"Jesus, can't we do something about the bodies?" someone asked.

"What, do we go out there and push 'em under the wreckage?"

"Yeah."

"Why don't you do it?"

"I got bloody cuts on both my arms, okay?"

"Yeah, so do I."

The man uncovered his arms from his sleeves to reveal deeper gashes than the challenger.

"Well, that's just soddin' dandy, then! We all seem fine to live happily ever
after here on this Heaven a' place! Least we could do is get rid of them bodies."

"I'd give the bodies, say," said a burly man with glasses bounding
across the wet sand. "twenty seven hours before decomposition
is sufficient in making them sink. Will that be long enough, or is
it worth it to swim all the way out there, to make these people go
out there in this state?"

He pointed to a crying woman off alone in the distance, a group of three rather
stoic figures talking away from everyone else, and an old man with severe
burns on his chest, the shirt off to reveal the damage to his frame.

"You seem good at math. How long 'till help comes?"

"If it comes," said a black man, looking out into the water at the bodies,
outshined by the bright sun reflecting off of the blue water. No one made
a reply.

"Well, unfortunately, something of this caliber can't be reduced into a
workable formula. I mean, there aren't enough constants. Perhaps a computer
program could be written to be satisfying enough, but there's just too much.
Who, that's close to one of us out in the real world, would find out first?
We'd have to find out everyone that all of us here know, and determine from
there who would be likely to find out first. Who is most impending on those
around them -- "

"Yeah, I get the point. Will help come, then?"

"It depends, like I was saying, on how important some of us are. And then, they'd
have to search the sea in its entirety to find us. A computer program would be
better at that but we aren't at the state of technology. Needle in a haystack
algorithm to finding the stranded using satellite imaging. What a brilliant thesis...

As I was saying, it depends on our importance."

"Well, I'd like to think I'm pretty bloody important myself."

"Not me," said the coal-black man, striding off. No one made a reply.

"Well, I'm gonna get me some chow. Work out some formula of how we'll find
some more food than what's in our minxy packs, got that?"

"Perhaps I can. Sounds like a fun challenge," replied the burly man nervously as
everyone left him alone. His eyes scanned the bodies, patiently floating
until their twenty-seven hour demise.



It is now Day 1.
16 players alive. 9 votes to lynch.
Good luck.

I'm black.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we all go to the Bushy Knoll shouldn't we get a lot of supplies and be fairly safe?

Yeah, that is correct. Additionally, we could all talk at night. But I'm not sure how I feel about that mechanic yet. :/

But no one would be able to use an action... Infact I have a good idea, we all forage in No-Man's-Land, hence no one has an action. We let 1 person each night do their action (1 person doesn't forage), if someone dies we lynch them. Good idea?

Would depend on scum actually using their action... we'd need a watcher/tracker to keep them honest.

Also requires us to not have any VTs (which we shouldn't, but you never know)

Can you forage AND take supplies? Theoretically we could make this a game where NO ONE uses an action; effectively making it all about lynches.

Can you forage AND take supplies?

Yes, yes you can.

A few questions:
Does illness = death? What are the consequences of becoming ill?
Are supplies found per person or per area? For instance, if 4 players are foraging in Low Canyon, does the town/group get 2 supplies or 8 total?
Are the teammate group/illness bonuses cumulative? If all players are at, say Bushy Knoll, does it decrease everyone's chance of getting ill by 32% and increase everyone's supplies found by 8?

Are supplies found per person or per area? For instance, if 4 players are foraging in Low Canyon, does the town/group get 2 supplies or 8 total?

Plus the bonuses of course.

Are supplies found per person or per area? For instance, if 4 players are foraging in Low Canyon, does the town/group get 2 supplies or 8 total?

Plus the bonuses of course.

(Sorry)

That would be pretty epic only having lynches determine the game

The problem with the No Man's Land plan is that we currently only have enough supplies for one day. We'd probably be better off with ferret's suggestion of all going to the Grassy Knol where we'd get +15 projected supplies and only have a 65% chance of illness (assuming we lynch someone today).

