Not a mafia game; but suggestions.

[Green Crayons]

Alright, there's another message board that i visit that isn't revolved around mafia games, but we play every so often - we usually just stick to minis, because player participation isn't all that high for a normal. First we started off with basic mafias, 3 mafia, 9 town, then added a cop into a mix, and now we're at full-fledged themed and a variation of roles. That's fine and all's well.

However, here's my problem, and i'm curious if anyone here has any suggestions: On day one, they almost always advocate role claims from pretty much almost everyone. Sometimes it nabs them a win, sometimes it doesn't. I hate this idea, because mafia is supposed to be primarily about deducing and analyzing the players, not role authentication and then being able to verify it by night actions; that's just not playing mafia to its funnest. To counter balance this, i've tried to always include two-three people who are just "townies," and even once ran a game with a doctor, a sk, and four paranoid cops.

So, does anyone else have any suggestions in how to get across to them that massive role-claims on the first day isn't always the way to go? I was planning on doing a improbable-mafia-esque game, with wacked out role names (and damned straight "a flying pumpkin that shoots lasers out've its ass" will be a character).. but.. once again, any other suggestions?

------------------
"That's interesting, in the same way seeing the crippled child chewing his own hair is 'interesting'."
-Antrax, in Neo's GME Game 1

[Lepton]

My one and only attempt to run a major mafia game here had all the players as vegetables. Who's to say that a carrot is evil, while turnips are masons? The other thing I did in that game was make up a lot of new characters. The Cult is a good idea too (baddies that recruit a new member every evening).

But I'm not a great mafia strategist. I think some people play that way because they are sucks that can't accept that the logical approach isn't always the most fun.

[casinopete]

I think perhaps that

[KingPin]

I was recently involved in a game here on the GL, a mini, and was one of two mafia scum roles. When the e-mail was sent out we were told nothing other than what weapons we could use and how often we could use them. The town, "good guys", got specific role names and abilities, all of them. The setup really weighed heavily toward the town, IMO. The reason I feel this way: 8 players, 2 scum, 6 characters w/ names and random abilities. It was a matter of extreme dumb luck that we scum were able to pull out a win. The town forced a role claim from both my scum partner and myself on day one. We both took a gamble at role names, which worked.

The reason for this response is simple. I am fully behind a logic-based game in which the only way to prove guilt is by deduction and speculation. I think by providing an out to the mafia in some cases is beneficial. In others it seems that they should have a little more restrictions. Game setup is key to having a logic-based good game. If you are in a themed game that limits the role claims then I think the town would have a better chance at winning. Constricting scum by eliminating all or most of the names that could be claimed by scum, I believe you are setting them up to fail. This has been counter balanced by restrictions to the town players, only getting partial information from investigations.

More or less townies? I would like to see more games that include only basic players. Don't get me wrong I like the themed games. Sometimes though I want to only play good vs. evil, and give my wits some exercise.

The game is about tripping the players up. Catching someone spreading information around that is inconsistent with his or her play. Finding the truth behind the reasons they played the way they did in a situation that is different later in the game, in a similar situation. In truth it is all still logic and conjecture, some games just get really big hints.

[Quailman]