Standardized Rules and Role PMs (Open Games)

[Kelly Chen]

I didn't see you edited your post.

I will try to dig up the thread where this was discussed earlier. [Edit: here from last October. Besides myself, CES and Norinel preferred a 50% rule.]

I don't know why you give that quote from Princeton when I just stated why such statements of the win condition don't favor either camp. Nobody is talking about games where the mafia reaches half, wins, and lets the other townies go home.

I also don't know why you point out that I'll likely lose to most people on aesthetics when I pretty much said that myself.

[Glork]

We should probably start a new thread to discuss this, as it seems to be a topic/debate in and of itself.

[Mr. Flay]

And mith agrees with me in the October thread, so what's your point?

I really don't see what you're arguing for anymore, so please restate or reframe the questions posed in your last post. I'm not talking about some obscure GF-Bulletproof scenario, but the generalization of Win Conditions. SSF's Win Condition is elegant.

P.S. I'm perfectly happy to have Win Condition posts split out of this one, but can't do so myself.

[Kelly Chen]

I'm not arguing about what should be standard in open games. I'm only responding to arguments that seem to be used to argue about what should be the rule generally.

Beyond that I don't know how to be any clearer. My questions in post 50 come from two points you made in 48 not appearing to be sensible responses to my post 47. In particular my post 47 already rebuts using that particular Princeton quote as an argument against using a 50% rule.

[Yosarian2]

This whole thread is actually a very good argument for why the standard mafia win condiditon should NOT be standerdised, even for open games. There are some open games where the 50% rule shoudl be used for balancing purposed (for example, in anything with a bulletproof townie or multiple pro-town roleblockers it might be a good idea), even though I don't think it should be the norm. Slightly different mafia PM's with slightly different win conditions.

[mneme]

I think the majority (67% by the poll at the top of the linked post) perfer to avoid the 50% rule (except as a consequence) because it's more complicated (ie, an extra rule) than not having it.

Obviously, there are setups that may only be balanced with a 50% rule -- but by the same measure, there are setups that are only balanced without one. (or are only balanced with a "scum win if they gain -- and cannot lose -- a 50% share in the town, and there is at least one scum left" -- this gives the mafia a win in the 2 docs, 2 mafia and mafia vs unkillable townie cases while keeping things open in mafia vs doc+vig, which is pleasing because there's no play in the first two cases (ie, a tie is the only other option; guaranteed in the first case and clear after a day or two in the second) but there still is some in the third one).

[Mr. Flay]

This whole thread is actually a very good argument for why the standard mafia win condiditon should NOT be standerdised, even for open games. There are some open games where the 50% rule shoudl be used for balancing purposed (for example, in anything with a bulletproof townie or multiple pro-town roleblockers it might be a good idea), even though I don't think it should be the norm. Slightly different mafia PM's with slightly different win conditions.

Well, I think that's what makes it "standard" rather than "universal". Obviously a game with announced and radical changes to Game Mechanics throws almost all the usual expectations out the window...

[Mr. Flay]

It's time for a PBPA!

(and people wonder why I don't

play

Mafia games right now...)

For another thing, wth is with saying "the real rule is total annihilation of opposing sides." That's either attacking a strawman, or you guys think the 50% camp is so dumb that they don't even believe mafia win by killing off the town.

But at least some of the 50% camp are saying that night actions don't have any bearing on a 50% daytime 'win'. I (and Glork, and Nocmen, and ssflea, and Yos, and mneme, and mith/Princeton previously) are saying that it does matter, at least where the town could pull out a

win

. Tie situations are usually a result of bad game design, IMO.

My metaishgame justification for mafia winning in that scenario is that the town's goal is to

find who the scum are fast enough

, and having them all be dead at the end is a consequence. This situation most likely came from a 2-town 1-mafia endgame Day situation where the town lynched wrong and thus failed to find scum who the scum are fast enough.

For tie-ists and townwin-ists: Suppose there's a mini with two scum and a complete bulletproof. The bulletproof claims and is cleared (somehow) Day 1, and the town lynches scum Day 1. Now, no matter what happens, the town cannot lose, because they won't lynch the bulletproof and so the best the scum can do is tie by not being found by the end. If scum counterclaims, (And the vest isn't cleared), the town can force a tie by finding the rest of the scum and not lynching either. Is this fair?

Two unnkable GFs: tie.
Mafia + Unnkable Townie: depends on the Moderator and the mafia winning condition. I would count it as a mafia win(the mafia, no longer fearing the lynch mob, comes out at day and beats the living crap out of the townie), although others count it as a draw.