I am curious, though. Can players who are not foraging target players who are foraging? The foraging mechanic is borrowed from ZAM2, where foraging players were immune to night actions. It doesn't say anything regarding this in the OP, and it would be important to know if we even entertain the plan of leaving one bugger behind each night.

Why did you guys wait until the game started to ask these questions?

Are supplies found per person or per area? For instance, if 4 players are foraging in Low Canyon, does the town/group get 2 supplies or 8 total?

It's not that simple. There's a formula behind it which I can't reveal for obvious reasons.

Does illness = death? What are the consequences of becoming ill?

You don't know. All you know is you don't want to be ill.

Are the teammate group/illness bonuses cumulative? If all players are at, say Bushy Knoll, does it decrease everyone's chance of getting ill by 32% and increase everyone's supplies found by 8?

Supplies are total, and illness refers to each individual player.

For example, if every player in the game goes to Bushy Knoll, 16x2 = 32; 85 - 32 = 54. Each player individually has a 54% chance of contracting an illness. But the projected amount of supplies would be 15. That's a pretty attractive number, but is it worth EVERY SINGLE PLAYER having more than a 1 in 2 chance of getting sick? I hope this helps.

I am curious, though. Can players who are not foraging target players who are foraging? The foraging mechanic is borrowed from ZAM2, where foraging players were immune to night actions. It doesn't say anything regarding this in the OP, and it would be important to know if we even entertain the plan of leaving one bugger behind each night.

Players who are foraging can still be targeted.

I guess the rewards are good enough to justify the risk.



It should be a long game, perhaps.

Well, for now, I guess we could all forage someplace like Low Canyons and still get an ok amount of supplies with a 0% illness chance. Grassy Knoll is tempting, especially now while we still have a enough living players to reduce the illness chance by 30%, but even a 55% illness chance is still ridiculously high.

How about the cop comes forward and investigates, while everyone else just goes and forages. It tells us who doesn't forage, so there is no reason that we need to worry about him being killed, unless the scum are willing to trade off 1:1.

15 of us going to one spot results in 7 extra supplies (.5*14) and a 28% less chance of getting a disease (14*-.02).

I say we go to the fruit paradise. That would give us an estimated 11 supplies(4+7), and cause roughly 5 of us (rounded up) to get sick. Assuming sickness=death, we will have 27 supplies to split between just 11 of us.

After this we can go for No Man's Land and get an estimated 5 supplies each night (.5*9+.5) which will sustain us for a good amount of time. With a lynch we could dwindle that number of survivors down to just 10, and then be able to survive consistently without any deaths.

And disease is not a terrible loss if scum and town have an equal chance of incurring it. There are perhaps four to five scum correct? four man mafia and an sk?

Well if five of us die out of fifteen, then 2 or 3 of them are expected to be scum.

the only issue i have is if the illness makes people scum :s

I'm actually up for going to Bushy Knoll. This is the best time in the game to go there because we have the most players. And, while we may get sick, I highly doubt that most of the illnesses (I'm assuming multiple variations exist) lead to death or a permanent disability.

Do we forage during day or night?

Also, I hate these foraging mechanic, all id toed is promote inactivity when half the players are out foraging. That's what happened in Rot's game,

You guys are going at pretty high risks, I'd rather go to low or high canyons.

My guess is that if player gets sick he can't use his action for one or two nights.

WTH?

Also, I hate this foraging mechanic, all it does is promote inactivity when half the players are out foraging. That's what happened in Rot's game.

Also, I hate these foraging mechanic, all id toed is promote inactivity when half the players are out foraging. That's what happened in Rot's game,

iPhone failchecker spellchecker?

Foraging is done in place of a night action, and strategizing isn't allowed at night so it shouldn't be a problem.

Nah, I'm just recovering from a Man Utd. loss.

I also hate day starts, we have no idea what to begin with.

Ashrzr, you need to post here.

I've got a problem with this plan. My role requires me to use my action every night. The term Ash gave for this is "overeager." So basically I can't forage, tonight or any other night.

This kind of screws with the entire plan of having everyone forage. Unfortunately, I would have been in favor of doing it, and still am, except I know no one else will be up for me staying back.

