Mastin Academy

[Jake from State Farm]

If trust is a key aspect, I'm screwed

It isn't.

It can be. If you aren't working with the rest of the town, then the game is going to go downhill fast.

But what do you do if nobody agrees with your scum read and you don't agree with the alternatives?

[Espeonage]

Work out why that is. Probe for why they aren't reading your scumread as scum. While also, and this is the kicker, working to see how other people's scumread have been made. Then rebuff them or try and get into their shoes and see what they are seeing and make a judgement from there.

The key is to not disregard town, and if there is disparity, make an effort to fix that.

The bonus is that once you've built a meta for it, it's incredibly easy to replicate as scum, and as scum, you can manipulate it to your reads the more practice you have at it as town.


Of course this is only one playstyle, but I think it answers your question.

[Espeonage]

In b4, I get shot down for being completely wrong because I am the absolute worst kind of bad, but semi-experienced players because I should know better.

Actually on that note. A new question for you Mastin.

What is the best way to shrug outdated meta?

[Faraday]

But what do you do if nobody agrees with your scum read and you don't agree with the alternatives?

Convince them you're right, it might require persistence, but!

[Jake from State Farm]

You obviously never played with me lol. I'm the most persistent person ever

[Blair]

But what do you do if nobody agrees with your scum read and you don't agree with the alternatives?

Unless this is LyLo and/or you have strong townreads on

all

of the alternatives, you can probably afford to stick to your guns and let the rest of the Town be morons for a day. If the lynch flips Town you'll gain credibility in the long run (if you played it right), and if he flips Scum - even better!

[mastin2]

So I realize I've once again been seemingly-neglecting the academy, but again, I've been continuing my work. In this case, I wrote a long critique for a more experienced player--an old veteran, who heavily uses logic. To protect their anonymity and for the different format, the words have been changed slightly, but I still thought it was worthy of a lecture.

Lecture title:
Logic.

Players whose playstyles heavily rely on logic are largely a remnant of the past. In the past, a player playing by logic (if they were good at using logic) would end up average-at-worst, and could be among the best. But the site meta evolves--while many logical players lament that it's for the worst, I argue it's actually for the better, and that overall, the game of mafia now is MUCH stronger than it was years ago. I'd even say that the average skill level of players nowadays is higher, and even that we have more overall players that excel at the game. All this despite (or, perhaps because of) the tactics used now being far less logical.

And the reason why? Because, simply put...the game of mafia is not a logic puzzle, to be solved simply. While there are certainly aspects OF the game that require logic, it is no longer the central driving force of the game, for good reason. Because mafia as a game...isn't a game about anything to do with numbers and logic. (Again, those things contribute, but do not DRIVE, the game.) Mafia, at its central core...is a game of humanity. The people playing the game are first and foremost PEOPLE, and as anyone who knows anything about people can tell you...

...People are deeply illogical creatures with no sense of sensibility. People are flawed, people are complex. And while you can profile players, while you can predict them, while you can compile generalities about players as a whole (all doing things with logic and numbers), those things will never capture the entire essence of players, and thus, never the entire essence of the game. Thus, why a player relying on logical tactics nowadays is typically in the lower percentile of players. Clinging to an outdated mafia philosophy hinders their ability to play the game as either town or scum.

In their own time, perhaps they were competent. But if they don't evolve their play (because site meta constantly evolves), they're left incompetent in the current gamestate. This, however, is not something that is permanent, so long as they put in the effort to not let it be. It's something easily overcome simply by recognizing that they're clinging to the past, that they need to fix the problem, and that it causes issues in their play.

I like to word it this way--logic (contrary to their beliefs) isn't dead. It's just been largely replaced with the similar concept of reasoning, something that is currently far, FAR more important in the game, because logic works on principles that don't generally apply to people, whereas reasoning is explicitly things that do.

In other words...the game of mafia, nowadays, is more about understanding the other players. Pretty much every single top scumhunter (be it accuracy, charisma, or both) understands this concept, as do the best mafia players. Knowing the fundamental drives of a player is what allows them to succeed, something logic alone would never have allowed them to do. (Because logic doesn't focus on a person, whereas reasoning does.) If you understand where a player comes from, you're able to better play with them as either town or scum. Seeing their mindset (as town, as scum, in general), their motives, their intentions, what they see, and evaluating it, is basically the fundamental core drive behind the current game. Players show their reasoning, what they see, where they're coming from, all instead of 'cold' logic. (Heck, sometimes, a player is transparent enough where they don't even need to show their reasoning; their actions alone are enough where players can accurately guess their reasoning.)

