Needs a [Special Case] tag

Ah, done. Thanks.

Are you currently the Traitor, Cuddlebeam?

No. And even if I was, I wouldn’t play according to it as per an old notice on my wiki profile.

The old what?

Oh, I know how you feel about the rule. I’m just curious as to why this comes up now.

The Traitor rule is meant to add some friction to the boring “right, here’s a spreadsheet of the precise sequence of… 37… actions that all four of us need to take at midnight Sunday” victory routes, where a team know they can all take any veteran player at their word because of the huge social cost of a surprise betrayal in a game that doesn’t otherwise feature it. And I think the rule has been doing that; I’ve bumped up against some of those exact situations in the past year, and the rule has changed how they played out (if they even played out at all). I’d rather never have to see another boring spreadsheet victory again, from any side.

I don’t think that one player’s mild “if someone lies to me and I realise this, I vow to discriminate against them to some unspecified extent” pops the balloon.

One player, definitely. Which is why I’m curious how many more players feel the same.

If the measure is there but it doesn’t actually work, I’d prefer to have it removed.

It’s a bit of a weird one, I admit. A part of me thinks it should be stronger.

As it stands - okay, let’s say the scenario is that four players are conspiring to win, and one of them is the Traitor with a 10% change to win but nevertheless a critical role. If they don’t betray, they have a 10% chance at the win, but if they do betray, they get nothing and, at best, the rule allows them to sidestep some resentment.

In short, I can’t figure out a scenario in which actually betraying under the Traitor rule is the right decision, from an objective wanting-to-win standpoint. I’m a chaos agent in games, I’ll betray because it’s fun, but if you have a winning coalition, tearing it apart so that someone else can win - in a move that will definitely not include you, as you will have outed yourself as the Traitor - seems ludicrous.

So, stronger: the Traitor rule should be that if the Traitor is involved in a pool then they win the dice roll 100% of the time, that their share is increased to 100%, everybody else looses, they win. That would be an interesting rule, one that would cause some hesitation around decisionmaking. It carries its own problems, I know that, but the current rule does feel a bit… nothing-y.

as I’m more interested in reform, and as the staging of this appears to have become a referendum on the concept of the Traitor in toto. But I’m up for a harder look at what this is doing and why.

[Josh] “Win the dice roll 100% of the time” is already implicitly there - if the Traitor is in a position where they’re about to roll a die to assign the mantle (because they’re the one who the team agreed to hand the victory to, and they promised they would roll a die when they got there), they can just not roll it and keep the win.

I’ve said it before: I like to play the spirit of the game, not win at all costs. The game is more fun that way.

I would have agreed with cuddlebeam about traitors not actually doing anything until I played a game of diplomacy with half of you. Now I think it works. Traitors.

I actually agree with Cuddle. This gamemode doesn’t really have anyway in which a Traitor has any benefit. Lying about promises doesn’t seem like it would have that much affect as you basically would still play normally if there was or wasn’t a Traitor. Also, if someone does lie, then you basically narrowed down Traitor to 2 players(sense you wouldn’t really know if the Traitor is trying to label someone else as Traitor or not) and choosing who you trust more basically ends up bad for the other.

Additionally, if “Traitor” is supposed to break team winning, I’ve yet to see that happen this game. Especially with the proposed wincons now, they seem to more lean towards individual winners instead of group winners. In that case, Traitor seems pointless.

Thirdly, Traitor seems more better in Mafia Nomic imo. With Traitor being alone and not having a helping hand, Traitor seems bad in RPGs. And as stated, their obligation to lie makes no difference. Like, in other non Traitor RPG games prior to this game, did you guys always tell the truth to each other and actual stick to promises? If true, what made you not want to lie then besides to the Traitor mechanic not being in it? At least in Mafia Nomic, having a “Traitor” would make sense because of having Good and Evil players in it. That would be a good gamemode in which lying and deceiving would be great for them.

