Mafiascum.net

In post 973, Umlaut wrote:I think it would make more sense to amend the definition of the modifier than to change its name; and I think if the official ruling is that a Backup [Role] ‘should’ only activate when a non-Backup [Role] dies, the definition should in fact be amended to state that explicitly, so that we don’t have the opposite scenario of what implo described: players being at a

disadvantage

because they carefully read and interpreted the rules according to their literal meaning. It would really suck for a player like me or TemporalLich to discover and tease out the implications of some surprising interaction like this in a game we were playing, only to be wrong not because we misread but only because “oh everyone knows what that’s

supposed

to mean.”

Yeah - if Backup shouldn't activate on Backups dying that needs to actually written instead of defying my expectations on a modified role being the base role for roles that care about the base role (and Backup somehow isn't the base role).

Making a backup not activate on backups would still make a Cop-Finder say a Deputy is a Cop. Making a Backup version of the role not count as the base role would both disallow dual backups and have a temporary finder-godfather effect. (Gunsmith, which would normally care about the difference, explicitly sees guns on a Deputy anyway, though it would change whether or not a Gunsmith sees a gun on a Mafia Nurse)

(Cop Enabler would not have any meaningful difference whether or not a Deputy is a Cop, if not a Cop activates then gets disabled immediately from a dead Cop Enabler)

The design space could be reclaimed with a modifier saying "Each night, but only once an other {modifier} {role} has died," or "Each night, but only once an other {modifier} player has died,". The second would be less complex.

- Considering the "simple" version of the "dual backup" modifier (Each night, but only once an other {modifier} player has died,) is meaningfully different regardless of the ruling on Backup, here is a wiki page for the "dual backup" modifier, which is named Provoked (thank you Cook for the name).

In post 974, Ythan wrote:Are there any other modifiers we don't want triggering a backup? If it can just require a non-backup that would be a pretty simple solution.

Enabler is currently listed as a modifier on the Normal Game page, but I think it's generally agreed this is just incorrect and Enabler is actually a modular role like Finder.

In post 977, Umlaut wrote:

In post 974, Ythan wrote:Are there any other modifiers we don't want triggering a backup? If it can just require a non-backup that would be a pretty simple solution.

Enabler is currently listed as a modifier on the Normal Game page, but I think it's generally agreed this is just incorrect and Enabler is actually a modular role like Finder.

yeah that would be incorrect and I'd actually want it to be Cop-Enabler instead of Cop Enabler tbh but a hyphen doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things

(For the record I stand by my comments in the review thread: even if the wording a Backup can inherit their role upon a Backup's death, that's NOT Normal to me. The wiki can/should be updated to fit with the standard; the standard should not be changed to fit with the wiki.)

A Nurse is considered to have the base role of Doctor I think (which would mean a Doctor-Finder gets a positive result (is a Doctor) on a Nurse and a Gunsmith gets a negative result (has no gun) on a Mafia Nurse)

I don't see a reason why Backups backing up backups isn't Normal other than "that interaction is counter-intuitive." and "The NRG didn't think about that interaction.", and the easiest fix for that would make the modifier refer to itself.

Imo, backups should get a note saying "Backups can activate other Backups of the same base role." (or can't, if the role is changed to specifically exclude Backups).

There's nothing that would make me outright say "dual Backups are not Normal", let alone "dual Backups are outside of potential Normal design space" (the latter would mean that Provoked, a proposal to simplify the dual Backup, isn't Normal). However, I'm not averse to complexity in Normals and dual Backups are a form of deceptive complexity. (if that interaction is , that isn't Normal to me as it violates the principle of "Roles should be able to be understood without difficulty.")

Something like Backup Cop Night 10 Cop is "normal" in technicality and would function as an activator for another backup.

In post 980, TemporalLich wrote:A Nurse is considered to have the base role of Doctor I think (which would mean a Doctor-Finder gets a positive result (is a Doctor) on a Nurse and a Gunsmith gets a negative result (has no gun) on a Mafia Nurse)

I don't see a reason why Backups backing up backups isn't Normal other than "that interaction is counter-intuitive." and "The NRG didn't think about that interaction.", and the easiest fix for that would make the modifier refer to itself.

