Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Survival of the Fittest, a RPing board loosely based off of Koshun Takami's Battle Royale, with its own unique plot and spin on the 'deadly game'. We've been around quite a while, and are now in our thirteenth year, so don't worry about us going anywhere any time soon!

If you're a newcomer and interested in joining, then please make sure you check out the rules. You may also want to read the FAQ, introduce yourself and stop by the chat to meet some of our members. If you're still not quite sure where to start, then we have a great New Member's Guide with a lot of useful information about getting going. Don't hesitate to PM a member of staff (they have purple usernames) if you have any questions about SOTF and how to get started!

Let the games begin!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Rooster Teeth Mafia Game Thread; LEEEEEEET'S PLAY
Topic Started: Mar 20 2016, 12:59 PM (4,601 Views)
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Role received!

VOTE: Yugi for fail formatting.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm also wholly unfamiliar with Rooster Teeth. My thoughts on a flavor claim by Frogue: the benefits of flavor claiming are that those who know the fluff can point out if Frogue is likely to be lying. Also, if Frogue is lying and is part of a scum team with safe claims that happens to have fewer of those than members, that's one of those burned. The potential drawback is that if Frogue is telling the truth, scum get extra information (confirmation that a character is in the game so they can better avoid screwing up with fake claims if they don't have safe claims, say), potentially depriving town of a catch later on.

I actually don't think it's a huge deal either way, but lean towards Frogue not claiming fluff just yet. The potential benefit of a catch, to me, outweighs the risk of giving lying scum a bit of extra room.

Also, very vague yet serious-face impressions:

Frogue strikes me as fairly believable at the moment. I like Grim and Yugi at initial glance, and am a bit hesitant about Flare and Bik. Everyone else I've got nothing on.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cicada Days
Mar 21 2016, 06:06 PM
Unless Frogue knows that it's a common strat and is seeking to emulate it. I dunno the culture of Mafia psychology on this site because noob but taking an immediate stance on something strikes me as mind gaming more than it does being legit. I'd argue that miller as a role stands to benefit more from not revealing themselves initially than revealing, dependent on what other roles Paige has tossed into the mix.
I... disagree heavily with this.

The thing is, if a miller claims after being investigated, they look like mafia trying a gambit to live. If they claim day one, the cop has the option of instantly sanity-checking (because whether the miller is lying or not, they'll detect as scum), and the seed is planted. Millers who claim still tend to come under suspicion for precisely the reasons one might expect, and by claiming they set themselves up as a great option for a compromise lynch on an otherwise-quiet phase. If scum fake-claims miller on day one, they're a. gambling there's no real miller to immediately counter-claim (one-for-one on day one is about as awful as it gets for scum) and b. drawing the spotlight onto themselves when they could otherwise just coast with regular play. All to facilitate a gambit with pretty low payoff even if stuff otherwise goes fairly perfectly. And that's not to mention that, if there's any form of third party, a "confirmed town" miller is likely to end up on the chopping block anyways.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That's fine! I'm not coming down on you for it or anything (if I was there'd be a vote attached :P). Just trying to explain the situation and why I'm reading it how I am.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bikriki
Mar 21 2016, 07:59 PM
Since neither Paige nor Vyse will play, this will be fairly mellow.
Hey, I feel left out here.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
On miller claims: a lot of this is down to game setup and what exactly what info is provided to what factions. That said, the following strike me as generally safe assumptions:
  • A twelve-player game is exceedingly unlikely to have multiple millers in play.
  • A town miller, if one exists, gains little to nothing from not counter-claiming Frogue in the event that Frogue is lying (miller being a negative-utility role).
  • Frogue is too savvy/aware a player to claim miller blind as scum in any event (whether or not this is true has little effect on anything else, however I feel it bears noting).
  • Thus, if Frogue is not counter-claimed this phase, I find it highly likely that either Frogue is telling the truth or Frogue, as scum, knows that there is no actual Miller in play.
  • If the latter, scum presumably have safe-claims that encompass both fluff and roles, as Frogue offered a fluff claim unprompted and was likely prepared to deliver.
Overall, though, I think Frogue is telling the truth, because scum having miller as a fake-claim would be really powerful even for a fake-claim encompassing a role.

Also, Cicada, could you maybe drop an answer to Frogue's query here?
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Frogue
Mar 22 2016, 05:27 AM
@MW I shall hold flavour for now. Appreciate the vote of confidence in my abilities :p
There's a reason I killed you night two like three games running. :)
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Frogue
Mar 22 2016, 02:04 PM
@MW, could you explain your suspicion of Bik and Flare after what basically amounts to a non-post from each of them, respectively?
Gladly!

Both approached the random vote stage in a way I don't like. I'll break down each below:

Bik
 
Wow, this party is pretty dead right now.

Fear not, for I have arrived. ...and I shall say that Boogie is obviously scum.

See, the thing that's weird to me is that this doesn't come with a vote. It's the joke vote stage, this is the exact setup for a joke vote, and yet... no actual joke vote. What gives? It reads to me as a slight ducking of attention, and that aligns more with a scum mentality than a town one.

