Talk:Mafia (party game)

Ratio rewrite

I've rewritten the whole ratio thing from the wiki page. There is no mathematical justification for any "ratio" here. The game is not fair; if we could read minds, mafia would lose unless they have at least 1/2 of the players (in which case they would have immedeately won).

The calculations that have been posted below are seriously flawed. For example they assume that a 50% winning chance for any party is worth having (Why?). But their main fault is that they assume that players lynch randomly (which is just as incorrect as above assumption that we could read minds).

If you want some solid mathematical numbers, try to prove these (for n towards infintiy, and you might want to add a +1 someplace or treat draws differently): "In a game with n Mafia and 2*n Innocent players (i.e. 1/3 Mafia), the innocent players need to achieve a hit ratio of 2/3 to win in 50% of situations." and "In a game with n Mafia and 3*n Innocent players (i.e. 1/4 Mafia), the innocent players need to achieve a hit ratio of 1/2 to win in 50% of situations."

Note that these statements have one clear extra part: they state their assumption about the players.

A more general version: "In a game with n Mafia and m Innocent players (m > n), the innocent players win in 50% of situations of they achieve a hit ratio of 2*n/(n+m)" Corollary: above two statments. Corollary: "In a game with n Mafia and n Innocent players, the innocent players win in 50% of situations if they achieve a hit ratio of 100%". (or: they always draw if they could read minds.) Corollary: "In a game with a n/m Mafia ratio, the innocent players win in 50% of situations if they achieve a hit ratio of 2*n/m" Corollary: "For a game to be won in 50% of situations, the hit ratio should be twice the Mafia ratio."

If you have 1/3 mafia and kill mafia during the day in 2/3 rounds, the game is 'fair'. If you have 1/10 mafia and kill mafia during the day in 2/10 rounds, the game is 'fair'. If you have 1/100 mafia and kill mafia during the day in 2/100 rounds, the game is 'fair'.

Now 2/100 might seem a low hit score, but remember that it's still twice as likely as lynching random players.

Oh, and the calculations above are exact only in infinity.

So back to my original point: don't try to do a probability model for humas-identifying-other-humans-as-liars, please. This game is NOT about randomly lynching other players. It's not about being 'fair' either. It's about having fun with deceiving others and seeing through their behaviour.

However, there is nothing wrong with providing empirical values for role distribution that work okay for many people. That's why I put the numbers of 1/3 and 1/4 in there, I think that is a good range to start. But forget the idea of providing an 'optimal' number for everybody. Not only because of variants, but also because of playing behaviour. I've played mafia games where the first day took three hours. Guess what, we killed mafia each single turn! We could have played n vs. n+1 on that day... We usually play n vs. n+5 though. So if you take the time, you can significantly increase your hit ratios. In a 3 vs. 8 game, you need to kill 3 mafia in 5 days to win. In a 2 vs. 7, it's 2 mafia in 4 days. If I had a large round with 'new' players, I'd probably go with something like 6 vs. 14 or so. Kill 6 Mafia in 10 rounds; thats 4 freebies. Or 5 vs. 15, if they are really hasty. 87.174.94.142 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratio

If each third citizen is a mafioso, then it's hardly possible for townspeople to win. The correct ratio is about 1:6. Of course, Masons and Cattani greatly increase townspeople's to win, so if they are introduced, mafia's quantity can be increased. --Grzes 12:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

dear grzes, 1/3 is the correct ratio with 50/50 chances to win for both teams if mafia cooperation is not allowed during a night. Unmet 21:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

So why isn't this the same as A village murder mystery game? Also see its talk page. Ambarish | Talk 04:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The game box seems to be correct. The only dodgy detail is the number of players required for the game as it varies greatly between the versions (7 seems sensible for the version I play at least). Great work. Barnaby dawson 08:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the editor who changed it to 2:1 without reading this. I know that to even state this data borders on original research, but it can be determined mathematically. If v=# of villagers and m=# of mafia and t=# of turns, allowing for the fact that there are two kills per turn, that the mafia wins ties, and that the mafia strike first, there will be t=(v-1)/2-m turns average before the game ends (rounded up). Now, assuming that the villagers kill at random they have a m/(v+m) chance to kill a mafioso each turn and the mafia are guaranteed to kill a villager each night (it is always irrational for the mafia to kill a mafia member). Now, the smallest number of players is that which can give equity to the villagers, i.e. they have about a 50% chance to kill the mafia. The smallest game for which that can be accomplished has 2 mafia members. This can be proved relatively verbosely, assuming no "variant" character are introduced. This is for the most common variant, where all the mafia wake up together and get to collaborate on who to kill (non-verbally, of course). These figures also assume that votes are random yet you and I know that there is cheating in the form of peeking, as well as the fact that the mafia have more information than the villagers, and of course there is an assumed skill that players have to persuade others or deduce identities. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

dear savidan, thanks for the explanation of your revert, however i have to disagree. i have enjoyed playing mafia in groups of six people many many times. sometimes we had two kills per turn, though not always. mafia could strike first, but sometimes not. and we never kill at random. so, may be your math is correct for your particular version of mafia, but for other versions (including the original one) - six players is quite enough. Unmet 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I take your meaning, obviously it depends on the variant. I suggest that we have a table of the raw percentages for each variant. However, how could there not be two kills per turn? Allowing the villagers not to kill a very rare variant because it is very rarely exercised: they have a higher chance of killing a mafia than the mafia has of killing the mafia! Also, the mafia almost always strike first because it lets them know who each other are for the first vote and because the town would have no basis for voting if no one had been killed by the mafia (that would be a random vote!). What I am trying to demonstrate is that what is "enough" is relative to how long you want a game to last and what you want the percentage of mafia wins to be. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

