The following roles have no place in Mafia...

[Mr Stoofer]

Discuss:

1. Jester
   
2. Scum Mason (unless Masons are
   explicitly
   told: "He/she may be Scum")
   
3. Survivor win conditions (except for an SK)
   
4. Millers, who do not know they are Millers (unless the existence of a Miller is publicly announced to the Town at the start of the game)
   
5. Any random role
   
6. Paranoid Gun Owner

You will never see any of these in a Stoofer game.

[Primate]

3/4 are both things I have absolutely no objection with (though not things that I am likely to do very often). With 2 I only tell them if their partner is innocent. Masons to me are a role that can talk at night, and if they're confirmed innocent, that is an optional bonus. 1 is something that I say I will put in my games in order to make it possible for scum to claim it if they want but honestly I won't actually do so. Or rather, what I

did

say that about.

[Oman]

1. Jester - I disagree with jesters, they make lynching scummy people bad, and thats just stupid. Note that Jester based open setups (Jester Mafia etc) is fine because its BASED on the Jester being there and the town is aware.
2. Scum Masons - Totally viable, As primate said, masons are a role that talks at night, confirmed masons are a different thing completely
3. Survivour WCs - A viable idea, especially when the role is based on it (Survivour, SK, etc), I don't mind Survive to win, but not unless that is a requirement of the original WC or the only one (i.e. I don't like "win if all mafia are dead...or you survive."). I like Martyr Mafia though, with its twist on this.
4. Millers - Closed setup: Tell them. Open Setup: Don't.

GL mole (9:22:50 PM): the only modding rule you need: don't lie to the players.

[Lawrencelot]

I agree with

Yosarian2

Oman

[Seol]

I wouldn't put Survivor in the same category as Jester, Scum Mason or Unknown Miller - it's pointless as opposed to disruptive, and therefore considerably less egregious.

Also:

Cults (or more generally speaking, any mutable role mechanic)
Non-sane cops in minis and insane/random cops in any game
Paranoid gun owner

[somestrangeflea]

If I have Masons in a game where there is a possibility for one or more of them to be scum, I won't call them Masons...

Now I need to make up a new rolename...

[Oman]

Seol: Non-sane cops in mini should be right out, but I see no problem with Insane cops in other games. They work effectively once they figure it out.

PGO is a good role, in an open setup.

[Iammars]

Jester - I whole-heartily agree.
Scum Mason - I almost never confirm masons anyway, so I don't have to worry about this.
Survivor - It's a hard role to play, but it can be used, just sparingly.
Miller - I agree with Oman on this.
Cults - I really like cults. I would think that if you included a cult that there wouldn't be much other scum. No cult+mafia+sk.
Mutable Role Mechanic - Mutable roles are fine. Mutable alignments are worse.
Non-sane Cop in mini - I wish I could say that I had experience in this, but the one time I included a paranoid cop in a mini, he got roleblocked EVERY NIGHT. I would be fine with non-sane cops in minis as long as they had flavor to hint to them that they might not be sane.
Insane Cop - I see no problem with this.
Random Cop - No. Just no.
Paranoid Gun Owner - This is an anti-town role. Not that it should be given to scum, but that it's a way of balancing if the town has too much power or if more people need to die each night. It's another of those roles that shouldn't be used too often, but is still good in moderation.

[Mr Stoofer]

I think that Cults and non-Sane cops in Minis can be made to work with a lot of care. I have run two minis with non-Sane cops (211 and Methodical Mafia) and I think that everyone would agree that they worked (You were in 211, Seol). I have also run a cult based game (a mini, no less) that worked (Town won).

I agree that there is no place for random roles in Mafia - I have added them to the list.

[Dasquian]

If I have Masons in a game where there is a possibility for one or more of them to be scum, I won't call them Masons...

Now I need to make up a new rolename...

Flatmates? :p

[Seol]

I think that Cults and non-Sane cops in Minis can be made to work with a lot of care. I have run two minis with non-Sane cops (211 and Methodical Mafia) and I think that everyone would agree that they worked (You were in 211, Seol). I have also run a cult based game (a mini, no less) that worked (Town won).

