turns a closely-matched game of ups and downs into an epic win in our own minds. Conversely, we could have been right on suspects, changed our mind later and let them go, and/or never got enough votes to lynch. Then, after losing the game, those right guesses don't matter anymore because they weren't productive or helpful. The end result is still the same, another "L". When those guesses are correct purely because a random number generator said so, and for no other reason, they are not skill-based at all, and it's just plain luck.

In my view, depending on the type of accusations leveled, this is mostly luck and guesswork. In fact, even the most persuasive and "evidence" based cases are built upon a foundation of theories and guesses and stereotypical behaviors or instincts. If I were to use a metaphor, in some sense mafia games are like those memory match card games. Suppose you manage to match up a bunch of cards purely by lucky guesswork, and then due to simple deduction, the remaining cards line up easier. Suppose you play the same way again, but your guesses aren't as lucky and it takes you longer to match up the cards. While your method remains the same, the outcome is different. Luck is still the dominant factor, and even when you apply basic logical deduction, you still have to guess from the remaining options. Deduction only gets you so far, so even skill, if any, is trumped by chance or luck.

Then, you also have to look at the structure of the game itself; usually, the mafia or scum teams are in a severe numerical and power disadvantage from the start. They have a knowledge advantage and have tools they can leverage to even the odds, but if the town guesses correctly, the mafia by rule stand absolutely no chance of succeeding, and therefore the game is always the town's to win or lose. There are tactics one can employ, and there are moves which can be persuasive and convincing, but at the end of the day you cannot force the votes to go in your favor. People can be stubborn and unmoved. You cannot kill them all immediately, and therefore, a mafia loss can be forced. That is why I encourage people to have fun and definitely do not take mafia losses seriously. Often times a game can put the mafia at a severe tactical disadvantage due to poor balancing or powerful town roles who get lucky. There's not much you can do to force a win in those situations, so therefore, winning as mafia has a skill component but is mostly.... luck.

Wherever luck is not a factor, there is persuasion; those lacking force can gain it through persuasion. Some folks are more persuasive than others, and will therefore have an advantage in the long term because they influence more force in a game.

As a townie who is not in the know, your ability to catch scum early is mostly determined by sheer dumb luck alone. Behavior-based catches are still built on the assumption that you can read someone else and their behavior, which is an assumption that if true should allow you to win against them 100% of the time, and no one has demonstrated that kind of ability. And it would make the game un-fun and rather unplayable even if it could be true. So, a townie depends on luck. As already stated, a mafia depends almost entirely on the townies being unlucky, because the townies have the ability to force a win if they guess right.

This is how I view the game; as townie the game is basically one where you pretend to be a psychic and make correct super bowl picks, and then whoever had the most correct picks at the end could consider themselves the luckiest or even skilled. However, if their team doesn't make it to the bowl and win, then their team still loses. Doesn't matter if your picks were right. The fun is in trying to guess right, and trying to convince others that you're right. Whether or not you do, is often out of your hands. An individual townie can rarely force a win, even as a vigilante. They usually rely on their team, to convince them, or for their mates to guess correctly when they do not, or to judge their behavior as being innocent.

If "Good" in this definition means one who succeeds, one must keep in mind that success almost always relies on help from others, votes from others, and about 80-90 percent pure dumb luck. And then you gotta hope the mafia don't destroy you right off the bat and that the host allows talking after death if you do, and then you still gotta convince people and they don't have to listen to you. So good means lucky (and sometimes persuasive), if you're a townie. Already mentioned, mafia can't force a win, therefore "good" for mafia means lucky (and sometimes persuasive).

If being a good player means winning, and winning means lucky, then who is or is not a good player changes depending on a random number generator, and I refuse to believe that. What makes a good player? If one is persuasive and inaccurate or unlucky, then their skill of being persuasive is actually bad. If one is lucky and accurate, but not persuasive, they're ineffective. Whether or not you're right or if people choose to listen to you, is often out of your hands entirely. So, it's not about winning. It can't be about winning, and it never was about winning.

Which was my main point I made to this fellow player of mine. To illustrate this point, I could point out that there have been several games I've played as mafia and won based on, literally, a coin flip decision at the end. I could have lost all of those games, were it not for pure... random... chance. Many games I play, I pull a name off the top of my head for absolutely no reason and I vote for them. A time here or there, that person was guilty. Is that skill? No. Most often, that player is innocent too, so yeah... who are we fooling, really?

