I'm considering making it my normal playing style to lynch everyone who tries to excuse their bad play by saying "it's just my normal playing style".Iammars wrote:Anyway, I don't metagame by trying, but there are some playstyles I know down that it is how they always act, scummy or not (IS, BJ...)
Metagaming...
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
Exactly! To lynch me based on a playstyle that doesn't necessarily point to me being scum because I'm lynching people based on a playstyle that doesn't necessarily point to them being scum would be to engage in the very act that you would supposedly be punishing me for.Iammars wrote:So what? You're asking us not to lynch you based on a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point you to scum because your lynching people on a playstyle that doesn't necessarly point them to scum?
That's different. That's not bad play, that's consciously sacrificing success in the game in question with the aim of improving gameplay as a whole on the site. "Lynch all liars" is the same; do you think that's bad play?Cogito Ergo Surn wrote:I totally wrote the wrong thing. You'd have to lynch yourself, as you'd be using the "playstyle"-defense to justify bad play. That was it.
Or maybe I'm just hypocritical! Maybe hypocrisy is my personal playstyle. And under your premises, you have no business punishing me for my playstyle, because that's how I behave all the time, both as town and as scum. You'll just have to deal with it.-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
My impression was that they jump onto any bandwagon at all, which means there is no room for instincts to get involved. Even if that's not true, and even if they do have scum-finding instincts (which I'm not convinced of), why can't they try putting them into words?"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." - Oliver Cromwell-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
I understand perfectly well that the point is mostly to have fun. But there's fun, and then there's fun at other people's expense. I imagine much of the fun in BJ-type playing styles is in making people mad. (I've never played with BJ, though, and don't mean to pick on him in particular.)
Losing a game of mafia doesn't make me particularly unhappy, and winning a game of mafia doesn't make me particularly happy. In that sense, I don't care about winning.But, for me most of the fun is still inplaying for the win. Games like this have rules that are set up to create interesting strategic problems. Trying to solve these problems is a large part of what makes them fun for me. When others in my team start flailing around at random, that makes it less fun for me. In a team game, you do have some sort of duty to your fellow players to do your best.
Maybe players with different ideas of fun just ought to avoid each other in games, or something.-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
-
-
Fiasco Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 834
- Joined: September 21, 2005
But would it, really? How hard is it to fake unconcern over the internet? I could see a case for scumforgetting tofake unconcern (less so after threads like this one), but not a case for scumbeing unable tofake unconcern.
If I'd been a good guy in that situation, I'd have gone all, "Rubbish, BJ, that's not a reason", and I'd probably have been lynched for being "defensive". Different players react to random attacks in different ways, so for the tactic to work well it requires knowing the reactor's playstyle (as town and as scum).
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.