I should probably have been a little more explicit - I have a fundamental problem with cults (yes, cult-based games can work, but my issue isn't one of balance or functionality but an issue of the fairness of role mutability itself), but cops and PGOs are a lesser objection, albeit still one of fairness.

I'm of the opinion that if your role does not work as advertised, then it should be either reasonably viable to determine the true functionality of your role, or the game should not punish you for not determining the true functionality of your role. My objection to non-sane cops in minis is that most of the time, the player doesn't have sufficient information to accurately determine their non-sanity, and the extent of how the role punishes you for assuming it works as advertised is disproporionate. Furthermore, the rarer non-sane cops are, the truer this is, and as their popularity appears to have fallen compared to eg four years ago the requirement for sanity testing is reduced. Basically it's a role that punishes you excessively for playing as cop in the manner most effective in the current metagame, and as such I feel it's a bastard role. I wouldn't be surprised if many feel I'm over-reacting here, though, that's just my personal opinion.

If every other game included a non-sane cop, I'd have much less objection to them.

A similar issue is true with PGOs, in terms of how the game deals with them. Dying simply because you targetted someone who you (in all likelihood) had

no potential way

of determining the danger is too close to a random effect to me. Yes, there are aspects of PGO which can reflect and reward skilled play, but not enough to compensate for the base issue IMO. Also, like many roles, the objection is mitigated significantly by knowledge that the role is in the game.

Note I only consider cults as belonging in the same class as jesters and scum masons, the other two are

considerably

lesser objections.

edit: Iammars - I meant mutable alignments, mutable roles can be fine (mutable role functionality where the player has some control over the mutability are a particular favourite of mine, actually) - it's a specifically win condition related issue.

[Mr Stoofer]

I think that Cults and non-Sane cops in Minis can be made to work with a lot of care. I have run two minis with non-Sane cops (211 and Methodical Mafia) and I think that everyone would agree that they worked (You were in 211, Seol). I have also run a cult based game (a mini, no less) that worked (Town won).

I should probably have been a little more explicit - I have a fundamental problem with cults (yes, cult-based games can work, but my issue isn't one of balance or functionality but an issue of the fairness of role mutability itself), but cops and PGOs are a lesser objection, albeit still one of fairness.

I'm of the opinion that if your role does not work as advertised, then it should be either reasonably viable to determine the true functionality of your role, or the game should not punish you for not determining the true functionality of your role. My objection to non-sane cops in minis is that most of the time, the player doesn't have sufficient information to accurately determine their non-sanity, and the extent of how the role punishes you for assuming it works as advertised is disproporionate. Furthermore, the rarer non-sane cops are, the truer this is, and as their popularity appears to have fallen compared to eg four years ago the requirement for sanity testing is reduced. Basically it's a role that punishes you excessively for playing as cop in the manner most effective in the current metagame, and as such I feel it's a bastard role. I wouldn't be surprised if many feel I'm over-reacting here, though, that's just my personal opinion.

If every other game included a non-sane cop, I'd have much less objection to them.

I agree with all of that and have applied it. For example, in Mafia 211, a little Googleing by the Cop based on his role PM would have determined that he was probably paranoid.

I would add PGO to my list if I had ever seen one in a game. I would never put one in a game.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I don't have a problem with cults, but I have a problem with alignment-changing. So I would have no problem with something like this:

You are a

Townie Cultist

You have no special abilities.

You win with the town or with the cult. You don't know who the other cult members are, except for the leader (XXX).

[Seol]

I agree with all of that and have applied it. For example, in Mafia 211, a little Googleing by the Cop based on his role PM would have determined that he was probably paranoid.

True, the reasonability of determination can be ameliorated via other channels (than just results) such as flavour. I'm not a fan of using flavour in such a way, but again that's a personal style issue.

[cicero]

I don't have a problem with cults, but I have a problem with alignment-changing. So I would have no problem with something like this:

You are a

Townie Cultist

You have no special abilities.

You win with the town or with the cult. You don't know who the other cult members are, except for the leader (XXX).

How does such a player lose?

[hasdgfas]

I don't have a problem with cults, but I have a problem with alignment-changing. So I would have no problem with something like this:

You are a

Townie Cultist

You have no special abilities.