The number of wins and losses does not make a good player, not by a long shot. I've noted that several people I consider excellent players, haven't even played many games, and many who do, often have a win percentage that is below the average. But, these are experienced players than many listen to and respect within the context of the game. Is there anything that does correlate with being a "good" player?

Suppose we strip wins and losses from consideration, or even correct guesses, since that is still luck-reliant. What about activity and persuasiveness? The so-called skill aspect of the game?

Neither activity (or much of it) nor persuasiveness are required to win games. It's not even required to play them. Many players are largely inactive in-thread and are active behind the scenes. Some players never make cases, they just vote with their gut and sometimes it works out. It's never required; in fact you could win a game without voting once, just because others found you too inactive to be mafia and lynched the right candidate. It could bring about an end result of victory. You just don't know. And we're not really counting wins as being part of being a good player anyway.

What about being funny or entertaining? No.... not everyone needs to spam up a thread with off-topic jokes to play the game. Although being entertaining is a nice bonus, it's not a requirement to play or be a good player.

As a game host, I have a different perspective. A good player is someone who signs up to your game, and makes an effort to win the game within the defined structure of the game and within the rules set forth by the game host, is gracious in victory and good humored in defeat. And it could be the only game they ever played, so obviously, experience is not necessary either. A good player will try to inform the host if they need to drop out, and make an effort not to sign up for games they know they won't be interested to play, or won't have time for.

And that's all, really.

I would play a hundred games with a player like that, because I enjoy the game, and that's all that's really "necessary". It doesn't matter if they're ever right on a suspect, or ever win a game as mafia. Doesn't matter at all. Their choices could be dead wrong, their choices could be dead right. That isn't what makes a good player. A sporting attitude and a desire to play the game, and any attempt to win the game within the game rules, is what makes a good player.

As a game host, I'll take one of those players over any number of players with a great win/loss record, but isn't sporting or makes no effort to play. The end goal for these games has always been to have fun, right? Well if fun was had, then the primary goal has been achieved. Any good player makes it possible for the game to exist, and for people to have fun, and then people can experience the joys of victory and the surprise of defeat. What goes around usually comes around, and most everyone gets to experience both. That's why it's never necessary for a player to win to be good, because when they aren't winning, someone else is, and hopefully, both players are still having fun.

I bring this up probably because I'm bored and slightly tired, and I tend to get rambly when I'm in that state, but also because I've seen the stress and pressure of winning get to certain players lately, not just the one I spoke to.

Guys, I play these games because it's fun to play with you. I'm sure someone could write a program which replaces you all with AI characters who vote randomly and are programmed to bandwagon occasionally and perform mafia-related tasks. And I'm sure that playing with those characters would be such a waste of time, because winning or losing those games would be just about pointless. If you like mafia and show up to play, and give it an honest effort, you're a great player.

And it doesn't matter if you win one game out of ten, or none. In my eye, you're just as "valuable" a player as the guy who won 8 of 10, because that guy couldn't have won any of those games without the help of other players and a ton of luck.

That's all. Feel free to comment. Needed to express it.

heh ofc there was a wall of text :p that counts as persuasiveness btw.

As for the content, I would to a large extend agree with you; luck is a major factor. Personally I think that when it comes down to skills, it is about knowing how to read certain players (in other words, skill takes experience). Is this/that out of character, is that a line of reasoning or behavior you would expect? If you learn to read these signs then there is clearly skill at work imo (educated guess(guess = luck))

I think it is good that you bring up this topic, as it is only natural that you blame yourself for doing bad. After all , the more effort you put into it, the more personal it becomes, and until it is being regarded as a fun but impersonal result, it can cause annoyance and sadness regarding the outcome. In other words the 'correct' focus when it comes to judgements, will be to judge the process and not the results.
(sorry if I am just going 'second' now)

*#%! happens. Don't worry about it. There will always be another game.

(also, if you're really bored, you could always get around to answering my PM... :grin:)

I play because it's good fun working out whodunnit, I enjoy the themes of the set-ups, and also because I really like improving the kind of reasoning it requires. Being able to think on your feet and argue your way out of a sticky situation is a skill which will be of use to me in the future.

:cry: ATPG still likes me even though I'm a loser. Yaay.

Seriously though; You're right about the fun and the winning and the losing and the "good player" aspect. I won't say anything you said is contrary to GE's opinion; Even if you learn to read some players better, you can still be wrong. Also, you seldom know the setup of the game; your readings might be jumbled by aspects you don't know about (such as roles that make people act in another way than usual, etc).

