M41: Mafia of the Multiverse

[Mogri]

Previously...

After their fierce battle with La Capitán that spanned time and space, our heroes were ready for a little downtime. But Baron Blade had other plans -- he's up to his old tricks again. Can the Sentinels stop Baron Blade from activating his TerraLunar Impulsion Beam, or should we start investing in lunar real estate?

Baron Blade plays Devious Disruption!

Originally Posted by Devious Disruption

Once per night, one hero target cannot use powers.

(To balance out this setup overly favoring the town, Baron Blade is being given a roleblock power. If he targets The Visionary or her partner, the private chat will be suspended during the following day.)

In this Issue:

• dtsund
• Egarwaen
• Falselogic
• Gerad
• Johnny Unusual
• Rufferto
• Taeryn
• Trar
• aturtledoesbite

Editor's Notes

Please make sure your votes are bolded and on their own line. I will probably miss them otherwise.

Day ends in 72 hours.

[aturtledoesbite]

HOORAY IT'S A MAFIA

...i forgot how to play mafia

[Egarwaen]

We all forget how to play mafia.

[Falselogic]

This is where I would normally post a pokemon picture.

But! The old meta is dead. So long live the new meta!



(the new meta is me posting digimon)

((OMG! These things look so fucking dumb))

Alright, everyone time to check in!

[Gerad]

Hello! I'm a good guy!

[Rufferto]

Checking in.

[Taeryn]

I think we should all just be friends.

Super Friends

(I don't know anything about comic books.)

[Johnny Unusual]

Yo!

Originally Posted by Taeryn

I think we should all just be friends.

Super Friends

[Falselogic]

Time to check in dtsund and Trar

[Gerad]

From the pitch, it looks like:

1 inspector
1 chatter
5 town

1 role-blocker
1 mafia

is a reasonable assumption for how the game is laid out. So we've got to find a supervillain by day 3 or we're done for, the world ends, etc.

[Falselogic]

In fact I think we should all be talking a little more? The only way to win this game is make good calls on our votes and the only way to make good calls is to have something to judge.

So time to start talking folks! Let's find some scum!

[aturtledoesbite]

Originally Posted by Falselogic

So time to start talking folks!

What'cha wanna talk about? I'm guessing not Pokemon or hot dogs...

[Gerad]

No dtsund and no Trar yet. Speak up, guys! Someone is going to get kryptonited!

[Falselogic]

Originally Posted by Gerad

No dtsund and no Trar yet. Speak up, guys! Someone is going to get kryptonited!

No need to repeat the things I have already said!

I was thinking there was only one mafia though because Mogri mentioned that the Baron had a roleblock power.

Re-reading it though maybe there were not going to be any mafia powers?

I'm a little confused now.

[Gerad]

Seems clear to me that there weren't going to be any mafia powers originally and now there are. Only 1 mafia doesn't make any sense numbers-wise; 3 wouldn't need a role-blocker to strengthen them, so it has to be 2.

[Falselogic]

Originally Posted by Gerad

Seems clear to me that there weren't going to be any mafia powers originally and now there are. Only 1 mafia doesn't make any sense numbers-wise; 3 wouldn't need a role-blocker to strengthen them, so it has to be 2.

That makes more sense. I think I just misread Mogri's original post and never went back to the other thread to check the rules.

[Rufferto]

What do you guys think of Johnny? Seems pretty fishy to me.

[dtsund]

Sorry I'm late; got my Switch and Breath of the Wild yesterday, checking anything on this forum kind of fell victim to that and I didn't know this had started.

And yeah, H=6 with this many players would be really rough for the town. I think this is an H=7 game.

[Taeryn]

I actually thought the same as FL from reading Mogri's pitch, but I don't know what H=6 or H=7 means.

I do see the point that 1 mafia and 8 town and two of them powered sounds unfair on its face.

[Egarwaen]

Hmm. Trar is still being quiet.

I'm still of the opinion that we should be killing the most quiet posters. If people aren't talking there's no way to catch scum out in lies.

The write-up does say that the setup overly favors the town... Does H=7 favor the town that strongly?

[Taeryn]

I have always agreed with your line of thinking Egar, but I know you've gotten heat for it in the past.

My thinking has always been that objective #1 is try to catch mafia.
Catching people generally revolves around looking at what they've said especially as days go by and we know the affiliation of more former players.
As such, people who say nothing make the end game harder.

That being said, if we find someone who slips up on day 1 (we've done pretty decent at that on day 1s in the past) that's probably better than voting for someone simply because they forgot the game started. Thinking here being that even if leaving a quiet person makes end game harder, knowing the identity of a divisive target early can be better for the following day and maybe put us in a better position before the end game.

so, while I agree with your thinking in general principle, I consider it secondary. (the tertiary objective being a meta-objective of encouraging people to establish a base level of participation above zero in order to stay in the game, but given this is sort of the long view and has nothing to do with winning the game at hand, especially when we're playing less frequently, it tends not to play a factor in in game discussions as much as in post game discussions about making rules about minimum participation)

[Johnny Unusual]

Yeah, I get wanting to target a silent player, but it is often due to neglect and busyness (or business. Or busy business). Still, I also understand someone, mafia or otherwise, to keep a low profile and avoiding the pointed finger (I myself have an instinct towards shyness in such games). But I think it is just the former, and while it is possible we have a lethargic mafia, I'm not sure if targeting him for doing nothing is the best option yet.

