Suggestion for Mafia games - Anonymity

[Loyal]

Had this bouncing around in my head for a couple days, so here goes:

One problem with Mafia games is metagaming, in which players will make judgments and decisions against other players based not on what the other player has said or done this game, but by what the other player is likely to do based on what they've said or done in past games, or even outside of the game altogether. This leads to such things as voting to lynch a particular player because they're smart enough or unpredictable enough that one doesn't want to take the risk that the other player is on the other team and capable of doing serious damage.

I feel this isn't very fair for the victim, and runs counter to what Mafia is about.

So, my suggestion? Remove everybody's identity. How do we do this?


Create a dozen or so throwaway accounts, however many we need. Name them things like Mr. Smith or Frank Greenwood. Include one Game Master account. Have a notepad list handy with the (preferably random) passwords of each, to be held by the acting GM. The player accounts will be assigned randomly to players as they sign up. They'll use these accounts until the end of the game, at which point they'll return control of the account to the GM, who will PM the list, and the GM account, to the next GM. The new GM changes the passwords on each account and repeats the process for the players in their game. This helps ensure we don't have to create a ton of new accounts with every game.
Players are not allowed to declare their actual forum identity. Along the same token, players are not allowed to guess at or declare the real identity of other players. Naturally the no-outside-communication rule applies here.
To ensure that players don't accidentally post in the Mafia game with their real accounts, or use their Mafia identity to post in the forum proper, Mafia threads are placed in their own subforum (discussion of the game can take place in signup threads, which will remain in this subforum). Only Mafia accounts (including the GM account) are allowed to post in this subforum, and they cannot post anywhere else.
So, what do you guys think?

[Fenris]

This is crazy enough to work.

I would stipulate that I, as Games Forum Mod, can ask for a list of names from the GO at any time if I feel that things are getting dicey - Mafia is already mildly vitriolic and posting under a throwaway account might result in some unsavory behaviors.

Also a GM/GO account seems unnecessary. In fact, I would prefer that there not be one. But, if the mafia games are to be placed in their own subforum, it'd probably be necessary?

Game list would be kept in the public, though.

EDIT: On the other hand, the meta is a part of the game. I think it would vary from GO to GO but if somebody would want to give this a try, then I'd be for getting it set up.

[Aldurin]

I like hiding the player's identity to remove the metagaming factor. I'd play if it ever came up.

[rpgdemon]

I think you should be able to guess at who is really who. It takes away a lot from the game to be unable to say, "I KNOW that, whenever Bill is scum, he makes up an excuse and doesn't play". Like, a lot of what helps the town is analyzing how people behave, compared to their past games. Complete anonymity will weaken the town significantly, I think.

[Sifright]

Man, I support this.

Only problem I can see is i'll know every time which player is fenris. (Protip it's the jerk :D)

[Aldurin]

Does that mean that every player ends up being Fenris, then?

[BahamutFlare]

If this is possible, I'd like to see it implemented.

[Loyal]

I would stipulate that I, as Games Forum Mod, can ask for a list of names from the GO at any time if I feel that things are getting dicey - Mafia is already mildly vitriolic and posting under a throwaway account might result in some unsavory behaviors.Understandable, though this may compromise your ability to fairly participate in the game? I figured that might be an issue regardless, but...

I think you should be able to guess at who is really who. It takes away a lot from the game to be unable to say, "I KNOW that, whenever Bill is scum, he makes up an excuse and doesn't play".I disagree that there's really all that much merit to be had in knowing who's who. There's about as much garbage reasoning derived from this methodology as legitimate points, and even the legitimate points are only as valid as your impression of who the person is.

There is nothing I can do to stop players from guessing at the identity of another player, or even acting on these guesses. Allowing players to share their suspicions, however, or allowing them to demand that a particular player identify themselves, would defeat the entire point of the exercise.

Like, a lot of what helps the town is analyzing how people behave, compared to their past games.It helps scum, as well. Scum's job is to pick up on who's got the Bodyguard, or Vig powers, and knowing the person behind it helps them there, too.

Complete anonymity will weaken the town significantly, I think.Nope.

I've seen games where, aside from a few exceptions, nobody knew anybody else outside of the context of a FPS game. As you might imagine, not the best place to glean impressions of intelligence or how one behaves when in a rational setting.

Town still did just fine because they relied on cues like, "this player's gotten awfully quiet since people started voting for Joe Everydude over there, I wonder if I should look into that," or "Barbie Mill's been posting a fair bit and voting, but most of it's been fluff posts to make it look like she's active and contributory, I should bring that up."

Y'know, time-honored clues that continue to be used in these Mafia games, and are actually based on what's happened in the game.

This is hardly the town-crippling modification you make it out to be.