Norinel seems to be arguing against passive roles like 100% Bulletproof Townie (which have been shown repeatedly to have problems of this nature). CES is talking about to resolve a true stalemate. Neither are dealing with games that still have viable options left.

I'd also like to see a reference on what is "Standard Mafia." I was not aware that was subject to capitalization. Lacking that, how can you claim that the 50% rule is "really chrome" when the basic game doesn't have vigs or double-voters to make it possible to tell what the practice signifies?

There's a big difference between saying that the "standard" game-winning condition (eliminate everyone but your faction) has changed as the game has evolved, versus the inclusion of new roles as the game has evolved. "50% = win" is/was just a shortcut to avoid a series of foregone conclusions in the endgame.

Finally, I'm sure there are any number of points that could be made along the lines of what Glork says in post 45, making a plea for townies with one-shot abilities. Personally I like the 50% rule because I like it to be clear for scum that when they reach a certain ratio, they win.

I agree, well before they get endgamed.

Disagree entirely.

Though this case isn't necessarily applicable for the purposes of our "standardized role PMs for open setups," consider the case of protown players with one-shot abilities. If these players choose to keep their aces up their sleeves, even to the very last possible moment, they should be allowed to use their abilities as long as they are alive. If night chocies can turn the tide of a game, then by all means they should be used.

For example: I asked Adel/Seol in Scrubs Mafia, if my ability to turn a kill back on scum meant that they wouldn't auto-win at "endgame," and when I was told that you would in fact

not

auto-win, I played a little differently. I decided that personal survival was much more important, as my role could very easily swing the game in favor of us (which it did, albeit not at endgame itself).

I was with you right up until you stripped one-time-roles of their ability without warning.

Nobody is talking about games where the mafia reaches half, wins, and lets the other townies go home.

Correct; no one is, including the "kill everyone else" 'camp', so why did you even bring this up? Obviously "50%=win" only breaks down when there are power roles, but "kill everyone not in your faction" never breaks down, AFAIK. Jesters are sort of outside it, but I don't believe they've ever ended the game for everyone else when they win, so they're kind of orthagonal to this discussion.

[Yosarian2]

But at least some of the 50% camp are saying that night actions don't have any bearing on a 50% daytime 'win'. I (and Glork, and Nocmen, and ssflea, and Yos, and mneme, and mith/Princeton previously) are saying that it does matter, at least where the town could pull out a

win

. Tie situations are usually a result of bad game design, IMO.

Huh? If you don't think that "50% of mafia left=mafia win", then a tie is possible in ANY game with a pro-town vig, a pro-town roleblocker, a SK, multiple scum groups, a bulletproof townie, or any number of other roles. Either you have it set up in the rules who wins in a tie situation, or you have the possibility of ties in most games.

[Mr. Flay]

Sure, but except for BP Townies, we're talking about Mutually Assured Destruction, which is a Lose-Lose situation for pretty much anybody but a SK (who sometimes have a supremacy clause/everybody's dead clause in their WC). I should have been a bit more specific, in that I was talking about Living Ties.

Terminology sucks...

[mneme]

Yos: er....a tie is possible in any game with at least 3 sides with killing power regardless. Even a 50% rule cannot prevent it; you can always have 3 people going into night end with a triple-kill, thus ending in a tie of total annihilation.

Moreover, if the mafia have such a power and the SK doesn't, then SK vs roleblocker's still a tie. Moreover, if they both have such a power, then SK vs mafioso is still a tie.

So "preventing ties" isn't really a great justification for the 50% rule.

[Kelly Chen]

It's time for a PBPA!

(and people wonder why I don't

play

Mafia games right now...)

For another thing, wth is with saying "the real rule is total annihilation of opposing sides." That's either attacking a strawman, or you guys think the 50% camp is so dumb that they don't even believe mafia win by killing off the town.

But at least some of the 50% camp are saying that night actions don't have any bearing on a 50% daytime 'win'. I (and Glork, and Nocmen, and ssflea, and Yos, and mneme, and mith/Princeton previously) are saying that it does matter, at least where the town could pull out a

win

. Tie situations are usually a result of bad game design, IMO.