I have to admit. The games were easier in the past.
Many of the new players never experienced the slack learning curve that we oldies benefited from.
Maybe to grow a new generation of mafia players, we would need to provide the same learning curve.

I am having difficulties with the new type of games with their complexity... even though I have participated in this site's evolution of this particular brand of online games.
Would introducing old style games in a tiered system help new players become familiar with these games? To get a sense and feel of the concept before being thrown into ATPG's new 8 team mafia, 3 warring townie groups and 4 dimension voting system game?

I do't know. I think once you've played one basic Mafia game, you can quickly grasp most of the expanded possibilities. Though, in reading some of the OPs and commentaries on post-2007 games, it seems there's a lot of emphasis on hidden elements and secret roles, which I'm not sure that I can fully appreciate yet. I would think that the less the players know about what they're up against, the less they will enjoy the game. But then again, I can see how players who have been playing regularly for years would appreciate unpredictable elements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

ATPG's new 8 team mafia, 3 warring townie groups and 4 dimension voting system game

---

Oh, Sigurd. If only it were that simple.... :laugh4:

You're forgetting trust, Pizza. You have to trust people enough that they're townies if you're a power role, or that the doctor you know is really a doctor, so that you can reveal you're a cop. That might seem like persuasiveness, but it's not the same. Try to remember a case where you rightfully trusted someone for some inexplicable reason, that's what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Double A

You're forgetting trust, Pizza. You have to trust people enough that they're townies if you're a power role, or that the doctor you know is really a doctor, so that you can reveal you're a cop. That might seem like persuasiveness, but it's not the same. Try to remember a case where you rightfully trusted someone for some inexplicable reason, that's what I'm talking about.

---

Choosing to trust someone based on no reasons is also related to luck.

If you have no reason to trust them, but you're doing it anyway, the outcome is good or bad based on what the random number generator that picked the roles had to say. Anything you can't chalk up to skill, is going to be random chance, and even the skill-based stuff relies on a lot of factors outside your control. That's why my thesis was mostly about luck, and why folks should not beat themselves up over good or bad results. It's a glorified guessing game that starts off essentially involving dice. A good player is one that is willing to roll the dice, that's all you can do.

Stop acting so pessimistic, Pizza, it doesn't suit you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Double A

Stop acting so pessimistic, Pizza, it doesn't suit you.

---

It's not pessimism. It would be if I said there was no point in trusting people, but what I am saying is it's a risk, and your success often depends on luck alone.

Also, speaking to game complexity.

In one recent game, and others like it, I've seen folks get bogged down by a game's complexity. Too much is going on, too much information is available, and there are side goals that are distracting. Often times people have trouble following it all, especially if they don't know the backstory or the characters. One of the few things I said that game that was meant to be taken seriously, was that it's still a mafia game. You still vote for who you think is guilty, and if you're guilty, you try to avoid death. I've found myself floating in games on other sites, like Night of the Werewolf games, with backstories too complicated for me to follow and characters I couldn't roleplay as. But, the game was still about voting for the guilty people.

Too much going on can be intimidating. But, at the core of things, as long as people are voting, the basic game is still being played. I think it helps folks to remember that's their main objective in mafia; vote for the right people. All else could even be ignored if it is too complicated.

Oh, I see. It just seems to me like you're reducing mafia to its base components because you're upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Double A

Oh, I see. It just seems to me like you're reducing mafia to its base components because you're upset.

---

Me? I'm not. Not sure where you're getting that impression from.

It's mostly aimed at folks I've spoken to recently who put stock in whether they lose these game, and think it makes them a bad player. It does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Me? I'm not. Not sure where you're getting that impression from.

It's mostly aimed at folks I've spoken to recently who put stock in whether they lose these game, and think it makes them a bad player. It does not.

---

Totally true.

I lose games all the time, and I'm the best player on this whole forum!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Me? I'm not. Not sure where you're getting that impression from.

It's mostly aimed at folks I've spoken to recently who put stock in whether they lose these game, and think it makes them a bad player. It does not.

---

I don't know either, I just got it somehow.

Derp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

I have to admit. The games were easier in the past.
Many of the new players never experienced the slack learning curve that we oldies benefited from.
Maybe to grow a new generation of mafia players, we would need to provide the same learning curve.

I am having difficulties with the new type of games with their complexity... even though I have participated in this site's evolution of this particular brand of online games.
Would introducing old style games in a tiered system help new players become familiar with these games? To get a sense and feel of the concept before being thrown into ATPG's new 8 team mafia, 3 warring townie groups and 4 dimension voting system game?

