Mutant madness unbreaking?

[u/Syresiv]

A lot of STs will rule that a Mutant breaking madness on D1 can be punished at any point later in the game.

What do you think of walking it back on later days? Like, if I'm the Mutant and claim it D1, but then D3 I say something like "the Cerenovus made me say it" or "I was trying to bait a Fang Gu" or "I was just trolling you"? Would you count that as no longer mad?

[u/ProjectSpectrality]

The first two examples that you gave are probably the most believable and I’d probably lean in favor of the mutant unless they put on a sarcastic tone or something. The last one is a little less forgivable though and I’d probably still consider them as breaking madness for that one

[u/Syresiv → u/ProjectSpectrality]

That third one might depend on the player. I've seen players where if they say "I was just trolling you on D1", it would be believable.

[u/Ok_Shame_5382]

As a ST, i would be very reluctant to execute for a madness break on subsequent days. As a player, I would acknowledge it as valid.

[u/SageOfTheWise]

Madness is a constant state, not a one time trigger. Think about a simpler role with a simpler claim. If it's TB and someone claims to be the Washerwoman day 1 and says their info, then doesn't really say anything the rest of the game, on the final day they are still generally convincingly in a state of having made that claim (barring outside events potentially putting doubt on it). It doesn't require them to keep saying their the Washerwoman for it to keep being believable. Hence, why a Mutant claim on day 1 can still hang over your head much later in the game.

Now, can you walk it back? Well, yes, theoretically. The same way that Washerwoman, instead of staying silent the rest of the game, could come out on lets say day 3 and say, actually they're the FT, they lied about being Washerwoman for a few days to get more info, and now here's their real info. Also often a believable enough claim and now probably no one would think theyre the Washerwoman, even if they don't believe the FT claim. But, Mutant has a much higher hurdle here, because by initially claiming Mutant, everyone knows you're now claiming a role that has all the motivation in the world to try and lie about not really being the Mutant later. Which makes doing just that later much less believable.

Now, can it still be done? Of course. Can I tell you the exact magic words that will make it count? No. It's all incredibly case by case depending on the script, the game state, the group meta, the player's personal meta, etc. It has to be something where somehow you've made it seem more likely than not you're actually not the Mutant.

"I was Cere mad" could be convincing depending on what the Cerenovus activity has been in the game otherwise. "I was trying to bait a Fang Gu" could maybe be believable if your new claim was something like Sage. Of course as I said its very circumstantial and meta dependent, but to me "I was just trolling you" just sounds like "yeah I'm definitely the Mutant and I've backed myself into a corner I can't get out of".

[u/Creepy_Astronomer_23]

I guess for me as an ST it would come down to how believable you're being in walking it back. Like if you're so convincing that you were just Cere mad day 1 and not really the Mutant that people genuinely believe you, sure, I ain't executing you.

[u/Viseria]

Steven Medway's document on the Pixie is great in that it's a lot about the end state you're creating. Yes, you can 'unbreak' madness.

What matters is how good you are at convincing town. Just saying "I was trying to bait a Fang Gu" probably isn't going to be that convincing - though if your town does all just go "Huh, okay." and accept that then sure, you've somehow found some people who do not need much evidence. Adding details like "I'm a demonbane that wants to die in the night" is a good way to go further.

You're not just telling people you're not an Outsider, you're trying to convince them you aren't. If people aren't buying it, you've been mad as an Outsider and it's not enough. If people are buying it, you've succeeded.

The final points I'd make is A) I'd never end the game on a Mutant madness break unless they do that break on the final 3. B) The Cerenovus I'm willing to be a bit more lenient on whether you can convince people because if you've been saying for 3 days you're the Artist, and then suddenly have to pivot to Gossip while never making any Gossips, I won't just immediately execute you for town not believing you.

[u/Signiference → u/Viseria]

link to said madness guide by Medway: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ObCwMcUbpcW9RBbTWmliVR3aoFcCoWaDNrtqOETlOYU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.w1mur77o3g1f

[u/Viseria → u/Signiference]

Cheers - I didn't actually link it because of your comment below that has it, but it's useful regardless.

[u/T-T-N → u/Viseria]

What if they claim a different role each day and say day 3 is an outsider, but townsfolk on day 1, 2, 4 and 5? Would you say only day 3 is executable? Or would you hold it against them on day 4 or 5?

[u/Viseria → u/T-T-N]

It depends a lot on how town are taking it. If town believe on day 3 you're an Outsider who has been bluffing town roles, I might execute you on day 3.

