Topic: Mafia XXXIX Star Wars Mafia: REBEL ALLIANCE – TIMEOUT!

[decoyman]

Hmm...

Guys, I haven't read anything in these threads since last night, but I wanted to weigh in again. Thinking further about it, I'm wondering if I'm trying to put a band-aid on a Rancor bite.

I could be convinced either way, so let's debate here instead of in any of the day threads.

[Plugabugz]

Only if he's time-limited to GMT.

[Khushrenada]

Eh, I've said most of my arguments already and asked most of the questions I have. There hasn't been a response to them yet so I'm waiting for some answers before I say anything else.

[Khushrenada]

Oh, one other one actually. Has the new killer been told he has this new role yet?

[decoyman]

Fine, I'll compile your arguments here, Khush.

1. Townies know all roles because they've been working together. So this new killer knows all roles, and can use them to his advantage.
2. This will screw some players out of the win.
3. The killer's absence didn't hinder the game because he was discovered so early and he would've only killed one person.

Here are my answers, most of which came from the other thread.

1. It's sort of like a mole. There is a precedent for this sort of role.
2. No one has to get cheated out of anything, especially with the "let a dead townie win" rule.
3. Even if he only killed one person, WHO would he have killed? That's the question.

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate right now. I debated over this last night, went back and forth on it. I'm open on feedback over which way to go with it. I'd just like to decide it today so we can get going again.

[Khushrenada]

Yeah pretty much. Only other thing. It's like playing a new game except we still have to finish the old game at the same time. If you are going to mix things up with the killer role, why not mix up the other townie roles and make it all fresh?

[decoyman]

Oh, one other one actually. Has the new killer been told he has this new role yet?

Yes.

If you are going to mix things up with the killer role, why not mix up the other townie roles and make it all fresh?

Switching up all the roles would be a much bigger deal than adding one new role. Besides, in that situation, the townies would lose the one advantage they have. I've said the killer came from the ranks of the townies: roled players were not included in the list of possible "Jango"s. So if Vader and Tarkin are in cahoots already (as it seems from the day threads), there's a base of trust there at least.

Which brings me back to my original question above: "am I trying to put a band-aid on a Rancor bite?"

[Khushrenada]

My other two questions:

Do previous investigations stand?

Did the new killer get his role last night or this morning?

[decoyman]

Do previous investigations stand?

If Tarkin investigated a townie earlier in the game, I am not going to send a PM saying, "Hey, so-and-so is now Jango." Townies will have to be re-investigated.

Did the new killer get his role last night or this morning?

Don't understand why this is relevant, but I sent the PM out last night when I made the Day 4 thread.

[Khushrenada]

Alright. Well then, that I have a problem with. It makes what we've been playing null and void. If previous investigations don't stand up and suspects have to be re-investigated because you add a role, you are invalidating past events.

Last time we played Star Wars mafia, it ended in contraversy. Why not let history repeat itself?

[vudu]

I'm with Khush--it's not fair to throw a curveball this far into the game.

Let's say players A, B and C were working together.  Player A got together with players B and C because of voting records, hunches, investigations, whatever.  Suddenly one of those two could be the killer?  There's no way for player A to know who he can trust without starting over from square one.  He can't use past voting records as an indicator because they mean nothing going forward.  He can't trust any past conversations investigations because someone out there suddenly changed alliances.  And they didn't even have any say in it!  Not only are you hurting the players who will be killed by the killer, you're hurting the killer, too--he's gone from a position where he could likely win the game to a role where he's almost certain to lose and in no way is it his own fault. 



To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more

[decoyman]

I like the idea.  What kind of a game master doesn't what the game to be fun?  And it can't be fun if it's too easy, right?  So now it's more fun, I like the idea

This is what I was going for in adding Jango. What if we compromise, and I let the previous investigations stand, (re-assigning the role in the background if necessary)?

And vudu, I see your point, but it's not much different at all from the role of a mole in mafia games. It's all about backstabbing and turnabout. That's what makes it fun and fresh.

Looking at the poll results, it looks like most others agree. And with that, I've made my decision: Jango stays. And as part of the compromise, previous investigations will stand.

Thanks for all your feedback, everyone. Locking this down.