Vigilante's effect on endgame

[BrianMcQueso]

Normally, when the Mafia has equal or greater numbers than the rest of the town, the game ends in favor of the Mafia. This is because with equal numbers, the town would never be able to get a majority vote to lynch a member of the Mafia. The inevitable result is sped up and the game simply ends.

However, with a Vigilante and other power roles still in the town, it is possible for the town to still win with equal numbers to the Mafia. Take the following setup:

Mafia / Mafia / Vigilante / Doctor / Townie (in Day)

During the Day, Townie is lynched (go scum 8)). Normally, this means the Mafia has equal numbers to the town, and should automatically win. However, because the town still has a chance to win (vig kills mafia, doc saves vig from mafia kill, day starts with vig/doc/mafia),

should an exception be made?

Similar cases can be made if the Doctor is instead a Roleblocker with a successful block on the Mafia, or another Vigilante (both vigilantes kill both mafia, only one vigilante is nightkilled). Nevertheless, are the rules of the endgame 'set in stone' or should they be adapted realistically to each situation?

[MeMe]

The mafia should only "auto-win" when it's impossible for them

not

to.

If there's any scenario in which the town can pull off a win, it's not making an "exception" to let the game play out...indeed,

not

allowing it to go on would be moderator interference.

[Axelrod]

I have never understood it to be the

rule

that if the Mafia equals the town, the mafia win. It has simply been a foregone conclusion in many games. But unless the win condition specifies that all the mafia have to do is equal the town (and I have played a game like that) then if there is a scenario in which the town can still win then it should be played out.

[Save The Dragons]

What about if you replace the vig with a townie?

Should the fact the doctor is still alive and might protect the kille make the game play on?

[Narninian]

Hmmm...

If they doctor protects the townie, then its day with 2 mafia 2 townies -- and townies cant win... It would be a stalemate, so I'd probably rule that mafia wins at that ngiht period.

[Mr. Flay]

A doctor working alone can't improve the ratio, only hold off the inevitable (perhaps indefinitely, if they are sufficiently psychic). Unless the mafia kill themselves out of sheer boredom, I think you need a killing/vote-modifying role to make a 2-2 situation winnable for the town.

What this *does* highlight, however, is a need to word Win Conditions more carefully. You don't necessarily want to 'tip off' the mafia (or the town!) as to the makeup of the game with your win condition in the Role PM, so what do most mods use? I've been utilizing the "you win when you match or outnumber those who oppose you", but I suppose that's not necessarily accurate if you've got a vigilante.

Anyone got something that's more generalized?

[Save The Dragons]

I pretty much hide behind that whole "Mod is always right" BS.

[mathcam]

As long as you have a good idea of what the win conditions are, there's no rule that says you have to inform the mafia in their PM of every possible scenario in which they could win. Of course, you probably don't want to go too far with this, allowing the mafia to win if they post three posts starting with a "W" on the third Thursday of the month. You could just put something like "Your goal is to eliminate the town, but you can win in a variety of (unspecified) scenarios."

But as to Brian's question, MeMe's answer is dead on.

Cam

[Narninian]

I'd say mafia wins when all other parties are eliminated: Mods simply end the game early when its impossible for that not to happen (such as when they outnumber the others)

[Giedrius]

what if it's equal numbers and there happens to be a genius towny and a really dumb mafia and the mafia member lynches himself?

[Norinel]

Well, yeah, even for the win becomes inevitable situations, you have to assume some reasonably rational play on the part of the scum; not killing each other or lynching each other when they aren't in the minority is part of that.

How about two mafia, one mafia spy, two townies? Let the day go just to see what happens?

[Cadmium]

Depends. Does the spy know the two mafia (or that there are two left for that matter)? If so, you could assume that he'd out himself right away.

[Yosarian2]

Heh...what would be even stranger would be a doc/SK/Mafia/mafia ending...the town can still win, but only if the doc saves the SK from the mafia and the SK kills a mafia (which he should).

But yeah, if there's any way for the town to win (including stuff like vote manipulation roles) then you should let the game play out, unless you've explicitly stated the "mafia wins if 50%" rule in the start of the game.

[Mr. Flay]

I'd say mafia wins when all other parties are eliminated: Mods simply end the game early when its impossible for that not to happen (such as when they outnumber the others)

I like that method, actually. Puts the game-mechanics back in the hands of the mod, leaves the players with something nice and unequivocal.