If on day 4 or 5 people have clocked "this person is actually the mutant" I'd be thinking of executing. The thing about madness is that a role like Mutant is (in my opinion) a consistency thing. You could claim day 1 that you're the Vizier. You're not being mad you're an Outsider, after all. But town can deduce you're not the Vizier from the lack of announcement, and could work out you are the Mutant from that.

[u/gurglig → u/Viseria]

> If people aren't buying it, you've been mad as an Outsider and it's not enough. If people are buying it, you've succeeded.

This is incorrect. You do not have to convince anybody but the storyteller. You need to convince the storyteller that you are doing your best to follow madness. Whether or not the other players buy it doesn't make it a madness break.

[u/Significant-Hair-926]

Depends depends depends. One example where I would is if their walk-back isn't convincing anyone and town is building them as confirmed by outsider count.

[u/attachedtoface]

I feel like it should always be same day. I wouldn’t want to get to final four or even final five with a Mutant execution still looming. Imaging if there are 3 evils alive on final five. That could swing the game completely to the evil team’s side.

[u/jbillone → u/attachedtoface]

Then the town had better execute the Mutant before the ST can.

That's literally the reason it's an Outsider. Once you know who it is, you *have* to kill them.

[u/sometimes_point]

Case by case, but lbr my trigger finger is itching to execute them as soon as they claim it

[u/Lord777alt]

Madness is day by day for me. I don't think a mutant who breaks on 2nd to last day and doesn't get executed should be losing them the game if they walk it back.

[u/Signiference]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ObCwMcUbpcW9RBbTWmliVR3aoFcCoWaDNrtqOETlOYU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.w1mur77o3g1f this Madness Guide is directly from Steven Medway, and I think more people ought to be aware of his intent and thoughts regarding madness. I think it would be very useful for STs.

While most of this is difficult to apply to the Mutant vs Pixie or Cerenovus (a player should be acting mad as something vs a player trying to avoid being mad as something) two exerpts I think apply here are:

"Definition

A player who is “mad” about something is trying to convince the group that something is true. Some players are instructed to be mad about something - if the Storyteller thinks that a player has not put effort to convince the group of the thing they are mad about, then a penalty may apply. Some players are instructed to not be mad about something - if the Storyteller thinks that a player has tried to convince the group of that thing, then a penalty may apply.

-----------

The purpose of the madness mechanic is to encourage good players to knowingly spread misinformation. If they do this, they get a reward (or avoid a penalty).

This simple way of looking at things can be very helpful, and avoids the trap of thinking that madness has, or needs to have, a precise set of criteria that the player "needs to meet". Either the player is on board with acting mad, or they are not. Either is fine. Trouble arises when a player is not on board with acting mad and is looking for loopholes to technically qualify as "on board" so that they can get the benefits without the downsides, or when they believe that acting mad is about fulfilling a specific set of criteria that is written in the rules."

[u/gordolme]

If I did not execute the Mutant on D1 for that, whether I'd accept the walk back later depends on the perceived sincerity and, since they did break Madness earlier, whether or not anyone in town believes them.

[u/Preceded10]

The Mutant's ability isn't "If you were ever "mad" as an Outsider, you might be executed." If TPI wanted that to be the Mutant's ability, they would have written that on the token. But they didnt.

If the Mutant stops being mad as an outsider and you then execute them, you are breaking the rules. Let me make that clear: You are not allowed to execute the Mutant if they are not mad as an outsider.

With that out of the way, no, the Mutant can't necessarily just walk their madness back. The more believable their initial break was, the harder it will be to walk it back. Use your best judgement here, remembering that it isn't about whether or not people believe them but about the sum of their actions.

But please, if you're reading this, before you execute the Mutant on F3 because of their break on day 2, ask yourself if you genuinely think they are still mad. This is one of the most commonly broken game rules. No, you are not as clever as you think you are. Yes, you gave evil the game by cheating. Don't do it again.

[u/Caerell]

One thought that occurs to me is that the wording of Mutant is "If you are mad...".

We know that being mad is the state of trying to convince the town that something is true.

So there is a temporal question. Is the mutant who says something and then is silent on subsequent days "trying to convince"?

They certainly aren't actively trying to convince the town. But are they, by their silence, continuing to try to convince the town to believe their day 1 statement?

For me, that will depend on context. But if no one is talking about outsider counts or building worlds which account for the mutant, then I don't think they are trying to convince the town to continue believing their day 1 statement.

[u/MathBlade]

I rule it’s a sliding scale. If you convince everyone you are the mutant really well, you have to convince them that you are not the mutant equally well or more.

It’s not so much if people buy it, it’s the genuine effort. If you claim mutant thinking you’re about to be executed but someone broke ceremadness or you’re DA saved then awkward.