Plus, I think we still have another day and change.

[aturtledoesbite]

We've got ~47 hours, based on when Mogri put up the post

So uh...is this sentinels of the multiverse thing a comic book? I have no idea.

[Egarwaen]

Originally Posted by aturtledoesbite

So uh...is this sentinels of the multiverse thing a comic book? I have no idea.

Let me tell you about the Sentinels of the Multiverse!

Sentinels of the Multiverse is a co-op card game. Each player has a hero deck, and are playing to defeat a villain deck, while dealing with additional complications from an environment deck. The villain and environment decks are "automatic", in that you don't need to make any decisions for them. There's a lot of technical language and complicated card interaction, so a lot of people prefer to play using the excellent digital app. Thematically, the game is about heroes and villains from a completely fictional line of comic books; quotes "from the comics" appear on the bottom of all cards. Baron Blade is the "starter" villain; he's got a few tricks that are overall pretty easy to bypass, including his Mobile Defense Platform (which makes him invincible until it's killed), mobs of goons, and he wins the game automatically if his trash gets too large.

I really do think that lynching someone who's not participating is a good day 1 move, even apart from any notion of the meta-game. Mafia want to attract as little notice as possible, and not posting or posting very little is a fantastic way to do that, as people are reluctant to lynch someone they think is busy or shy. And once we've let someone skate through on day 1, it gets harder and harder to justify not letting them continue to skate.

But Trar's still got some time to speak up, so... No need to rush things yet.

[Johnny Unusual]

I really need to play Sentinels. It sounds really up my alley.

[Gerad]

My position is and always has been to lynch the suspicious people. Sometimes the talkers seem trustworthy and so the quieter ones are more suspicious, and sometimes it's the other way around. But you can't afford to just lynch the quiet people no matter what, or you're almost guaranteed to lose. Not all the quiet people will be mafia; look at all our history here for proof of that.

[Falselogic]

A board game I think? I'm okay with lynching silent people when its the only option. But I don't know how effective it ever was at finding mafia.

[aturtledoesbite]

I've never been a big fan of "lynch the quietest person", myself. Like, as circumstantial evidence to support a case, sure, but it's hardly decisive enough to warrant a vote on its own.

[Rufferto]

Originally Posted by Taeryn

I have always agreed with your line of thinking Egar, but I know you've gotten heat for it in the past.

My thinking has always been that objective #1 is try to catch mafia.
Catching people generally revolves around looking at what they've said especially as days go by and we know the affiliation of more former players.
As such, people who say nothing make the end game harder.

That being said, if we find someone who slips up on day 1 (we've done pretty decent at that on day 1s in the past) that's probably better than voting for someone simply because they forgot the game started. Thinking here being that even if leaving a quiet person makes end game harder, knowing the identity of a divisive target early can be better for the following day and maybe put us in a better position before the end game.

so, while I agree with your thinking in general principle, I consider it secondary. (the tertiary objective being a meta-objective of encouraging people to establish a base level of participation above zero in order to stay in the game, but given this is sort of the long view and has nothing to do with winning the game at hand, especially when we're playing less frequently, it tends not to play a factor in in game discussions as much as in post game discussions about making rules about minimum participation)

Mmm... This post bugs me. Your first remark is to agree with Egarwaen on his stance, but the rest of the post basically refutes why we should prioritize killing quiet players. I also feel like you're trying to buddy up to Egarwaen here, e.g. "I always secretly agreed with you."
Not indicative of anything yet, but for everyone else, keep this in the back of your minds when you're thinking about the motivation behind Taeryn's posts.

[Taeryn]

Originally Posted by Rufferto

Mmm... This post bugs me. Your first remark is to agree with Egarwaen on his stance, but the rest of the post basically refutes why we should prioritize killing quiet players. I also feel like you're trying to buddy up to Egarwaen here, e.g. "I always secretly agreed with you."
Not indicative of anything yet, but for everyone else, keep this in the back of your minds when you're thinking about the motivation behind Taeryn's posts.

Yeah, I knew this was coming almost as soon as I posted this. Fair enough that you suspect me for what I said. I don't think I'm agreeing and then disagreeing. I'm basically saying the same thing as Falselogic just said in a lot more words.

I am trying to buddy up to Egarwaen. I'm trying to buddy up to everyone so you will like me and not throw me out of the game. Also, I want people to have good experiences playing mafia so we can play more of it in the future.

I think the discussion has been helpful to see where everyone comes from. We never all agree on this but I think we're not far off from each other.