Games Mafia Game 66 - Hunter x Hunter: End game

[Copy Panda]

Player Roles
~

 

[GrySun]

Well, it's not liberty. Nothing is written, so it's up to the host's interpretation. Adding explanations about it would be good indeed.

Yeah, meant other things with „liberties“, was it you or someone else who said at day 1 or 2 that some game rules aren‘t being followed again?

Other than that, the basic Traitor functions(despite being heavily implied how it works imo) could use some more text, and having Traitors in a game with more than 1 mafia group had no precedent so it was up to them how to resolve those. Though don’t think them being recruitable by any group is the right choice.

 

[Copy Panda]

Ola familia

First of all, unlike most of the earlier hiatus' there so you could share our suffering in waiting for new chapters, the hiatus wasn't supposed to last this long (n10 was supposed to cover my impromptu workday). I'll talk about my cutesy experiences then.

I'll just go ahead and make a post covering thoughts, the next post will have role list and night actions and memes afterwards.

Overall experience

This game was maybe the most fun I had even without playing. The earlier days were filled with cut throat deductions and the latter half was coldhearted clean up (lovely). Overall, because no one played bad, and most actively engaged in figuring out rules and playing around those, I had lots of fun.

Comp

Kelogg, a philosopher, wrote about the idea of 'convention' and 'common knowledge' in his book Convention. Essentially, it boils down to 'knowing something, knowing the other knows something, knowing the other knows that you know something, knowing that the other knows that you know that other knows that you know something' etc..

Basically, between these people, a 'convention' is established, some kind of agreed upon way to act upon this knowledge. Especially in an imperfect information game like mafia, such concepts are prevalent (because it in part relates to game theory), because information that's released is then immediately acted on by others. Every bit of information you could give has some kind of expected or predicted response ('I'm a doctor!' vs 'I'm an innocent child!' or say 'I'm a bar keeper!').

A while later I then heard the following riddle, coincidentally related to this concept:

"On an island, there are 20 people who have blue eyes. At the start of the puzzle, no one on the island ever knows their own eye color. By rule, if a person on the island ever discovers they have blue eyes, that person must leave the island at dawn; anyone not making such a discovery always sleeps until after dawn. On the island, each person knows every other person's eye color, there are no reflective surfaces, and there is no discussion of eye color.

At some point, an outsider comes to the island, calls together all the people on the island, and makes the following public announcement: "At least one of you has blue eyes". The outsider, furthermore, is known by all to be truthful, and all know that all know this, and so on: it is common knowledge that he is truthful, and thus it becomes common knowledge that there is at least one islander who has blue eyes. The problem: assuming all persons on the island are 200iq and that this too is common knowledge, what is the eventual outcome?" (wiki)

From here came the idea of a list filled with traitors. There were four rules regarding traitors, the first two of which became prevalent information soon and third until later:

1. (almost) everyone is a traitor
2. all traitors received just one name
3. only real traitors received real mafia names
4. traitors can be recruited by either mafia team

Simple rules, I think, and most of all, because of how the information was presented, it became hard to doubt. If we gave three names, people would claim varying amounts. If we gave two names, people might claim they're fakes by giving a single name (and then claiming that it's unlikely there's a single member mafia). But in a situation where every traitor received but a single name, no one with more names would be taken seriously.

In relation to common knowledge, Rule 2 was acknowledged as the announcement that plenty of players must have a secondary role. Gry and Demon figured out this mechanic on night 2 (after a single day phase) completely. James revealed this system super early on, day 2.

Now this was a very defining moment, when common knowledge begins to bleed into the group. It was super fun to see how slowly but surely people were forced to ease into the idea that everyone was a traitor (i.e. if just half of the group or less was a traitor, this wouldn't have happened since with less reveals, the odds of you being a real traitor is that much higher). I think this reveal would have only been fun if it was as quick as it was or really slow and awkward. I'm glad it wasn't some uninspired in-between situation. Thanks, James.