While some die-hards may argue that's a regression, I still hold that it's an enhancement, and that the current game of mafia is a much, MUCH richer game overall as a result, albeit one that takes more getting used to. It does take adaptation, especially for those not familiar with these concepts. But once you do, you understand that it works...and it works

beautifully

. Town players win games by recognizing a player is town and a player is scum, and being able to work with other town players to convey this message effectively. (What works on some players will not work on others. Thus, why customization is often required. General appeals [which most logic relies on] are far less effective than specific appeals that have been tailored to their audience.) Scum players similarly win games by manipulating town players into misreading the mindset of other town players, and making the town players think the scum come from a town mindset.

On the surface, that's actually not too different from the game before, because it used to essentially be town using logic to convince other town, and scum using logic to misdirect the town. But in practice, it's almost entirely a different world. One much more deep, complex, and difficult to grasp. But logical concepts still play a huge part in this. For instance, one of THE best scumhunting tools I've seen is pattern recognition. As scum in lylo, most of my losses come from effective town pattern recognition and most of my hardest-fought victories have been shutting down the correct pattern recognition that pins me as scum. It's an inherently-logical concept, playing a HUGE part in current games, because it's

the

best indicator of a person's motivation/mindset/intentions. (Albeit one that takes a long time to compile effectively. Day one pattern recognition is rarely useful. Day five pattern recognition, on the other hand...)

For instance, a decently-strong scumtell of mine is me being consistently wrong throughout the game. (Note that Burden of Proficiency is and always will still be a logical fallacy. But I'm not talking about once or twice being wrong, which is when the fallacy tends to get used. I'm more talking about in a Large game, me having consistently townread the scum and scumread the town, up to and including in lylo. A perfect example of this is Anything Goes, where I did explicitly this, and panicked when Brian Skies successfully locked onto this.) I'm a competent enough player, but I have a defining mindset of trying to keep my scumbuddies alive and trying to lynch town. So while once or twice is normal of my towngame, if I've been consistently failing to advocate the lynching of scum the entire game...well, that pattern is often a reveal of my mindset--not to lynch scum, but to stop the lynching OF scum.
(Mind you, we all have bad games, so that's not an absolute. I'm talking about a general tool, which is

generally

effective.)

That's just one example of how things rooted in logic still have their place in the game, but there's of course various others. In a sense, metagaming (also a form of pattern recognition) is another instance of it--with a large sample size (KEY TERM BEING

LARGE

!), you can see what types of patterns a player will do, as an alignment and in general. With that large sample size (NOT ONE OR TWO RANDOM GAMES!), and familiarity with said games (

not

just a skim of them!), it's a decent way to get a grip on a player. You might be in the camp of "meta is bullshit", but that's because every game's different and most people using meta neglect part of the things necessary for effective meta.

The way I see meta, in fact, is that meta's basically the "entrance" level of 'reading' players at their core levels. It's something rooted in logic, but which allows a person to read players on a deeper, fundamental level if done right. Basically, I see using effective meta as a stepping-stone into the world of the current game of mafia. (Advanced participants don't require meta at all, and in fact, is what I advocate given that most people use meta wrong.)

To put it another way, something logical can be turned into something transcending logic. Whereas the logic fails to grip the important key aspects, the elements of the logic can be used to lock onto them. This ties into another one of my key beliefs, one that most older players have trouble accepting. It might seem like a difficult concept to grasp, but basically, the old school of thought is there were two fundamental scumhunting methods: logic and gut. (With logic generally thought of as overall being superior, but gut not carelessly discarded especially given how well it works for some.)

Nowadays, however...I see the two as being the same thing. Rather, they're different aspects of the same basic method, of understanding and evaluating people. This isn't something easily comprehended, but think of it this way. If you get a gut reaction to something, what do you do? Say you had a gut reaction to it and just leave it there? Sure, some times, but most of the times, no, you won't. You might say that, but you also give speculation on

why

you're feeling that way...speculation rooted in logic. To you, something is 'off', and you do your best to figure out why, using reasoning, using what is effectively logic on an illogical feeling. (And it works more often than it doesn't.)

