(Nav not a shot at your recent rules)

Curious! The gold standard for a long time was that mafia/cult/whatever’s wincon was to reach half the total players, you hit 50% and it’s over

I’ve noticed here and there some people running it as over 50%. Or half+1 or whatever you wanna call it

Just wondering which people prefer and if there are good arguments for or against either. I actually think we might’ve made this same thread a couple years ago but good to revisit

its a good q!

the reason i had it at over 50% was specifically bc of the mechanics of the penalty vote and im317's role. so for me if there is no vote modifying mechanic in place then in theory once mafia reaches 50% they can tie the vote, force an NL and win with a kill. and that just delays the inevitable in which case the wincon should just be at 50% to speed things along

The ooooold wincon used to be something like, “you win when you make up half the players and nothing prevents you from something something something”.

Which is a bit weird, because I THINK that used to mean like, if mafia had half but there was an SK left alive who could kill one of them, or a roleblocker who could stop their kill, that final night kill to seal it wasn’t so inevitable anymore. I think we did away with that pretty quickly though? Especially as we introduced more roles and things became less standard each game, from then on it turned into hitting 50% immediately seals it and ends it, it was just cleaner

im not sure it should be a %. just make it when there win is inevitable even if everyone else does everything perfectly. what if mafia has half going into the night but town has a re-director the mafia cant counter? should mafia win just because they have half or should they have to outguess the re-director in either who does the killing or who they are going to kill. really the 50% is for the base mafia plus town with few if any power roles.

i would rather play it out then end it early at 50% and find out there was a way for someone else to win

I like the Nothing Prevents It clause the best. The idea is that the Mafia wants to Kill everyone else in the game, and once things are at 50% that's usually a done deal, but certain mechanics can make that not as foregone

If not Nothing Prevents It though i prefer Mafia to have a voting majority, so >50%

im317 @ 23/10/2023 15:50

im not sure it should be a %. just make it when there win is inevitable even if everyone else does everything perfectly. what if mafia has half going into the night but town has a re-director the mafia cant counter? should mafia win just because they have half or should they have to outguess the re-director in either who does the killing or who they are going to kill. really the 50% is for the base mafia plus town with few if any power roles. i would rather play it out then end it early at 50% and find out there was a way for someone else to win

Yeah it’s a bit tricky. A little cat and mouse guessing game between mafia and remaining town does sound fun, but I also think if that were to happen every game with an outed mafia team then it would grow old kinda fast. Sometimes I really hate when it gets to the point of a game continuing with an outed team who just has to go through the motions, and at the same time I would hate to be a townie in the minority with a hidden team still playing along and playing with their food, that’s really never fun. If either of those happened every game instead of a mercy ending then it would get stale I think

It would also take away from the impact of a game very suddenly being over at 50% and town realizing who scum was with the reveal, which can be kinda fun. If that makes sense

Curtis @ 23/10/2023 16:01

It would also take away from the impact of a game very suddenly being over at 50% and town realizing who scum was with the reveal, which can be kinda fun. If that makes sense

This is definitely one of the big benefits of just ending at %

drr - king hero of the town @ 23/10/2023 14:56

I like the Nothing Prevents It clause the best. The idea is that the Mafia wants to Kill everyone else in the game, and once things are at 50% that's usually a done deal, but certain mechanics can make that not as foregone If not Nothing Prevents It though i prefer Mafia to have a voting majority, so >50%

^ this

I feel like the 50% rule was just shorthand for "the mafia winning is now a foregone conclusion because the town doesn't have the numbers" but that was more relevant when there were a lot less impactful roles in the game (iirc in the early games, like half the town would be vanilla). If there's any scenario remaining where the mafia COULD still be stopped, I feel like the game shouldn't end

I definitely think “Nothing Prevents It” clause is a lot harder these days than it was when we started. I would hate to see a host end a game early without realizing that xyz could’ve still done something. Feels unlikely but I dunno, depends on how whacky roles are in any given game I guess

Could also see inactives being an issue and causing people to call foul on hosts, like if a scum member is entirely inactive and their inactivity would technically prevent an inevitable lynch. Gets a little grey, I would definitely only consider roles when it comes to Nothing Prevents It and not activity

I would bet a good amount of our mafia victories could have continued playing out and prevented the mafia from actually winning even after they reached majority. At the very least some more mafia members would’ve been killed along the way

The wincon I use for when I mod games is the following:

Mafia: Eliminate all threats to the Mafia and have 50% (or greater) of remaining players.

This way, once all the threats are eliminated to prevent the voting majority from happening, it's game over. No need to play out the rest. You can define 'threats' however you want, based on the roles in play in that game.

Curtis @ 23/10/2023 15:18

I would bet a good amount of our mafia victories could have continued playing out and prevented the mafia from actually winning even after they reached majority. At the very least some more mafia members would’ve been killed along the way

I can assure you that was NOT the case in the last game I hosted!

What would you all do if it was like the following:

4 mafia
5 town, a townie gets lynched, game would usually be over but we’re doing the kill the threats rule etc
1 townie is a roleblocker and one is a redirector
Mafia kills another townie, so it’s 4 mafia and 3 townies, two are RBer and redirector

At that point it’s a playing with your food scenario a bit. Let’s say the RBer blocks a kill the next night and excitedly is like guess what everyone, I blocked xyz and there was no kill so they’re mafia. And they think they’re the man and everyone is like yay good job, and then scum dumps 4 votes on the roleblocker throughout the day instead of the person they blocked. Fun? Annoying? Cruel? I dunno! Are these scenarios too unlikely for this to even matter?

Boc @ 23/10/2023 16:26

Curtis @ 23/10/2023 15:18 I would bet a good amount of our mafia victories could have continued playing out and prevented the mafia from actually winning even after they reached majority. At the very least some more mafia members would’ve been killed along the way I can assure you that was NOT the case in the last game I hosted!

Strike it from the record!

I hate "nothing can prevent it" because the concept of the game is informed minorty vs uninformed majority and it kind of goes against that to fuck over your mafia team's gambit attempt to reveal there's some town vote role in the shuffle and they didn't actually win. Mafia should definitely have a solid and reliable win con they are able to gambit for