there are many variants and subvariants, it seems cumbersome to include percentage table for all possible variations. the original rules state ratio as 2:1 and it works perfectly to 50/50 balance for any amount of players. additional characters, rules variations and group preference could change it, but it doesn't change the fact that mafia is playable with 2 mafias and 4 citizen. anyone could try it. in my experience, games for six were lasting from 15 minutes to more then an hour. to kill in the first night is pointless from my perspective (killed player has no real chance to play), but i dont want to argue what ruleset is better. all i am saying: your statement about the ratio is only applicable to a particular style of play, so your generalization and revert is not correct. Unmet 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take another look at the article. I think that the way it is written now trys to stay agnostic on the question of which ratio is the "correct" or "optimal" ratio. We should consider changing the section title as well... As a separate issue, is there any proof that this website listed as the "original rules" is actually the originator of mafia (i.e. does any reputable or at least external source back up that claim or is it just a self-call). I think I have tried to show that the way that I calculated this table is actually applicable beyond the assumptions that I have made. Also, without actually getting into which is better, how is it possible to have a round of voting before the mafia has killed anyone? On what basis does that discussion take place? I'm just asking because I've never played that way but it seems like it would not be a very productive vote. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it - the variant I am used to, we play that about 1/4 of the players are Mafia. (We also play with an Inspector, but I don't think that really affects this). The reason for this, SFAICT, comes from counting mistakes. If we have n players left alive during the day - let's assume for now that n is odd - and m of them are Mafia, then the townspeople have (n-2m-1)/2 mistakes left - when n=2m+1, the townspeople have no mistakes left, i.e., they must kill a Mafia or lose, and in general killing a townsperson during the day decreases the mistakes left by 1 (accounting for the Mafia kill the following night), while killing a Mafia does not alter the mistake number. A similar formula could be found for n even - if Mafia win ties then in fact it would be (n-2m-2)/2 - though we don't use this as we actually play with a rule that says that the if we have an even number of players, the Mafia kills first, while if we have an odd number of players, the townspeople kill first, to ensure that there never are any ties. (Actually, for the purposes the mistake count, these methods are equivalent, as the way we do it would be just to subtract 1 from n first, which gets the same thing.) Regardless, we can similarly create a "mistake" count for the Mafia, which would just be m-1, for obvious reasons. So if we equate these two mistake numbers, we get n=4m+3... which was not what I set out to show. Hm. OK, I think the "about 1/4 Mafia" thing - well, actually, I don't think it came from these calculations, though since we do count mistakes, I recall having used this to justify that rule - but I suppose I probably used m for the number of Mafia mistakes, rather than m-1. That would get you n=4m+1. Well, ignoring that then, by that measure, the optimal ratio for n≡3 (mod 4) is to have n=4m+3 and it's n=4m+4 when 4|n. For n≡1,2 (mod 4), you can use m=floor(n/4) to give the townspeople just one more mistake than the Mafia, or m=ceiling(n/4) to give the Mafia one more mistake than the townspeople. So, we've actually been doing it slightly wrong by that measure - we let m be n/4 rounded to the nearest, where if n≡2 (mod 4), we round up if townspeople won last time, down if Mafia last time, arbitrary if first game. So we commonly have 3-Mafia or 4-Mafia games. Sniffnoy | (talk)

There is no optimal ratio: there is only player preference for game length and relative advantage to each faction. `savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

dear savidan, you did a big work trying to include your research on the topic, still it looks misleading from my perspective. your change still reflects a particular style of play ("2 players killed every turn"); it provides calculations based on an original research (i disagree with your methodology and resulting percentages, but this is not a place to argue it); and as you have said yourself - "it doesnt take skills into an account". due to all these limitations, i still feel it would be proper to have a short paragraph about smallest possible game and some short explanation of good ratio principle. i am sorry, but your text just confusing overall.

there are number of independent confirmations about the mafia game origins, i did my own research and am satisfied with results. if you have any evidence of mafia type game outside the soviet union before 1988 - i would like to see them.

well, one do not actually have to kill people to get their intentions. so attempts to kill during the first day are a very good basis for a discussion. again, i like the original rules - they are simple, flexible and allow for a minimum of players. try it, then you'll see that mafia has much less chance to win 2/4 ratios then yours 86.6%. its a 50/50 balance.Unmet 19:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I made no claim that these were the actual (i.e. experimental) percentages, just the expected percentages from the rules. Although they do not take skill into account, a good way to measure skill is always the deviation from the expected (i.e. if the expected result is 50/50 and you win 75% of the games). Two players killed every turn is the standard game type, not a variant. I have already explained how allowing no-kill would affect the game. Other charcters that kill (i.e. Maniac, etc.) are variants as well. I don't think this is really original research, or I wouldn't have added it. No more so that saying the chance of getting heads from flipping a coin is 50%. How can you continue to disagree that Mafia killing first is the norm when this is the rule propogated by the sight you claim (without independent confirmation) to be the "originator" of the game. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

please, read rules from first four external links in the mafia article, they all disagree with you "that mafia killing first is the norm". in commercial link section check this out: http://wiki.playagaingames.com/tiki-index.php?page=Advanced+Werewolf. personally, i just do not understand why anyone would agree to play that way - being killed w/out any game experience at all. but i am not telling you the way to play, i am just saying - that i know plenty of groups and whole countries not playing your version. then, look at fifth external link - Werewolf Statistics - it takes your version of the rules, runs simulation and gets different results then yours. i guess its more then just flipping a coin. have you thought of applying a Bayesian probability approach?

i am "propogating"=playing the most simple version of the game mafia. people i talked to agree on who is an originator of the game. but it has no relevance to an optimal ratio question. 18 citizens against 2 mafia is NOT a 50/50 fight, it is just wrong in my experience. Unmet 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the alternative is having to make a day kill without having any information except for what occurs during the day. These often end up being random kills as a result. (Well, we say "random kill", but actually it tends to be killing off the worst player.) My group plays both ways, depending on the number of people, but distinctly prefers a night kill first, so that we have some more information to work with first day. Sniffnoy

well, the whole game is about what to do when one has not enough information. it does not mean making a random decision. i play the version with possible multiple eliminations during a day and just a probability for an honest player to be killed during a night. attempts to kill and negotiations (during a day) provide plenty of information for players, so for example there are games w/out nights at all. and i really don't understand what information gives a first day killing, unless everybody knows everyone style of game beforehand, otherwise it is also random. Unmet 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