Imo, backups should get a note saying "Backups can activate other Backups of the same base role." (or can't, if the role is changed to specifically exclude Backups).

There's nothing that would make me outright say "dual Backups are not Normal", let alone "dual Backups are outside of potential Normal design space" (the latter would mean that Provoked, a proposal to simplify the dual Backup, isn't Normal). However, I'm not averse to complexity in Normals and dual Backups are a form of deceptive complexity. (if that interaction is

confusing

, that isn't Normal to me as it violates the principle of "Roles should be able to be understood without difficulty.")

I don't have coherent thoughts here except,
"I VERY strongly and vehemently disagree with all of this".

wait, you actually think a backup cop isn't a cop?

that would make it by definition a modifier, but instead a derived role that ought to also get the Finder treatment like Enabler.

Backup is structurally a modifier that works like a schedule restriction. Imo, making it a derived role just for the sake of "Backups shouldn't actually be their base role" is confusing and thus .

I'm also curious on how the hypothetical Deputy-Deputy interaction if Backups can backup backups isn't a form of deceptive complexity. Seems like the modifier is being used in an unintended way that is possible RAW.

Also, "Roles should be able to be understood without difficulty." is a reason why I said Reflexive wasn't a good fit for Normal, I mentioned Reflexive Watcher as a confusing role. I think it's a good Normal principle, nobody should be confused reading their Role PM in a Normal.

speaking about base roles:

Am I right in thinking a Jack-of-all-trades (Cop, Doctor) can activate a Deputy, gives a positive result to a Cop-Finder and Gunsmith, and can lose their Cop shot from a dead Cop-Enabler?

In post 983, TemporalLich wrote:wait, you actually think a backup cop isn't a cop?

Until they inherit the role: no, I do not think of a backup cop as a cop.

I would honestly take "backup cops return gunless to a gunsmith and negative to a cop-finder" over "backup cops can become a cop from the death of a backup cop".

Dead serious on that.

In post 985, mastina wrote:

In post 983, TemporalLich wrote:wait, you actually think a backup cop isn't a cop?

Until they inherit the role: no, I do not think of a backup cop as a cop.

I would honestly take "backup cops return gunless to a gunsmith and negative to a cop-finder" over "backup cops can become a cop from the death of a backup cop".

Dead serious on that.

This, to me, goes back to the spirit of what a backup is.

A backup is meant to be a replacement to the original role that died.

Now, the original role which dies might have different modifiers from the backup. A 1x backup cop, compared to say, a nonconsecutive cop. This might be more complicated than the original intention of a deputy, but to me still falls within the spirit of what a backup should be: a role that is nothing, until the original version dies.

There is a that the article for Named Townies mentions Deputies/Nurses without their base role being present: because a backup of a role, like a backup cop, was intended originally to not be that role. A Named Townie is precisely that: a power role that has no actual power and so is effectively a vanilla townie in all but name. A backup without the original role being present, was originally intended to function in this way.

While I realize that we later had deputies show up as guilties to gunsmiths, this was mostly because the flavor for what roles showed up to a gunsmith was arbitrary--there was a time when bodyguards showed up as having a gun, in spite of bodyguards being unable to kill. Some gunsmiths even got guilties on jailkeepers, because some jailkeepers have the flavor of being cops of a prison.

When we normalized gunsmith interactions, the deputy made the cut as 'has a gun' for flavor reasons, and when we standardized that deputy and backup cop are synonymous rather than two different roles (this was, by the way, not universal back in the day), the rules were similarly updated.

So I am dead serious about it. I'd rather lose the gunsmith-guilty (which was always arbitrary) than allow backup-inherited-from-a-backup (which goes against the spirit of the role).

