Mafia- "Good" players.

[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?

[B-Wing]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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

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

[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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Double A]

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Double A]

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

[Skooma Addict]

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.

[GeneralHankerchief]

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.

[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.

[Double A]

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.

[Backwards Logic]

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...

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.

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.

[Zack]

@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.

[Renata]

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.