...wait, the Mafia don't determine who's killed during the night? Then what's the point? Anyway, you need *something* to start with in determining who's Mafia. What are you going to go on, if nobody's dead? Go around, asking everyone "Are you Mafia?" Sure, new players will sometimes give themselves away in the first round, but otherwise... since you have nothing to go on, the game stalls, and you're forced to make a "random kill" (more commonly it's actually the player considered to be worst) to progress the game - well, in your version, to call for a night to progress the game. Anyway, SFAICT, Savidan's information applies (1) to the "exactly one kill every day, exactly one kill every night" version, and (2) assumes that killing is random. No, 18 townspeople against 2 Mafia is most certainly not a fair fight - we would play it with 5 Mafia if we had 20 players, though perhaps only 4 would be better, as I suggested above. (We also play with an inspector.) However, were the townspeople to kill randomly, it apparently would be. (Well, I haven't calculated it myself, but the point is that the probabilities given are assuming all kills random and are not, as you seem to be thinking, the probabilites a real game). Sniffnoy

again, for many years groups i played with have enough to go on w/out first night kill. i do not understand why you give such importance to first mafia killing - like it solves the whole game right away. it is not. mafia knows citizens would try to figure out their night actions. every night they try to pick up someone who would not give them right away - isn't this so? discussions during a day, voting patterns - are primary sources of game information. night kills are important too, but NOT important enough to prevent someone from playing at all, in our group. anyway - savidan's calculations contradict werewolves statistic he is citing, applicable to just one of a game version and to assume "all kills are random" is just not a correct assumption for any mafia game. you have not done any calculations, but know that 18 vs. 2 will not be fair. i did some calculations myself, they are different from savidan's results, but wikipedia article is not a place to argue about it.Unmet 02:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added my data to the article. Note that if the towns people kill first, that just shifts the rows on the table (i.e. 5 towns people who get to kill first are like 6 towns people). Allowing the townspeople not to kill would not be a major variant, but it would change the mafia win percentage slightly because when there are 4 people left (3 innocents and a mafia), the townspeople would vote "no kill" to face 1/3 odds instead of 1/4. That would only slightly change the win %. There is no way of quantifying skill level so theres no point in showing that variant. If you can think of a common variant that would yield significantly different data please show that table alongside this one. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To further satisfy you that this is not original research, see this site. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're correct in that eliminating the first night kill just shifts the rows, however, we're not talking about numbers here. We're talking about a player who barely has time to warm his chair before he's killed. I'd like to see everybody start the game by killing the Narrator. It doesn't change the game play; it's exactly like playing with one more person. RussNelson 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The data below is incorrect. The chance of winning in 1 mafia 5 villagers is actually 1/5 for first day + (4/5)*(1/3) for second day. Total is 7/15, a slight advantage for the mafia. Also, 1 maf, 6 villagers is more in favor of the mafia (games with odd-sized nights shift slightly towards them). If I worked it correctly, game is even around 1 mafia + 11 townies. Ralphmerridew 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

-

It's obviously possible to win as villagers if there are n mafia and n+1 villagers at day. They just have to kill a mafia player every day phase. If there are n mafia and n villagers, mafia can force a draw, if there are more mafia than villagers, they can force a win.

So any ratio like 1/3 or 1/4 is just your personal preference. The proper way to think is "How many mistakes may the villagers do". We usually play 3 mafia, 6/7 villagers or 2 mafia, 5/6 villagers (to give the numbers for 7-10 players). The 2+5 combo doesn't mean a 22.8% chance (we don't kill in the first night, so this is 2+6 without the pointless victim of the first night) of winning: we don't kill at random. The assumtion of 2/7 being the ratio of killing a mafia player just doesn't hold. A well-played mafia will cause us to kill a villager, a strong villager team will make the mafia make mistakes and reveal themselves. It's psychology and depends a lot on skill, how well you know the players and how much time you spend on the first day round.

Therefore, the calculations below are totally pointless. 87.174.94.142 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One mafia

1 mafia and 1-2 villagers: Mafia always wins (kills one at night), tie in the day goes to the villagers.

1 mafia and 3 villagers: Mafia usually wins. Mafia kills one villager and doesn't vote for himself or herself during the day. Thus, both villagers must vote for the mafia one the first turn to win. With three players, one of the villagers will be voted for with a 66.6% probability, thus mafia wins 2/3 of the games.

1 mafia and 4 villagers: Mafia even more likely to win. The villagers have only one chance to vote the mafia off (if they miss the first time, mafia will win the tie on the second day). With four living players, villagers have only a 1/4 chance. Thus mafia wins 3/4 of the games.

1 mafia and 5 villagers: Villagers too likely to win. They have two chances to vote for the mafia. First 1/5, second (if first vote failed) 1/3. 1/5+1/3=8/15. 8/15 would seem like approximately 50% if these games were not so short (i.e. two turns).

You don't know how to add probabilities. It is 1/5 plus 1/3 of 4/5 (just 1/3 of the times they didn't hit right the first time), so it is 3/15 + 4/15 = 7/15. I doubt the maths you did on the other examples is right. --81.38.184.253 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously any more than 5 villagers just gives the villagers even more of an advantage.

Two mafia

This is a little more complicated to show because we have to take into account for all votes after the first whether there are 1 or 2 mafia remaining. However, we know that at least 5 villagers will be required from the above.

5 villagers and 2 mafia: First vote there is a 2/6 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote, there is a 1/4 chance in the second vote, followed by a draw on day 3. If not successful in the first vote, there is a 2/4 chance in the second vote. If not succesful in the second vote, there is a mafia win on day 3. There is still a draw on day 3, still a mafia win. Thus the villager's probability of winning is 2/6*1/4. In other words, the villagers have approximately 8.3% chance of winning.