The 50% camp say night actions don't have any bearing at the point that the scum attain 1:1

due to the fact that the town gets endgamed to death

before any more night actions can be made. That is why it doesn't make

flavor

sense to point out that

flavorwise

e.g. a vig wouldn't stop killing. [edited]

My metaishgame justification for mafia winning in that scenario is that the town's goal is to

find who the scum are fast enough

, and having them all be dead at the end is a consequence. This situation most likely came from a 2-town 1-mafia endgame Day situation where the town lynched wrong and thus failed to find scum who the scum are fast enough.

For tie-ists and townwin-ists: Suppose there's a mini with two scum and a complete bulletproof. The bulletproof claims and is cleared (somehow) Day 1, and the town lynches scum Day 1. Now, no matter what happens, the town cannot lose, because they won't lynch the bulletproof and so the best the scum can do is tie by not being found by the end. If scum counterclaims, (And the vest isn't cleared), the town can force a tie by finding the rest of the scum and not lynching either. Is this fair?

Two unnkable GFs: tie.
Mafia + Unnkable Townie: depends on the Moderator and the mafia winning condition. I would count it as a mafia win(the mafia, no longer fearing the lynch mob, comes out at day and beats the living crap out of the townie), although others count it as a draw.

Norinel seems to be arguing against passive roles like 100% Bulletproof Townie (which have been shown repeatedly to have problems of this nature). CES is talking about to resolve a true stalemate. Neither are dealing with games that still have viable options left.

CES: "I treat the mafia as having an inherent endgaming ability. You wouldn't want a double voter to win if he's left with a goon or SK, would you?"

It is possible that Norinel doesn't favor the 50% rule generally but I don't see how one could conclude that he had an issue with that role. Why make a deal of saying "the town's goal is to find who the scum are fast enough" if his real complaint is about the town having that role?

I'd also like to see a reference on what is "Standard Mafia." I was not aware that was subject to capitalization. Lacking that, how can you claim that the 50% rule is "really chrome" when the basic game doesn't have vigs or double-voters to make it possible to tell what the practice signifies?

There's a big difference between saying that the "standard" game-winning condition (eliminate everyone but your faction) has changed as the game has evolved, versus the inclusion of new roles as the game has evolved. "50% = win" is/was just a shortcut to avoid a series of foregone conclusions in the endgame.

Again:
1. No one is saying mafia don't have to "eliminate everyone but their faction."
2. I stated it wasn't clear whether the rule was a shortcut or a natural part of the game. All you have done here is state that it is the former. I asked how that is clear.

Finally, I'm sure there are any number of points that could be made along the lines of what Glork says in post 45, making a plea for townies with one-shot abilities. Personally I like the 50% rule because I like it to be clear for scum that when they reach a certain ratio, they win.

I agree, well before they get endgamed.

Disagree entirely.

Though this case isn't necessarily applicable for the purposes of our "standardized role PMs for open setups," consider the case of protown players with one-shot abilities. If these players choose to keep their aces up their sleeves, even to the very last possible moment, they should be allowed to use their abilities as long as they are alive. If night chocies can turn the tide of a game, then by all means they should be used.

For example: I asked Adel/Seol in Scrubs Mafia, if my ability to turn a kill back on scum meant that they wouldn't auto-win at "endgame," and when I was told that you would in fact

not

auto-win, I played a little differently. I decided that personal survival was much more important, as my role could very easily swing the game in favor of us (which it did, albeit not at endgame itself).

I was with you right up until you stripped one-time-roles of their ability without warning.

Personally I would never assume I've guessed the end-of-game conditions the mod has established in a closed setup. If it were really crucial I would ask the mod (and have).

Nobody is talking about games where the mafia reaches half, wins, and lets the other townies go home.

Correct; no one is, including the "kill everyone else" 'camp', so why did you even bring this up?

For example, when you bring up that Princeton quote as an argument against a 50% rule, you imply that the 50% camp do not believe that the mafia's "goal is to kill off all the civilians in the game." Of course that's still the goal. The difference isn't whether mafia have to kill everybody, it's whether they ever obtain an ability to do it during the day.

[Mr. Flay]

I'm saying that both

Princeton and mith

have said that the true goal is to kill off the other factions. That's about as close to "asking the (original) mod" as I care to get in any non-Theme game. Even still, I was

pissed

when RPS (a theme mini) came up with a "Paper beats Rock" mechanic to resolve ties when the 2-2 tie came about, because I'd orchestrated a very difficult to arrange MAD endgame between the two remaining factions. AFAIK, even the other scum group didn't ask if that was the case, but I could be wrong.