You win with the town or with the cult. You don't know who the other cult members are, except for the leader (XXX).

How does such a player lose?

carefully and with much effort.

[mikeburnfire]

I think that all the above roles are fine, except cults, and will not avoid using them or playing with them.

[Ether]

Flea: pledges.

I don't like ignorant millers...but I

really

like the idea that someone with a guilty on it could still be innocent, and even talk its way out of a lynch. A themed game with a flavor cop that doesn't get an explicit [scum/not scum] result is fair play. (Also, mafia framers should be a lot more common--though I'd add a modding disclaimer about this stance.)

Cults - I really like cults. I would think that if you included a cult that there wouldn't be much other scum. No cult+mafia+sk.

Intriguing.

[Axelrod]

Discuss:

1. Jester
   
2. Scum Mason (unless Masons are
   explicitly
   told: "He/she may be Scum")
   
3. Survivor win conditions (except for an SK)
   
4. Millers, who do not know they are Millers (unless the existence of a Miller is publicly announced to the Town at the start of the game)
   
5. Any random role

You will never see any of these in a Stoofer game.

1. Jester: I just don't see the point. It's like, someone was trying to think up alternate roles one day and said "hay, what about a role that has to get itself lynched! That's different!" Different it may be, but also pointless and dull. Maybe not so much for the person playing it, who gets to act stupid and crazy, but for the towns (and even scums) that have to endure it.

2. Oxy-moron to me, as

Mason

the way I understand it implies a guarantee of towniness. If you call someone a "Mason" and then make him scum, it's like calling someone a Doc. but making him a vig., i.e. Bastard Modding. You can have roles that Night comunicate just fine, and if you don't want them to be "confirmed" to each other, just don't call them "Masons", 'kay?

3. Survivor: I could be prejudiced, because I played one of these, but I think they can be okay, under certain circumstances. The role does require more from the player in terms of skill than something like Jester, just to survive you have to be townie enough to not get lynched, yet not threatening enough to draw Mafia attention. It's very like a SK in that aspect. And the role

does

have an impact on the other players, unlike Jester. There's an interesting balance where the town doesn't

need

said role dead, but must always be wary that the role could choose to side with the scum in an end-game situation. And that's assuming the player can convince the town that this is truly his role.

4. I actually thought the original verson of "Miller" was a role that did not know he showed up as scum. My feeling is this, I dislike when roles don't work as advertised unless there's some way to puzzle out the truth. I think you

can

have a "Miller" who's not explicitly told he's a Miller, but I also think there need to be hints somewhere in the game that could allow him/the town to figure this out.

5. I also dislike Random. I think, possibly, there's a place for it in very limited, controlled environments. For example, I don't recall if there's a Dice Hack in this forum, but a roll that uses the Dice, right out in the open in the Thread, might be fine. But I

really

don't like those roles where the PM says something like "You have a 50% chance of success, etc, etc." and the Mod. does the calculations behind the scenes and then comes and tells you what happened. Or worse, where there's some random factor at work that the Mod.

doesn't even tell the players about

. Man, that really sucks.

[Mr. Flay]

1. Jesters are evil and stupid and do not know they are evil and stupid (except in Open Setups, where they are tolerable).
   
2. Non-SK Survivors are difficult as hell, but not inherently evil. They do have a strong tendency to compromise playstyle, which I disagree with (most times, anyone but an SK should be okay sacrificing themselves for their team). This tends to punish better players and reward lurkers. Not a great role, but not unsalvageable.
   
3. Scum Masons are fine but should (usually) have a reasonable chance of being discovered. Whether that's through the wording of the role PM, the presence of an excess of Cops, or flavor, is fine by me. Renaming non-confirmed Masons is stupid and evil.
   
4. I'm coming around to the idea that Millers should know they are Millers, but see Scum Masons. Hinting is acceptable.
   
5. Random/chance roles should be
   very
   rare, and probably never in anything smaller than 20 players.
   
6. Paranoid Gun Owner is fine, but they
   must
   know they are one. Otherwise, it's more bastardly than the Miller role. On the other hand, it's not necessary to point out to them exactly how their role works (
   i.e.
   do they kill anyone who comes to their door, or only killers?)
   