6 villagers and 2 mafia: First vote there is a 2/7 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote, there is a 1/5 chance in the second vote, followed by a 1/3 chance in the third vote, followed by a mafia win on the fourth day. If unsuccessful in the first vote, there is a 2/5 chance on the second day. If successful in the second vote but not in the first, there is a 1/3 chance on the third day followed by a mafia win on the fourth. If unsuccessful in both of the first two votes there is a mafia win on the third day. Thus the villagers chances of winning are 2/7*1/5+2/7*4/5*1/3+5/7*2/5*1/3. In other words, the villagers have approximately 22.8% chance of winning. Still a huge mafia bias.

7 villagers and 2 mafia: First vote there is a 2/8 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote there is a 1/6 chance in the second, followed by a 1/4 chance in the third, and a mafia victory on day 4. If unsuccessful in the first vote, there is a 2/6 chance in the second vote. If successful in the second but not in the first, there is a 1/4 chance in third vote, followed by a mafia victory on day 4. If unsuccessful in both the first two votes, there is a mafia victory on day 3. (2 mafia and two villagers, mafia cannot be voted off). Thus the villagers chances of winning are 2/8*1/6+2/8*5/6*1/4+6/8*2/6*1/4. In other words, the villagers have approximately 15.6% chance of winning. Interestingly, even less chance of winning than with only 6. Still a huge mafia bias.

8 villagers and 2 mafia: First vote there is a 2/9 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote, there is a 1/7 chance on day 2, followed by a 1/5 chance on day 3 followed by a 1/3 chance on day 4, followed by a mafia victory on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first vote, there is a 2/7 chance on day 2. If successful in the second vote but not in the first, there is a 1/5 chance on day 3, followed by a 1/3 chance on day 4, followed by a mafia victory on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first two votes, the villagers have a 2/5 chance on day 3. If successful for the first time on day 3, the villages have a 1/3 chance on day 4, followed by a mafia victory on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first three votes, the villagers lose (the two mafia vote off the remaining villager). Thus the villagers chances of winning are 2/9*1/7+2/9*6/7*1/5+2/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+7/9*2/7*1/5+7/9*2/7*4/5*1/3+7/9*5/7*2/5*1/3. In other words, the villagers have approximately a 29.8% chance of winning. Still a big mafia bias.

9 villagers and 2 mafia: First vote there is a 2/10 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote, there is a 1/8 chance on day 2, followed by a 1/6 chance on day 3, followed by a 1/4 chance on day 4, and a mafia victory on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first vote, there is a 2/8 chance on day 2. If successful for the first time in the second vote, there is a 1/6 chance on day 3, followed by a 1/4 chance on day 4, followed by a mafia victory on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first two votes, there is a 2/6 chance on day 3. If successful for the first time in the third vote, there is a 1/4 chance on day 4, followed by a mafia victory on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first three votes, the mafia win (2 mafia can deadlock vote on day 4). Thus the villagers chances of winning are 2/10*1/8+2/10*7/8*1/6+2/10*7/8*5/6*1/4+8/10*2/8*1/6+8/10*2/8*5/6*1/4+8/10*6/8*2/6*1/4. In other words, the villagers have a 21.5% chance of winning, interestingly even less than with 8 villagers. Still a huge mafia bias.

10 villagers and 2 mafia: For the first vote there is a 2/11 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote, there is a 1/9 chance on day 2, followed by a 1/7 chance on day 3, followed by a 1/5 chance on day 4, followed by a 1/3 chance on day 5, followed by a mafia victory on day 6. If unsuccessful in the first vote, there is a 2/9 chance in the second vote. If successful for the first time in the second vote, there is a 1/7 chance on day 3, followed by a 1/5 chance on day 4, followed by a 1/3 chance on day 5. If unsuccessful in the first two votes, there is a 2/7 chance in the third vote. If successful for the first time in the third vote, there is a 1/5 chance on day 4, followed by a 1/3 chance on day 5, followed by a mafia victory on day 6. If unsuccessful in the first three votes, there is a 2/5 chance in the fourth vote. If successful for the first time on day 4, there is a 1/3 chance on day 5, followed by a mafia victory on day 6. If unsuccessful in the first four votes, the mafia wins. Thus the villagers chances of winning are, 2/11*1/9+2/11*8/9*1/7+2/11*8/9*6/7*1/5+2/11*8/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+9/11*2/9*1/7+9/11*2/9*6/7*1/5+9/11*2/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+9/11*7/9*2/7*1/5+9/11*7/9*2/7*4/5*1/3+9/11*7/9*5/7*2/5*1/3. In other words, the villagers have a 35.2% chance of winning. Still biased towards the mafia.

Because we have seen that 2n+1 villagers are less likely to win than 2n villagers for n>2, there is no point in testing any more odd numbers of villagers.

12 villagers and 2 mafia. For the first vote there is a 2/13 chance of killing a mafia. If successful in the first vote, there is a 1/11 chance, followed by a 1/9 chance, followed by a 1/7 chance, followed by a 1/5 chance, followed by a 1/3 chance. If unsuccessful in the first vote, there is a 2/11 chance in the second vote. If successful for the first time in the second vote, there is a 1/9 chance, followed by a 1/7 chance, followed by a 1/5 chance followed by a 1/3 chance. If unsuccessful in the first two votes there is a 2/9 chance in the third vote. If successful for the first time in the third vote, there is a 1/7 chance, followed by a 1/5 chance, followed by a 1/3 chance. If unsuccessful in the first three votes, there is a 2/7 chance in the fourth vote. If successful for the first time in the fourth vote, there is a 1/5 chance followed by a 1/3 chance. If unsuccessful in the first four votes, there is a 2/5 chance in the fifth vote. If successful for the first time in the fifth vote, there is a 1/3 chance. If unsuccessful in the first five votes, the villagers lose. Thus the villagers chances of winning are 2/13*1/11+2/12*9/11*1/9+2/13*9/11*8/9*1/7+2/13*9/11*7/9*1/5+2/13*9/11*7/9*4/5*1/3+11/13*2/11*1/9+11/13*2/11*8/9*1/7+11/13*2/11*8/9*6/7*1/5+11/13*2/11*8/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+11/13*9/11*2/9*1/7+11/13*9/11*2/9*6/7*1/5+11/13*9/11*2/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+11/13*9/11*7/9*2/7*1/5+11/13*9/11*7/9*2/7*4/5*1/3+11/13*9/11*7/9*5/7*2/5*1/3. In other words, the villagers chances of winning are 38.8%.

