Mafia Discussion Thread
- Thread starter PMJ
- Start date
Vannila Townies are meh. They're balancing, but they're extremely boring to play imo they should generally be in low amounts, if at all.
PMJ
Silhouette Gloom of the Sundown Lands
Forum Head
Articles Head
Elite Member
Advanced Member
Member
I don't think having vanilla townies is such a bad thing. They provide a safety net for the town's power roles, although if there are too many of them then it can get hard for the scum to mount a defense against the power roles, especially if the town gets lucky picks at night. (This is also why I've stopped using sane cops in my setups.)
If you're worried about your cop dying early game, then have a backup. That's what they're there for.
Also, role madness games can become unbalanced fairly quickly if you balance the game considering all roles in the game. It's nice to think up twenty-five, thirty different roles, but it sucks when you know that someone's dying n1 and it might be that one role that you really wish would survive to late game because it's cool. :[
If you're worried about your cop dying early game, then have a backup. That's what they're there for.
Also, role madness games can become unbalanced fairly quickly if you balance the game considering all roles in the game. It's nice to think up twenty-five, thirty different roles, but it sucks when you know that someone's dying n1 and it might be that one role that you really wish would survive to late game because it's cool. :[
It sucks but it's also exciting. Every death in a role madness game is exciting => every day and night are exciting => the game is exciting => the game is fun => people participate.
Every lynch has a risk of losing some cool (or uncool?!) town member. Vanilla town claims can be lynched because "at worst we lose a vanilla" and it's not that interesting. But when we have the risk of losing claimed X, even if X is not thaaat good. And are they really X anyway?!
Every lynch has a risk of losing some cool (or uncool?!) town member. Vanilla town claims can be lynched because "at worst we lose a vanilla" and it's not that interesting. But when we have the risk of losing claimed X, even if X is not thaaat good. And are they really X anyway?!
Vanilla townies are very important for balance in my opinion. When I design setups for games that don't include vanilla townies, the scum ends up being very powerful (one of my blank game setups had a 5 person mafia where each Mafioso had two power roles).
Definitely give vanilla townies something to do though, even if it is an item that they can use occasionally. Alternately, put a notice in the OP that the game contains a non-zero number of vanilla roles. If you hate vanilla roles, then don't play if there is that notice (sign up at your own risk, so to speak)
Definitely give vanilla townies something to do though, even if it is an item that they can use occasionally. Alternately, put a notice in the OP that the game contains a non-zero number of vanilla roles. If you hate vanilla roles, then don't play if there is that notice (sign up at your own risk, so to speak)
No. It means that by abstaining from using vanilla townies, you're forced to make the mafia strong to compensate for having a town full of power roles.Teal said:
A town consisting of a cop, a doctor and a roleblocker is more powerful than a town with a cop, a doctor and a vanilla. The first setup needs a stronger mafia than the second setup because the town is stronger in the first setup, and the mafia needs to be just as strong as the town in any balanced setup.
Of course I understood what you meant, but my point is that you are doing it wrong. Yes, the mafia must be stronger when the town is stronger. Doesn't mean that it should be overpowered, either. The mafia has a huge advantage by being able to cooperate. Rolewise, the mafia does not need to be as strong as the town (not even near it). I hope you understand that a town roleblocker can also hurt the town by roleblocking the cop or the doctor (using your example roles) but a mafia roleblocker will always roleblock a non-mafia member (unless they gain an advantage from roleblocking a mafia member). You can also balance by making harmful town roles instead of vanilla townies. Yes, townies, that have a high potential of hurting the town. The player would have to find the course of action that hurts the town the least or doesn't hurt it, or maybe even, if they are very skillfull, help the town a little.Professor Palutena said:
Another thing is role distribution. If a key town role goes to a bad player, that's it with that role pretty much (a cop that has no game sense and examines totally wrong players). It's not even near as bad with mafia players. A single talented mafia player can lead the other mafia members enough that they don't screw up at the very least their role usuage.
There are ways to balance without using vanillas. Believe me.
Vanilla roles are definitely not necessary for balance, though they can be a nice crutch, especially for a newer GM or when you're designing a game and you have no idea how many sign-ups you'll end up getting. I would never not join a game just because there are vanilla roles (though I would never join a fully vanilla game; I just don't find them any fun), but there are plenty of things you can do to keep non-roled players involved, like roles that hand out items, or that swap around roles, or puzzles, or location mechanics, or any interesting mechanics that might be fun to spade, or item auctions, etc. and so forth. Even having a fun flavour can sometimes make up for not having a role because it makes you more likely to pick apart the nightplot or add to discussion.
Again, bear in mind the caveat that I have never played a game here and have no idea what your meta is.
Again, bear in mind the caveat that I have never played a game here and have no idea what your meta is.
Vanilla townies are, and always will be, part of the game. The original mafia games only have a cop and a doctor, with the rest of the players being vanilla (I have played plenty of games IRL with only a cop). Roles are fun, but you can't have too many. The scum either gets underpowered with all these PRs around or gets so overpowered it's ridiculous. You can't really have a balanced game without vanilla townies.