That nobody else had yet voted was a potential mitigating factor, but also adds to the idea of this being on some level intentional. Bik didn't want to cast the first stone. Interesting.

Flare
 
Role received.

VOTE: Whoever is Gavin

So, you can probably see where I'm coming from here already in light of what set me off about Bik. This is a post the pretends to engage with the random vote phase yet in reality does not. Bonus points because I was all over Flare about precisely this sort of thing last time he did it, so I know he's heard the theory of why it can be a good scum play if they get away with it. On the other hand, that's of course a mitigating factor pointing towards the possibility of simple error; he also knows that I rag on people about day one stuff and watch "joke votes" carefully.

I still don't really care for either behavior, though, because both are instances of attempting to blend while at the same time offering less than everyone else who's making any claim to be offering anything is. On the flipside, what I liked about Yugi and Grim was that they made the sort of goofy joke votes I expect of them. Yugi almost earned a spot on the problem list for his joke vote on Ricky (who is not in the game), but actually got the credit back with interest when he shifted his vote to me unprompted (and looking at the chronology, Flare did follow Yugi's lead to some extent, so maybe he gets a bit of lenience but I still hold each responsible for their own actions and it still speaks to attempted blending). Basically, by making a stupid no-info joke vote but then also making a legit joke vote that also could be read as retributive, Yugi got the worst of all worlds and center-staged himself in a way that feels totally in line with his normal play and not very in keeping with a scum member's mentality. Also, yes, I did indeed vote Yugi as a poke based on his original non-vote.

This is of course pretty cursory and petty stuff, but it's day one and a good chunk of folks haven't posted anything of note if anything at all so I'm making due with what I've got. Nobody's getting any credit from me for joke votes from here out this game, though, now that I've explained some of what catches my eye with them.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
While there's definitely an element of dismissal to Bik's reply, it also does have an answer. It's not really a particularly compelling or developed answer, and certainly doesn't neutralize my suspicion, but I'm more focused on Flare's declining t comment, especially since he's the one I've pressured about this sort of thing previously and thus who I'm more sure should know better.

re: NAFT, the thing here is he'll either post or get inactive-whacked. A lynch to save time/make certain/not waste a phase is one thing (and actually might not be an awful idea in the event there's nothing else happening), but it'd be one of those totally non-contentious and thus information-free lynches that don't really bring us much.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
EBWOP:

UNVOTE
VOTE: Flare

Mostly fishing for comment here.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Brief thoughts: The other thing with Yugi's proposed plan is that, as I think I mentioned elsewhere, it blows phases on easy lynches that are nonetheless no more likely than any random lynch to hit scum. This lets scum coast unchecked and without notable pressure; a lynch that anyone can agree to is bad news unless it catches out scum, because otherwise it produces no discussion.

re: Flare's defense... eh, I liked it better when Bik said it. I'm not sure how I feel about Bik's comments since then, but actually am inclined to take a more favorable stance on them because they seem a bit out of character for him, draw the spotlight back in his direction, and don't offer a ton to Scum!Bik.

re: Danny, I missed the pre-edit posts (that, for the record, is why we don't allow edits--makes it too easy to, say, claim cop with certain investigation results, then edit it out to frame someone/because you think better of it/whatever, leaving half the game ignorant). I'm a bit skeptical overall, though, especially coupled with what seems to be a call to roleclaim. That's awfully odd to start a game with. The whole attitude is rubbing me a bit wrong, so I'm gonna UNVOTE and VOTE: Danny to request some detail on the thought process that led to these decisions.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A few things:

While Frogue was likely killed by scum, there's also the chance it was a town-aligned shot by, say, a distrustful vig. If it was scum, which I think more probable, they knew Frogue wasn't faking. Town was generally going along with Frogue's claim, which lessened the distraction factor, and Frogue represented an opportunity for a cop to sanity check; if the cop did not do so last night, they now no longer can.

I like the pushback between RC and Bik--it feels genuine and has elements of actually trying to work things out to it, especially since it starts over a misunderstanding and isn't blown out of proportion.

More thoughts in a bit.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dannyrulx
Mar 30 2016, 12:56 PM
He came to the conclusion that he was innocent, but then later explicitly tells us how much he's killed Frouge in previous games. Call me Mr.Over-analysis, but it seems a little too defensive.
There's a lot here to break down that I'm not fond of, but I'll start by addressing this. My killing Frogue night two is a running joke between us at this point, so I was just referencing that. Nothing defensive about it, just tongue in cheek.