14 villagers and 2 mafia: The pattern is obvious to me at this point, so I'm not going to show it in verbose form. The villager's chances of winning are: 2/15*1/13+2/15*12/13*1/11+2/15*12/13*9/11*1/9+2/15*12/13*9/11*8/9*1/7+2/15*12/13*9/11*1/9+2/15*12/13*9/11*8/9*6/7*1/5+2/15*12/13*9/11*8/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+13/15*2/13*1/11+13/15*2/13*10/11*1/9+13/15*2/13*10/11*8/9*1/7+13/15*2/13*10/11*8/9*6/7*1/5+13/15*2/13*10/11*8/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+13/15*11/13*2/11*1/9+13/15*11/13*2/11*8/9*1/7+13/15*11/13*2/11*8/9*6/7*1/5+13/15*11/13*2/11*8/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+13/15*11/13*9/11*2/9*1/7+13/15*11/13*9/11*2/9*6/7*1/5+13/15*11/13*9/11*2/9*6/7*4/5*1/3+13/15*11/13*9/11*7/9*2/7*1/5+13/15*11/13*9/11*7/9*2/7*4/5*1/3+13/15*11/13*9/11*7/9*5/7*2/5*1/3. Thus, the villagers' chances of winning are 43.4%.

More to come...

byond version

there is a MUD community called "Byond," and one of the (at one time) most popular games on it is an essentially upgraded form of Maifa, with pictures. I think its worth a mention. Lockeownzj00 00:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Commerical boom

Around 2000ish, several commercial version came out. I believe these are (in part) responsible for the renewed popularity of the game in all its forms. I've added a link to what I believe to be the most popular (Looney Lab's "Are you a Werewolf?"). I believe there is another simply titled, "Werewolf". I also believe someone rebranded the game using a Wild West Sheriff and Desperado theme with more complex rules (lots of special classes with special rules). It seems like those are worth mentioning. Indeed, a summary of the history would be great... Alan De Smet | Talk 20:06, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The wild west version was "Bang!", I've added it. Alan De Smet | Talk 20:51, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph

I'm against removing the mention of Werewolf variant from the first paragraph - it's more popular than Mafia in the US, so in my opinion it deserves a mention in the introduction, not only in the 3rd section of the article. Ausir 19:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

hello ausir, thx very much for your note. sorry, i removed your edit w/out discussion. its just look cumbersome with three parenthesises in one short paragraph. as far as i understand, wiki is trying to be more international - from this point of view, the fact that werewolf title for mafia is currently may be more popular in the usa, fits third paragraph perfectly. though, i understand your concern, may be we could make more strong reference/description of werewolf in special roles section (i want to rewrite it in major way, anyway)? unmet 17:15, 20 July 2005

dear ausir, i was trying to check up on your assertion that werewolf title more popular in the us then mafia with google - in .edu domains ratio was 547/8,270; in .com - 154,000/443,000 (here is the search i have run: mafia game -pc -computer -video -heaven site:.edu). i know it is very unprecise, but i wonder what methods you used for making your claim? thx in advance (Unmet 08:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC))

Sorry then, I must have had a wrong impression... Anyway, come and join us at irc://irc.gamesurge.net/#werewolf for on-line play :). Ausir 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to see Werewolf reinstituted in the first paragraph, as it makes the redirect from Werewolf (game) more comprehensible. Also, the article as it stands begins to name the variant role names long before it ever gets to the variant game names. I'm going to include a parenthetical note, please comment if you have a problem with this. Nae'blis

Inventor

The section regarding the games inventor is not a subject of universal agreement. Princeton's Graduate Mafia Fellowship questions this attribution. They are not the only ones. However the previous revision seemed to side with princeton rather then being objective. Even with the current rendition I am concerned with the article remaining NPOV. However I think that ignoring the disagreement is not productive either. 63.173.228.51 17:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

dear 63.173, there is no disagreement except as on the princeton's page and those citing it. i have seen that page before they included paragraph about history there. first, description of similar to mafia games (apparently citing davidoff's letter) was added, then - britain 1956-chan's mother reference. if one would look up books about party games in britain (and trade publications) - the game of murder mystery is easily to be found. it involves one detective, one murderer and some crime settings. in that form it more or less pass up to current murder mysteries games. on the other hand - there is a meme of unifomed majority vs. informed minority, which started in soviet union in late 80s - lots of lots of pages in russian. with rules much more closely related to the original rules, then later (say werewolve interpretation). then we could see a traceble wave of the same meme through eastern europe and arriving in the usa while mixing with role-playing genre. nothing of this come out of a possible party in britain, it makes methink that princeton's page is misleading. unmet 18:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

any comments? i would change 'history part' back, if there are no other arguments about the game attribution but princeton's page. there are some games similar to the mafia - diplomacy may even come closer then murder mystery party, but mafia has quite a few new and unique features so it could be traced easily through available texts. unmet 20:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If we can't find reliable evidence for the inventor, can we please take out the opening statement about it being created in Moscow etc?

Spuddddddd 19Oct07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Madman

In the article, it is stated that he is on the side of the villages. But if he is on the side of the villagers, he should kill a mafia when he is killed. It seems to me that his role is more like a wildcard then being on the side of the villagers.

