Discussion of Stoofer's 3rd Law

In March 2007, in light of some recent experiences, Mr Stoofer tentatively formulated his 3rd Law. It is still under review, but it currently takes the following form:

When designing game of Mafia, as the number and complexity of Pro-Town power roles is increased, the game balance moves in favour of the Scum.

The point is that (contrary to what one might think), it is is actually less helpful to the Town to have lots and lots of elaborate power roles. There is obviously a turning point somehere. Having a Cop is more helpful to the Town than just having plain Townies. But the point quickly comes where adding more power roles just makes life more difficult for the Town.

Reasons for this effect include the following:

1. The power roles interact with each other in ways which are unpredictable (to the Town). For example:
   1. A Roleblocker blocks a pro-town player.
   2. A Tracker sees a pro-town player target someone who is also killed that night -- leading them to suspect the pro-town player
   3. A Vigilante kills a pro-town player.
   4. A Doc stops a Vig killing a Scum.
   5. And so on.
2. This leads to confusion, which can only hurt the town. In such a situation it will be much easier for the Scum - i.e. the informed minority to work out what is going on than the Town.
3. For one thing, only the Scum will be able to separate the genuine claims from the fake claims. Thus:
   1. Truthful claims by Pro-Town players may appear to be false - e.g. where a doc claims to have protected the victim of a nightkill, but failed to protect him due to being roleblocked or having his choice switched.
   2. It becomes easier for Scum to get away with fake claims (they can explain away inconsistencies by reference to some unidentified complexity such as roleblocking).
   3. It becomes impossible or difficult for anyone to confirm themselves. This is the worst of all possible outcomes: when a player claims a power role, and the Town doesn't believe him but the Scum knows he is telling the truth.
4. Even without any interactions, someone claiming a complex role is less likely to be believed -- leading to power roles being lynched after they claim. For example, meaning of life 42 was lynched in Mini 383: Ben & Jerry's because his role claim seemed so elaborate as to be made up. It wasn't - it was in fact a potentially very useful Pro-Town role.
5. Once it becomes apparent that the set-up is complex, it can lead to all sorts of paranoia by the Town. An example is Mini 167: Les Miserables, where Changling bob was a confirmed Mason, but was still lynched because MeMe thought he might be a scum-mason-recruiter!
6. Having a complex set-up also leads to claims by Pro-Town players being disbelieved on the grounds that the game would be overbalanced if they were telling the truth. The Town suffered in Mini 167 from this too: see for example this post by MeMe, which contributed to the Mason's lynching.
7. Conversely, where there is a complex set-up it gives the Scum much more leeway in coming up with fake claims. Once it has been established that there are complex/improbable roles in the game, the Scum can make up complex/improbable fake claims, safe in the knowledge that they will not be counterclaimed and the improbability of their claim will not be used against them. Although the game ended in a Town win, DP12: JeepFest Mafia contains a good example of this: MeMe (Scum) survived for a long time, and came close to winning the game, with an elaborate and improbable fake claim. Mini 167 contains an example of this too: gootentag claimed not to be able to vote at all. Despite the improbability of this role in a 9 player game, he survived until endgame and won the game for the scum (where he hammahed to win the game for the Scum).

Discussion/arguments on this topic can be found here.