It's only after this much that I feel comfy addressing the rule breaking. See, to me there are three kinds of rule breaking; anarchic, ignorant and supplementary. Anarchic rule breaking is the bad kind of breaking in my opinion. 'Anarchy' means 'lack of order/direction (leadership)'. As in, some kind of no-mans land where everyone is proper 'tf m8'. I can only imagine this is done to create confusion for the sake of it and it leads to nothing. Players can't play the game if they can't trust any of the rules. Ignorance speaks for itself, unknowningly breaking rules is bad but it wasn't intentional.

I'd say this games rules fall in the third bracket, where a broken rule is replaced with another salient rule that everyone in the game catches onto. Save for Gry who claimed three names (out of pride? going to play as a traitor would be played normally, to hell with these rules? idk), there was actually no problems with everyone's understanding of the situation as far as I could tell. Convention was established fairly early on.

Then comes in the second, arguably spicier part. Since the mafia aren't traitors, some people aren't listed on the traitor side of the ledger. Of course, the mafia doesn't know what names these are and if it's fine to claim a name someone else claimed. Moreover, if they did, that could indicate both the named person as real mafia and they and their fellow claimant as real traitors. With traitors around, and so their names being knowledge to a real traitor, they can't just name each other. Of course, with Rule 2, an early night and a few killing parties, it wouldn't ever be truly clear if everyone so far was a traitor.

At any rate, not a single mafia rolled with 'I'm a traitor and this is my name', which was a bit of a shame, but I don't was ever leveraged. I wanted one non-traitor to see what they would do. Thankfully it landed on Hardy who sassed his way out of most situation. Thanks for playing, poopie.

Hm.. As for Rule 1... There was on d3 some kind of voting inflation xd But all I can say is that the idea was trying to figure out some way to allow town to punish low posters. You can't prevent it but it'd be nice if you could see who they are clearly and punish them if it makes sense to/if the situation allows it.

Lmao I guess I missed making walls. I'll post role list and thoughts on that in next post.

 

[James Rye]

@Copy Panda NP.
And yeah, if I had been a mafia I would totally have named somebody as my "contract" and acted as a traitor. Can't believe no mafia went for that. Well, the truth is always easier to handle, but still, we were still thinking that having a mafia would not automatically mean you were a real traitor. That could have given the edge in some debates. But what really killed mafias were the role claims due the whole 3 of a kind thingie going on. Here the Janitor could have really shined.

 

[Lawl Po Bia]

boy oh boy i cant wait to cry about my character/avatar next game, better stock up on cute smileyes so my plea would have a bigger impact. #littleflower

 

[Purity of Magi]

boy oh boy i cant wait to cry about my character/avatar next game, better stock up on cute smileyes so my plea would have a bigger impact. #littleflower

just prepare some kawaii emojis and ur gonna be all dajiobu. #countdown

 

[GrySun]

That reads like a very PR-esque post. Nice and tidy. Interesting riddle that inspired you for this game.

It's only after this much that I feel comfy addressing the rule breaking. See, to me there are three kinds of rule breaking; anarchic, ignorant and supplementary. Anarchic rule breaking is the bad kind of breaking in my opinion. 'Anarchy' means 'lack of order/direction (leadership)'. As in, some kind of no-mans land where everyone is proper 'tf m8'. I can only imagine this is done to create confusion for the sake of it and it leads to nothing. Players can't play the game if they can't trust any of the rules. Ignorance speaks for itself, unknowningly breaking rules is bad but it wasn't intentional.

I'd say this games rules fall in the third bracket, where a broken rule is replaced with another salient rule that everyone in the game catches onto. Save for Gry who claimed three names (out of pride? going to play as a traitor would be played normally, to hell with these rules? idk), there was actually no problems with everyone's understanding of the situation as far as I could tell.

I really liked the mass Traitor idea, but you didn’t do it properly.
I‘d say your mistake falls into category 2 rather, and expected better than a „10 people eventually came out and confirmed that the rules are different, making it fine“ reasoning... Any changes to regular roles/rules need to be stated at the very start of the game and that wasn‘t done.

