Mafiascum.net

I was debating with another user about this and decided to ask the public.

One of the most important rules on the site is that you play to your win condition, but what if alignments are fluid in the setup and you know this? Example: you're a townie in a cult game and are confident you know at least one member, but you refuse to push that read because you're almost positive that you'll be recruited the next night. Do you consider this gamethrowing, since it's playing against the wincon in your role? Or is it acceptable because you're still playing to win by supporting what you think is your eventual team? I'm not looking for arguments about how likely you are to actually be converted, because that makes it a matter of good/bad play, which isn't what I'm talking about here. Do you stick with your current alignment no matter what or do you take whatever path is best for endgame?

(I have an opinion on this but I'll wait to share it)

It'd only be gamethrowing to do that if you're in like lylo imo, your read could be wrong but you still are believing you are playing to win condition

I think the rule exists to prevent obvious attempts at not trying. In this example they're at least playing to win

Look up the roles Saulus and Judas.

With those you generally need to make a judgement call. But it is generally frowned upon and considered to be playing against your win con to just fold to a cult.

But it's not like claiming scum, right? If you say "cult me!" it doesn't mean you aren't playing towards your wincon.

I avoid alignment changing games. But I do think it's cheating to not play to your current win condition.

As a mod, I explicitly allow playing to a future wincon. (However, so far I haven't run any games where win conditions can change.) I see every win condition as having an implicit "or change your win condition and fulfil your new win condition" attached to it, because that's how we determine who actually wins and loses, and thus it is in practice part of the win condition by definition.

In post 5, callforjudgement wrote:As a mod, I explicitly allow playing to a future wincon. (However, so far I haven't run any games where win conditions can change.) I see every win condition as having an implicit "or change your win condition and fulfil your new win condition" attached to it, because that's how we determine who actually wins and loses, and thus it is in practice part of the win condition by definition.

Strong agree with this.

It's absurd to force someone to continue playing to the town win condition if they think their win condition is going to change. It's basically forcing someone to make themself less likely to win, in the name of "playing to your win condition."

(the simple solution is of course not to run cult games)

What about a role where wincondition is even more fluid then in a cult game? Like someone who alternates alignment every day? What do you do with that?

In post 7, Gamma Emerald wrote:What about a role where wincondition is even more fluid then in a cult game? Like someone who alternates alignment every day? What do you do with that?

Blacklist the game host

If you're alternating alignment and know the rest of your scumteam, the correct solution is probably to get lynched while you're town and post the name of all your former scumbuddies in twilight. So I'm assuming you don't know your buddies, or don't have any (e.g. alternating between town and SK). In that case, the easiest solution is probably still to play to the town wincon, as you can do a lot more to screw up scum when you're scum than you can to screw up town when you're town. I guess you could be alternating between Town and Traitor, in which case the Traitor wincon might be an easier one (if you can arrange to be lynched on an appropriately numbered day). It's a pretty unfun and unbalanced role though and most people would dislike playing with it and dislike playing against it.

In post 7, Gamma Emerald wrote:What about a role where wincondition is even more fluid then in a cult game? Like someone who alternates alignment every day? What do you do with that?

This is honestly the most fudged up role ever. If I had something like this I would openly claim and try to destroy this game as much as possible, then WOTC, WOTM, and never talk to the game host ever again (unless of course this game was designed to be bad and I knew that when I signed up.)

In post 4, chamber wrote:I avoid alignment changing games. But I do think it's cheating to not play to your current win condition.

I don't see how it can be cheating to anticipate a change in your wincon. This thread of thought brings up a good question though in terms of what's more important. Is it more important to win the game or more important to play to your current wincon? Playing to one may not necessarily advance your cause to the other.

If you're town and you're trying to help a cult you think you'll eventually be part of, that's trying to win. It's not helping your current alignment but it's playing to win con. I think it's alright.

OTOH, if the cult realises you're helping them, they'll probably cult someone else. It makes more sense to deny the ability to play in a pro-town way to someone who's playing pro-town than to someone who's playing anti-town.

I'd rather cult the guy who's more likely to not look too different after culting than the reverse

This question is the fundamental reason why changing wincon is a bad mechanic.

I definitely think that if you anticipate your wincon then it is alright and perhaps correct for you to play to that wincon.

This is why people don’t like alignment changing games by the way.

It's not the only reason why people dislike alignment-changing games (although it is one of the main reasons).

In post 16, BNL wrote:I definitely think that if you.

And I'll be the counter-opinion in saying that playing to any wincon that you do not have is bad, bad play.

If you are not playing to the wincon you possess with the utmost of your ability because you think it might change you are doing the game and everyone whose wincon you share a disservice.

I've been through this scenario on the site I came to Mafiascum from many, many years ago. There was a publicly known cult-style group (they actually were an alternate Mafia faction but the mechanics were close enough) with a public face who tried to make the argument that because they would be recruiting me it was in my best interest to vote in their direction. Said cult didn't have anywhere near control of the game and as it turned out only had limited recruiting power and never ended up trying to recruit me. Had I played against my Town wincon because I thought I might be recruited Town could well have gone on to lose the game. But I didn't and my basic response to said figurehead was "if you really wanted me to vote with your interests you should have actually recruited me ... your mistake".

Agree wholeheartedly that Cult games in general and most alignment changing games are not usually fun to play in.

That's more an argument for "cult games suck because it's unclear what you should be doing to play towards your win condition", which I can definitely agree with.

That said, in your situation, playing to the town wincon was justified not because of some rule that you must play to a wincon that's about to change, but rather because you didn't know it would change (and couldn't influence it changing). It wouldn't be the first time that scum tried to bluff a townie into doing something directly counter to their own interests.