Minr Mafia XIX: Retribution

[_Z3_]

Good game. If I ever seemed like a not chill person it's not actually because I'm not a chill person, it's just my play style. So if I yell that I want you lynched I'm not mad at you, think of it more as the role I have in the game wants your role dead.
Also @CreepaShadowz what were the night actions after night 1?

 

[_Z3_]

And whoever killed me, how come? Was it because I pushed for a lynch on Pro Luma?

 

[creeperTNTman198]

Swimmy, my goal was just chaos. My two kills and my message were designed to put suspicion on other people, and hopefully leave me in a position where I was ignored. Unfortunately it didn't work.

 

[swimmy1212]

Good game. If I ever seemed like a not chill person it's not actually because I'm not a chill person, it's just my play style. So if I yell that I want you lynched I'm not mad at you, think of it more as the role I have in the game wants your role dead.
Also @CreepaShadowz what were the night actions after night 1?

it's on the same post, click yeroc's message and then scroll down.

 

[MOUTHWEST]

Creepa and I agreed that, while it is an unproveable statement that didn't seem to violate the spirit of the no meta rule (meant to stop players from saying "you acted this same way when you were mafia, so you must be mafia"), it is a fairly meta statement. What are your guys' thoughts?

Can we just take a moment and acknowledge that calling me a silver-tongue demon every round we play together is in the same line as this phrase you called meta here? I change my style every game and you think you have the right to call me, not my character, out on it whenever I do anything. Every game, you just draw attention to me specifically with that phrase just because I'm there.

If anyone was wondering what my outbursts were about earlier in the game, this is why. I was trying to tackle this claim knowing fully well that it was a disgusting meta-point sren was trying to make. Sren, I think what you learn from these games is not the patterns that specific forumers (i.e. yeroc424) have when playing, but rather the different styles of people in roles. If a strategy worked here for Zath and Grave, don't ever state that you have good intel on Grave or Zath in the future, but instead say you've seen this style of play work for the mafia before and are very wary.

No need to consistently call me out and give me a description that gains more words every round we play together. You really killed my mood toward the game for a few days.

 

[Zatharel]

@ElectroUnderwear

Rm said stuff that I didn't like d1, i.e red questionmarks on Grave and Luma. But he also said good stufd about me so I decided that if he's dead I can just use that to defend myslelf.

Z3 has a really pushy playstyle and considering he accused me of being partners with creeper early on, I didn't feel like having to deal with that.

I actually can't remember why I wanted to kill Sleek. I think I had a hunch or something...?

It was obvious to me that after our last kill it would be gg if played well. There was some tension between yeroc and Ant that day and yeroc called Edan innocent. So I killed creeper because I thought Edan was easier to lead on, based on what happened the previous day.

I was going to just openly tell yeroc to vote Ant because I thought he knew I was mafia. Hence my question for the mail bros position, I was playing along (I was asking if he would vote with us tomorrow). But I felt like having Edan vote a fellow innocent would be a challenge and thus more fun than just 3v2. Lucky.

Funny enough, our entire win was based on misundetstandings. Since like day 2 I thought yeroc had our back which is why I even decided to hop along the Luma vote and confirm his death. My first message addressing yeroc's anonymous thing contained all 3 code words because I was messing around a bit and wanted to stir things up. Ironically, we considered killing him off N2 because we were almost sure he's independent and didn't want to risk the tables turning but I thought he'd be useful.

As for the Z3 thing: Don't get me wrong, bstrey, the whole passive aggressive stance was part of the act and if it seemed like I was really upset with you, I am sorry. Hell, you were right. I did very much have Z3 killed because of his playstyle. Not because I didn't like it, but because it could have been a threat later.

 

[Alphaesia]

Good game. If I ever seemed like a not chill person it's not actually because I'm not a chill person, it's just my play style. So if I yell that I want you lynched I'm not mad at you, think of it more as the role I have in the game wants your role dead.
Also @CreepaShadowz what were the night actions after night 1?

it's on the same post, click yeroc's message and then scroll down.

The spoiler tags broke *again*. Hopefully they should be fixed now.

 

[Srentiln]

@yeroc424 , if anything the statement is meant as a compliment stating that you are a very skilled player. I see absolutely no information that can be gained from reading the statement that would benefit someone in discerning your intent. If anything, I see it as being on the same level as my statement to bstrey that I did not believe zath would target a player just because their play style is different. Both statements are based upon observations that are outside the specifics of a "character" (why you would play a character instead of being yourself in the role as described in this game is beyond me, but to each their own) that can prove to be true or false in the round being played, depending on how you decide to play.

Additionally, the fact that I don't remember your aversion to such complimentary statements is just a product of the length of time between rounds and the amount of much more important information I need to keep track of. To give you an idea of how similar information just slips my mind, I once asked the same person I knew in RS if they had heard of a band before 6 times in the span of 4 days. It wasn't until the sixth time that I got a sense of deja vu and asked them if I had asked the question before.

Therefore, I argue that it is not along the same line in that 1) it is a general statement centered around the mindset of the round host while creating the round, not a comment on another player; 2) the implications of the statement deal with how much power roles are used, not whether someone is going to be deceitful or not (which is implied by the nature of the game anyway); 3) (outside of the idea it cannot be proven) whether or not it is correct is static, as the roles are already assigned whereas if an observation is true or not is dynamic in that the player can adapt their tactics to whatever is said during the round.