Are You a Werewolf? merge

I think d.valued meant well, but Are You a Werewolf? (started on 01-11-2006) is (largely) a text-copy of this article, and should instead be a redirect (in my opinion). I'm putting this here to gauge opinion, if there's no objections, we can change it in a few days. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are significant differences in the gameplay. Firstly, it's simplified compared to Mafia. Secondly, in my humble opinion, this game is more widely known, especially amongst the gamer community. (I can site examples of spontaneous games of Werewolf at certain events - like Magic GPs and sci-fi conventions). D.valued 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a simplified version of a game is a reason it should redirect. Being more widely know is just speculation but even then not a reason why the game is different. merge this cruft. Savidan 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how AYAW is simplified - it has the same day/night, cop/citizen/mafia dynamic as a regular game of Mafia (some don't even have a cop). Online play has introduced complexities such as Wolfsbane and Angels (Docs), but the reason you probably see it played 'spontaneously' at Cons is because of the impetus of Looney Labs to sell their product. Mafia on the other hand is a parlor game without a distributor, but it does predate it. I'd think mention made in both Mafia and LL's articles could be sufficient, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise (I've never played the LL version). -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. I've seen this game spontaneously coagulate at Magic GPs, events which are explicitly mono-WotC, with players grabbing basic lands and spreading them as the identifiers. Sure, Looney sells a pack of custom-art cards for $3, but you can play the game just as easily with any cards with the same back, be they CCG or playing or even index cards. Granted, the Looneys and the Mad Lab Rabbits are fairly enthused about the game - but without their influence, I've seen a lot of games come together. D.valued 07:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, so merge? I don't see why the popularity of the game at MTG tournaments changes anything. Its the same game! Savidan 08:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the AYAW article now reads significantly different from this one (and it being a commercial product does have the potential to be a separate article). I'll see if I can get User:Mgm over here to see if he can lend some experienced opinion (he plays one if not both of these games). -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so people are aware, I asked Mgm to comment, and he said he'd get to it by Sunday; I'll poke him again. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, here's his input (from my talk page):

Thanks for waiting. I've looked it over, and I think that if you include "Werewolf" or "Are You a Werewolf" as possible titles for the game mafia you can merge it into it leaving a redirect at above names. All you need to include in the mafia article is how it can be played using werewolves instead of mafia and what the roles are called in such games. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I could go either way on this a this point, so maybe we just let the two articles sit for a little while and see what shakes out. I'm less concerned now than I was at the beginning, but I'm still a mergeist at heart... for the record, having the Werewolf variations in the Mafia (game) article is how we had it before, so we wouldn't be losing much/any information. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge, but if we can't even get a merge of 1 Right Price and 1 Wrong Price then I'm afraid you're probably fighting an uphill battle. Ewlyahoocom 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, neither of those pages HAS a discussion page, so it's impossible for me to say what the battle would be like to merge them...is the discussion going on somewhere else for those? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_ThePriceIsRight, maybe? They're also games with significantly different methodology (if what the articles say is correct), where Werewolf/Mafia are essentially the same idea, rebranded. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge WW into Mafia. It's the same game just with fewer roles (I'm currently GMing a forum game of Mafia btw) MLA 14:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mafia/Werewolf crossover

I'd like to see this article broken into two distinct sections: One for Mafia and all of its variants that incorporate images from that genre (godfathers, detectives, snitches, etc.), and one for Werewolf inclusive of themes from that genre (witches, hunters, villagers, etc.) The two games are essentially the same, but the merging of imagery of both the "Mafia" and "Werewolf" themes is confusing in both the clash of style and in the sheer amount of information that the article presents to a reader who just wants to know how to play the game. I propose that this be two separate articles, or at least that the two games be separated in this article. I think that it would make for an easier read. Morganfitzp 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the games are similar enough to not warrant a split into two articles; on Mafiascum.net, we've had frequent games wherein there are both Werewolves and Mafia in the same game; sometimes investigators/protectors can act upon both, and sometimes they're limited.

I'm really beginning to think all of the "alternate roles" aer spurious anyway; referencing them out to an external list would probably be more productive and trim the article WAY back down to manageable size. I'm biased toward the Mafiascum wiki, of course, but I think that's already in the external links section. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

i would keep this article together, but simplifying and structuring roles part somehow. it could grow forever. Unmet 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

i think it's exactly the same game, other than different role names, and should be kept together...talk about confusion if you separate! Kieron 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Roles...

I cut some roles, here's why: Lawyer was basically the same as the Rat (and I'd like to cut the Rat also, just because it's a terrible role; does anyone use it?) Vampire Slayer was not defined clearly. Little Girl also seems like a terrible role as worded (that she can peek while mafia make their kill choice); I replaced her with tracker/reporter/watcher. Giant Clam seemed completely pointless.

I restored Cult Leader/Recruiter, and added Hider, Governor, and Bodyguard.

It would be nice to find some way to keep this information to stuff that is really used, with names that are most common.

On Mafiascum.net these are the most common names: Mafia Godfather and Goons, Townsperson or "Townie", Cop, Doctor, Vigilante, Roleblocker, Mason. Other bad guys are Werewolves (cop counterpart being a Seer), Serial Killer, and cults. A Nurse is typically a backup doctor. 208.38.108.201 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and grouped the roles by type, according to this post (yes, I started that thread but other players have confirmed it through comments, thus avoiding so much original research). I am sure I left out a few, but I tried to limit it to the major types. I didn't know what to do with things like the Governor or Hider so I took them out entirely... feel free to comment/revise/expand, but be reasonable. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The group I play with plays with the RAT it is one of the most popular rules as it is very powerful! I find that the rules are shorter yet not as clear anymore. The great thing about this site is how comprehensive the list used to be as well as how newbie friendly it was! 10:42 , 12 July 2006Shurafa _(talk)