---

BOLDED: That is an excellent idea. Perhaps someone(s) should host a game(s) which has an experience requirement level of some kind. Can only sign up if you played 5 games or less or 10 games etc. Like a proving ground area of the game room. I could have benefited from such a thing. I played horrifically for over a year before I decided to take the time to learn more and revise my style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skooma Addict

BOLDED: That is an excellent idea. Perhaps someone(s) should host a game(s) which has an experience requirement level of some kind. Can only sign up if you played 5 games or less or 10 games etc. Like a proving ground area of the game room. I could have benefited from such a thing. I played horrifically for over a year before I decided to take the time to learn more and revise my style.

---

Executive veto on this one. This idea has been proposed in the past, but so long as I have a say in Gameroom affairs it's not going to happen. I fully understand the benefits of this sort of system, but it also creates an entirely unnecessary class system. The goal is to get everyone playing and having a good time together, not have two or three separate societies that rarely mingle with each other.

While I see where peeps are going with the games for new players idea, to keep them simple and to help the new players learn, I have usually advocated a policy of getting players involved right away and treating them like one of the family, and explaining concepts and answering questions as the game progresses. Usually, after a game or two, a player knows enough about what's going on to be considered fair game.

While I try not to metagame, I do try not to murder or lynch a new player right off the bat; in the words of Jim Carrey as the Riddler- "Don't kill him! If you kill him, he won't learn nothin'!". Of course, if I have reason to suspect them, such as investigation results or they accidentally blurt out that they're guilty... well, what can you do?

In games involving team efforts like group actions, contacting new players and getting them involved in team efforts allows them to experience how it usually goes, so they will be prepared to lead their own efforts in future games.

Other than that, new folks rarely need help; the premise of the game is simple enough and there is no sure-fire winning strategy that works every time, so they're bound to get contradictory advice regarding strategy. Getting people involved and treating them like members of the group is much like teaching someone to swim. Sometimes you just have to jump right in.

That said, vanilla games more often wouldn't hurt.

We already see a decent number of true vanilla games. What I'd like to see are a few games where the only power roles are cops, doctors, and maybe a vig if one is big enough. No complex mechanics, no jokers, and no time travel, just a mostly regular game.

Before I go any further, for those that don't know, I'm a CFC'r that's lurked here since forever-ago. Hosted a handful of games over there too. Also, I'm partially hammered, so pardon the random spelling errors and grammatical errors. Anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Also, speaking to game complexity.

In one recent game, and others like it, I've seen folks get bogged down by a game's complexity. Too much is going on, too much information is available, and there are side goals that are distracting. Often times people have trouble following it all, especially if they don't know the backstory or the characters. One of the few things I said that game that was meant to be taken seriously, was that it's still a mafia game. You still vote for who you think is guilty, and if you're guilty, you try to avoid death. I've found myself floating in games on other sites, like Night of the Werewolf games, with backstories too complicated for me to follow and characters I couldn't roleplay as. But, the game was still about voting for the guilty people.

Too much going on can be intimidating. But, at the core of things, as long as people are voting, the basic game is still being played. I think it helps folks to remember that's their main objective in mafia; vote for the right people. All else could even be ignored if it is too complicated.

---

Hmmm... You wouldn't be remembering this game, would you? Even if you aren't, the parallels are definitely there. While we're on the complexity train, I'd definitely say that complexity changes the dynamics of the game. Speaking from experience in both hosting and playing, the more things added to a game means more ways to catch the mafia team. In the linked game, every player had the option to do something at night and while it didn't directly lead to any mafia lynches, the opportunity was there to question specific night actions on a nightly basis (as in, 'what did you do last night?'). While complexity isn't a bad thing, (in fact, I'd argue it's a good thing to break the mold), hosts and players have to realize the more complex a game is (with more mechanics and such) the further the game gets away from its roots (vote for the bad guys). IMO, 'Vanilla' mafia games should make a comeback, if only to reinforce this basic idea on which these games were founded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

While I see where peeps are going with the games for new players idea, to keep them simple and to help the new players learn, I have usually advocated a policy of getting players involved right away and treating them like one of the family, and explaining concepts and answering questions as the game progresses. Usually, after a game or two, a player knows enough about what's going on to be considered fair game.

While I try not to metagame, I do try not to murder or lynch a new player right off the bat; in the words of Jim Carrey as the Riddler- "Don't kill him! If you kill him, he won't learn nothin'!". Of course, if I have reason to suspect them, such as investigation results or they accidentally blurt out that they're guilty... well, what can you do?