Backups might be listed as a modifier because of an evolution of standardization of roles, but forcing contrived/convoluted "backup cop can become a cop upon the death of a backup cop" strays away from what the spirit of a Backup Role . A Backup Role without the original role present is a Named Townie. This includes if there are multiple of the same backup role in a game. A Backup Role is still not the original role even with the original role present, until the death of the original role.

(I realize JOATs are more complicated tho. JOATs have always been somewhat...complex, in terms of interactions.)

I think if that’s the argument you’re making, interactions that were previously allowed, like Backup Cop being able to use a Cop action when it was a Vanilla Cop that died (I distinctly recall an interaction like this in a game a while back), should be illegal.

In post 984, TemporalLich wrote:speaking about base roles:

Am I right in thinking a Jack-of-all-trades (Cop, Doctor) can activate a Deputy, gives a positive result to a Cop-Finder and Gunsmith, and can lose their Cop shot from a dead Cop-Enabler?

This question is more complicated than I expected on reading it.

At first glance it is tempting to say that "Jack-of-All-Trades (Cop, Doctor)" and "1-Shot Cop 1-Shot Doctor" either are or should be synonyms, in the same way that "Deputy" and "Backup Cop" are synonyms. However, this cannot actually be the case, because the two roles function differently in a setup with implicit multitasking. In such a setup, a 1-Shot Cop 1-Shot Doctor may decide to use both their actions on the same night, whereas a JoAT may not. Since to my knowledge there is no normal "Non-Multitasking" modifier, there is no other Normally definable role that works identically to a JoAT (Cop, Doctor) in all circumstances.

Because of that, the question of whether the JoAT “is” a cop, for purposes of gunsmithing/finders/etc., is something that as far as I can see is not explicitly answered in the written rules and would need an explicit ruling from implo and/or the NRG.

About the Backup debacle:

It's pretty clear the RAW and RAI of Backup are substantially different. Also I think Cop-Backup is unidiomatic so I'd prefer it to stay a modifier because syntactically it sounds better as a modifier than a derived role. Also, it would be easier to have it as a schedule restriction modifier for the RolePage template.

Red herring Backups act like Named roles in the same way as red herring Finders act like Checkers. Red herring backups and Named roles are functionally the same, but one implants a false expectation and both are nominally different from each other because Role Cops exist.

General idea - A Backup is a replacement for a role that died, and can allow for Backups to have different modifiers than the player they are backing up. Dual Backups is an unintended consequence of RAW but I want it in the design space as it is an interesting concept to me.
Rules as Written (RAW) - Backup is a schedule restriction modifier that limits you to using an ability until the underlying base role has died. Since it is a modifier, Backup doesn't void the base role itself allowing for "dual Backups" to exist in Normal games.
my attempt at understanding Rules as Intended (RAI) - Backup is a derived role (in the vein of Enabler and Finder) that to the underlying base role when the underlying base role has died.
Cheap Workaround - Backups only activate from Non-Backups of the base role they back up. This allows it to stay a modifier and not change how Gunsmith works but seal off the unintended interaction.

(also, as a note: I prefer Cop-Enabler over Cop Enabler but that's mainly for consistency)
(also also, Universal Backup exists so role changes barely make it into potential Normal design space. Let's not get into how a Backup Universal Backup should work as that's way too complex.)

about JOATs and inherent multitasking:

Having a JOAT and having a hybrid of 1-shot roles is functionally the same but nominally different. However, you might be allowed to redact the abilities of a JOAT on flip which would not be the same with a hybrid of 1-shot roles.

JOAT is a "container role" in my mind, it takes roles and puts them in a package of 1-shot roles you can use one of each night. I don't feel strongly about JOAT having its contents count for base role purposes but I think it would be simpler if it did.

Inherent multitasking as I understand it was intended to let you perform a personal and a factional action each Night. It wouldn't make Jack-of-All-Trades (Cop, Doctor) and 1-Shot Cop 1-Shot Doctor differ in actual power.