Chaos Jackal said:
Yes, you can. Really. Honestly. I have played in several and even run a few. If you like vanilla roles, that's fine, but there's no reason to go around saying that they're necessary, because it's simply not true and very easily disproved. Just because you personally have not run or played in a game that was balanced without vanilla roles doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's just my personal opinion. To be honest, I'm not a great fan of role madness, and I believe vanilla townies help make the game more reasonable. I understand that it would be possible to make a game without them, but to make that game good and balancing it would require quite a lot of work... The concept of vanilla townies just makes things easier for the GM, and playing as a vanilla townie in a role madness game can be a real challenge.
However, I'm afraid that this kinda escalates into a preference point. You said you like role madness games, where I don't. I'd much rather play as vanilla than be handed a role that requires me to pass items around. As such, my opinion is affected by this.
However, I'm afraid that this kinda escalates into a preference point. You said you like role madness games, where I don't. I'd much rather play as vanilla than be handed a role that requires me to pass items around. As such, my opinion is affected by this.
LIES. Sigh. Seriously wtf man?Chaos Jackal said:
You should not run a game if you just want it easy.Chaos Jackal said:
Another lie. It's not even an opinion, it is a lie. (It's not more challenging except maybe mentally challenging because it sucks.) Using a role correctly requires more skill than not having the option to show your skill in the choice you make. There are many roles that will play pretty much exact the same as vanillas during the day but they have to make a choice during the night. The information how that choice was made does not change the playing during the day with certain roles.
There can only be three reasons for vanillas to be in the game:
1) It's a way of the GM to "show" how uncreative or uninvested they are.
2) It's a way of the GM to "show" that they don't understand WW enough to actually be a GM (like thinking vanillas are required for balance).
3) It''s personal preference of the GM for whatever reason.
You could very well be right. Keep in mind that role madness isn't everything in the world, though. Vanilla townies are part of the game. You can exile them, but you can't deny them. I haven't hosted a WW game personally, and I won't because I simply lack the time and dedication to make a role madness game. However, I always appreciate vanilla townies when they show up. Maybe saying that they're a must is wrong, but it's just as wrong to give them no credit.
I plan on hosting a game here one of these days, but not until I've played a few here to get a feel for the players and the meta. It'll also be a lot of extra work for me because the day/night cycle here is so much longer than I'm used to. 
Probably half or more of my games have been swirl games, mostly because I never know exactly how many players I'm going to get to sign-up and it's very easy to flex between 15 and 30 people when you have vanillas. I tend to have stricter sign-up requirements for my chocolate games (I'm going to be running a pretty complicated one soon \o/) because it is, indeed, more difficult to balance, especially if you're designing things ahead of time.
I guess a lot of it depends on the amount of effort the GM feels like putting in. Sometimes I just feel like running a silly fun game and it'll be swirl. Sometimes I'll get a crazy cool idea (like my Robot Dinosaur Mafia where everyone had a Dino role and a Robot role and they swapped between the two modes on different days) and put a lot of work into it to make something neat and fun and complicated and crazy.
There's a place for games of all types, too; playing a lot of crazier complicated games in a row tends to burn me out (and other players, too, from what I've seen), so it's nice to have simpler games here and there.
I never like playing a vanilla role, though. >_>; I'll do it, it's just not as fun for me. I'd rather have a role that's practically useless or even harmful than nothing.
Probably half or more of my games have been swirl games, mostly because I never know exactly how many players I'm going to get to sign-up and it's very easy to flex between 15 and 30 people when you have vanillas. I tend to have stricter sign-up requirements for my chocolate games (I'm going to be running a pretty complicated one soon \o/) because it is, indeed, more difficult to balance, especially if you're designing things ahead of time.
I guess a lot of it depends on the amount of effort the GM feels like putting in. Sometimes I just feel like running a silly fun game and it'll be swirl. Sometimes I'll get a crazy cool idea (like my Robot Dinosaur Mafia where everyone had a Dino role and a Robot role and they swapped between the two modes on different days) and put a lot of work into it to make something neat and fun and complicated and crazy.
There's a place for games of all types, too; playing a lot of crazier complicated games in a row tends to burn me out (and other players, too, from what I've seen), so it's nice to have simpler games here and there.
I never like playing a vanilla role, though. >_>; I'll do it, it's just not as fun for me. I'd rather have a role that's practically useless or even harmful than nothing.
PMJ said:
It depends on the role. Some roles are more powerful and therefore more balanced when limited, such as letting the mafia alter a flip result, or a role that makes a pair of lovers, or an extra mafia kill, or a mafia converter. Some roles will only work once, like taking the role of a dead player, or a lightkeeper, or a bomb. Sometimes I will purposefully limit roles within the boundaries of a game; affiliation seers (cops) and highlighters are roles that I tend limit if I include them, usually to ~3 uses.
As a player, like Teal, I would much rather have a one-use (or otherwise limited) power than nothing at all. Limiting powers makes them a choice which alters the way the ability is used and makes it more thought-provoking. I would play a one-shot seer much differently from how I'd play an unlimited-use seer, for example.
As a GM, I may or may not include such things depending on the rest of the game and my roles. I rarely include affiliation seers in my game, limited or not, and the same with converters, lover-makers, etc. I'm probably more likely to include limited roles if I'm creating a game with a larger number of players, since it opens up the options that I have available. That said, one of my favourite types of roles to include in a game is a jack-of-all-trades sort role that has a collection of one-shot powers. Those powers may or may not include the limited abilities I mentioned above, but tend also include one-shot versions of typically unlimited roles, like drivers or trackers, etc.