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 Clinging to an outdated mafia philosophy hinders their ability to play the game as either town or scum.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.
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}
