The Nature of The Beast

Firstly, this post is aimed to stimulate discussion, propagate ideas, and be of general interest. It is not intended to offend, cause disrespect and has no other hidden, malignant agenda. If for some reason it does cause insult or get your hackles up, apologies.

One thing about this game has always fascinated me, and I believe this thing is  responsible for much of the misunderstanding,  complaint, and dissatisfaction expressed by  players, yet is also responsible, in positive  ways, for the allure, community feel and depth of MR.

The first issue is, quite simply, how to define 'it': the closest I have gotten is something like 'the triadic relation between i) the game as a game; ii) the game as an interface between us as players and our characters on the street (the RP aspect); and iii) the game as the basis/home of a real life community of friends/acquaintances.  These can be shortened to i) the game, ii) the RP aspect and iii) the community aspect, respectively.

-----

What the hell is this guy on about, i'm certain you're thinking. Let's take a look at what I consider to be a manifestation of the triadic relation in action - one of the most evident places in which it's tensions arise.

Take a look at the 60 second list below. What's odd about it? Ever notice how there are bolds/underlineds so far down the list? Clicking on them reveals goombas, earners, WGs, occasionally even gangsters.

So what, I hear you cry - it's normal!  What I'd say is that you're using 'normal' in a context-specific way, namely with respect to iii above - the game as a bunch of friends. Yes, it's normal for CLs to appoint their trusted friends to R/LHM positions - why wouldn't they?

But then see whether you're defense of this being 'normal' works when we look at contexts i and ii - the game as a game, and the RP aspect. This is where my point should finally begin to emerge:

i) Game as a Game This context considers MR as a competitive game, where you rank, earn points, money, kill people, climb the ladder, aim to be boss etc. Given this, it's abnormal to find low levelled players as LHM. In terms of the game, they are significantly less able to shoot and earn and command the respect of those they don't know/don't know them, as someone of a higher rank would be. Essentially, appointing a gangster/goomba/earner as LHM, a crucial and responsible poition, is a weak move in terms of the game as a game - it couldn't be considered normal, or even advisable at all.

ii) The RP Aspect This is the most obvious context in which finding a goomba LHM is abnormal. Efforts are made by all to keep the game 'in character', from stunning posts on the street to the mails you get when you are promoted. Appointing your recently wacked don friend, now a gangster, your LHM seriously violates the already fragile gloss of 'in-characterness' the game possesses and works hard to maintain.

I picked the example of LHM but there are others - one being the repeated debate over 'coffee-shop' preference - those who chat in RL inevitably rise in the ranks, and RL friends are disposed to club together in game, when they should be rivals/enemies (eg two CLs of the same city who should be competing).

There are a plethora of other such 'distortions' that the triadic relation between the three aspects causes - another example being the ability to pay in RL for bonuses in game (crackdowns). 

---

The million-dollar-question is, should we be worried about this and decide to change things, and moreover could we change it even if we wanted to?

The first half of the question is, probably, a matter of opinion, and I'd love to hear your views. The second half is a logistical one, which I'll make some comments about.

If not obvious by now, the main issue here underpinning the faulty triadic relation (which prevents the three from sharing a common sense of what's 'normal') is that when our characters die, we don't. It's really that simple. When Cato is wacked, Ill log back on with a new name: I still know as much about the game, I still know person xyz, ill probably go straight back to my old CL who I know and who knows me, etc etc. The tension arises, then, because according to aspects iq and ii, I should be treated like a young upstart newcomer - but I'm not. Or at least, real life i'm not. 

This makes it logistically very difficult to change, if we wanted to, the way things are - noone can stop me telling person xyz I'm back - the game can't be kept anonymous like that. And once someone knows their best bud is back as a thug, they couldn't treat them like one, try as they might. 