I always figure out the results of non-MAD ties before I start my games, even if I don't tell the players explicitly, and I'm very careful in not lying in my role PMs. I'm willing to concede that I might be misinterpreting CES & Norinel, but I still disagree with this "inherent endgaming" concept, and I think its unusual, not just ambiguous. For instance, nowhere in the Mafia role does it usually say "...and you gain a daykill for each living member of your faction when you reach 50% of those alive", so why are you granting it to them suddenly?

[Kelly Chen]

I'm saying that both

Princeton and mith

have said that the true goal is to kill off the other factions.

I guess this will be the fifth time I've tried to point out that the Princeton quote etc. doesn't favor either camp, since nobody disagrees that "the true goal" is "to kill off the other factions."

Even still, I was

pissed

when RPS (a theme mini) came up with a "Paper beats Rock" mechanic to resolve ties when the 2-2 tie came about, because I'd orchestrated a very difficult to arrange MAD endgame between the two remaining factions. AFAIK, even the other scum group didn't ask if that was the case, but I could be wrong.

I would be pissed too, since it sounds like that resolution is out of nowhere. Also, if Rock had an ability to defeat Scissors, you might expect this to have been in the Rock role pm.

I always figure out the results of non-MAD ties before I start my games, even if I don't tell the players explicitly, and I'm very careful in not lying in my role PMs.

??? You're implying something about the RPS setup I take it.

I'm willing to concede that I might be misinterpreting CES & Norinel, but I still disagree with this "inherent endgaming" concept, and I think its unusual, not just ambiguous.

I have no problem with people arguing against the rule because it is "unusual."

For instance, nowhere in the Mafia role does it usually say "...and you gain a daykill for each living member of your faction when you reach 50% of those alive", so why are you granting it to them suddenly?

My role pms usually do say that. If they didn't, it would largely negate the reason I prefer this endgame condition, since scum wouldn't know they had this in their favor.

[Yosarian2]

Sure, but except for BP Townies, we're talking about Mutually Assured Destruction, which is a Lose-Lose situation for pretty much anybody but a SK (who sometimes have a supremacy clause/everybody's dead clause in their WC). I should have been a bit more specific, in that I was talking about Living Ties.

Terminology sucks...

Well, roleblockers can cause living ties.

Anyway, in most games, I've considered "everyone dies" to be a tie, not a loss, and if I don't think I can win I'll play for an everyone dies tie. I'm kind of surprised you think that that an "everyone dies" tie is somehow not as good as a "living" tie; I've never thought of it that way.

[Yosarian2]

Yos: er....a tie is possible in any game with at least 3 sides with killing power regardless. Even a 50% rule cannot prevent it; you can always have 3 people going into night end with a triple-kill, thus ending in a tie of total annihilation.

Moreover, if the mafia have such a power and the SK doesn't, then SK vs roleblocker's still a tie. Moreover, if they both have such a power, then SK vs mafioso is still a tie.

Yeah, that was exactally my point.

[Mr. Flay]

My role pms usually do say that. If they didn't, it would largely negate the reason I prefer this endgame condition, since scum wouldn't know they had this in their favor.

Ahh, that explains it, then. I've never played in one of the famous Kelly Games

(tm)

.

??? You're implying something about the RPS setup I take it.

Not really, I just would be even more hacked off if I suddenly lost a game after carefully saving my one-shot vig until the endgame. Do your town PMs know that the scum have this ability, too?

I'm kind of surprised you think that that an "everyone dies" tie is somehow not as good as a "living" tie; I've never thought of it that way.

Well, they may both be ties, but usually

someone

on your team living is part of the Win Condition (even if it's just implicit), so it's a lower sort of tie, if that makes sense. It beats losing outright, but not by much, in my book. One may let me claim I satisfied my WC, while the other merely says I denied you yours.

Perfect Game > Winning > Tie/Draw/happily ever after > Mutually Assured Destruction > Lose > Modkilled

[Kelly Chen]

My role pms usually do say that. If they didn't, it would largely negate the reason I prefer this endgame condition, since scum wouldn't know they had this in their favor.

Ahh, that explains it, then. I've never played in one of the famous Kelly Games

(tm)

.

??? You're implying something about the RPS setup I take it.

Not really, I just would be even more hacked off if I suddenly lost a game after carefully saving my one-shot vig until the endgame. Do your town PMs know that the scum have this ability, too?

In an open setup (which is most of my games) the endgame scenarios are outlined in the OPs.

In a closed setup it would be good advice for townies to expect that I'll do things the same as usual. Beyond that I really don't think it is necessarily any of a townie's business to know the endgame rules. As a case in point, in my last closed setup I felt I could only hint even in the

scum

role pms about the endgame conditions, since spelling them out would reveal that there were two scum groups, which was not open knowledge.