Full inherent multitasking would indeed make JOAT and a hybrid of 1-shot roles work differently I think, however I'm not really feeling a Singletasking modifier is warranted.

In post 987, Gamma Emerald wrote:I think if that’s the argument you’re making, interactions that were previously allowed, like Backup Cop being able to use a Cop action when it was a Vanilla Cop that died (I distinctly recall an interaction like this in a game a while back), should be illegal.

This interaction is already abnormal. Even though Vanilla Cop has Cop in the name, it's definitely not a cop and cannot cause a backup cop to become a cop.

is there a reason scum Babysitter is allowed in a Normal?

it can act like scum Vigilante in a multiball or SKattic game, if killed that night

Scum Babysitter has to die for that kill to work. Depending on role interaction, it might be a way to bypass certain protections tho

Given that both game review precedent and the Normal listmod's opinion have come down in favor of Backups not backing up Backups, I've just gone ahead and edited the role page and role fragments on the wiki to correctly reflect the status quo.

Hey, this got unstickied but I'm pretty sure that it needs to be a sticky.

In post 994, mastina wrote:Hey, this got unstickied but I'm pretty sure that it needs to be a sticky.

yeah I agree

it is important to know if Normal guidelines change, and even if Normal guidelines aren't changing in the near future this is still a thread to discuss changes to Normal Games

Speaking of JOATs, it should be clarified whether a JOAT can have multiple copies of an ability (such as 3 copies of a 1-shot cop) or not, because as it stands this is ambiguous.

In fact there seems to be a minor problem here, mainly that there isn't any mechanical reason why a JOAT couldn't have X-shot abilities rather than just 1-shot abilities, other than "That's how the role works." This should be cleared up as well, or perhaps (and this idea I do not like) this Greater JOAT should be its' own role.

Thoughts?

A JoAT can flip with its abilities redacted in Normals. That is probably the most meaningful difference between a JoAT and a hybrid of 1-shot roles. I'm not sure how a Multitasking JoAT would work, either one JoAT ability per Night or any amount of JoAT abilities per night make sense.

A Jack-of-All-Trades-Finder could also potentially exist.

As for a JoAT with multiple shots - yeah idk if that would be Normal but it wouldn't increase design space by much though seeing Jack-of-All-Trades (Neighborizer x2, Cop) or Jack-of-All-Trades (Neighborizer, Neighborizer, Cop) might be a bit strange.

In post 997, TemporalLich wrote:A JoAT can flip with its abilities redacted in Normals. That is probably the most meaningful difference between a JoAT and a hybrid of 1-shot roles. I'm not sure how a Multitasking JoAT would work, either one JoAT ability per Night or any amount of JoAT abilities per night make sense.

A Jack-of-All-Trades-Finder could also potentially exist.

As for a JoAT with multiple shots - yeah idk if that would be Normal but it wouldn't increase design space by much though seeing Jack-of-All-Trades (Neighborizer x2, Cop) or Jack-of-All-Trades (Neighborizer, Neighborizer, Cop) might be a bit strange.

Frankly the ability to not have Joats reveal what abilities they are feels outside of what normal space should be. The idea of a scum glipping as joat without abilities means you can effectively hide whatever the scumteams power roles are even aftwr the relevant player is dead. This feels conterintuitive to the basic principal that when a player dies you learn what they could have done at night.

If the only difference between a one shot cop, one shot doctor and a Joat (cop, doctor) is that in review the latter can be decided to not show their abilities, just that they had one rather than flip normally, than does that not make Joat essentially just a role that obscures your flip?

Would a role that effectively makes a player flip "power role" instead of their role be made normal? I wouldn't think so.

JOAT in general isn't well defined, and if it gets a more clear definition, I hope this part of it get's changed.

imo, JoAT should be shorthand for a hybrid of 1-shot roles (as well as interacting with backup JoATs, JoAT-enablers, and JoAT-finders)

and should work the same

Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal). A "Limited Reveal" role that would redact any abilities from the flip other than "Limited Reveal" itself isn't and shouldn't be Normal.