Well, we're really here to talk about the game, not necessarily how to play all variations of it. The MafiaScum wiki might be a better place to add that information... -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed we are here to talk about the game. Yet now there is more information in LESS space. Which means it is not as clear. If you knew nothing about the game and came to this article it would be very confusing. I am all for having a section with the most commmonly played roles. (Mafia,Towspeople,Detective, maybe Masons and Doctor as well) then a section with other variants. PS who make all the recent major changes to the page? Shurafa _{(talk) 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)}

You can find out who is making edits using the history. Ultimately I have to agre with Nae'blis. I appreciate the desire to make the article as inclusive as possible, but ultimately there are an extremely large number of variant rules and roles for Mafia. If we list them all the article will grow out of control. It would become hard to tell how common or significant particular variants were. The encyclopedic goal of the article is best served by having the basic rules, then a general discussion of common variants; roughly what we have now. Indeed, I believe a newbie is better served the the current version. Perhaps it could benefit from further rewriting, but I think re-adding the extensive roles section would be a bad idea. Alan De Smet | Talk 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Naeblis is the one who made the last major revision. Also I think you misunderstood what I was saying. As the article stands now there are so many variants new players will be overwhelmed. I think there should be a short section with the most commonly used roles. I nominatee Mafia, Towspeople, Detective, maybe Masons and Doctor as well. Short and simple. These are the core roles of the game that seem to be played everywhere and are a good introductory set. Have a comprehensive list like we do now is GREAT however it needs to be segragated for clarity. Shurafa (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2006 (GMT)

I consolidated it a lot from where it stood before (about 3-4 pages of role/rolename variations), but I wouldn't be adverse to reducing it further if that's the consensus. It was just a desire to keep the article from continuing to spiral upwards in trivial details and size. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Nae'blis's overhaul, the roles section was out of control. Every possible optional role tended to get added with a full description. Most could not be independently confirmed through reliable sources. I suspect many documented variants played only by a very small number of people. Nae'blis's overhaul was a big improvement; it captured the primary variants, grouping them into reasonable categories. 220.237.160.57 replaced the "Optional roles" with a more explicit list, essentially returning it to the previous, problematic version. I've reverted the change (along with some formatting improvements others added). I think this needs further discussion before we revert back to the older format. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again I point out the current role section is inefficient and inaccurate. The version I added months ago with a more detailed, and more correct version was quickly overturned despite being largly superior. As far "unconfirmed", the roles I added were highly undetailed, believe me, I can mix things up ALOT more. Before saying somehting is "unconfirmed", why not actually figure out if it is or not. You know, actually play some games on a forum that runs complex games, there are quite alot of them, more or less the same community as the same players play in all of them.

And yet there's a "judge" in there. I've NEVER heard of a role moderating discussion in parliamentary fashion in any of the games I've played in. Oddly enough, it's on on the werewiki either, but I noticed many of my "unconfirmable" roles are, although often under different names.

But enough of my whinning, this is wikipedia after all, "the free encyclodedia anyone can edit, only to have someone put their inferior work back up 2 days later because they need the ego boost"

"Beginner game"

I deleted the entire "Beginner Game" section that was added today. It's redundant with the summary of the rules listed above. It also was hardly a "Beginner" game as it included a fair number of optional roles. Ultimately if the summary of the rules isn't enough for someone to run a game of Mafia, the summar probably needs to be cleaned up. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

The statistics listed on the article were copied from a website referenced in the notes section. However, the website with the original stats was about the werewolf variant, where there are other "special roles" such as medium, bodyguard and posessed to affect the game, making the stats effectively irrelevant to the Mafia (original) variant.--Keycard ^(talk) 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Popularity among mathematical students

Hello,

in my own experience it shows the game is extremely popular among young math enthusiasts. Not only is it frequently played online, it is played in international circles during numerous mathematical olympiads. (In fact, it is during an international competition that I was taught how to play the game.)

Is this worthy of being added to the article (maybe the game is just as popular among physics enthusiast or other kinds of students, I don't know...) Evilbu 23:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if you've got a reliable source for that statement (anecdotal evidence, like yours and mine, doesn't count). -- nae'blis

Delete entire "Online play" link section

The "Online play" link section is out of control. Wikipedia is not a repository for links. One can play Mafia, Werewolf, and the like at an astonishly large number of sites. There is no primary place people play online (which would be a compelling reason to link to a site). There is no realistic way to pick one, two, or perhaps a handful as representative. From the standpoint of Wikipedia's external links guidelines none of those sites especially provide useful references beyond the information available in the article itself. I propose to delete the entire "Online play" section from the external links. Is there a good reason to not do so? — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, per reasoning above. New links will be similarly deleted. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to consider http://mafiascum.net/forum the primary place to play online? The forum is nearing on 500,000 posts, 6 years in existence, and hundreds of archived games. I understand the need to control proliferation, and without a source it may still be gauche (I won't re-add it myself because I play there), but it is almost certainly the biggest online site going. -- nae'blis 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Showing that mafiascum is the "primary" place seems difficult. But you have a good point. Perhaps we can come up with a standard to measure sites by. Mafiascum can be the starting point, but if some other site better achieves the standard, it would replace it. We'd want to note the standard that the site reaches in the link's description so potential replacements have a clear comparision. (It also helps justify the notability of the link). Here's my off the cuff proposal: 1. The site must be dedicated to mafia (possibly under a different name). 2. Older is better. 3. More completed games is better. So Mafiascum clearly passes 1, and have "6 years" and "hundreds of games" for 2 and 3. What do you think? — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary purpose of playing Mafia/Werewolf would be my primary (heh) criterion; otherwise we're waaaaay too subject to linkspam from MTG, FootballGuys, and other sites that only incidentally dabble in the game. Maybe c) 100 games and b) more than a year of existence? Two years? -- nae'blis 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unclear. I meant that "must be dedicated to Mafia" as a prerequisite. Then whichever site could claim the general combination of "most completed games" and "longest existance" gets to be the one we list. Absent other competition, I'd be happy with listing Mafiascum, with something along the lines of "Mafiascum - Large web forum dedicated to playing Mafia in existance since 200X with approximately X00 games completed as of DATE". I'm hoping you can provide the underlined details and add it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, I was thinking of a floor for any ELs to gameplay sites. I'll see if there's some sort of a non-OR tally of games on MafiaScum and get back to you... -- nae'blis 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of deleting the Online Play section and links. It's informative and not spammy in the least. I found a bunch of good Mafia/Werewolf links in that section. I know Wiki isn't the place for links...but it's important to add that the "Puzzles and Other Games" forum at twoplustwo.com has had more WW/Mafia games than MafiaScum and the newly designed USGamers.net has recently added (first I've ever seen) a fully automated Werewolf integration system in its Werewolf Game Threads forum. Kparese | Talk 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Strategy section