In games involving team efforts like group actions, contacting new players and getting them involved in team efforts allows them to experience how it usually goes, so they will be prepared to lead their own efforts in future games.

Other than that, new folks rarely need help; the premise of the game is simple enough and there is no sure-fire winning strategy that works every time, so they're bound to get contradictory advice regarding strategy. Getting people involved and treating them like members of the group is much like teaching someone to swim. Sometimes you just have to jump right in.

That said, vanilla games more often wouldn't hurt.

---

Agreed. I've considered hosting very basic games over at CFC, but haven't due to time. Moving storylines and items/abilities/items/crazy twists are all awesome in their own special way, but it can distract from the basic concept. A simple game of 20 players, 2 mafia, and 1 kill per night with no cop/doctor roles is still a balanced and entertaining game. I feel complexity in some cases is only there to break the mold of this formula. Not to say it's bad or anything, but like I said earlier, the more complex a game is, the further away it gets from its roots.

As for what makes a player 'good,' it's very simple. Try. That's really it. Who cares if you're wrong, as most of us are at a high percentage. If you put the effot into trying to help whichever team you're on, and play within the spirit of the game, you're a good player. Good players are the ones hosts want to play in their game. Good players are the ones that make a post every now and then that express their own opinon, right or wrong. Quite frankly, that opinion could be totally out of left field, but as long as they're within the rules and actively particapating, who cares? Luck is a huge part of these games, sure, no question. Really good players are the ones that can convince other people through reasoning that their idea/reasons/whatever are more correct than their own. I'm a stubborn player by nature, but if someone else can convince me their reasoning is more correct than my own, they get kicked up a few notches in my book. Doesn't matter if they end up totally wrong later. They still got me to back them. And that, to me, is the sign of a good player.

@BL: I believe ATPG was referring to a current large game on this site, not Impending Retribution.


On the subject of persuasion, I would like to note myself as an interesting example (I'm such a narcissist). On CFC, particularly in small games, I hold a lot of persuasion in my hands. If I really set my mind to it, it sometimes seems like I can get the town to lynch whoever I want. It's even happened when everyone thought I was a scumbag. I don't mean to brag or exaggerate my abilities, either -- I consider myself to be exceptionally average at the game of mafia, especially when I'm innocent. I suppose it's probably because I host a lot of games there and do the housekeeping, more than anything else.

On the org, though, it's a different story, in more ways than one. I hold almost no persuasion here (I'm not nearly as experienced here, I'm not as familiar with the style of play, IMO there are often a lot of better players than me here). I'm always town (on CFC, it's surprisingly close to 50/50 on whether or not I'm town) here. My win/loss record here is terrible, while at CFC it's pretty average.

In short, I think you could argue that how persuasive someone is is based largely on how well-known that player is.

Not sure what it all means, if anything, but it's definitely interesting. Or at least I think it is. I doubt any of you care. :laugh4:

Well I just lost another game over on TWC, which makes something like a dozen in a row. I don't think I'm the person Pizza was talking about, but I may as well have been. I do play these games in part *to win*, and when you lose so many, SO often -- well what are you supposed to think, really? Obviously you're not doing something right. Chance only explains so much. It can't explain 0- 12. So while I appreciate all of the well-intentioned comments towards players like me, it just doesn't really help much. Sorry.

I regard you as one of the best players we have on the .Org, Renata.

I shouldn't have posted that, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

I shouldn't have posted that, sorry.

---

You're arguably the best townie I know, Renata. :bow:

Joins the "Renata is Awesome Bandwagon." ~:grouphug:

You're challenging/fun to play against/with. From my perspective as another player, there's not much more you can do for the rest of us than that.

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

~:grouphug:

---

I admit, you're among the many players who have been kicking themselves when they are down, lately.

I've had streaks of games where I died right away, streaks of games like 7-8 games in a row where I was blocked, investigated, killed, lynched etc between D1 and N2. Some games where several roles dogpile me the first night. You can't expect to win under such circumstances. AND, I've had games where I was alive almost the entire time, had vig-killing powers, and still lost (that game we both just lost at TWC). Losing happens.

So yeah... I understand and I feel your pain. And I've seen other players hit streaks of bad luck. I know you can't chalk it all up to luck, but it's still the largest single factor impacting the game. Everyone has bad streaks, if they play enough games. You play so many games that it was bound to happen, my friend. You're worse than me, you have like what, 4 sites that you play on? You're a maniac. You play that many games, you will hit a statistical anomaly here and there. And you'll have a game like you just told me about where a bunch of scums are nailed, one after another, right away.

