The rocket 1-2-3: fact, conclusion, call

A good speech in Mafia differs from a bad one not by volume and not by pretty phrases. It differs by structure. The most useful structure, which you can master in one evening, has three steps. It is called the "rocket 1-2-3".

Three steps

1. Fact. Something that can be checked: who said what, how he voted, whom he named, what he failed to explain. A fact gives the speech support.
2. Conclusion. What follows from this fact. A fact without a conclusion can be turned anywhere: the same words can be read as red or as black.
3. Call. What you ask people to do: whom to vote for, whom to nominate, whom to check. At the moment of choice players often get lost, so the action has to be said directly.

Why are all three needed? Without a fact you get "water": impressions that cannot be checked. Without a conclusion the listener decides for himself what the fact means, and may decide not as you need. Without a call your thought stays an opinion, and people do not vote for opinions.

An everyday example

Fact: the window in the room is open, and it is minus five outside. Conclusion: it is cold, we are losing heat. Call: please close the window. If you leave only the first step, nobody will understand what you want. If you leave only the third ("close the window"), you will be told there is no need, because it is stuffy.

An example at the table

Player number 5 speaks like this: "In round zero player 3 changed his opinion of player 7 twice. First he called him red, then, when 7 supported not his version, he started speaking of him as suspicious. That is what someone does who adjusts to strong voices, not someone who looks for the colour. I nominate the third and ask you to vote together with me."

Everything is here: the fact (changed his opinion twice), the conclusion (adjusts, so he may be black), the call (I nominate, vote). It is easy for the listener to decide: he has something to check and something to do.

How to use it as red and as black

The author of the method, Dmitry Novik, notes that the full rocket is especially useful for players who already have a definite line: the sheriff, the false sheriff, a red whom the table considers red, and a player who plays for extra points. An unchecked civilian in round zero needs it less often: soft positions and information matter more there, and a hard call looks hasty. A black needs the rocket when he nominates a red or pulls up someone else's version, and in that case the conclusion must rest on real facts from the game, not on an invention that is easy to refute.

Where the rocket is mandatory

The rocket is needed every time you gather hands for removing a player. The formula is simple: give arguments, name the player black (or red) confidently and call for action. The author labels the three components with the numbers 1, 2 and 3: fact (1), interpretation (2), call (3). Play for extra points is built so that with the link "fact plus interpretation" you take points from those who stayed silent: whoever spoke first got the host's "pluses". So do not leave the conclusion to the listener, make it yourself.

Where the rocket must not be used

There is an exception that is important to remember. When you nominate a black player "for a run-up", that is, in a round where you do not want him to leave (for example at nine, when your black is in danger), the rocket does not work in your favour. Simply call him black, voice suspicions, but do not call for action, or do it carefully. The structure of the speech will not give you away: people rarely notice the structure of other people's speeches.

The rocket in the guessing round: five blocks

In the last round the speech of a civilian and of the mafia differ little. The main task is not to attack but to prove your redness and take the choosing position. Do not turn against yourself the player you want removed. Here is the structure of a speech of five blocks:

1. Nominating a player. An unnominated mafia player means a win for the black team. An unnominated suspicious red reduces the mafia's chances.
2. Arguments for your redness (number 1 of the "rocket").
3. An interpretation favourable to you (number 2).
4. A call not to vote for you (number 3).
5. Voicing thoughts on which of the remaining players is rather red for you.

An example of a speech for taking the choosing position (player No. 7 sits choosing between No. 5 and No. 8):

"I nominate No. 5. First I will dispel possible doubts about my colour. In round zero I played only with reds, voted to raise a black player, and I would have won three on three in the two-six-nine version, so such a team does not exist. The sheriff left me red in the second version. So you must understand that I am a civilian and I choose between No. 5 and No. 8. I suggest we do not saw at the brain and do not nominate me. I consider No. 8 redder for now, since he saved red No. 1 from an attack, a player about whom there were questions. For a mafia player doing that is unprofitable. I will listen to your speeches and wait for the minute of player No. 5."

Why is this order the most successful? If you have taken the choosing position, the two other players vote against each other, and the votes are already bought. All that is left for the red is to place his hand correctly. For a black, this position gives the win: the civilians will quarrel among themselves. As facts, the black cites all the moves made "for a run-up" and everything that would be unprofitable for the mafia.

Why talk about whom you consider rather red? Civilians in the guessing round often do not know whom to play against and vote for the one who gathers hands for their removal. By attacking you certainly lose a potential vote on your side, so act more softly. The author stresses that these are general recommendations that need adapting to the table and the player.

Buying a vote: the language of the one you persuade

If you have definitely decided but are yourself under suspicion, the construction is the same, but the emphasis shifts to the opponent's black moves, and at the end comes a call to remove the one under attack. An important rule: you speak in the same language, with the same words and a similar timbre as the player whose vote you buy. Your speech is addressed precisely to him. (The author explains that in this case the unconscious of the player being bought perceives your words as part of his inner dialogue, and if the person is slightly "in a trance", the vote will be bought. This is the author's observation, not a scientific fact.)

An example of a guessing-round speech among No. 2, No. 5 and No. 7, you are No. 5:

"I nominate No. 7 for the vote. I will explain my colour. At nine I nominated the mafia and provoked the false sheriff into revealing himself. I did not remove red No. 3. Three red players left me as a civilian. Player No. 2, I consider you a civilian, I will not put my hand, because at nine you closed the table on the mafia, the sheriff's only black check, when we did not yet know who was who. No. 7 is mafia by the remainder: he played with a black player in round zero, started a vote between two civilians, did not remove his own at nine. So he is black. Put your hand for his removal, and the town wins."

All three steps are visible here: facts (moves), interpretation (he is black), call (put your hand).

A technique: do not nominate everyone in turn

When closing the speeches, do not nominate the one you consider a civilian and against whom you will definitely not put your hand. It is profitable for the mafia that everybody be nominated: this provokes a conflict among the reds, and if a civilian starts to "saw", his hand can be caught. If you have decided, you lose anyway to the one against whom you do not put your hand. So the move "I will not nominate the player, I consider him red" is more likely a civilian's move. The author estimates its reliability at about four games out of five (80 percent, his personal observation). By not nominating a player you make a choice between the two remaining, and it is a strong move for extra points, if of course the move is right.

Main thoughts

1. Take the choosing position.
2. Use the rocket.
3. Speak the language of the one whose vote you buy.

Exercise

Say aloud four variants on one situation:

1. only the fact;
2. fact and conclusion;
3. conclusion and call (without the fact);
4. the full rocket.

Record it on a voice recorder and listen to which variant you would believe the speaker in. Do the same with a red and a black reading of the same fact: you will see that the conclusion has to be picked to suit your role, while the fact must stay unchanged.

Typical mistakes

• Three facts without a conclusion. The listener gets lost in details.
• A conclusion that does not follow from the fact ("he said 'maybe', so he is black").
• A call without a reason. Then it sounds like pressure.
• Too many calls: "I nominate 3, 5, 7 and 9". Choose one.

Source of the idea. The "rocket" method is described in Dmitry Novik's book "50 Shades of Red" (2021), in the section on persuasion; the author relies on well-known schemes from the psychology of persuasion. The texts of the guessing-round examples follow the author's examples, the other examples and exercises were written for the Academy. The percentages belong to the author.