 

[Holt]

Well I can understand Gry's point. Indeed the one name traitor thing was a decent point. In the event that a mafia actually caught on to the fact that there are many traitors, he would have no way to know that traitors get one name. If he tried to fake, he would easily be found out since he would go after the general rule (that traitors get names of all mafia, and thus even naive will get same number of names though random) as opposed to the game specific rule (one name per traitor in this case). This was how Gry fell easily with the mismatched number of names as a traitor. Tbh, I'm kinda middle ground on this. The traitors (real/naive) all knew there was only one name, a mafia lying about being a traitor is liable to make errors. In the event there are 2 teams, a mafia faking traitor might still not know the the size of the other team. There could still be inconsistencies...I do believe the rule-breaking in this case like Panda said was not too big of a deal. But I suppose it wouldn't have hurt to say that the traitor's number of names might differ from usual.

 

[Asako]

Player Roles
~

​

Hmm lambu is janitor and bomb defuser......hmmm


Also @Crescent Jinx look if it wasn't for a doc, u could been a mafia you too @Aizen
And so my accomplice so technically a mafia just a traitor, I see...

 

[Crescent Jinx]

​

Hmm lambu is janitor and bomb defuser......hmmm


Also @Crescent Jinx look if it wasn't for a doc, u could been a mafia you too @Aizen
And so my accomplice so technically a mafia just a traitor, I see...

The SonsofFate stopped me from being on my destined red team with Gry, Demon and Arjuna or stolen away to be an orange with Lambu, Takuan and syx.


The jinxing was too strong

 

[Copy Panda]

That reads like a very PR-esque post. Nice and tidy. Interesting riddle that inspired you for this game.

I really liked the mass Traitor idea, but you didn’t do it properly.
I‘d say your mistake falls into category 2 rather, and expected better than a „10 people eventually came out and confirmed that the rules are different, making it fine“ reasoning... Any changes to regular roles/rules need to be stated at the very start of the game and that wasn‘t done.

It was balanced out no? You had even had a night to recruit potential traitors.

And besides, it was all of town that bought into this system; the amount of names on the list received was the only tweak to the rule and it applied to all of town (except hardy); everyone was confirming the same rule. And everyone responded with one of two obvious answers; 'I have one name' or 'I have no name'. You were the only one that claimed three names and it stuck out like a sore thumb. I opted for 1 over 3 for some reasons stated before, but also stuff like 'easier to keep track of names' and 'easier to confirm sanity'.

Don't get me wrong; I fully understand your point, but without giving up the element of surprise, I thought this would be the best and fairest way to go about it. I'll definitely take this critique into consideration for next time, as always.

Well I can understand Gry's point. Indeed the one name traitor thing was a decent point. In the event that a mafia actually caught on to the fact that there are many traitors, he would have no way to know that traitors get one name. If he tried to fake, he would easily be found out since he would go after the general rule (that traitors get names of all mafia, and thus even naive will get same number of names though random) as opposed to the game specific rule (one name per traitor in this case). This was how Gry fell easily with the mismatched number of names as a traitor. Tbh, I'm kinda middle ground on this. The traitors (real/naive) all knew there was only one name, a mafia lying about being a traitor is liable to make errors. In the event there are 2 teams, a mafia faking traitor might still not know the the size of the other team. There could still be inconsistencies...I do believe the rule-breaking in this case like Panda said was not too big of a deal. But I suppose it wouldn't have hurt to say that the traitor's number of names might differ from usual.

Well the rules say the names are randomized, not the amount of names. And even then, with everyone saying they got one name, I just don't see the merit of saying 'hey guys, everyone is in the dark over getting one name, but I, a doc, got three names!'.

So he could find out and he did (because like 10 people said I have one name, why defy that trend?), and he could have recruited someone that'd confirm that real traitors also receive just one name. From there he could even deduce that real traitors get real names.

 

[Erinyes]

Only interesting thing I know about night actions is that both me and Farfs targeted Erin in the nights of our deaths. Perinoid gun owner?

naniii !?

Seems im cursed....

Oh wait, could it be that my nen is so strong that it ends up killing anyone who target me ? omoshiroi !

 

[Hardy]

Well the rules say the names are randomized, not the amount of names.

I mean, I'm overall on your side but it does say "names of all mafias". That said, I usually don't mind rulebending like that, specially if it comes with fun results like this one. Playing around it wasn't hard either, specially once people started talking about it (which was very early).