 

[rmanimal]

I'm somewhat suprised I guessed 2/3 the mafia team before I attempted to investigate anyone.
gg, would've been more fun not to die so early :/

 

[MOUTHWEST]

@donttagmeIreadthisanywaysSren If this is the case, I would prefer you just not compliment me in the game thread, or if you feel that you must because it adds something of value to the game, pick a new one. "Silver-tongued demon" is not a well-worded compliment to repeat. I just really wish you would stop.

"(why you would play a character instead of being yourself in the role as described in this game is beyond me, but to each their own)"

I'm glad you bring this up, and I suppose we can agree to disagree. Just wanted to answer this so it's not "beyond" you:

It's not like I'm abandoning my logical capabilities; I'm still myself in how I reason things out. But I believe that presentation can and ought to change between rounds. If the host opts to build a bit of a bio in my role and a world outside, then I'm certainly going to run with it. You see, I WAS using "the role as described in this game" to its fullest. A host not ought to have his work discarded when he puts in the effort to set the scene. For instance, when you play DnD, you aren't playing as Srentiln, you're playing as Bofur the White Dwarf, or Nethim Gynnthe the attractive Drow Wizard. For me, my enjoyment of the game is very important, so I'd much rather play in the current context than keep tabs on behaviors of certain members, even if I might get additional intel. Might hurt me in the long run but my approach is more of a bunch of short runs anyways.

Side note you'd probably appreciate: I set up a little contraption so we could play Clue/Cluedo with other greens+ on the server, and there was a round with 5 people, myself and Creepa included. We were getting to a point where everyone had at least one of the three correct cards pinned down, and I figured that some others were gonna make accusations next turn. So I suggested a person, a weapon, and a place; nobody had anything and it came back to me without a reveal! With this info, Creepa made his game-ending accusation - and was wrong.

Spoiler

All three cards I suggested earlier were cards I had in my hand.

 

[Srentiln]

While I agree that the flavor text of the role shapes the play, I still play it as "this is me with these circumstances happening" rather than the D&D route because (for the most part) the community is the setting. I have no qualms with mixing it up by focusing on different aspects, nor with other people playing a role, I just see no benefit to it in a game of deduction using a full-text play out.

Again, I can make no promises of remembering your request. I can only reitterate that there was no negative intent behind my words.

Now, I am still very much interested in seeing if people want to stick to the spirit of the rule, or go more with the letter of the rule moving forward with these rounds.

 

[SleeknFoxy]

Should've listened to bstrey

 

[_Z3_]

@Zatharel - I see why you killed me now.
Again gg everyone, it was fun in the two days I was alive in it. If there some day comes minr mafia 20 then I'll be interested in playing it

 

[Drahmee]

I'd like to try in the next game...

 

[Alphaesia]

Quick couple of thoughts on the game:
First up, everyone got really, really unlucky. The town lost all four of their power roles by the end of Night 3, which dampened their strength a lot. I feel like should Sleek have survived to activate his ability, the town may have survived a bit longer because I guessed the most likely targets of the forced double lynch would have been Grave and Antonio. I would like to have experimented with making Sleek's double lynch activate on death, rallying around him as a martyr.
The mafia also got unlucky, as they never managed to find out anyone with a power role (and survive) with their rolecop, which basically invalidated Zath's role. I would really like to have seen what would have happened if the Mafia had gained access to Creeper's kill. Adding another power role or two to the town (even if they were minor) may have boosted the usefulness of the role.

The independents in this game (yeroc specifically) played a way bigger role than I ever imagined. I was actually a bit surprised when discussion was focused around the Mail Bros aspect of the Independents, which actually added as an after thought when I was trying to balance Creeper's role after the rest of the setup was finalised. No one ever picked up that yeroc had another interesting aspect to his role, which would allow him to self-recruit into factions, should he find their leader. It was a bit unfortunate that Luma was lynched Day 2 (ruining his hopes of ever getting into the mafia). Yeroc's ability was the reason for "probably" in the opening post ("There are probably three mafia.") Again, imagine four mafia on Day 2

The town played pretty well on the first three days, but discussion basically died on Day 4 & 5. I would definitely like to see this set up be played again, or even just the independents as well as Zath's Hijacker role.

For everyone who is reading this, what is your thought on the new interpretation of the Meta rule this round? Should we adopt it for all future rounds or stick to the wording as close as possible? I think we should update the rule, but that is my opinion.

 

[nahfackler]

I just got back today. It has been fun seeing this Mafia round. After pondering for a couple hours, I have my conclusions.
One: I knew I was inactive for a couple real days. I could've checked in at least once a day. After catching up on the beginning of night one, you all decided to kill AFK people. What would that have accomplished? Finally, out of all of the AFKers, Why me?
Two: I love the Mafia in general just because of the sly logic that goes along with it. I think one of the ways the innocents kind of lost was they were killing some people without solid evidence. Personally, on day one there should have been no lynchings.
Overall, this was a fun round to watch. I hope to see y'all in the next round. Good game. Good job Mafia for surviving.
#gomafia

 

[rickyboy320]

I think one of the ways the innocents kind of lost was they were killing some people without solid evidence.

There was no real way to get said 'evidence', unless the detective went full out and spelled out his role to each one of us (and would be killed the night after). Aside from that, the chance that he'd be lying would be also present, as noone could verify this role.

Personally, on day one there should have been no lynching.

No-Lynch is not allowed.
Therefore we had to kill someone, and someone brought you up as the first 'afker', and everyone went with that. Probably poor luck, but someone had to go.

 

[ElectroUnderwear]

So I was gone for a while and am really late now, but I'd just like to point out that no-lynching is typically useless anyway and just throws away one of the few chances that the innocents have to hit scum. Rounds 13-17 had a plethora of no-lynches and completely random lynches and it frequently ended in us having next to no information and getting easily swept.