And it runs the other way, too. Say you've gathered a ton of analysis together. You've got a ton of facts compiled, and are in the process of analyzing it. Is there an objective way to reach conclusions 100% of the time? No. Often-times, ultimately, you make your judgment call on what the facts mean. On what the evidence you've gathered tells you. And guess what? That conclusion you reached isn't logic. It's gut.

Logical processes end with a gut reaction. Gut reactions lead to a logical process. They're a self-feeding loop, because they're not two separate entities. They're part of the same process of knowing what you see, and communicating it, of understanding others and processing what they say. And if you recognize this, you're capable of using it, exploiting it, understanding and applying it to your game, with the results showing.

All that said, you might think that this advice is asking veteran players to change their methods...but it's not. It's more like telling them what the better veterans already know: they need to recognize there's more to the game than their own playstyles, and that alternative views that conflict with their own can ultimately end up enhancing the game. And, thus, can sometimes be incorporated into their own game. I can near-guarantee you that nearly every successful player today is playing differently than they were, say, three years ago, because they've learned that certain things that weren't originally part of their play work better, and other things that were part of their play don't work as well. So I actually highly-encourage "outside the box" thinking, in this case, with the box being not-as-logical and the outside being slightly-more-logical. It's the same basic lesson I say about newbies and "beginners' luck" which isn't luck but rather a skill.

And while their process may be flawed, their ultimate conclusion ends up being right a disproportionately large number of times. Those exact same skilled-by-'accident' newbies become average or even sub-optimal veteran players, specifically because they lost what made them good: the ability to analyze something and come to the correct conclusion and NOT discard it because it goes against meta. This doesn't mean "go into confbias mode". It does, however, mean not to betray analysis on some faulty assumption. "Oh, nevermind, this can't be true because of *faultyreason*" is a pitfall I'm nicknaming the "veteran's curse". The factor turning newbie-luck into veteran-suck.

To put it another way...a newbie sees things from outside the norm. Just like a more logical player does. This is NOT a weakness, unless you're stubbornly refusing to accept alternative views. (In which case, yes, it does become a weakness because you're being an idiot by not recognizing that your alternative take can be wrong. ) It's a strength. In the case of logic (rather than newbies), it's evident enough in the fact that games with logic being nearly-entirely-absent also being a breeding ground for easy mafia wins. Showing solid reasoning is a necessity for towns to win games, after all. So I can sum this up another way: the best players, once again, are those who do not fall under either extreme, in this case extending to logical playstyles.

A player who neither discards everything they stand for, nor upholds it beyond all reason. And that means that, boiled down, my ultimate recommendation to ALL players (more logical ones included) isn't to entirely discard any aspect of their play, but rather, to hone in on what you've got already, and simply adapt the concepts of it to be more effective for your current situation. If you keep my advice in mind, you'll be able to not only survive through mafia games, but

thrive

. Some of these tips may seem to contradict one another, but that's because each game is different; what works in one won't work in another, and what works for one player won't work for another. So playing around, fine-tuning, and experimenting are a must. Eventually, you hone in on what's most effective, and what's most effective for you will be different than for another.

And overall, if you recognize this, you'll do just fine. If you discard a narrow-minded viewpoint of the game, expand your view, be open to alternatives, look into some of the things I've talked about and pay attention to even more I can't cram in here, accepting the other parts of the game you've previously not used effectively, and you'll go from someone who can be mislynch bait into a damn-respectable threat.

[Titus]

Thank you. That is a long wall. I am working on incorporating this into my games.

[kuribo]

I know what he means, i'm a highly logical player and i feel

yeah i cant even credibly finish that sentence

[Jake from State Farm]

Tl:dr

[Psyche]

so much bull

[Smudger]

Interesting Mastin, and informative, thanks

[Moonlight]

I'm so happy to have found this thread. Your approach to the game touches on things that I have focused on and watched so many players neglect, things like the human factor, understanding of a person, a search for intent, finding your own style and using the game as a means to potentially improve your (understanding of) life. This is right up my alley.

I want to ask something, but I'll need to refer to my only game here so far and it's still ongoing, so I can't do that yet. But consider me a student and know that you have my thanks for everything you've said so far!