I see we have different expectations, but I as a vig would never assume that I would still get a chance to shoot when a mislynch gives scum 1:1. If it were crucial to know, then I'd ask, but if I didn't get an answer, I'd accept that that's part of being a townie.

I'm kind of surprised you think that that an "everyone dies" tie is somehow not as good as a "living" tie; I've never thought of it that way.

Well, they may both be ties, but usually

someone

on your team living is part of the Win Condition (even if it's just implicit), so it's a lower sort of tie, if that makes sense. It beats losing outright, but not by much, in my book. One may let me claim I satisfied my WC, while the other merely says I denied you yours.

I use "everyone dies and loses" to prevent a scum alliance against the town.

[somestrangeflea]

What if the "or equal to" of the "You win when you make up greater than or equal to 50% of the players" in the scum WC was removed.

Logically, this would make more sense, as, with a 2 on 2, there is still a possible town win, but if it were 3 on 2, then the scum have pretty much guaranteed a win, unless both townies are vigs!

[Norinel]

*decloaks briefly*

I've been assuming that the 50% rule just comes from the fact that, in a reasonably simple one-group game, the scum having 50% of the players will inevitably assure a town win. I'd expect this was derived from face-to-face play, where the setups usually were reasonably simple; the confusion comes from the many games we play on Scum that aren't.

Norinel seems to be arguing against passive roles like 100% Bulletproof Townie (which have been shown repeatedly to have problems of this nature).

Pretty much. What I said in the October thread isn't a really good representation of my entire opinion on endgaming. If I were running the very particular scenario mentioned in that thread (Unkillable GF and unkillable townie), I would've given the scum the win because my "unkillable" townies have the specific exception that they aren't protected in endgame. In general, I define endgame as the point where eliminating all other factions becomes inevitable given reasonable play- not lynching your partners, pretty much. So a logically complete expression of the mafia win condition with an unkillable townie would be something like "You win when all players not aligned with the mafia are dead, or if such a situation would be inevitable if 'invulnerable' roles were vulnerable."

I could contrive a situation where that would call the game for the scum too early, but when you just have one bulletproof, it works well enough.

[mole]

I would've given the scum the win because my "unkillable" townies have the specific exception that they aren't protected in endgame. In general, I define endgame as the point where eliminating all other factions becomes inevitable given reasonable play- not lynching your partners, pretty much. So a logically complete expression of the mafia win condition with an unkillable townie would be something like "You win when all players not aligned with the mafia are dead, or if such a situation would be inevitable if 'invulnerable' roles were vulnerable."

I think an approach like this strikes a good balance between explicitly informing the players how an endgame situation will play out, and keeping the PMs from becoming too complicated.

Equally, I think if the community is going to allow a "living tie" result in its Open Games then the players should be informed of that. Updating the relevant townie PMs is easy enough: "This ability (will/will not) allow you to stop mafia kills and force a tie in the end game." or something more interesting. But what do you tell the mafia? "You win if you constitute the entirety of the town, or nothing can prevent the same. You will tie with the town if any of its players are unable to be killed because of their abilities."

Ugh. Can someone express it better?

[Adel]

I think "total victory -- or nothing can prevent same" is the only good answer. the "50% mafia" or ">50% mafia" rules are really an attempt to encapsulate "nothing can prevent same" in numbers.

I agree. >50% mafia doesn't take into account Vigs & SKs. The Mafia win condition should be:

You win when Mafia members are the only survivors, or when nothing can prevent the same.

But do you think the mafia

should

win if it's 2 mafia against a vig and doc only going into Day?

It would be their game to loose at that point.

[Simenon]

Can we get these posted/linked in the open queue?

[mith]

I've been assuming that the 50% rule just comes from the fact that, in a reasonably simple one-group game, the scum having 50% of the players will inevitably assure a town win. I'd expect this was derived from face-to-face play, where the setups usually were reasonably simple; the confusion comes from the many games we play on Scum that aren't.

I think the 50% rule was probably the result of some screwy modding by Macros (who at various points decided that 1-1 or 2-2 endgames should be decided by coinflips, or declared ties because neither side could get a majority, because he didn't like allowing no-lynch). So a few people started using the 50% rule as a way of explaining what the "nothing can prevent this" part of the win condition means.

[Mr. Flay]

some screwy modding by Macros

Say it isn't so!