[Rhiya Ravenwing]

I don't know how well it'd work, but would like the subforum to be placed as a read-only format for those that aren't the anonymous usernames? Mainly because right now I'm getting a hella lot of fun simply by reading some of the shenanigans in the other mafia games without even considering information-gathering in regards to player behaviour, etc.

It would still be nice for everybody else not participating to see all the random humour running rampant in the games.

I'm looking at your game, Fenris.

[Loyal]

I don't know how well it'd work, but would like the subforum to be placed as a read-only format for those that aren't the anonymous usernames? Mainly because right now I'm getting a hella lot of fun simply by reading some of the shenanigans in the other mafia games without even considering information-gathering in regards to player behaviour, etc.

It would still be nice for everybody else not participating to see all the random humour running rampant in the games.

I'm looking at your game, Fenris.
That's the idea, yes. The limitation is on posting only.

[Inbred Chocobo]

I support this actually. Tremendously.

Biggest reason, people going Well this guy was scum these last games, lets get him! Or things like that. I believe the accounts should have their name changed however on a regular basis so that people don't start coming up with ideas for those accounts as well, but this could work really well.

[rpgdemon]

I think if people start coming up with theories about the accounts being linked to always scum, they ought to just be GM killed.

Another strike against the accounts: What if someone's like, "I'm going to be out of town for a few days when the game starts, whether I'm scum or not."? It instantly reveals who they are, and I think that should be allowed to be discussed/noticed. Same with if someone vanishes from the rest of the forums for the exact same amount of time as one of the anonymous accounts.

[Sifright]

You will never remove all possibility of knowing who is potentially in control of an account, we don't have to solve every problem just the fact we can improve and remove other problems that already exist is a good enough reason to implement this.

[rpgdemon]

All I'm saying is, it shouldn't be against the rules to say, "X is probably Tom."

[Loyal]

All I'm saying is, it shouldn't be against the rules to say, "X is probably Tom." I get that, but disagree. The concept is not without its flaws, but that doesn't mean we should do away with it altogether. We have one outlier of a situation where it's largely unavoidable that the identity behind a single account would be revealed - even so, the identity of everyone else remains a secret. The only thing you've learned from this scenario is that X is Tom and therefore will likely display Tom's mannerisms. What you do with that is up to your intelligence, so long as you do not attempt to use it as a basis for a vote (X is obviously Tom, and Tom would never do this if he were Town, therefore he is Scum).

But, if you're allowed to say X is Tom, or Y is Sally, you can have unpleasant situations like someone with vig powers demanding everybody reveal their real identities on pain of being targeted for a kill (and you know someone would do eventually, just to get an edge). Situations that would, again, defeat the entire point of the exercise.

We could come up with a variety of scenarios and exceptions wherein it would be acceptable to declare someone's identity, but that would likely make it too complicated to be enjoyable in a game that already demands a lot of critical thinking and memory for detail. I'd prefer the rules be kept simple and easy to remember so that the players can focus on the game, which in this case means a blanket rule of No Declaring Identities.

On a side note, another positive consequence to maintaining anonymity is that it allows players to switch up their playstyles and try something different, or more intelligent than what they used in their last game, without instantly being accused of having something to hide.
I believe the accounts should have their name changed however on a regular basis so that people don't start coming up with ideas for those accounts as well, but this could work really well. The idea is that the accounts would be given to random people, and would be assigned to random roles, each game. Sifright might be Mr. Smith in one game and Frank Greenwood in the next, or he might get Mr. Smith again. The distinction between each is about as meaningless as the difference between different Survivors in L4D, and this method ensures that the above scenario does not become too damaging to the game's lack of continuity. Also, I should hope anybody who tries to argue along these lines would be properly ridiculed and investigated for possibly being scum, much like what happens in regular games.

[Geminex]

This is an interesting idea, but it has pros and cons.

On the one hand, if we do this, people could no longer, say, just go after Nikose by default on day 1.

On the other hand, if we do this, people could no longer just go after Nikose by default on day 1.

[Fenris]

I think if people start coming up with theories about the accounts being linked to always scum, they ought to just be GM killed.

Another strike against the accounts: What if someone's like, "I'm going to be out of town for a few days when the game starts, whether I'm scum or not."? It instantly reveals who they are, and I think that should be allowed to be discussed/noticed. Same with if someone vanishes from the rest of the forums for the exact same amount of time as one of the anonymous accounts.

They should send that message along to the GM, who will then be able to post for them that "Humperdinkel McAllister" is away for a while.

[IHateMakingNames]

Implement the shit out of this idea.

[synkr0nized]

I realize that I don't play these and am not really familiar with what's goin' down inside most of them, making anything I post that of an ignorant outsider.