I shall PM you once the game is completed if that's alright.

[Ankamius]

Hey Mastin. I have a few questions for you. I'm pretty sure we've only played together once (Walking Dead doesn't count since you were dead before I replaced in), but I'd still be interested in what you'd be able to tell me.

1. My day play as mafia is terribad. With my recently completed game, how could I have handled D1 and D2 better?

2. How do I get caught up with the game better as a replacement? Walking Dead is a very good example of me failing at this.

3. How do I get my voice heard by other town when my reads are accurate? I've noticed that the amount of support my wagons get is usually inversely proportional to how accurate they are.

Thanks.

[Jake from State Farm]

1. My day play as mafia is terribad. With my recently completed game, how could I have handled D1 and D2 better?

i'm certainly not mastin but you survived til end game and won in that game. That to me implies your day 1/2 couldn't have been that bad...

[Ankamius]

The primary reasons I wasn't ever lynched was because the primary person pushing for me went tunnel mode and my scumpartner basically derailed it. Unless I'm really blind, I had very little to do with my own survival overall.

[Jake from State Farm]

oh ok

[Lord Mhork]

That's a thing though. Mafia is a team game. It's not like you didn't deserve to win because your buddy saved you. Strengths and weaknesses and all that.

[Docthorr]

Are you still taking new students?

[mastin2]

Are you still taking new students?

Kind-of. I'm sorta going to be aiming for the new professor mafia award this year, and part of that reward is teaching. I don't like to SE newbie games, though (because I often usurp the IC), and my current mental health means that I don't make the best IC for a game. Which also applies to requests for critiques of games I wasn't in; my mental health means that I often don't have the willpower to actually read them and give that feedback.

However,

I realized that the best teaching I ever did was in games outside the newbie queue anyway, for instance, micro games that I played in and gave feedback (extensive, useful feedback) to the players, in. And I'm planning on upping my game there, to apply it to every completed game this year to the best of my abilities. So if you play with me, I'll be able to give you feedback at the end of the game. Heck, if I'm scum with daytalk, I can give feedback in the middle of the game, though you'd only get the results at the end unless you're my scumbuddy. (I can offer in-thread feedback in the middle of a game as either alignment, but my advice in the middle of the game is going to be less reliable regardless of my alignment, because as scum I have an agenda and as town I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.)

Sooooo, sorta kinda yes, I am.

With that in mind, I've slacked off with posting lectures that I've given from PMs and never got around to giving a general lecture for Ankamius. (As said above, the only way I'll be able to help Ank specifically is by playing a game with him.) Give me a moment to filter them for privacy and I'll post them.

[Nero Cain]

I've slacked off with posting lectures that I've given from PMs

I'm jelly. I never got a pm lecture from you.

[mastin2]

Double-lecture:

Handling Multiple Games;
Suggestions For Exploratory Newbies

I received a request from a newbie about whether I thought they could handle multiple games or not. The answer is something that basically every successful veteran has intuitively found out, so this lecture

is

primarily for newbies, but it might contain good insight for them anyway.

In general, for amount of games, I recommend having a HUGE amount of buffer room. Sure, you can handle X amount of games NOW, but will you have that much free time two or three months from now? If so, great. If not, plan for the reduced amount rather than the current amount. An additional factor into this is always expecting something going wrong. You might have in your future schedule nothing that will reduce your amount of free time...but life happens; if something DOES reduce your free time, you need to have a buffer of free time available, to keep up with your games.

Additionally, games vary in their time commitment. Some games only take a few minutes a day--others, at least an hour. The thing is...those amounts can change. A game that previously took only ten minutes a day can later take an hour or two a day, and if you didn't plan for that, then you're screwed.

So not only do you have to account for external variations in games, but internal variations in your life, for scheduling how many games you can handle. Going into operations management terminology a bit here, but basically, think of free time as essentially being an "inventory". Inventories have a base cycle stock--free time, in this case. They have a buffer stock for external variations in customer orders, in this case, variations in time commitments that you need to make for a game. Then in addition to the cycle and buffer stocks, you've got the safety stock, to account for the internal variations in the company's production. Or in the case of you, how much free time you'll have on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis.