[PolarBoy]

And if you want to make the rule cover all win conditions say that the way to win is to eliminate all other factions. Then this applies to the SK eliminating town and mafia, as well as the town eliminating mafia and sk, or two mafia families, or the vegetarians eliminating the werewolves and image consultants if your factions happen to be organized that way(if they are, sign me up for your game).

The 50% rule tends to hold as long as the town has no night-kill or role-block abilities, as even a doctor can only hold off the mafia until he is dead himself. Ther real problem comes in endgame situations where the game has to end, but comes down to a coin flip, or literally can't end; like when you get down to mafia/sk/townie in day. If the townie is not aware that he is surrounded he becomes a loose cannon and hands the game over to whomever he does not vote for. If he is aware of what's happening he can withhold his vote and make a prisoner's-dillema-like situation for the mafia and sk. If the sk and mafia both vote for the townie, they create a draw that night. If they also withhold their votes, we go to night and have a similar situation. Think about the line of reasoning the sk and mafia will go through: "If I kill the other killer and he decides the same, then the townie wins. If I go for the townie and so does he, we draw. If I go for him and he goes for the townie, I win. If I go for the townie and he goes for me, I lose." Therefore going for the townie creates a lose/draw situation, and going for the other killer creates a win/lose situation. In theory they will always attack the townie and accept a draw. What this means is that the townie is going to lose from the outset regardless of what he does.

The important thing to do is take these possibilities into account when designing the game, mainly to ensure that they aren't very likely.

[Yosarian2]

In theory they will always attack the townie and accept a draw.

Actually, the most likely thing to happen in that case would be both the mafia and the SK trying to convince each other that they're both going to go for the townie during the day. However, logically, if your opponent is going for the townie, then you should go for your opponent for the win; if your opponent is going for you, then it you lose no matter what you do, so the logical thing to do is to always go for your opponent. So, if the SK and the mafia person both behave rationally, they will kill each other and the town will win. Ah, gotta love the three prisoner dilemma.

[halo freak]

i was in a game where no one won. It can down to a vig and sk and they killed each other leaving no winner.

[warpdragon]

Well it was a one shot vigilante, who claimed townie earlier, so if he hadn't lied to the town, the town would have lost, creating a paradox (or something) where lieing saved him, creating a draw for the town.

[halo freak]

Oh that happen in talk show host mafia, i was able to put a quote through a lie detector. The first night i could i checked Baby J's claim, which was a lie. Luckily the next day ended before i could come out and get him lynched but i had the whole claim sitting in a word doc. I came very close to getting him and me lynched.

[Yosarian2]

i was in a game where no one won. It can down to a vig and sk and they killed each other leaving no winner.

I was thinking that perhaps it would be better to have a rule where SK's win "everyone's dead" ties; put it in his win condition in his PM. Makes sense from a flavor standpoint (the SK dosn't care about dying so long as he can turn the entire town into a graveyard) and the SK sure needs any edge he can get; if there's only two people left, and one of them is the SK, then the SK really deserves to wins; and it lowers the chance of a tie (you could still have a mafia/vig tie, though).

[mith]

One of our AIM games back in the day saw Antrax and Courk as Mafia, myself and someone else (mole, maybe?) on the town side, with one of us being either a vig or doc (I can't remember which). It was day, and that means it's won for the Mafia (deadlock the voting, etc.)... except that I managed to talk Courk into voting for Antrax (who was provably scum at this point), and then we either killed her at night or got luck with the doc, I can't remember which.

Antrax was so mad. It was classic.

[ralphmerridew]

Actually, that situation isn't a lock for the scum, even if there's a no-lynch:

Mafia attacks vig.
Vig attacks mafia.
Doc protects vig.

Next day is vig, doc, mafia. Vig and doc lynch maf.

[Drummer]

I would have to agree with what most people say here. The only reason to end the game at equal numbers is because of the obvious ending you'll get if you play on.

I think that if a vig and an sk killed each other, it should just end that way. If it happened that way in real life, then they would both die.

[ralphmerridew]

And even if the mafia target doc in mith's situation, the town can still get an obliteration draw.

[Mr. Flay]

I think it does make sense to have the SK win a draw/all-dead finish. They're a loner and a sociopath to boot, so their primary goal should be not to survive so much as to kill everyone else...if they die at the last with their knife in their final victim's ribs, do they not die 'happy'?