But reading the rules -- and going from what I recall of doing Mafia games and games like this in person** -- and some of the game threads, it really seems like the "problem" comes from all the gibbering and voting before anything (i.e. an actual hit/mafia kill/lynching) even occurs. Like you all bring the previous games into the current one.

Which makes sense -- any player trying to figure out her opponents' moves does this, even in face-to-face games. So I guess from my perspective I'd like to hear more about why this is something you want to get rid of -- exactly how it's so detrimental. Maybe it's just cause you all are big meany jerks.

edit: Jesus, you all really hang on to previous games when making these initial bluffs and votes.

** and the game Bang!, as it's basically the same damned thing (Outlaws, a deputy and sheriff, and a vigilante or something; Outaws want to kill the law, Deputy wants to save the sheriff, sheriff wants to get the Outlaws, and the other person wants all dead)




This is also in part motivated by some fairly honest concerns I have with respect to the creation of mook accounts to be tossed around among players.

[Loyal]

But reading the rules -- and going from what I recall of doing Mafia games and games like this in person** -- and some of the game threads, it really seems like the "problem" comes from all the gibbering and voting before anything (i.e. an actual hit/mafia kill/lynching) even occurs.The nonsense and joke phases aren't something that can really be stopped, and it's not something I intend to address. I can about guarantee one of the first things to be said in this system would be something like "##vote Mr. Smith because he's probably some secret-agent guy with a name like that, and I don't trust him." Occasionally the things said in response to stuff like this, or not said at all, can even lead to legitimate leads.

Like you all bring the previous games into the current one.

Which makes sense -- any player trying to figure out her opponents' moves does this, even in face-to-face games. So I guess from my perspective I'd like to hear more about why this is something you want to get rid of -- exactly how it's so detrimental. Maybe it's just cause you all are big meany jerks.It's less a matter of "the old way sucks and is broken, let's toss it". It's more...

Despite the fact that roles are randomly assigned every game, certain parts of it will in fact become quite predictable because we have a rather small playerbase that actually participates in Mafia with any frequency. Less than twenty I'm pretty sure. And for the most part the players can be expected to handle the game in a particular way, regardless of their role. Fenris will generally play consistently well with whatever he's handed. Nikose is insane and should probably be offed on general principle because he pretty much plays his own game sometimes (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1158295&highlight=monopoly#post1158295). Earl will probably find a way to unintentionally sabotage his own side with whatever power he was given. (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1158331#post1158331)

By masking the identity of every player, we take away this player-based predictability and add a little more mystery, which is good because mysteries and the solving therein is a significant part of Mafia. You might take an educated guess as to which player is under which name, but it will never be anything more than a guess, so in order to come up with anything substantial, you need to rely instead on how their behavior may betray their role in the game, based on how they react under pressure, whether they react at all to certain events, their voting patterns, and things like that. Actions based not on who a player is, but what they do.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the game certainly works fine among people who are largely strangers to each other, and I suppose I would like to see how that'd play out here.

This is also in part motivated by some fairly honest concerns I have with respect to the creation of mook accounts to be tossed around among players.Fenris earlier presented the stipulation that he could ask for a list of names if it ever became unpleasant. I figure having that looming over everybody's heads is probably good enough to keep them from doing anything they wouldn't normally do?

[Fenris]

Fenris earlier presented the stipulation that he could ask for a list of names if it ever became unpleasant. I figure having that looming over everybody's heads is probably good enough to keep them from doing anything they wouldn't normally do?

I would also set up the accounts so that they cannot post in the forum at large.

Adding a poll to this thread, it'll close in a week and then I'll do whatever happens.

[Aldurin]

I honestly felt the urge to negarep you for not putting a joke option in the poll, but it's kinda like trying to stab an elephant with a spoon since that system is disabled for the commoners.

Good to have a poll up though.

[synkr0nized]

Fenris earlier presented the stipulation that he could ask for a list of names if it ever became unpleasant. I figure having that looming over everybody's heads is probably good enough to keep them from doing anything they wouldn't normally do?

If you guys are doin' this and it is a problem, feel free to also let me know. I doubt I'll be playing any game, unlike Fenris, and so won't present any in-game issues by knowing who's driving whom.

But hey if you guys try it out and it works for you all, cool. I must admit I am curious to see what happens.

[Rhiya Ravenwing]

"Humperdinkel McAllister"

That.

That name. Must be one of the accounts. Because it is just so awesome

[Fenris]

Also, does Hawk want to run the next game in this fashion, or would you all prefer if I were to run it so we could iron out any kinks on the setup side of things?

If I were to run it, Hawk's game would probably run in the Forum Games forum proper alongside it because it's not fair of me to interject myself forcefully into running a game, unless he's totally cool with it.