I'd like to see a section on strategy, but I'm not sure how best to "request" it... Kieron 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that to be a good idea. I'll work on it, but help would really be appreciated. Any volunteers? Wizardcat 22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really a guide to playing games. However, if you can find a well-referenced source for existing strategy/analysis, we could link to/include some of that. Otherwise it rapidly spirals into player's opinions on the matter... -- nae'blis 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean out all the alternative rules/roles

Even ignoring the variants section, the main sections of this article are so clouded with optional roles and rules and everyone's personal favorite ways of playing that it is almost impossible to understand what this game is or how it works. I suggest all alternatives, especially things like killing the narrator or various names for the roles, be moved to the variant sections, and the main sections cover just the most basic gameplay elements required to understand what this game is. --The Yar 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This could probably use some lessons from the Mao article - unless there's a strong enough source for a particular variant, it shouldn't be included at all. --McGeddon 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is almost impossible to understand the game. I personally have never heard of it before and find the explanation to be very confusing. I suggest outlining the rules for the most basic game variant (the original version?) separately from all the variations.AndrewSvet 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mass revert of 87.174.94.142's overhaul

87.174.94.142 overhauled the article with a focus on "Number of Mafia" section. I've reverted it. Absent citations, I'm hesitant to believe such a highly unusual description of the required ratios. It also seems more than a little implausible; his core premise is that with "advanced" players you can have a lot of Mafia because the Innocents are experts are flushing them out. For this to work, as players gain skill they need to become better at identifying liars, but not at hiding their lies. I don't doubt that that there are some unusual games that are complex, multi-hour psychologist investigations, but they're hardly representative of the game. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on top of this page, why the ratio thing doesn't make sense. It also includes some more sound theses on when a ratio could be considered 'balanced', and how this is affected by the player skill.

Please reread the 'restored' Number of Mafia section, it doesn't make ANY sense, nor is it of any use to readers. It gives incorrectly calculated information such as that an extra innocent player can increase the odds of mafia to win.

Note that my rewrite of that section also focused on giving the visitor some empirical values such as 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6 (which pretty much covers all of the discussion here) along with the notion that a lower ratio is probably more interesting for beginners. This IS more useful for readers. 87.174.119.241 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The reverted-to 'math' for the 'optimal' number of mafiosi is still completely bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.174.108.8 (talk • contribs) 22:11, July 26, 2007.

Apology

I'm confused how to edit pages needing. isry for my eidt sry my mistake Mgoblue1987 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright rights on this page

fyi ... another site has coppied and pasted this entire page, without following the requirements of the GFDL. Link is here (need to create a log in view that particular page). --68.146.246.28 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I own the site above and have added a wiki license to the bottom of the page, if anything else is needed, I will gladly place it on the site. For further note, the players of the site mafiascum.net have had an ongoing issue with my site. I have expressed NUMEROUS times that any and all sites are alright to play whatever form of online gaming they want, but this certain site seems to frown upon anyone who is not them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.142.215 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Murder?

A potential precursor was "Murder", a similar game with a Murder-Mystery theme from the 1960s (According to RPGnet reviews of the currently available werewolf-themed versions: "REVIEW OF ARE YOU A WEREWOLF? Relationships to Other Games". 2004., and other reviews of mafia-derived games from the site.) I'm dubious about the source, but if this can be verified, I think it's a signficant part of mafia game history, and probably acceptable under WP:SYN. --Wragge (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems Davidoff has discussed "Murder" and "Ubiitca" as Mafia precursors, so this isn't a WP:SYN problem, and should be included. --Wragge (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

hey wragge! thank you for your contribution to the page, i wonder if you have read previous discussion on this topic above (titled 'inventor'): "if one would look up books about party games in britain (and trade publications) - the game of murder mystery is easily to be found. it involves one detective, one murderer and some crime settings. in that form it more or less pass up to current murder mysteries games." murder mystery, murder (i saw mentioning of it in 'party game book' from 20s, I think), diplomacy - even poker - could be considered a somewhat precursors to mafia. but the mafia game is not modification or improvement on any of those games, they are just on the same timeline. mafia has a distinct dynamic of not knowing teammates, day and nights sequence, etc. it has no real precursors imho. (Unmet (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

Detective name - Cattani from La piovra

A minor note that I'd like to include for the sake of completeness.

I've played Mafia in Samara (a Russian city, 1000 km south-east from Moscow) and in Moscow in 1987-1991. At that period, the TV drama "La piovra" ("The mafia", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Piovra) was very (VERY!) popular in Russia.

In my experience, the rules of the game varied slightly from site to site, but the setting was always considered to be "La piovra"-like. In particular, the Detective name was always Commissioner Cattani (the protagonist of the film, Italian police commissioner Corrado Cattani played by Michele_Placido, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Placido). In fact, that was not just the name of the Detective, but the name of the game role (... the black aces become mafioso, the ace of hearts becomes Commissioner Cattani and all other cards become the honest citizens).

I was rather surprised to see that the list of alternative Detective names in the article doesn't include Cattani. Could the editor of the article add it to the list, please?

P.S. More about La piovra and the original design of Mafia game here (in Russian): http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F_%28%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.21.244.120 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Boris barees(at)hotmail[dot]com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.21.244.120 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)