Jump to content
N-Europe

Mafia General Discussion Thread


ReZourceman

Recommended Posts

Don't forget that the mafia discusses it amongst themselves before sending in their targets. So for most nights they'll be last.

 

Excellent point, one that was implicitly part of my argument.

 

Use story elements to pick priority in those cases.

 

I agree, I believe priorities should be decided by in-game factors, not real-life influences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Could you give an example please?

 

For instance, you could decide that one character is simply a bit faster than the others, meaning that if the outcome depends on who goes first, the faster one "wins". You could also make it sort of like a Pokémon type match-up, i.e. A is faster than B, B is faster than C, but C is smarter than A and thus acts first when facing him. Then again, if you want to keep it simple, that might be making things too complex.

 

Generally, though, if you have a list of general power priority (e.g. protections before roleblocks before redirections, or however you choose to prioritise them), things should work out fine in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you give an example please?

 

I can give you a more practical one. In the Gentlemen's mafia, there was a character (ReZ) who redirected people away from himself, and another character (Peeps) who picked two players, and redirected everyone who targeted either one of these players.

 

Whenever these two would clash, I would establish a rule of what made more sense according to the way their power worked. ReZ simply hid in another player's room, while Peeps tricked characters into going to the wrong room in the first place, so Peeps would have priority over ReZ.

 

When tricky interactions also involving protectors and roleblockers would turn up, I would use the same line of thought: what makes sense, flavour-wise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean where I half-arsedly made a sarcastic comment and then he told me to calm down. And then I proceeded to take the piss out of him? Or do you actually think that I rub hooker tampons on people's underwear? I thought that would make it clear.

 

A bit arrogant? I haven't been doing enough then it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the post he quoted could have been construed as having any emotional attachment to it whatsoever. And what was I being arrogant about, the fact that I knew it was night and he didn't? Or was it that I thought that being told to calm down was hilarious and am not allowed to make fun of someone else?

 

It's all in the banter lads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the post he quoted could have been construed as having any emotional attachment to it whatsoever. And what was I being arrogant about, the fact that I knew it was night and he didn't? Or was it that I thought that being told to calm down was hilarious and am not allowed to make fun of someone else?

 

It's all in the banter lads.

 

Well, we often have a hard time seeing how what we say can be misinterpreted since we know exactly what we mean ourselves. Doesn't mean others won't take it the wrong way.

 

I didn't personally find your original post about it being night arrogant, but your answer to Dazz just came off as a bit passive-aggressive to me.

 

Anyway, this point became much bigger than I intended it to. Bottom line, I have absolutely nothing against banter, we just need to be aware of how what we say is interpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...