A practice game from start to finish
A review of one practice game: hidden roles, the zero night, the first speeches, voting, two nights and two possible developments. The roles and lines were made up for teaching.
Starting data: hidden information for the coach
Seats: no. 1 civilian, no. 2 mafia, no. 3 civilian, no. 4 sheriff, no. 5 civilian, no. 6 don, no. 7 civilian, no. 8 mafia, no. 9 civilian, no. 10 civilian. This layout must not be shown to the learners until the end of the review. The study model assumes, for simplicity, that after a night shot one player leaves when the black team's targets match; further tournament subtleties are left out of the scenario. All the votes below are model results, not an instruction for the referee.
The zero night: the agreement
The black team 2-6-8 get to know each other. The don, no. 6, shows the first order: 9 → 1 → 7. The partners confirm the order. The plan for the day: no. 2 plays a careful analyst, no. 8 argues with no. 2 on a secondary question, and no. 6 prepares an alternative sheriff version in case the real sheriff reveals themselves. Why this works: everyone knows the target and their own role. Why it may fail: no. 8 clashes with no. 2 too demonstratively, and no. 6 announces a false check too early. The coach asks: which actions of the team can really be proved by the end of the day?
Day 1: the first speeches
| Player | Content of the study speech | What to notice |
|---|---|---|
| No. 1 | First I want to hear arguments; I am not ready to name black players by emotion. | A moderate position with no specific candidate. |
| No. 2 | No. 3 speaks in general words; I want specifics from them about no. 5. | A black player creates a question that can be checked, without giving away a partner. |
| No. 3 | No. 2 asked a useful question, but did not say why no. 5 should answer. | A red player analyses the logic of the argument. |
| No. 4 | I am interested in no. 2 and no. 8: both talk about the positions of others but reveal little of their own. | The sheriff marks the field for a future check. |
| No. 5 | No. 4 gave two targets for testing the logic; no. 1 is too cautious for now. | Does not confuse caution with a black card. |
| No. 6 | No. 3 attacks no. 2 sharply without a plan of their own; I will nominate no. 3. | The don forms an alternative line. |
| No. 7 | No. 6 called no. 3 black, but did not explain which move contradicts them. | A red player asks for facts. |
| No. 8 | I do not like no. 2 for now, but no. 3 is too sure about them. | A black player creates distance from a partner. |
| No. 9 | I will compare no. 6 and no. 8: both shift emphasis depending on the previous speech. | Gives structure to the table. |
| No. 10 | I need an answer from no. 6: why is no. 3 more dangerous than no. 8? | Tests the logic of the priority. |
After the round: how a beginner should reason
- Write down the facts: no. 6 nominated no. 3; no. 4 suspected no. 2 and no. 8; no. 8 distanced themselves from no. 2.
- Separate the versions: "no. 8 and no. 2 may be on different teams" is only a hypothesis, not a fact.
- Choose two questions for the next round: what exactly does no. 6 count as black about no. 3? Why does no. 8 find no. 2 suspicious?
- Do not reveal the hidden cards: the coach judges the quality of the decision, not whether the beginner guessed the mafia.
Voting on day 1: a study fork
Suppose the candidates no. 3 and no. 8 are accepted. In the study model the votes split 6 against no. 3 and 4 against no. 8, and no. 3 leaves. This illustrates a majority and does not describe all official voting procedures. The civilians lost a player.
Review. No. 6 got a red player removed; no. 2 may have voted against no. 3, but that does not make them black automatically. No. 4 now must decide whether to check no. 6 (the initiator) or no. 8 (the alternative candidate).
Night 1: actions and risk
The mafia successfully chooses no. 9 under the agreement. The sheriff, no. 4, checks no. 6 and gets a black result. For teaching, stop the scenario here: ask what options the sheriff has: reveal at once, give a hidden signal in their speech, or wait for the next round? Each option carries a risk.
Day 2: two competing stories
No. 4: "I am the sheriff. I checked no. 6: black. Yesterday I paid attention to no. 2 and no. 8, but I checked no. 6 after their active push for no. 3. Today I nominate no. 6." No. 6: "I am the sheriff. I checked no. 3: red, but they have already been removed. No. 4 is using the death of no. 3 for a convenient reveal. I ask you first to compare our earlier positions." This is a deliberately disputed model of the false sheriff. The learner must ask both the same questions: why was this check chosen; when was the decision to reveal taken; how do the earlier votes fit with the check; who gains from the proposed vote. The answers are judged by consistency, not by how confident the speech sounds.
Branching: two alternatives
Branch A: the table believes no. 4 and removes no. 6. Then the mafia loses its don, but no. 2 and no. 8 remain; for the next night the consistency of the static order matters. Branch B: the table removes no. 4. Then the red team loses the sheriff and their exact information. Both branches are reviewed separately; this is an exercise in cause and effect.
Final round: reconstructing the logic
For each branch the coach builds a final trio with one black and two red players, for example no. 2, no. 5 and no. 7. Give the learners only the history of votes and speeches. Each one must, in 60 seconds: name their choice; give two observable facts; explain the alternative; say what could change the decision. A sample: "I vote for no. 2 not because I find them unpleasant. In the first round they accused no. 3 of having no arguments, but then supported their removal without explaining why no. 8 was no longer suspicious. No. 5, on the other hand, kept the same position twice, one that can be checked."