 

[Farfalla]

Yeah, meant other things with „liberties“, was it you or someone else who said at day 1 or 2 that some game rules aren‘t being followed again?

Other than that, the basic Traitor functions(despite being heavily implied how it works imo) could use some more text, and having Traitors in a game with more than 1 mafia group had no precedent so it was up to them how to resolve those. Though don’t think them being recruitable by any group is the right choice.

It was me yeah, talked to Magi about it alrdy during the game.

I don't think it's heavily implied. You and me had different opinions on that during the game. I asked Panda, he had a third one. I talked to Hardy about it, he shares Panda's PoV. You can't call 4 people that are used to this game having different views as something being heavily implied there. We gotta fix the wording of other roles as well anyway, that should be an easy and recurrent process, imo. In the end, it's even hard to demand people to follow the rules if they are broad or unspecific.

 

[Copy Panda]

It was me yeah, talked to Magi about it alrdy during the game.

I don't think it's heavily implied. You and me had different opinions on that during the game. I asked Panda, he had a third one. I talked to Hardy about it, he shares Panda's PoV. You can't call 4 people that are used to this game having different views as something being heavily implied there. We gotta fix the wording of other roles as well anyway, that should be an easy and recurrent process, imo. In the end, it's even hard to demand people to follow the rules if they are broad or unspecific.

I mean, I'm overall on your side but it does say "names of all mafias". That said, I usually don't mind rulebending like that, specially if it comes with fun results like this one. Playing around it wasn't hard either, specially once people started talking about it (which was very early).

It's time for me to make my debut in the role suggestion thread

 

[Farfalla]

Ola familia

First of all, unlike most of the earlier hiatus' there so you could share our suffering in waiting for new chapters, the hiatus wasn't supposed to last this long (n10 was supposed to cover my impromptu workday). I'll talk about my cutesy experiences then.

I'll just go ahead and make a post covering thoughts, the next post will have role list and night actions and memes afterwards.

Overall experience

This game was maybe the most fun I had even without playing. The earlier days were filled with cut throat deductions and the latter half was coldhearted clean up (lovely). Overall, because no one played bad, and most actively engaged in figuring out rules and playing around those, I had lots of fun.

Comp

Kelogg, a philosopher, wrote about the idea of 'convention' and 'common knowledge' in his book Convention. Essentially, it boils down to 'knowing something, knowing the other knows something, knowing the other knows that you know something, knowing that the other knows that you know that other knows that you know something' etc..

Basically, between these people, a 'convention' is established, some kind of agreed upon way to act upon this knowledge. Especially in an imperfect information game like mafia, such concepts are prevalent (because it in part relates to game theory), because information that's released is then immediately acted on by others. Every bit of information you could give has some kind of expected or predicted response ('I'm a doctor!' vs 'I'm an innocent child!' or say 'I'm a bar keeper!').

A while later I then heard the following riddle, coincidentally related to this concept:

"On an island, there are 20 people who have blue eyes. At the start of the puzzle, no one on the island ever knows their own eye color. By rule, if a person on the island ever discovers they have blue eyes, that person must leave the island at dawn; anyone not making such a discovery always sleeps until after dawn. On the island, each person knows every other person's eye color, there are no reflective surfaces, and there is no discussion of eye color.

At some point, an outsider comes to the island, calls together all the people on the island, and makes the following public announcement: "At least one of you has blue eyes". The outsider, furthermore, is known by all to be truthful, and all know that all know this, and so on: it is common knowledge that he is truthful, and thus it becomes common knowledge that there is at least one islander who has blue eyes. The problem: assuming all persons on the island are 200iq and that this too is common knowledge, what is the eventual outcome?" (wiki)

From here came the idea of a list filled with traitors. There were four rules regarding traitors, the first two of which became prevalent information soon and third until later:

1. (almost) everyone is a traitor
2. all traitors received just one name
3. only real traitors received real mafia names
4. traitors can be recruited by either mafia team

Simple rules, I think, and most of all, because of how the information was presented, it became hard to doubt. If we gave three names, people would claim varying amounts. If we gave two names, people might claim they're fakes by giving a single name (and then claiming that it's unlikely there's a single member mafia). But in a situation where every traitor received but a single name, no one with more names would be taken seriously.

