Master Mew
Level 7
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 8
X-shot passive roles would obviously be a different scenario, but if things haven't changed around here in my absence, those are far more common on other sites.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I haven't seen any, but then again, I haven't been here all that long.X-shot passive roles would obviously be a different scenario, but if things haven't changed around here in my absence, those are far more common on other sites.
In the same sense, that's what win for town really boils down to in spirit.Win for mafia, in spirit, really boils down to "Last man standing." If the game reaches a point where nothing and no one can prevent you from achieving this, you have won. Everyone dying is essentially a stalemate, although really, if the Town let it get that far they really deserve to lose.
Depends on the indep. The benign ones like Survivor don't count as threats to the town or the mafia. While those like the Serial Killer are threats to everybody and the other factions' wincons are supposed to include exterminating them.The existence of independants... especially ones such as thecerialserial killer, do throw the last man standing concept out the window....
I disagree - boiling down to one remaining mafioso isn't unusual or shameful, and mafia wins in scenarios with only one remaining mafioso all the time. By comparison, this one unusual scenario is one of the only times when town could conceivably avoid losing with only one townie left. One townie left under normal circumstances is auto-loss.In the same sense, that's what win for town really boils down to in spirit.
By the same logic, the mafia let it get that far too and they really deserve to lose as well.
In that situation, the indep is essentially a kingmaker (can decide the game's outcome without any benefit for themselves). In such situations I just prefer to ignore the kingmaker. I also like making benign indeps voteless to avoid such situations.I would argue that while they're no threat to anyone, if town = Mafia but there is also an indep such as survivor or lyncher the indep counts towards town numbers because it's still theoretically possible for town to lynch Mafia of the indep votes too.
"Under normal circumstances" - you said it yourself.I disagree - boiling down to one remaining mafioso isn't unusual or shameful, and mafia wins in scenarios with only one remaining mafioso all the time. By comparison, this one unusual scenario is one of the only times when town could conceivably avoid losing with only one townie left. One townie left under normal circumstances is auto-loss.
But they're not a kingmaker in this scenario. Say we have 3 town and 3 Mafia plus one survivor/lyncher. The survivor has to survive to the end of the game, so while optimum play is to lynch a townie they may jump on the wagon of a mafioso by accident. If they do that, it's possible for town to achieve a majority if the kill misses or hits the indep, but the indep still has to survive. In the event of a lyncher, they could theoretically vote for a mafioso because they know that their lynchee wagon wouldn't gain steam and so optimum play for them would be to prolong the game by lynching the Mafia. If they don't, the game will end and they lose. Thus, they're not kingmakers because their decisions during that day impact their chances of winning.In that situation, the indep is essentially a kingmaker (can decide the game's outcome without any benefit for themselves). In such situations I just prefer to ignore the kingmaker. I also like making benign indeps voteless to avoid such situations.
If the survivor is known he doesn't have to scumside; depends on whether your perception of optimal includes "in the least time possible".But they're not a kingmaker in this scenario. Say we have 3 town and 3 Mafia plus one survivor/lyncher. The survivor has to survive to the end of the game, so while optimum play is to lynch a townie they may jump on the wagon of a mafioso by accident. If they do that, it's possible for town to achieve a majority if the kill misses or hits the indep, but the indep still has to survive. In the event of a lyncher, they could theoretically vote for a mafioso because they know that their lynchee wagon wouldn't gain steam and so optimum play for them would be to prolong the game by lynching the Mafia. If they don't, the game will end and they lose. Thus, they're not kingmakers because their decisions during that day impact their chances of winning.
Or to take them off the equation and call them and the mafia winners; because both factions' wincons are about eliminating only each other, and mafia can achieve this by itself while town cannot.I was thinking an unknown survivor. If they lynch town in this scenario, game over, they win. If they lynch scum, they are at risk of being shot or lynched in the coming phases. However, it's still possible for them to make a mistake and lynch scum.
One the one hand, I agree. On the other, I hate being voteless and even as a survivor my vote is a weapon to help me survive. Perhaps a "you cannot vote once LYLO has been reached" would be a better clause.I still prefer to make survivors voteless to avoid such situations, though.
But the voteless modifier is a weapon to prove the survivor's not lying by itself.One the one hand, I agree. On the other, I hate being voteless and even as a survivor my vote is a weapon to help me survive. Perhaps a "you cannot vote once LYLO has been reached" would be a better clause.
It depends on your definition of "Bastard". Personally, I would classify SK -> Survivor as Bastard because it changes their wincon, but not the rest. Others would classify neither or both as Bastard.Question: Would a role that can affect other roles be bastard?
For example, a gun neutralizer... That can turn serial killers into survivors, And vigilantes, paranoid gun owners, grannys, etc into vanillas?