What we could do is a modified version of Thymole's plan. I stay back, everyone else goes out. I use my ability. If anyone dies, I'm scum and you lynch me. If I don't do my ability, I was lying (and I wouldn't want to lie unless I was scum) and you lynch me. Essentially, if I'm town, I prove myself, no one dies. If I'm scum, it's a 1:1 trade, which isn't good for scum. Any thoughts?

@ Herr - I think Ash considered that possibility, and so gave a role(s?) that require the use of actions, like mine.

Nah, I thought foraging was a day-based mechanic.

I'll just say that I'm not ecstatic about the foraging and the publication of people's actions from an objective standpoint. From a more subjective view, though, it will help benefit the town and make the game 100% more difficult for the mafia/whatever scum groups there are. In fact, that's not so much of a good thing--there should be zero challenge at all for us.

If we're all foraging, then I think that we should all go to the High Canyons.

Nah, I thought foraging was a day-based mechanic.

Nope, but we do have to send in our desire to forage before the day is over.

I can think of five possibilities that can occur if someone becomes ill: (1) the player dies, (2) they player can't use their ability for a period of time, (3) the player becomes mafia, (4) the player becomes an SK, (5) the player becomes/joins a cult.

The latter two are because of the possibility of the illness affecting the player's psyche, causing them to go crazy. The cult idea comes from Jack's "cult" in the Lord of the Flies. I think the most likely are 2, 4, or 5. I get the feeling that getting ill is going to be something dangerous that we don't want to happen, thus I'd like to keep the possibility of illness down to a minimum until we can get an idea of what illnesses do.

Here's a different kind of list. It lists the outcomes if we all (perhaps minus one or two people) decide to forage in one area:

Territory: No-Man's Land Low Canyons High Canyons Fruit Paradise Bushy Knoll

Projected Supplies: 7 9 10 11 14

Chance of Illness: 0% (0 players) 2% (0.3 players) 22% (3.5 players) 32% (5 players) 57% (9 players)

Looking back at how many people can get sick, I might rethink of the possibility of illness being so dangerous, though it could also be meant for us not to all forage the same area. Anyway, thinking of our food stockpile, we'll need 8 per day. So, No Man's Land won't sustain us. Low Canyons would likely just have enough to sustain us, and there's very little risk if we all target that area. I'd say we go to Low Canyons whenever we want to all forage the same area. High Canyons and Fruit Paradise would have a much higher possibility of illness for a relatively small increase in food supply.

Quoted from Sarn:

I've got a problem with this plan. My role requires me to use my action every night. The term Ash gave for this is "overeager." So basically I can't forage, tonight or any other night.

So do you have infinite supplies? Or are you screwed if the game goes on long enough?

I don't think that's a problem for Sarn. From my understanding, we all can eat regardless of what we do during the night. And, I'm pretty sure our food resources are pooled between us all.

That would be pretty epic only having lynches determine the game

I disagree, it would take a lot out of the game and make it boring. You guys play mafia for fun -- why would you do this?

I'm with Ash on this one. Mafia is a game--let's treat it like one.

I'm not too sure about lynches only either, sounds pretty difficult to me, it's hard enough in normal mafias

I do think most of us should go forage though, to get supplies. Maybe leave threeish people to do what they wish each night?

Now listen here you lot, no illness is good illness 'cause at the very least it'll stop you from being useful. At worst, well at least we won't need to feed one more of the group.

Look at Bushy Knoll, does that not look the place that you would get sick from? I reckon that if we all went there you'd lose a solid half. Plus, we have enough food for 2 days if you ration yerselves. No food tonight, food tomorrow, no food the next day, food the day after, if we manage to get it that is. We could easily recover enough food from those Low Canyons with absolutely no risk.

In any case work out what we're doing then I'm going for a nap.

OOC: I intend to post in character for funnsies. This'll probably be my last post for a couple of hours though, gotta go to work and I've got caffeine jitters to put to use, so I'm going to read this before I leave and send in my day action if we do decide to forage somewhere, see ya'll in the morrow.

This is a game which had only lynches. As you can see, the mafia were absolutely murdered.