You're still the type of player where people would bet on the pony even during a losing streak, because you will show up, you will vote, and you will give your best effort. You've also had plenty of experience nailing scums to the wall. You're the kind of player where it's bound to turn around. It is unavoidable, it is your destiny.

Be of good cheer, as you've already seen, you're the only one who is thinking poorly of yourself. It's in your mind. You're your biggest and harshest critic, and sometimes, you're an unfair critic of yourself I think. Just one man's opinion.

I havn't been a "good" player for over a year now. I'm not as active as I would like to be and I'm not going to make any excuses.
But when I play, I try to obey my three rules. That is.

1. Giving a chance to those whos been dying early recently
2. Not killing new comers and returnees early.
3. Never get WoGged. Or wreck the game.

I guess that makes me a okay player.

About hosting classical mafia for new comers, I suggest making a sticky sign up thread for these kind of games. The new comers get the priority in sign ups and when certain period of time passes, vets will fill the remaining position. Some body will volunteer to host the game.
If we do that, we can host a classical mafia when there is a demand.

i win.

Let's face it: If you're not Sasaki, you are bound to lose 90% of the games you play, one way or the other. :P

EDIT: More seriously, ATPG has some point. I myself see my correct guesses as work of genius. My incorrect guesses are simply normal and usual and I don't dwell on them too much.
While I also don't care too much when I die and/or lose, there are notable exceptions to it:
- Being lynched while being a townie for no reason. It pisses me off.
- Being townie, late-game and dependent on another utterly incompetent townie that makes the obvious wrong choice and costs us the game. Left me completely pissed off as well in the game it happened.
- Getting caught as Mafia in Day 1. (Next time I'm Mafia and I play with Sasaki, I'm gonna murder him on Night 1) I don't get nearly as pissed as in the other examples, but still it felt pretty depressing.

Nevertheless, when I win, it's usually a very, very awesome (Like Rubicon).

Good players are those who get into the spirit of the game and simply have fun with it. They are active and take part, even doing a little bit of homework when it comes to host clues and write-ups to have the fullest experience.

Bad players are those who just metagame and defy the spirit of the game at the expense of the enjoyment of other people. They are generally inactive and ignore interactively.

It's not about "winning" or "losing", it is more about the spirit and theme of the game, the enjoyment of it. It can be fun to lose, to admit you was outwitted by an opponent in a fair fight, there is nothing wrong with 'having a loss'. Only when things are not a fair fight is when tensions generally run high, but then there are players who impress me with their handling of those situations (Like Andres especially) who make me think "You know, he is a not a good mafia player, he is a great one!".

I don't count mafia games by who is alive at the end determining who played the best, you can end up with a situation where some one who deserves to 'win' ends up losing last minute by people who deserve to lose.

Quote:

---

What about being funny or entertaining? No.... not everyone needs to spam up a thread with off-topic jokes to play the game. Although being entertaining is a nice bonus, it's not a requirement to play or be a good player.

---

.....but....how else am I supposed to be active?

But seriously, I've played around 6 games, and, I admit, I hardly ever made any insightful posts.
I just can't read into a player's post to analyze it and make a point of it.
Regardless, that doesn't stop me from staying active in a game.

Even if that means posting memes every other post.

https://i1110.photobucket.com/albums...g?t=1303094756

heck theres no such thing as a good or bad player just an active or inactive one especially as a townie.

I stink at this game because i never put enough effort in that it deserves. the times where i have ive done well (pretending i was messed up from wisdom teeth and loopy off painkiller) as a result because i want to get back into the game lately I havent because I dont want to take some whos really going to get into its spot.

Bleh.

No one ever listens to anything I say. I'm always either nightkilled early or lynched.

Everyone takes my stupid jokes waaaay too seriously, and I often get lynched for it.

Bleh.

Vote: Zack
His scumminess knows no bounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

No one ever listens to anything I say. I'm always either nightkilled early or lynched.

---

I can empathise with that; t'isn't the nicest club to be in.

We're evaluating each others performances? Me next! :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zack

Bleh.

No one ever listens to anything I say. I'm always either nightkilled early or lynched.

Everyone takes my stupid jokes waaaay too seriously, and I often get lynched for it.

Bleh.

---

Thank you for summing up my experience on mafiascum.