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.
Reply With Quote
)
Originally Posted by TosaInu
- Horseman of the 
ATPG still likes me even though I'm a loser. Yaay.
Bookmarks