Mafiascum.net

1: Each player starts with 3 votes.
2: When a player votes, they must place all their votes on a given player. Effectively they don't have 3 votes as much as a triple-weight vote.
3: Lynching is acheived when a majority of votes are cast.
4: At night, each player is compelled to pass one of their votes onto another player. Scum can pass their votes to each other if they want. Non-responses are passed on randomly.
5: The number of votes each player has is public at all times.
6: If a player ends up with 5 or more votes, then instead of passing on one vote at night, they must pass on two votes, each to different players. If seven or more, they must pass on three, and so on.
7: Vote redistribution happens "first thing in the morning", i.e. after kills.

Presumably if a player dies, they could take more or less than their fair share of votes with them? eg someone has 7 votes, plans to give three away, but is NKed and those 7 are all lost (possibly leaving the mafia in a very strong place!).

To clarify lynch majority - presumably if player A has 3 votes, player B has 2 and player C has 7, the lynch majority is 7 (3+2+7 = 12, half of 12 is 6, majority is 7)? Therefore C totally controls the lynch?

Seems like an interesting idea. I have no idea if it would work in practice though - spideysenses tell me that scum could probably steal an early victory by controlling the votes early on and not givng them away.

Oh, and this might be an interesting balancing mechanic - the fact you have 5 votes = 2 to give away, 7 = 3 to give away, etc implies a formula:

Votes to give away = (number of votes - 1) / 2 (rounded down)

Therefore people with 1 or 2 votes shouldn't have to give any away?

Dasquian wrote:Presumably if a player dies, they could take more or less than their fair share of votes with them? eg someone has 7 votes, plans to give three away, but is NKed and those 7 are all lost (possibly leaving the mafia in a very strong place!).

That's correct.

edit: That's correct as I currently envisage it. It may actually be more interesting if the votes are redistributed before the kill, but I like the idea that Mafia can target town influence by killing vote aggregators as opposed to personalities (although the two are likely to align, giving potential for the double-whammy).

To clarify lynch majority - presumably if player A has 3 votes, player B has 2 and player C has 7, the lynch majority is 7 (3+2+7 = 12, half of 12 is 6, majority is 7)? Therefore C totally controls the lynch?

Yes, it's possible for one player to end up in a kingmaker situation.

Seems like an interesting idea. I have no idea if it would work in practice though - spideysenses tell me that scum could probably steal an early victory by controlling the votes early on and not givng them away.

Well, there's then discussion of who passed their votes on to whom. Scum keeping their votes amongst themselves will make it easier to identify the group, and whilst it's possible to lie, the fact the total number of votes is public means some deduction on those lies is possible. So scum do have a dilemma as to whether to keep their votes in their group or not.

Dasquian wrote:Oh, and this might be an interesting balancing mechanic - the fact you have 5 votes = 2 to give away, 7 = 3 to give away, etc implies a formula:

Votes to give away = (number of votes - 1) / 2 (rounded down)

Therefore people with 1 or 2 votes shouldn't have to give any away?

Quite right - I forgot to say that with one vote, you don't pass it on (you can't be left voteless). With two, you do pass on. That means the formula doesn't work so cleanly, but it's only in place to help address vote aggregation - nobody should ever be left voteless, and should someone end up with eight votes for some reason it allows redistribution, but if players with two didn't pass on, there would be a considerable proportion of the population excluded from a principal mechanic of the game from quite early on. Of course, if players want to keep someone as a heavy influence they can keep passing votes back to them.

Plus there's scope for vote redistribution roles in the game too, although I think a mountainous version of this game is probably appropriate for the first run.

Would a game with this mechanic include some roles that deals with vote distribution, such as a tracker of votes or vote robber?

Machiavellian-Mafia wrote:Would a game with this mechanic include some roles that deals with vote distribution, such as a tracker of votes or vote robber?

It could. I think it'd be interesting to run it mountainous first, then a roled version to follow up - there is definitely scope for new roles that interact with the mechanic here, but the mechanic itself adds another dimension to the game, and as such the game is in danger of getting excessively dense with roles - especially unprecedented roles -at the same time as a brand new open mechanic.

I like it. When does it start.

Would you make it 9:2 or what?

Oman wrote:I like it. When does it start.

Would you make it 9:2 or what?

No idea to both points - not even sure if I'm looking to run it at the moment (I'm not good at being an attentive mod, too much stuff happening in my life). I only got the mechanic idea about five minutes before posting the thread. Besides, this is behind Poison Mafia in my queue of minor mechanic variation mini games anyway.

Seol wrote:I think a mountainous version of this game is probably appropriate for the first run.

Seol wrote:

Machiavellian-Mafia wrote:Would a game with this mechanic include some roles that deals with vote distribution, such as a tracker of votes or vote robber?

It could. I think it'd be interesting to run it mountainous first, then a roled version to follow up - there is definitely scope for new roles that interact with the mechanic here, but the mechanic itself adds another dimension to the game, and as such the game is in danger of getting excessively dense with roles - especially unprecedented roles -at the same time as a brand new open mechanic.

That's Stoofer's 4th Law, by the way.

Mr Stoofer wrote:

Seol wrote:I think a mountainous version of this game is probably appropriate for the first run.

Seol wrote:

Machiavellian-Mafia wrote:Would a game with this mechanic include some roles that deals with vote distribution, such as a tracker of votes or vote robber?

It could. I think it'd be interesting to run it mountainous first, then a roled version to follow up - there is definitely scope for new roles that interact with the mechanic here, but the mechanic itself adds another dimension to the game, and as such the game is in danger of getting excessively dense with roles - especially unprecedented roles -at the same time as a brand new open mechanic.

That's Stoofer's 4th Law, by the way.

That relates to the town's expectation of success, correct? I'm more concerned with the mechanic itself being explored, being the most notable aspect of the game, and not being complicated to the extent that the game is less enjoyable.

Nope, you are thinking of Stoofer's 3rd Law. Stoofer's 4th Law is this:

MafiaWiki wrote:

Stoofer's 4th Law

When experimenting with new mechanics, keep everything else as simple as possible.

Discussion

This is just common sense. The idea is that the starting point for a radical new mechanic should be a plain Mountainous setup, or one with only a few simple power roles. If the mechanic works, by all means try it with a more complicated collection of roles.

You post 6 says almost exactly the same thing.

Mr Stoofer wrote:Nope, you are thinking of Stoofer's 3rd Law. Stoofer's 4th Law is this:

MafiaWiki wrote:

Stoofer's 4th Law

When experimenting with new mechanics, keep everything else as simple as possible.

Discussion

This is just common sense. The idea is that the starting point for a radical new mechanic should be a plain Mountainous setup, or one with only a few simple power roles. If the mechanic works, by all means try it with a more complicated collection of roles.

You post 6 says almost exactly the same thing.

Yes, I agree with you 100% on this (and have done for ages: case in point, original Lights Out Mafia). Unfortunately I couldn't do the sensible thing and check your link - the websense equivalent here at work allows access to the forums, but blocks following links to games and/or the Wiki.

I've added the comments from your post 6 to the wiki.

Originally, I thought of the reductionist strategy where everyone agrees to pass their vote down a predetermined list, and if the votes get uneven you know who screwed it up and lynch them. In a killless game, if the strategy is followed completely you're playing normal Mafia, and as town I don't see a sufficient advantage in actually using the mechanic.

Of course, nightkills change that around a little bit, assuming that attempts to pass a vote to a dying player simply fail. Strategizing on the town's end could definitely rebalance it and keep any discrepancies minor, though.

/in


I'd really like to try that.