So a linear scale emerges, with pure, RP game at one end (left), and pure community with very little RP at the other (right). I'd say we tend toward the right. I also think this is probably inevitable. I also don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, which is lucky given that it might be impossible to change. What I do believe is that once everyone understands this, then all of the tension it produces will evaporate. Complaints like 'why is he a LHM and only a goomba', or 'why did he get made straight away and I had to earn it for ages', or 'you only rank quick because you pay for crackdowns', or 'why does a gangster get more respect than me from people when I'm a WG' are all symptomatic of the triadic tension.

So, if you haven't slit your wrists by now, you may have been prodded, cajoled, inspired or annoyed into wanting to reply. And that's the whole point - only a collection of everyones opinion and input can really solve this for good, and deem whether it's a tension we live with and learn to accept, or one we fight against and try to change.

Yours always,

Cato

Made Men, Capos, and Consiglieres wouldn't run an HQ. There isn't a "Boss" rank distinct from "Don", or even from "Godfather" (Godfather being a very powerful Don). "Thug", "Gangster, "Goomba", "Earner", and "Wise Guy" are not 'real' mafia terms.

There is a difference between the ranks (Civilian -> Godfather) and positions. The ranks are game criteria; a representation of your length of time playing and the effort invested. The positions are role-played (Godfathers, Bosses, Captains, Lieutenants, RHM, LHM, Made Men, Associates, and Unsponsered). Who is to say that we ought to use positions in tandem with ranks?

This is part of the reason why I dislike the idea of demotions. One's boss shouldn't be able to demote your rank -- this rank being a representation of you pure-game playing effort. They should only be allowed to demote you from your position, which is entirely role-played.

I think Awesome brings up an extremely valid point. Personally, from both an OOC and IC basis, I respect a slanty more than I would some 'random' Consigliere for example. The reason? Being given a position denotes real trust and ability (or it should do) whereas most often, a rank is merely a reflection of points.

For example, how many Consiglieres out of the dozens that there are actually act as a true advisor to their CL? Not many I'd say. How many Bosses actually run a family, or at least a subdivision inside the family? Again, I'd guess in the minority. Ditto with Capos who actually run crews  - the list goes on.

That is not a criticism of the CL's, it is just a fact that it is logistically impossible, or at least very very difficult, to give someone a position that is befitting of their coded rank; especially in times where the ladder is top heavy. Until such a time when the game is overhauled to the extent that would be needed to marry rank (a reflection of point gaining ability) with position (a reflection of experience and knowledge) then I personally will always respect someone more according to their position than their rank.

Obviously made and up deserve respect regardless; but I do find personally that I view someone in higher regard who has earnt the position of italics and what have you. Is it nepotistic? Probably, but the positions of Italics, bold and even roles like WS collector are usually earnt over the spread of a few accounts - so it's generally a better basis for judgement if you ask me.

That was probably very rambly and slightly nonsensical but nevermind.

Thanks for your replies so far.

I think I agree with the sentiment that it's impossible and unrealistic to expect game/points ranks to reflect positions - I said that from the outset. I also agree that I respect an italic, say, goomba, more than; 1. I would otherwise respect a goomba 2. I would respect someone a couple of ranks higher.

But what about when faced with a LHM goomba and, say, a non-bolded/italic made? Some may say that the LHM/RHM status trumps - but I'm not so sure. This is because there's a distinction to be made between respecting someone because they're a LHM, and therefore trustworthy, exeperienced etc, and them having that rank purely because they are the friend of a CL. What I'm saying is, the fact that someone has italics is another reason to respect them, but i'd say not an overpowering reason over and above their game points/rank. In other words, I think you need both to demand full respect: italics shows you are trusted by a senior player, your game rank shows that you're working hard.

Another point no-one's touched on yet: wars breaking out in mafia due to RL/coffee shop spats, or the dynamics of RL friendship. Should scores of players be sucked into wars over the non-game disputes of their leaders?

C

Please see here (http://mafiareturns.com/comm/thread/72023) for a 'street version' of one of the issues raised in this thread.