As a result of these factors...how many games a person can handle varies. (There's no universal guideline because everyone's situation is different.) Some can't even handle a single game, and require replacement. Some can handle only one game. Some can handle two or three. Some can even handle ten. It really varies from person to person. But the most important factor is to make sure you ALWAYS have enough time free so that if things get busier be it in-game or in your life or even both, that you don't end up neglecting any of your games because of it.

So, I fully encourage experimentation about your limits. The best teacher is experience, and if you keep an eye on it? You are the player who best knows what you can or can't do. (Though again, that requires you to be analyzing it consistently.) If you think you can handle two, good for you. Three, all the more power to you. Four, five, six, or more? You need a hobby outside of mafia games. Just make sure you're careful that you'll always have the capacity to play each game you're in.

Now, as for what you can expect in your explorations...as I said above, each game is going to be different, but different forums typically do have different requirements. Micros are going to be larger short-term commitments, larges are going to be larger larger-term commitments, to give just two examples. Which forums you hang around the most generally depends on your preferences and abilities. (Certain player types thrive in themes, others in more 'boring' setups.) They can also vary on circumstances.

For the average newbie player, though, some general trends to consider: theme games are typically tough to handle. It does depend on the playerlist, but often, players will give no sympathy to newer players, so you might get hostility beyond the normal for not grasping things. Additionally, even if they aren't hostile, they may still hold you to that higher standard, meaning that if you fall short, you're likely to get frustrated. Basically, theme games require not only grasping the mechanics of the game and the roles of the game, but also to have familiarity with MS site meta enough that you don't do something tremendously stupid. (Like, say, quoting your role PM, voting conftown, and whatnot.) There's often a reason moderators require previous game experience before signing up for theme games, and that's basically to give an assurance that you're competent. (And, sure, you think you are, but MS.net players--even newbies--are infamous for arrogance; most players aren't as much as they think.)

Large games are also VERY intimidating for a newbie to face, especially since posting rates in larges have exploded. Dead serious, people produce more pages in a large for a single gameday than the

entire length of a large game

from a couple of years ago. (Let's just say that if you have a place on the records page for largest game/gameday page-wise, it's not going to last for very long.) In 24 hours, you can produce more pages than a newbie game has in its entirety. (Can you handle 20+ pages in 24 hours? Those are surprisingly common.)

That's not to say that you can't play them. You can. Just go in with that type of expectation. I consider large games to basically be at least 2-3 games' worth of games, in that if my game capacity was 6 games, I'd only sign up for two to be safe. They are a serious, serious commitment.

So, Larges are intimidating, Themes fairly unforgiving, Large Themes having both trends combined. (It might be coincidental, but most of my favorite mods and favorite players hang around Large Themes. But it might also be that that's basically where the most challenge comes in as far as games go.)

Which is, generally, why the recommendation for newbies is to explore other places first. Mini normals are fairly forgiving, decently easy to grasp and newbies are often encouraged. It does take a certain degree of comfortability, and an expectation to face 'true' games, though. There IS typically going to be slightly more complexity than your average open games (which are

the

first non-newbie queue generally recommended for newbies expanding), and a newbie going into there might receive slightly harsher criticism from the players, there. (But less so than in themes--basically, the more "advanced" a queue is, the higher the expectation of each individual player will be.) Yet in spite of the potential danger, I still think it's a fairly safe environment to play in, especially since newbies are relatively common in that environment and the games ARE fairly simple to understand. It's an excellent place to help grow your talents as a player, to acclimate yourself to the culture here. (Though it really depends on who you're playing with. Bluntly, some players on MS.net are jerks. Others will greet you with open arms, and guide you through games. For instance, I'm the type of player who will give IC-type advice outside of the newbie queue, and there ARE other players like me in games.)

Basically, I can give you no guarantee of what you'll experience, because it's largely a mixed bag. Be prepared for getting harsh treatment and no "kiddie gloves" on, but don't fear the queue expecting that to be the response. That's basically the worst-case scenario, not the only scenario. Again, it's largely what you feel comfortable doing.

Opens aren't universally easier than mini normals, it should be noted; some opens have fairly complex mechanics. However, if the setup is fairly simple to understand, then they're typically much easier. And the players in there are much more forgiving, in my experience. Plus, it's a great social environment, where you get a mixture of the cultures of newbies and vets; a typical open game will have approximately half-and-half from my experience. Perhaps slightly more veterans, but still--a great place to meet veteran players, and mingle with other newbies.