Yeah, the novelty of the idea has worn off. It doesn't really seem that great of an idea :/

Bushy Knoll, IMO, is a horrible idea.
Until we get an idea of how bad these illnesses are I don't think we should even attempt it.
For starters, Mafia arn't gonna go Bushy Knolls because the less people there, the more whom are going to get sick which is fantastic for the mafia. And second, if half our people are sick, that could be cops, doctors (which could be far better in this game with this added illness thing), etc..
Not to mention if everyone goes out then we have no night actions. Ahh this games gonna be a bit difficult I see.


I think we should go for just enough supplies for the townies, that will force the scum players to go out to get supplies I think.
So say there's 4ish scum players, that leaves 12 supplies. So say we have 4 of the 12 go for Low Canyons, thats a 22% chance, but will feed the other 8 townies.

Herr, that example game of yours wasn't very amazing, the mafia totally sucked in that one

I'm pretty both scum and town share supplies...

@ Catabre - I think Leif is right. The rules say I can both eat and send an action every night, and I think the resources are pooled. That said:

I think we should go for just enough supplies for the townies, that will force the scum players to go out to get supplies I think.

Since resources are pooled, I don't think this will work. Anyone can decide to eat, including the scum; we can't stop them from eating. They'll just eat, and in doing so, take away food from townies. IMO we need to have food for everyone, including the scum. Then scum will get to eat, yes, but all the town will be able to as well.

Herr, that example game of yours wasn't very amazing, the mafia totally sucked in that one

It wasn't the mafia's fault Major, even I would struggle in a situation like that.

I've thought about it, and I've come to realize that we could maximize our resource income by splitting up slightly. You see, if just one person goes to the Bushy Knoll, that person will statistically bring back almost as many resources as though everyone went to Low Canyons. And, worse comes to worse, only one person will get sick. This would nearly double our supplies income without risking a great deal of people.

The problem, then, would be choosing who has to take the tough trip each day. I doubt anyone would want to volunteer for such a high illness risk, so we'd need to come up with a system that is fair. Perhaps we start at the top of the list in the OP and go down. Perhaps we start at the bottom of the list and go up. Perhaps we alternate back and forth between the two (so Major first, Fatty second, me third, etc). Is this agreeable?

Does anyone have an inherently useless role?

I'm somewhat tempted to offer myself

Or you could choose a scummy player...

Or you could choose a scummy player...

That would obviously be best, but I don't think we have anyone who is reasonably close to being suspiciously scummy.

Now that Rot pointed that out, it makes sense to split up who goes to which area.

I've been thinking, and I thought of a system where we split up into two groups. One group would forage in various locations, including one member who would forage the Bushy Knoll, and the other members would use their actions. The next night, the groups would switch places. In my mind, this would reach a good balance in gameplay and enjoyment, allowing the doc/cop/other town roles room to operate, as well as narrowing down scum suspects in each group. It's what I would have suggested if this was real life.

We would have to figure out how to split up our groups. I'd preferably use random.org, but we'd have no way of determining whether someone would keep randomizing to obtain a good result. I'd probably just split the list in the OP into two groups, into players 1-8 and players 9-16. For choosing a player to go to the Bushy Knoll, we'd preferably want a VT to go forward, but if no one is willing to do it, we'd have to arbitrarily pick someone. How we'd do that, I don't know.

I agree with Leif's plan of dividing into groups.

The problem, that may come out from Rot's plan, is selecting scape goat.

One night, one group goes about foraging, and the other uses their action.

This way, we can have enough supply to sustain ourselves, although just.

Now, how do we divide us into two groups, if we all agree to this system.
Odd and even numbers on the player list?

Now, how do we divide us into two groups, if we all agree to this system.
Odd and even numbers on the player list?

I suggested splitting players 1-8 into one group and players 9-16 into another, but I'm fine with either method.

I'm fine with even that.

Keep in mind that I am required to use an action every night, meaning I can't forage any of the nights. Even if I tried, I don't think Ash would let me (I'm unsure if it would merit a punishment or just a "You're dumb, you know you can't forage, send me your action.")

I'm imagining a stern man talking to a cat in a tree. "You're dumb. Why are you in that tree? You knew you would be too scared to get down. You look ridiculous up there. You're dumb."

I'd really rather not forage, but I will if that's what the town decides we should do. I really like my role (and I might use it in other games).