Fourthly, I can imagine Traitor rage quiting if he/she/they were outted in a RPG like this. If they are outted, what would be the point of them playing anymore if no one would want to vote for their proposal let alone, not wanting to associate with them because of the reason not to trust them. And it sucks if everyone is in union to work against you. Even worst if that player was a new guy.

[Raven1209] I’ve been the Traitor before and have been able to nudge a situation in my favour by slightly misrepresenting secret information in private conversations. Probably the biggest potential benefit for the Traitor is that if a team reaches an informal endgame agreement of “we give all the banknotes to Mr Green, while Mr Brown and Mr Blue leave the city; Mr Green then wins, and rolls a die to pass the mantle at random” and if Mr Green happens (by chance or by their own manipulation) to be the Traitor, Mr Green breaks their promise and can keep the mantle.

All victory mechanisms allow for some kind of team coordination, as we’re always taking actions in a shared game world where we can choose to help or hinder one another. Although the currently proposed one ostensibly describes a single winner, there are many ways to work as a team: a player can ask another to fetch them a Wrench, fill up the Effects table, create or negate a Hazard, idle out to remove themselves from the equation, etc. It wouldn’t be surprising for this dynasty to end with two players acting in concert to take a third to victory, having arranged some private deal for a cut of the mantle roll.

“Like, in other non Traitor RPG games prior to this game, did you guys always tell the truth to each other and actual stick to promises?” - yes, pretty much 100%. If you’re playing the same game repeatedly with the same group, there’s a big social cost to betraying someone at the end of one game; players will be wary of letting you into similar trusted positions in future games. On balance, players were always deciding that the ongoing trust was more valuable than whatever edge the betrayal would have given them, and it had become entirely safe to take everyone at their word.

[Cuddlebeam] Even if a quorum signed up to your “if you betray me I will discriminate against you somehow in the future” way of thinking, the Traitor role still works - the Traitor can still betray, taking that balance into account, and a pact-signer can’t be 100% sure that anyone approaching them with an offer isn’t out to trick them.

But sure, if a quorum don’t like a rule then they can repeal it.

To be honest I still, right now, despite all your vocal promises that you will never betray if assigned Traitor, would think twice about entering into a “give Cuddlebeam the diamonds, Cuddlebeam then wins and tosses a coin for the mantle” pact, in case it was a long con that you’d just been waiting for the option to actually use for a victory. That suggests the rule still works even if some players believe they’ve outwitted it with meta-level promises.

@Kevan: If I felt that way I wouldn’t need a rule to ‘allow’ me to betray in the first place. I’d just do it regardless. The Ruleset doesn’t hold some magical power to make betrayal more OK or less OK (for me, at least) because people have free will of their own and will choose whatever they want. Its ‘magical’ power relies entirely on the sum of the opinion of the people that play though, which is partially what this Proposal is about, to see if that magic holds. But for me, personally and as for my own actions and choices, it doesn’t.

The discrimination thing is mostly avoidance. If I have a great Pool maneuver, I won’t be open to considering people who are inclined to betrayal for it, because I don’t want to get screwed by them. So I just won’t invite them for it (or at least, I won’t prioritize them).

Also Kevan, unrelated to the previous points, it’s Raven1207 not Raven1209

[Cuddlebeam] I’m not sure why, if you think that the magic phrases “I won’t betray as Traitor” and “I won’t forgive betrayal” render a player logically immune to being suspected or betrayed, you wouldn’t rather leave the rule in place to foil the pooling attempts of rival groups.

[Raven1207] Weird, I wonder why I keep specifically writing it like that, 1209 doesn’t seem to be a significant number. I’ve caught it and corrected it a few times already this dynasty.

@Kevan: Of course, but I don’t think we live in a world where everyone is a pathological liar and that said/written things hold
*some* weight (even if quite little), like the how the Traitor rule holds weight for you and isn’t totally useless in adjusting your behaviour.