Micros are a bit of a mixed bag, too, though. They have the guaranteed size of a newbie, but pay attention to the type of micro you're signing up for; the guidelines I lay out for each forum generally apply to the micros. Open micros are easy and have a fairly relaxed, open environment. Normal micros are relatively simple to understand, but quicker and overall easier than their mini equivalents. (Should be noted, though, that open/normal micros are the minority of micros.) Theme micros are more complex, so expect some difficulties if the mechanics/roles are more complex, but generally, thanks to the smaller game size, the mechanics won't be as crazy (crazy mechanics work better in larger games), meaning that overall, micros are another great place to look.

But I should make it clear, once again, these are just guidelines. They are not absolute, and are merely from my own experience. Your experience may differ, but this can give you an idea of what you'll be in for. Hope this can help!

[mastin2]

I'm jelly. I never got a pm lecture from you.

Don't think you asked for one.

[mastin2]

Lecture Title:
On balancing charisma and logic

I should note that I will be keeping the identity of the player requesting the lecture anonymous, but that they are a player I consider to be more on the logical side rather than the charisma side. Now with that in mind, their basic request was for me to analyze them, and offer some feedback. My basic take on things was essentially this--

Charisma and logic aren't black-and-white have-one-don't-have-other. (Though...they

can

be. As an example, since Nero just posted in the thread, I can basically say that he has essentially no charisma but is a deadly-logical player.) Often, players have some (or even a lot) of both. Sometimes, to their detriment. Other times, their benefit. And one aspect of the request was in helping to make sure that having both would get the best of both worlds rather than the worst. Basically, though, how these two aspects manifest differs from player to player. Some have charisma that makes them look obvtown, but not convincing. Others, charisma that makes them convincing but places them dangerously close to a lynch. You can have both or neither. But generally, a player who is charisma-based has both (yet is more lacking in logic), and a logical player that's charismatic will have one yet not the other, because their charisma is essentially subservient to the more dominant logical side. Of course, this isn't an absolute, but I think it does give a general feeling for players.
Good at doing analysis and picking up on the right things = both of logic.
Good at lynching others and not getting lynched = both of charisma.

Players often have 2-3 specialties.

And this does tie heavily into my recentish MD thread on player roles, but basically, players of types do have tendencies. Logical players tend to be more prone to walling, and charismatic players typically have a knack for spamposting. Not an absolute rule, but a general trend I've observed. Even though charismatic players know how to wall, often, their posts are much shorter when using charisma. (The exception being convincing cases, which often go into detail--you can wall and still be followed, just so long as the wall is something that can be followed. ) Vice-versa, too; I've noticed that logical players typically have longer (but slightly less frequent) posting.

...But they don't fit into these molds for the entire game, at least, not necessarily. In this case, if you consider a charismatic player to be a 'leader' and a logical player to be an 'analyzer', then it should be noted that the two players can often end up in different roles. A charismatic player wallposting is generally scumhunting, analyzing using logic. A logical player interacting directly with players in real-time is often not doing so to get a better read, but to try and bridge a gap between them and the player they're interacting with. (Again, these are generalities.) It's all circumstantial.

And this is the key to recognizing how players obtain the best of both worlds. If you're familiar with operations management, there's basically 'competitive priorities' and a 'triangle', where you can't have all at the same time. Basically the same thing. You can't simultaneously fill every role in the game that needs to be filled. You can't both be extremely convincing and extremely analytical at exactly the same point in time. (Even though you can have both, close together.)

So the people who have the best of both worlds are more accurately described as, well, the players who have the best of one world, and the ability to swiftly adapt to having the best of the other world. And when I think about games, that makes a lot of sense to me. That's what happens. They may have one, two, maybe three traits, but not all at once. They switch, as circumstances dictate it, for them to fill a different role.

Disclaimer:

It should be noted, however, that my logic, I'm not necessarily referring to logic as traditionally defined. I refer to it in the sense of my lecture on the subject. Logic falls apart easily. Reasoning is much, much harder to master and manipulate. So nowadays, when I refer to logical-players, I'm mostly actually referring to reason, to analytical roles, rather than true logic.