7. Non-Sane Cops in Minis should be encouraged.

In other words, "I agree with Seol".

I'm not discussing Cults here and now, as my ongoing game is already being meta-ed to death by the players.

[Yosarian2]

1. Jesters in non-open setups are kind of lame, but eh, they don't do a lot of harm to the game, IMHO.

2. Scum masons are fine. More then that, the possibility of scum masons is absolutly necessary, IMHO.

3. Basic survivors stink and lead to annoying lurkage, because they're main goal is to basically not interact in the game in any way (or at least, in not having the game interact with them in any way). There are cases where roles can have "must survive" as one of their win conditions and be fine; SK is one good example, but there are others.

4. Agreed. Millers in non-open games should not know they are millers.

5. There's nothing wrong with random roles, so long as they know they're random. I understand some people disagree with me on that, but, meh.

6. Cults are awesome

7. Non sane cops should be a possibility in any game. I agree that they're harder to balance in mini games, but, eh, the cop and the town should be prepared for the possibility of a paranoid cop. Frankly, Seol's argument seems to me to be an argument for MORE non sane cops, not less.

8. Paranoid gun owner is a very cool role, assuming of course he knows he's a paranoid gun owner. Then his goal is to somehow avoid being investigated by a cop and to be targeted by the scum if possible. It's also neat in the sense that it's a really cool fake-claim for a scum who dosn't want to be investigated, which leads to all kinds of WIFOM russian roulette in the mind of the cop once a paranoid gun owner claims.

If you call someone a "Mason" and then make him scum, it's like calling someone a Doc. but making him a vig., i.e. Bastard Modding

There's nothing wrong with calling someone a doc and making him a vig, either. At least, not in a large game where he's got a fair shot of figuring it out before he wipes out a third of the town, heh. It kind of a nasty surprise, sure, but it's also fun and requires people to think about what's going on; and of course, you've got to balance the game with the ASSUMPTION that the paranoid doc will knock off a good guy or two before he figures out his role, but that's ok.

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

How does such a player lose?

If a scum party wins? The cult leader does not recruit in this scenario, so the mafia still has plenty of chance to win. Especially since culthunting distracts the town from lynching mafia.

[cicero]

1. The only worthwhile use for the existence of the jester role is to get someone to say "wait! he might be a jester!" when the clueless-noob attracts all the votes on day one. (which is to say there is no good reason for having a jester).

2. Survivor role - dumb. Only SK.

3. Scum masons are crap. The beauty of masons imho is that they know they are each town so it provides an end-game impediment that scum must find and eliminate. If I don't know my mason buddies' alignment I don't see the point. I won't talk to him. If you are putting a scum mason pair in, then yes. clues please.

4. I dont think cults are awesome. I may never play a cult game by choice again, actually. The opposite of cults, finding masons... now those I like.

5. Killing docs are fine. Fun actually. Feel sorry for the player accidentally removed from the game before one knows what they are though.

6. Randoms - I really don't understand the problem with random docs or vigs. Chance to succeed is perfect for those roles imho. Random cop is more annoying.

[Adele]

Scum masons
Upon being told I can night-talk with my "buddies" or that I'm pro-town with x and y my "co-masons", I have one question for my mod: will you 100% guarantee me that my co-masons are pro-town?
If I'm in a game with claimed masons, I request

them

to make this query. Though the other players in the game I played on GL were somewhat bewildered by the request, they acquiesced.

The mod shouldn't lie. He can obfuscate, weasel-word, say you're 99% sure your mason buddies are good guys. He can guarantee it outright. He can refuse to guarantee it outright. I have seen both of the latter two occur.

The mod shouldn't lie to the players. But if you don't even ask - given that scum-masons have happened in the past - then the fault lies with the townie masons and the town at large for letting that happen. You shouldn't

need

clues (though the mod really should provide them if he can possibly justify it to himself) - you should check.

[gorckat]

4. I dont think cults are awesome. I may never play a cult game by choice again, actually. The opposite of cults, finding masons... now those I like.

Like "you're a lodge leader, once per game you may recruit a mason to your lodge. You win with the town"?