In relation to common knowledge, Rule 2 was acknowledged as the announcement that plenty of players must have a secondary role. Gry and Demon figured out this mechanic on night 2 (after a single day phase) completely. James revealed this system super early on, day 2.

Now this was a very defining moment, when common knowledge begins to bleed into the group. It was super fun to see how slowly but surely people were forced to ease into the idea that everyone was a traitor (i.e. if just half of the group or less was a traitor, this wouldn't have happened since with less reveals, the odds of you being a real traitor is that much higher). I think this reveal would have only been fun if it was as quick as it was or really slow and awkward. I'm glad it wasn't some uninspired in-between situation. Thanks, James.

It's only after this much that I feel comfy addressing the rule breaking. See, to me there are three kinds of rule breaking; anarchic, ignorant and supplementary. Anarchic rule breaking is the bad kind of breaking in my opinion. 'Anarchy' means 'lack of order/direction (leadership)'. As in, some kind of no-mans land where everyone is proper 'tf m8'. I can only imagine this is done to create confusion for the sake of it and it leads to nothing. Players can't play the game if they can't trust any of the rules. Ignorance speaks for itself, unknowningly breaking rules is bad but it wasn't intentional.

I'd say this games rules fall in the third bracket, where a broken rule is replaced with another salient rule that everyone in the game catches onto. Save for Gry who claimed three names (out of pride? going to play as a traitor would be played normally, to hell with these rules? idk), there was actually no problems with everyone's understanding of the situation as far as I could tell. Convention was established fairly early on.

Then comes in the second, arguably spicier part. Since the mafia aren't traitors, some people aren't listed on the traitor side of the ledger. Of course, the mafia doesn't know what names these are and if it's fine to claim a name someone else claimed. Moreover, if they did, that could indicate both the named person as real mafia and they and their fellow claimant as real traitors. With traitors around, and so their names being knowledge to a real traitor, they can't just name each other. Of course, with Rule 2, an early night and a few killing parties, it wouldn't ever be truly clear if everyone so far was a traitor.

At any rate, not a single mafia rolled with 'I'm a traitor and this is my name', which was a bit of a shame, but I don't was ever leveraged. I wanted one non-traitor to see what they would do. Thankfully it landed on Hardy who sassed his way out of most situation. Thanks for playing, poopie.

Hm.. As for Rule 1... There was on d3 some kind of voting inflation xd But all I can say is that the idea was trying to figure out some way to allow town to punish low posters. You can't prevent it but it'd be nice if you could see who they are clearly and punish them if it makes sense to/if the situation allows it.

Lmao I guess I missed making walls. I'll post role list and thoughts on that in next post.

I see your point and I actually prefer it if traitors would only recieve a name instead of the whole team. That would solve issues that we had in the past, with people basically ruining the game and ending in the hall of shame with reveals. This could be a good change.

I worded the last sentence that way cause you also know how I feel about the use of new things that aren't official xD It casts confusion and can harm people's plays and results. It wasnt the case in this game, imo, but I guess I'll always complain about people feeling encouraged to that. Just my 2 cents c.c I still also enjoyed the whole game a lot and appreciate the care you guys had with me

 

[Purity of Magi]

It was me yeah, talked to Magi about it alrdy during the game.

.....

It was me yeah, talked to Magi about it alrdy during the game.

.....

It was me yeah, talked to Magi about it alrdy during the game.

You know she has a different aura around her when she calls me Magi instead of the usual Magu. Really kowaii ...

Well, time to hide myself before she finds me...............

Spoiler

.............!!!!!!

 

[Lawl Po Bia]

did the hosts post their mvp of the game yet?

 

[Farfalla]

.....



.....



You know she has a different aura around her when she calls me Magi instead of the usual Magu. Really kowaii ...

Well, time to hide myself before she finds me...............

Spoiler

.............!!!!!!

I use "your real name" when I'm being serious, not necessarily mad D: Wacku.

 

[Purity of Magi]

I use "your real name" when I'm being serious, not necessarily mad D: Wacku.

Just as I said: KOWAII AS FRIK! YOU WILL NEVER CATCH ME!!