[Loyal]

I'm not altogether sure it'd be wise to run multiple Mafia games concurrently. Too likely to result in confusion for the participants in the event that we have people playing in both games - which is likely to happen since we don't really have enough players for two full games.

[rpgdemon]

And it's not just Hawk who would be waiting extra for his game to run: There's a 10ish person long list waiting.

I don't think too much will go wrong if we just implement this next game, but I can see how it'd be a huge hassle to go about logging in and out every time you want to do something.

Would there be any way to have the two accounts temporarily linked?

[Geminex]

Okay, to respond seriously, for once.

Has "meta" really been that much of a problem? I know people have been relying on it, but, so far, it hasn't seemed like something that's actually reliable, or any more likely to produce results than just going off gut instinct. And other than the D1 discussions, when people don't have anything to go on anyway, it hasn't seemed like something people have even bringing up thaaaat much. Admittedly, yes, when I'm scum, I'll sometimes try to go after the "good" players, but even there I'm not going after them just because they've been performing well in past games, I'm going after them because they're performing well this game and might pose a threat this game.

Not to mention that, even if we implement the aliases and make it agianst the rules to discuss them, it'll just add another layer to the guessing game.

It seems a lot of hassle, both for players and game masters, for a negligible benefit.

Mind you, I'm totally willing to give it a try, I just don't think it's really adressing a major problem.

Edit: Also, I haven#t actually read through the last few mafia games, it might be that meta is totally a problem that dominates absolutely every D1 discussio nto the exclusion of everythign else, in which case just ignore the bit about "not a major problem"

[Ecks]

I'm also willing to give it a try. Mind you, I've only been in the last couple of games or so, but I think it's worth an experimental run. If Hawk is okay with it, let's have Fenris run the next one unless Hawk feels confident that he can handle it. In that case I would have to ask that Fenris abstain from playing in Hawk's game so he can closely monitor it with judge-like impartiality.

Also Gem, we can still totally vote Nikose Day 1.

[Geminex]

Also Gem, we can still totally vote Nikose Day 1.
P-promise?

[Fenris]

And it's not just Hawk who would be waiting extra for his game to run: There's a 10ish person long list waiting.

I don't think too much will go wrong if we just implement this next game, but I can see how it'd be a huge hassle to go about logging in and out every time you want to do something.

Would there be any way to have the two accounts temporarily linked?

I know, but it affects Hawk the soonest so it's up to him.

I think there's a pretty solid chance that things could go wrong because I am wildly unfamilliar with the ACP as I haven't really used it for anything besides shenaniganry.

And pretty sure that's not feasible.

LOOKING AT THE DAY-OLD POLL, it seems that there's pretty clear support for this idea -

I am now opening up my PM Box for account name suggestions. Try to make them 1930sesque or extremely hilarious names, in a First (Possible Middle Name/Initial) Last format. Preferably both (1930s and hilarious)!

For example, Humperdinkel McAllister is in the proper format. Fenn R. S. Wolfenhauser is in the proper format. Geminox is not in the proper format.

I will take my 25 favorites.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Since Fenris dragged me all the way down here to see this thread;:argh:

On the system; It can't hurt to try it I suppose. We'll only know how it affects the game by trying it first hand.

On next mafia game; to be honest I got slightly burnt out on mafia last time I played. Average number of players seemed to keep dropping each game and I always got killed early, which was no fun, so I'm not too sure I feel up for running a game just now. I also originally planned for around 20 players and the diminishing number at sign up made my idea less workable.

Probably best to bump mine to the bottom of the list. I'll try coming back for a few games sometime in-between and try to get back into it so that when my turn comes up again I'll actually feel like running it properly.

[Fenris]

Can do, Hawk. I'll throw you on the "On Hold" list. Hope you get less burned out and such!

[Fenris]

I need more names! SEND THEM TO ME

[Fenris]

The accounts are made!

1. Hugh Mann
2. Nigel Pendleton
3. Winston McDapper
4. Ian "Fisticuffs" Fitzpatrick
5. Edward Pennyfarthing
6. Radigan MacArthur CXXIX
7. Maria Richman
8. Pattie U. Andabach
9. Lille Anaviss
10. Humperdinkel McAllister
11. Arotta A. Sians
12. Betty Snowgood
13. Louis Cypher
14. Jacks "Crazy" Acksman
15. James Kirk
16. Nicholas "Nails" Mahone
17. Reginald Snicks
18. Trumet Minot
19. Beaudereaux Ming
20. Xavier P. Ecksman
21. Duff "Fluffy" McDuckington
22. Franklin Careless
23. Dewey U. Poone
24. Bailey Majors
25. Dr. U. Djury

I think I'mma go start signups for this testrun now - thanks y'all!