Now, getting into the rest and what I don't like:

My declaration of suspicion
 
re: Danny, I missed the pre-edit posts (that, for the record, is why we don't allow edits--makes it too easy to, say, claim cop with certain investigation results, then edit it out to frame someone/because you think better of it/whatever, leaving half the game ignorant). I'm a bit skeptical overall, though, especially coupled with what seems to be a call to roleclaim. That's awfully odd to start a game with. The whole attitude is rubbing me a bit wrong, so I'm gonna UNVOTE and VOTE: Danny to request some detail on the thought process that led to these decisions.
Danny's response
 
Responding to MasterWeasel here:
Old habits die hard. I've never played forum RP before, and we do things differently IRL, so gimme a break here. I'm actually curious as to why you'd get all suspicious, when I specifically said this earlier on in the game. Seems odd to me. So, I'm gonna VOTE: MURDERWEASEL
What Danny actually said earlier
 
I've played a lot of Mafia IRL, but we called it Werewolf. Basically the same game, although we had special roles, which I've seen some people do, but not others. Forum-wise, I haven't played a single game.
So yeah.

A few things stand out, but one of the big ones is that a lot of what I touch upon goes unanswered and is instead met with excuses. I said that I didn't like Danny's attitude (which is, to be fair, pretty vague), but also said that the call for a roleclaim seemed a really weird way to start the game. I voted for pressure and to request an explanation of the reasoning leading to these decisions (both the decision to apparently post role info and the one to suggest others claim). Instead, what I got was "We do stuff different IRL" (I'm fully aware of that; I ran werewolf for years IRL before picking it up online). That's not awful on its own, but it doesn't address "What was the thought process behind these decisions?" and instead uses unfamiliarity as an excuse. Worse, it throws blame my way for asking questions (implying to some extent that "I'm new" explains everything without explaining, say, what about IRL mafia leads to doing things these ways), and couples that with a vote without a lot of reasoning behind it. It feels rather chainsaw defense, especially in response to a lukewarm vote that really only requested information.

So all of that's a little iffy, but where it goes from there rates a noticeably raised eyebrow from me. When pressed, Danny said:
Danny
 
I'm suspicious at his over-suspicion of my not-at-all suspicious (considering the circumstances) behaviour. Yes, I did word that to get 'suspicious' in as many times as humanly possibly.
Now, some of this may be a difference in meta (Danny, in online mafia, you need a clean majority to lynch unless stated otherwise--that's six players right now, if I've done my math correctly, so a single vote isn't nothing but is not that major a deal and is frequently used to express suspicion and pressure for response), but the overall is still dismissing the possibility of his own behavior being suspicious, something that's been soundly called out since.

Then, when pressured over it, Danny backs off really easily:
Danny
 
"Flailing around". Fair enough I guess. It really dosn't seem that much, just got me thinking.
Probably over-thinking to be honest. I've been looking through the posts so far and I've not got any overtly scummy behavior from... well... anyone. It seems pretty calm, albeit with loads of hidden charge and plotting. These next few days look set to be reaaaaaaaaaaly fun.
What's weird to me here is that, when pressured, Danny quickly shifts gears to downplay the suspicion and vote seen before. All the behavior coming I've noted so far has been very defensively-focused, trying to bury suspicion and move on to the next thing. That's something that can work really well in IRL mafia, but that starts to stumble in forum games because of the presence of a log; that is to say, we can go back and comb through statements and find which things don't quite add up.

It's also interesting to me that Danny backs off, then doubles back and comes up with more reasons to be suspicious, then unvotes. There's a lot of justification going on here, but what I want more of and am looking for is discussions of the whys, the thought processes, that sort of thing.

So, let's try it from the top (I'll even leave off the vote this time... for the moment :P ). Can you walk me through your thought processes, Danny? Can you address my read on the situation and walk me through your reasoning in any areas I may have gotten wrong?
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So, this is the only time this game I'll post after midnight, and it'll be mega brief.

Vyse, can you talk with me a bit about your timing here? Just re: what you tossed into your first post vs. what you're presumably holding until later--how did you decide what made the cut?

Also, as a rule I'm super hesitant to cut slack for inexperience. Specifically, what didn't like wasn't a misunderstanding of the rules: it was the choice to quote a role PM from a new member. Some of this is sailing blind (and I cannot express how much I hate information disparity in mafia--perhaps Yugi can clue us in without outing what Danny said on the extent to which he shared stuff?), but the only sort of person who benefits from claiming off the bat is someone who wants to cast themselves in a certain way or who has nothing they gain from secrecy. In my experience, newbie scum totally love claiming, and if there were fake claims provided, quoting a "role PM" could easily be jumping the gun. But to be blunt about it, a good chunk was also irritation at missing a chunk of game coupled with my traditional heavy early pressure on newbies to figure their style.

That said, I actually liked Danny's most recent responses. I'll delve into why later, in the morning/after I get a reply to my prod above.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MurderWeasel
Member Avatar
You've been counting stars, now you're counting on me
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MurderWeasel
Apr 1 2016, 05:17 AM
Vyse, can you talk with me a bit about your timing here? Just re: what you tossed into your first post vs. what you're presumably holding until later--how did you decide what made the cut?
Grim
 
So let's break this down a bit: Murder, what in particular is making you feel that Danny is not just being newbish, but is using that newbiness to hide his true nature?

Me
 
That said, I actually liked Danny's most recent responses. I'll delve into why later, in the morning/after I get a reply to my prod above.
V7:
Juliette Sargent
Alton Gerow
Lavender Ripley
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Mafia · Next Topic »
Add Reply