Theme Test Market

[Leafsnail]

I presume the council meetings would be anonymous, otherwise they could decide "Yeah let's lynch the guy the scum sent to the council meeting". Assuming they are anonymous both of the elected people could just claim and then ignore the guy the scum sent.

[IceGuy]

I presume the council meetings would be anonymous, otherwise they could decide "Yeah let's lynch the guy the scum sent to the council meeting". Assuming they are anonymous both of the elected people could just claim and then ignore the guy the scum sent.

No, they would not be anonymous, so it would be pretty stupid of scum to always send one of their own. The WIFOM is integral here.

[Leafsnail]

Even if they didn't send one of their own you'd still want to just ignore them.

[IceGuy]

Even if they didn't send one of their own you'd still want to just ignore them.

That's unfortunately probably a good strategy. But I prefer the Proportional Representation one anyway.

[The Mini-Librarian]

I like the proportional representation one but how exactly would this work in endgame situations?

[Leafsnail]

Have you seen the attempts to create legislation to avoid the fiscal cliff? A lot like that.

[IceGuy]

I like the proportional representation one but how exactly would this work in endgame situations?

Endgame would always have normal lynching mechanics.

[Maestro]

Two ideas I've been thinking about, as an extension of the Executioner/King mechanic:

Council

(Mini or Large Theme)

Town elects two people to serve on the council, scum selects one. The council meets and decides about the lynch.

Proportional Representation

(Large Theme)

This is a bit more complicated, but here is how it would go down:

Candidacy phase

This would be the main Day phase. In this phase, parties form. A party forms by an application of at least three players. Players can join parties if the majority of the party approves of them and can leave parties by simple declaration. Parties have a QT where all party members can talk at any time.

Alternatively, players can choose to run as an independent, or endorse a party or independent either publicly or non-publicly.

After all players have either joined a party or sent in their choice to run or endorse (or when deadline hits), the candidacy phase is closed.

Distribution of the seats

A parliament with a small number of players is formed by the D'Hondt method (with random selections if necessary). The number of votes for a party or independent is the sum of the number of members and the number of endorsements. Seats that go to a party go to random party members; if a party would get more seats than the number of members (or an independent would get more than one seat), the seat is filled by the next party (or left empty if no other possibility).

Decision phase

The parliament now gets to decide on everything by a simple vote: player(s) getting killed, but also all other town actions.

The part where I'm unsure of how is how parliamentary meetings would go down. This could be completely open (in-thread, everybody can talk but only MPs can vote) to completely closed (QT) to something in-between (in-thread but only MPs can talk).

What do you think, and was this ever run before?

Personally, I would love to play this.

[Mr. Flay]

Even if they didn't send one of their own you'd still want to just ignore them.

Yeah, without some sort of forced anonymity I can't see how you'd get the Scum Councilor to have any effect.

[MonkeyMan576]

Has anyone ever done or thought about doing a 100 player mafia game?

[quadz08]

Yes, and then they promptly shook the sleep out of their eyes and went "boy that sure would be awful; I'm glad I didn't take that seriously."

[MonkeyMan576]

I think it would be fun to try to design and implement just for the sheer insanity of it.

[Xalxe]

I think it would be fun to try to design and implement just for the sheer insanity of it.

No.

[Maestro]

I think it would be fun to try to design and implement just for the sheer insanity of it.

...agreed...

[Leafsnail]

It might be playable if you cheated and split it into multiple threads/ ran some sort of "replacing players" (with new playerslots) mechanic so not everyone played at once.

[Cheery Dog]

I think it would be fun to try to design and implement just for the sheer insanity of it.

There was a 50 player game run recently, I guess you could try the same mechanics as that, 100 players playing a normal game of mafia is just a bad idea.

[Maestro]

There was a 50 player game run recently

Where? Must read.

[Cheery Dog]

Game of the year. (large theme of you somehow don't know )

I'm not linking since I don't know how to copy and paste on my phone.

[saulres]

Caution: Victorious faction in thread title

[callforjudgement]

That setup was broken. And needed more vigs.

[MonkeyMan576]

I think it would be fun to try to design and implement just for the sheer insanity of it.

There was a 50 player game run recently, I guess you could try the same mechanics as that, 100 players playing a normal game of mafia is just a bad idea.

The concept I had in mind wasn't "normal" per se. There would be lots of variations to make it more plausible.

[Maestro]

You had me at "wasn't". Lemme know if this idea ever takes root.

[Umbrage]

insane =/= enjoyable

for the mod or the players

also you'd never get 100 players to sign up for it.

[Ser Arthur Dayne]

I can actually see it happening.

Also, I think it can be rather enjoyable, as long as you put something around myko's mechanic, otherwise 1 lynch per day would never end.

Also, have something like 1-2 week inactivity rules. Anyone who doesn't post get's modkilled, rather than attempting to replace them.

[xRECKONERx]

Hmmm. I was thinking up an idea for a game earlier... essentially, it'd be two games run simultaneously, doesn't matter the size, both closed setups... however, the players know that both games have the

exact

same setup. So flips in one game can effect flips in another.