jayseven Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Plus you can get away with being inactive for a few nights and return to be alive then BLAMMO kick ass. Also you can be called away without notice, thus unable to say "I'll be away a few nights" And What's to stop a mafia saying "I'm gonna be away a week" when actually they're secretly signing onto the forums JUST to do their nightkills? I don't even know what the argument is! I just thougth I'd say that.
Rummy Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Well, again it's a rule that gets set in place so it's up to the person who sets it. Inactivity due to real life claims are slightly more controversial I think, possibly because they sort of break the 4th wall of the game? It stops being contained within itself, and appeals to people's personal non-game related opinions to not judge you for having a life. It's almost as if saying you're not playing the game, when in fact you actually still are.
The Peeps Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 If people question your actual inactivity ie - they say 'you're not busy, you're just mafia' then sure you can get 'offended' (legitimately or not). If people say 'you may be busy but you're still a person of significant doubt', you have no right to be offended. You may still try the offended routine but you'd be completely unjustified and I'd hope someone would call you out on it.
EEVILMURRAY Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 And What's to stop a mafia saying "I'm gonna be away a week" when actually they're secretly signing onto the forums JUST to do their nightkills? I'M GOING TO BE VERY OFFENDED BY THAT REMARK. GRRR. CAN YOU SEE HOW PISSED I AM!?
Tales Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 If people say 'you may be busy but you're still a person of significant doubt', you have no right to be offended. You may still try the offended routine but you'd be completely unjustified and I'd hope someone would call you out on it. This .
EEVILMURRAY Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I don't understand. I'm going to be away for a week.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Well, again it's a rule that gets set in place so it's up to the person who sets it. Inactivity due to real life claims are slightly more controversial I think, possibly because they sort of break the 4th wall of the game? It stops being contained within itself, and appeals to people's personal non-game related opinions to not judge you for having a life. It's almost as if saying you're not playing the game, when in fact you actually still are. I see your point, but I don't think it's possible (nor desirable) to completely remove the 4th wall/metagame aspect of the game. You could argue that every time you use an argument like "Would the GM have done this?" or "I can't image two townie double voters," you're thinking outside the boundaries of the game itself. To me it seems the most problematic aspect of it lies in the inactivity itself; inactivity is the bane of mafia games, and I think it may be about time we implemented some more strict rules regarding replacements and punishments. Something like people having to post a certain number of times during each day phase or something. This would both solve the problem of actual inactive people and people using inactivity as a tactic, but without discriminating against any of them - it would simply be a way of ensuring that the game doesn't die. If people question your actual inactivity ie - they say 'you're not busy, you're just mafia' then sure you can get 'offended' (legitimately or not). If people say 'you may be busy but you're still a person of significant doubt', you have no right to be offended. You may still try the offended routine but you'd be completely unjustified and I'd hope someone would call you out on it. I agree, but that would also become part of the metagame if it came down to it. This . I realise you thought I was doing exactly this, but I can assure you that wasn't the case despite it probably looking like it. I completely agree that using inactivity as an excuse to avoid questioning is low and doesn't make sense.
Diageo Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Can we not just agree that you can say whatever you want, and people should stop acting like little girls and getting actually emotional about these games?
Rummy Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I see your point, but I don't think it's possible (nor desirable) to completely remove the 4th wall/metagame aspect of the game. You could argue that every time you use an argument like "Would the GM have done this?" or "I can't image two townie double voters," you're thinking outside the boundaries of the game itself. I don't think it's quite the same. The latter two, whilst being metagame, are still more within the realms of the game. Would the GM have done this in this game?, I can't imagine two townie double voters in this game. It's still self-contained, real life is outside of it somewhat, I think that's what makes it controversial. It's not 'Am I busy in real life in this game?', it's unrelated(unless that's your tactic, in which case the question is valid :p). Can we not just agree that you can say whatever you want, and people should stop acting like little girls and getting actually emotional about these games? No! You're always so mean about everything god! *runs off crying*
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I don't think it's quite the same. The latter two, whilst being metagame, are still more within the realms of the game. Would the GM have done this in this game?, I can't imagine two townie double voters in this game. It's still self-contained, real life is outside of it somewhat, I think that's what makes it controversial. It's not 'Am I busy in real life in this game?', it's unrelated(unless that's your tactic, in which case the question is valid :p). Yeah, I do see what you mean. But I just don't see how one can fairly get around it. Real life doesn't just cease to exist while we're playing, so inevitably it becomes part of the game. How can we set up fair rules about it?
Nintendohnut Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Bottom line - It's part of a game, and unless its in the rules that you aren't allowed to do it, it will happen. Get over it (sista)!
Rummy Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Oh, I wasn't under it. I just thought it an interesting point of discussion. I'm not bothered either way, just interested in things that mix things up.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Oh, I know, I just agree that it's an interesting discussion.
Nintendohnut Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Me too, but some people are seemingly wanting something to be done about it. I know you don't specifically Rummy - it was more aimed at people like Tales and Diageo who seem to keep going on and on about it :p It is an interesting discussion, but I just feel like we're going around in circles now, if you see what I mean
The Peeps Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I don't think anyone is 'going on about it'. Some people are just on the other side of the argument/discussion.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I think we should conclude that it's up to the individual GMs what rules they wish to implement, be it against inactivity, talking about inactivity in the game, or something else altogether.
heroicjanitor Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I think that the argument is being spun to make it seem like people are against excuses :p They'e against people using personal attacks to scare people off.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I think that the argument is being spun to make it seem like people are against excuses :p They'e against people using personal attacks to scare people off. Obviously it should never come down to personal attacks. That's just taking it too far.
Yvonne Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 Personal attacks, classic mafia tac- ok maybe that joke has been told too many times...
Yvonne Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 So! I have a question! I was wondering if it was possible for me to run a smallish mafia if there is a point soon where there aren't many going on. I figure I'd run maybe a ten person vanilla mafia to get a feel for running games ahead of doing anything experimental that could fall flat. If people like this idea let me know and I'll mash together a plan quickly?
jayseven Posted November 6, 2011 Posted November 6, 2011 I genuinely think the best possible solution to 90% of all mafia problems... is in running a few quick and small games. You can have a game with 7 players, where tere's two maff and 5 non... the danger is, of course, that the maff are discovered immediately, but hey! That's the risk.
Recommended Posts