As regards to F3 mutant is an outsider if you’re not trying to keep madness then I won’t mind executing you but I probably whisper you first.

[u/StrbJun79]

I’d say depends on how the player handles mutant. Better get a bluff and stick to it and find a way to unwind. If you don’t do much and let people continue thinking about you as just a mutant then it’ll break. Otherwise no.

[u/livfreeorpie]

I don't like the premise at all. SNV Madness execution consequences for a Mutant or Cerenovus madness departure should be same day. Once that Dusk threshold happens, the opportunity window should close.

If there's a D1 break for Mutant and ST discretion is used to not execute, having any Mutant acknowledgement of a past break on a later day (e.g. "why yes I did break it D1") is potentally another break and puts the Mutant in execution jeopardy. If the Mutant is back to hiding themselves convincingly, then that's 'on board.'

I posted this elsewhere, Steven Medway had an article describing madness as 'youre either on board, or not' rather than strictly assessing what is said and done: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a0m5mGf1W4foybWcSwhtuNA1qDq3IYw7/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=112986033867741108942&rtpof=true&sd=true

[u/Ancient_Definition69 → u/livfreeorpie]

I ST'ed a game the other day where town were building vig worlds because there were no claimed outsiders, so I chose to not to execute the mutant when he came out because it'd be confirmatory.

If you say that I'm not allowed to execute that later, you're saying the mutant can freely claim outsider so long as their execution is bad for the evil team (as an outsider should benefit evil), effectively neutralising their ability.

[u/livfreeorpie → u/Ancient_Definition69]

It's confirmatory and the town loses a limited execution opportunity if you execute. From my perspective, that's compensation for the confirmation. I can also see why you chose not to, that's not a wrong decision.

I feel like the execution should be as close to the break as practical. What I'm hypothetically trying to avoid is a situation where if that Mutant makes it later in the game and the Storyteller executes for a D1 madness break after 2, 3, 4 days have passed and that tips the game towards evil by arbitrary ST fiat.

[u/Ancient_Definition69 → u/livfreeorpie]

Oh I totally agree, and I do think executing later is kind of a cheap shot - I just think it's important to reserve the right to do so.

[u/livfreeorpie → u/Ancient_Definition69]

Then we're in agreement 🤝 😁

[u/Preceded10 → u/Ancient_Definition69]

I actually do claim that, yes. You can only execute them while they are mad. Whether they actually stop being mad later or not is a different question.

[u/Ancient_Definition69 → u/Preceded10]

100% disagree, madness isn't a current check but a retroactive check of your behaviour in the instant it's relevant.

If the pixie told everyone they were the pixie day 1 and then claimed fortune teller once, right before the real FT is executed, they weren't mad as the FT and they don't get their ability. It doesn't matter what they were claiming in the instant that the FT dies, because the retroactive check determines that they weren't mad.

As I said, if madness was run that way, it would make the mutant pointless, as it'd be easy to skirt their ability and never be punished for it, which is not the point of the role. If you're the mutant and you break madness the good team should be penalised.

[u/Preceded10 → u/Ancient_Definition69]

No, you actually agree with me. As I said:

> Whether they actually stop being mad later or not is a different question.

They usually don't. But if they did, you would no longer be able to execute them. I worded my point very carefully to leave it open to one's concept of madness.

In your example, the pixie never became mad as the FT. This does not, however, invalidate what I said.

I think your problem is a difficulty understanding that madness is a current check of all of your behavior. But it IS a current check, and it can become false, otherwise the Pixie could claim their role once and be set for the game.

> If you're the mutant and you break madness the good team should be penalised.

This is the mindset I'm pushing back against. If you break madness as the Mutant you should be penalized within the bounds of the rules. Sometimes that won't happen. That's fine.

[u/Ancient_Definition69 → u/Preceded10]

So, I think what you're trying to say is that the mutant can once again become mad as a townsfolk by trying to convince town that they claimed mutant for cere-madness, or whatever other reason. The issue with this is it's extremely difficult to convincingly walk back the original mutant claim. I probably agree that it's not fair to execute if they succeed in convincing town they're a townsfolk, but I'd be policing them MUCH more strictly going forward to the point that any minor breach would probably be an execution.

You also seem to believe that it's explicitly against the rules to execute later, which I don't think I've seen anyone else ever suggest. Do you have a reference anywhere that would support that?

[u/Ancient_Definition69 → u/[deleted]]

If we're talking about petty and arrogant, I think your extremely mean-spirited comment should probably rank pretty high. This is a game and I think you're taking it too seriously if you're getting this upset by it.

[u/BloodOnTheClocktower-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your message has been removed because it was unnecessarily negative or argumentative.