Draft of Normal Guidelines/Rules Changes

[Oso]

..

• Those affecting a role's alignment (no Cults).
..
• Anything resolving with a random element.
• Lying to the players, including False Role Reveals and "Scum Masons".
• Night action redirection (no Bus Driver, Lightning Rod, Nexus, or Redirector).
..

As a player (non-moderator person) I especially like those listed above by Mith.

You have at least one player's stamp of approval on it as it sits right now

[Edit]Does the "random element" qualifier also apply to Mods who choose an NK target(s) for scum who miss the night deadline without specifically saying

No Nightkill

?

[Oso]

well, i think it's worth it to point out that these are post restrictions in roles. So if you have a universal post restriction (e.g. no posts over 1500 words or something), that's still okay.

Says who? (<-joke btw. I haven't word counted my longest post here on ms but I'm sure I have at least a few that are over that and I'm pretty sure I'm not the worst offender)

[Oso]

@ Zoraster, I was poking fun.

One game I played in recently had that exact discussion in it. Conciseness vs. verbosity. Basically it boiled down to a general agreement (or at least no one argued strongly against it) that if you can't get your point across in just a few paragraphs, you probably have an overly complicated idea of the game state at the moment. A failing I've had since the first mafia game I've played.

So a word count Post Restriction is one I could live with even in a normal game. As long as it's not overly restrictive (and isn't that a question begging qualifier) I can actually see that one being a good thing.

[Oso]

Personally, as I progressed in mafia, I became a convert to the thinking that cops shouldn't be used as often as they are. I'm not going to say they are not 'normal' because they are, one the first non-VT, non-Mafia type roles that were invented. But, using 'nerfed' cops would open up way more possibilities in game balance (I think) and allow the mods more leeway in making games interesting.

Watcher/Tracker,Role Cop/Gunsmith are just two combos that came to mind.

[Oso]

Does the "random element" qualifier also apply to Mods who choose an NK target(s) for scum who miss the night deadline without specifically saying No Nightkill?

I'll say yes for now; the default rule is "if you don't get a choice in, you lose it". (I'm open to being convinced here, though; I don't feel that strongly about it either way.)

If it were allowed, it would certainly need to be in the public rules.
..

I guess I should have qualified it in this thread as well but I did qualify that in another thread. Post is short so I'll copy paste it here:

I would think that if the scum(or any PR with a night action) can't agree on anything, is too lazy or flakes, then that would all fall under the same category. Penalization through forfeiture of their night action.

But that isn't what I had in mind when you used my quote. It was predicated on a very general idea that a game would have a role in it that, for whatever reason the mod thought, needed to perform their action every night unless they specifically declined it or that a role was compulsory. Ex: An SK that was required to attempt a kill every night.

By the strict definition of the rules Mith put forward, a compulsory <anything> would be disallowed in a Normal game because it might require the Mod to make a random choice if something should happen to the player that is in that spot (RL emergency, flaking, ect, ect....)

Granted, I am guessing that exact situation would happen so seldom it could probably be addressed under the catch-all "Mod's discretion" when it came up.

It was just a short, not well thought out comment I made after reading Mith's revised ruleset.

[Oso]

Question then. Since Jailkeeper is on there I'm guessing that Paranoid Doc is still on the whitelist?

[Oso]

I believe that what Mith meant to say is "et al." As in, non-sane cops and other standard roles that function like non-sane cops, for example, naive doctors and blank vigs.

I'm not sure Blank Vig should be non-Normal if they're told it's a possibility. It hurts a lot less than Insane Cop.

Question then. Since Jailkeeper is on there I'm guessing that Paranoid Doc is still on the whitelist?

Given the requirement that cop sanities are explicitly confirmed or unconfirmed, I don't think a simple "you are a doc" pm is acceptable for a paranoid doctor. Giving a list of possible sanities in the role pm may be acceptable.

Ok, I think I'm getting why mith is going with two rulesets then. It is starting to look like people want whitlisted roles that can be used in Normal(closed) games freely. But, as he mentioned at the end of the last rules post, some restrictions may be lifted for open and semi-open games.

I see a trend of players say this is not 'normal' unless the player(s) are told there is a possibility of it happening which is giving me the impression that things like non-sane cops, doc flavors, ineffective vigs are still considered normal but should be excluded from closed games but can be used in open and semi-open and still be considered normal.

Or have I misunderstood something?

[Add on edit]
@MichelSableheart.
I wouldn't lump Doctor sanities in with Cop sanities on some reflection. An Insane, Naive or CPR Doc I'd say are definitely "non-normal" but in regards to say the weak or paranoid doc, niether qualifier negates the basic function of the role. Weak kills the Doc if they target mafia (and they aren't told this in the role PM I'm guessing) and paranoid is simply an add-on to the Doc. Both still function as a normal doctor and the weak/paranoid qualifier isn't triggered unless they target mafia or a PR. A Paranoid Doc's sanity is not in question. That's where I'm getting stuck. Jailkeeper is simply a Paranoid Doc that is told he blocks as well instead of having to guess at it. Maybe I'm just overthinking it

[Oso]

Heh, that is what has bugged me with some of these roles over the few years I have been playing mafia as well.

I think (and this is just a wild guess) that the Paranoid Doctor was the logical evolutionary step on the way to Jailkeeper. As to the Docs that are ineffective or kill their protectees, those are just wrong

[Add-On Edit]
But even though PD was the precursor to JK, I think it is still a viable role. Getting a Jailkeeper role changes the focus of protecting over to actively hunting/blocking scum trying to screw with them by blocking their actions rather than protecting. For balance (i.e say a set-up that has a slightly overpowered town) I can see where a PD would be somewhat useful if they happen to make a save and prevent an NK on a PR. Town gets to keep their PR but at the cost of nerfing him for the night. Big chance if that happens then come RCing time, the Doc is going to be able to figure out he is blocking as well as protecting. But Michel does have a good point. Perhaps a role like PD should be reserved for open and semi-open setups and the JK used instead for closed games.

[Oso]

You may have a point. About all I (think) I know of the evolution of Forum Mafia is that the first two Non-Goon, Non-Vanilla roles were probably Cop and Doc. Although, I am not certain of even that.

I agree (from the sites I played on previous to coming to mafiascum) is there does seem to be a race on who can bastardize the basic roles beyond all recognition.