My overall recommendation for the player that made the request is to not actively force to change anything about them, especially if the change isn't really them. It applied to them, but it also applies to basically everyone. I recommend players pay attention to circumstances, and to read the playerstates, to tell if they need to adapt styles and change roles. And that? That's the key to nailing it, to have the best of both worlds, the logic and the charisma in one neat package.

[mastin2]

2. How do I get caught up with the game better as a replacement? Walking Dead is a very good example of me failing at this.

I'll tackle this one, since the third one is sorta-covered by some of my other lectures. (Including the one I just did.)

The basic advice I have is similar to my advice I gave to newbies, believe it or not. Know what you're getting yourself into. Larges produce pages at such an astronomically-high rate that it IS a fairly frequent occurrence for some poor souls to try reading, and to have more pages appear than they read, making them fall progressively further behind. Micros aren't going to be likely to have that type of problem. Themes are often going to require you understand some special mechanic and grasp it quickly--and if you have a role, to be able to use it basically instantly. (Sure, most theme games not in night will be fine, but there are plenty of themes that have usage of day power, and if you're considering replacing into one, be ready to be forced to pull a trigger on a role essentially on instinct.)

Most mini normals are going to be easy, and opens are typically going to be even easier, though it depends on the players. A great recommendation is to look at the game's total page number, the creation of the game thread, and the current day phase of the game. Between the three, you can get a fairly good triangulation of the activity level of the game, without even having looked inside to see the players and whatnot. If the activity levels are high, you're in for a long ride. If the activity levels are fairly low, you can probably get caught up in a single night, even if the game has a ton of pages.

But let's say you replace into a higher-activity game. A few things that I typically do:
-I skip any proven townVtown fighting. That is, if a game has flips and they're town, no point reading their spouts; their alignment is known.
-However, I will read the content of dead players on living players,
-AND the content of living players ON dead players.

It makes reading a bit easier, especially if you replaced into, say, lylo. If you're on the middle of D1, though, you'll probably need a different approach.

One easy trick is to iso your predecessor(s), and take whatever's important from there. I don't recommend doing this and commenting on it, your alignment/role regardless. (You'll be accused of invoking some variant of the Amished tell, true or not, which your alignment regardless, is annoying to deal with.) But doing so gives you an idea of where your predecessor(s) were coming from. If you can see what they see from their iso, then you give some continuity with your slot, making it much easier to interact with all the other players.

You don't necessarily have to agree with your predecessor(s)--just let your attention be drawn to things that they raised. By doing so, you can get a jump-start on your own reads, by basically getting a feel for the gamestate.

Another trick is to simply ask for a summary of the game. Players giving the summary often do so with bias, but by reading their summaries, you can get a better idea of what they've seen, and by crossreferencing things, might get a better grasp on their alignment. (Or weaknesses, if you're scum.)

A third tip is to not bother reading the entire game--to read the early parts, the latest parts, and go from there. Frequently, the earliest section of the game is the most important anyway, and reviewing the latest section of the game is also very important and can get you quickly integrated into the game. If there's something you don't get, just ask for someone to give you the context behind it, and then read said context behind what they're saying.

A related tip is to basically track the votecounts if the mod has enough--I'd discourage from opening with VCA, of course, but I'm more talking about using the votecounts to track where players have stood throughout the game. It gives you an excellent sense of how things have developed, from just a quick skim. Player X was suspicious, but player Y became even moreso, and so on and so forth.

By combining these tips, you get a much better handle on things, allowing you to integrate and give content basically immediately.


What I don't recommend doing?
-Reading the entire game if it's long. Nobody needs a ton of random junk thrown in front of them that's no longer relevant.
-Not understanding the mechanic and asking others to explain it. If you replace into a theme, it's your job to understand things, and you're likely to be scumread for it.
-Not reading at all. This gives you a disconnect with the other players, disjointing you from them which is bad regardless of your alignment. At least skim some of the game.
-If possible, avoid discussing things that have been discussed to death. If you think there's something that was discussed that can be brought up again with a new angle, sure, yeah, that might be productive, but even then, you need to time it well so that your discussion on the old is not derailing discussion of something current.

I'm afraid that I can't really give many tips beyond this. Each game will be entirely different, far too reliant on context and circumstances for me to give you advice that will actually be useful for keeping up. But these might be able to help. Remember also, replacing into a game that's active means you need to have the time for that activity, and that's basically the one tip above all others I can think of that will universally aid you.