Gameroom discussion: Overpowered roles and game balance

[Montmorency]

5) I think this depends on how actively it impacts the game. For example, in A Country for Old Men I had a role that had to kill all people with names starting with 'J' (but had no nightkill, could only use the lynch). That's fairly passive and is by nature secretive, so I wouldn't think disclosing it would be necessary. The Joker on the other hand has a massive, active impact on the game, and so should be disclosed. One's a side-show, one's the main deal.

Well, that's not really a role: it's a VC.

Joker should be a really difficult role. If it is known from the start that there is a Joker, and if the Joker wins only if lynched when 50% or less of the players remain (losing no matter what otherwise)...

If a game host answers untruthfully, that's different than not answering. That's misleading the game players intentionally or not intentionally, and breaks the game for them.

They've got to be able to rely on the game host to give accurate rule information. If there's no detective by rule, and a detective shows up, the game host is a blankety blank.

Oh, I misread that as affecting non-disclosers.

Didn't this happen in the last few months? I swear I can remember something - was involved. I'm sure of it.

I do not think that roles that can use abilities or vote even when they are dead can be balanced in this same fashion.

Eh, maybe something like 4 dead townies can *haunt* a player: effective roleblock? Even as a one-shot for those involved? Such an arrangement seems balanced, and could certainly add flavor if it conforms to the universe of that particular game.

A final note on dead speech: I wish more hosts would give a lot more thought to their rules on private conversation. I think a lot of game balance issues occur because roles that were conceived of for use in vanilla mafia games (which inherently have no PMing) are used in games that actively encourage private discussion. The balance of a game setup can shift dramatically depending on how much information players are allowed to share privately. In practice, I feel like allowing private conversation, but limiting the content, can be confusing and turns some players into rules lawyers who try and figure out how to stay within the letter of the rules while still sharing information in self-serving manners. I am personally guilty of this. I think it is best to either let everything be fair game, particularly role PMs, or to completely ban conversation outside the public thread. This is particularly true for dead players. With the exception of dead mafioso, who I think should be able to continue private discussions with their living teammates, I think it is generally a very bad idea to allow dead players to communicate anywhere except in the public thread. It can wreck game balance for the same reason that dead abilities can: the players are invulnerable to repercussions. If you allow dead players to organize group efforts, convey investigation results (even if the actual PMs can't be quoted), etc., you are giving players the ability to engage in positive activities to disrupt their enemies, without their enemies having any ability to stop them in any way.

I'm pro-transparency by default. Communicating night actions could probably be forbidden most of the time in small games. Also, remember that if there is no reveal upon death, a dead scumbag can infiltrate his scheming ghost-foes.

Game balance means just that: balance. If you are adding in a role or ability that the opposing side cannot counter, then the role or ability is unbalanced. It is not enough to be satisfied with a setup where a role or ability is capable of being countered if X, Y, and Z happens, because that still means that the role cannot be countered if those things do not happen. When it comes down to it, the town should always retain the ability to win if they vote for the right people and the mafia should always retain the ability to win if they can just avoid getting lynched. The whole point of mafia is the lynch phase. These games exist for the day phase voting first and foremost, and I'd like to see some focus put back on the day instead of the night.

More day-actions it is, then!

[Sigurd]

I agree with what has been said.. mostly.
And I understand the gripe TinCow brings to this discussion about dead players. I was guilty of bringing in those in my Star Wars game and I realized that they were indeed faulty. I brought them here, and I publicly declare them unfit for mafia games.

About the detective, tracker, watcher roles... The host should consider ambiguity and alibis for those scanned.

Then we have the long debated issue of private discussion. Setting a rule against it with all those tools around us which enable us to discuss things outside the game thread is utopia. I know some of you have high ideals concerning fair play and adhering to strict rules, but reality is that some will break them. How will this be brought to the attention of the host? -> whistle blowing by co-players. Which will just bring bad feelings into this, which will last outside the game.

As officers in the Navy, we knew the men were trusting each other if there were no "ratting" among the men. They took collective punishment and sorted it out among themselves. This was a healthy sign. And they were repeatedly tested on this during bootcamp. The goal was to make a chain with no weak links. (this is not the discussion of a group bringing forth a bad apple, that is different)

Having games with too strict rules against things that is so easily broken are just like those tests that one have in boot camp, with the purpose to forge a strong group of men and women.
It would just be easier that the hosts would factor in private sharing of roles, abilities and results.
There is a potential here for gathering a large group of people wanting to play mafia games. This group will be largely international and I would advice us to be more lenient in these things.

[Jarema]

For many of mentioned roles, the perfect solution IMO could be limiting them. Either they can be used only limited number of times (like doctor, who can protect 3 times), or they have other limitations. Like doctor, who cannot protect the same person twice in a row. The issues that you mentioned, ATPG, are then not as important.

OTOH, I agree that asking those questions would not hurt anyone, and host can just reject them