I would remind everyone to be extremely careful what they say on this thread while they are currently playing in a game. It is very easy to say things which may (rightly or wrongly) be picked up by others as hints.

Not that I think that this has happened yet. Just putting down a marker.

Speaking of threads, I'm kind of in favor of somebody "official" starting a new thread with the first post listing all the currently applicable rules and updating that post when the rules are changed. That would make it simple to find what rules we are operating under. That could become the official rules thread. I think discussion in such a thread should probably be restricted to proposed rules changes and not idle banter regarding the game.

This thread at the moment has both (as well as a concluded game)...

So, Eomer, you aren't going to post the new score, just say 8 to 3 with a question mark?

If you don't give the real score, you could have a situation where the villagers think they have two chances to lynch when they really only have one. Not to mention it is just nice to know whether or not there is another wolf around so you can keep your eye out for it.

Not posting the score seems to favor the wolves, and the wolves have already won two games and seem well on their way towards winning the current game. It's the village that needs help. Unless there is a great reason not to, post the real score. If there's another wolf, the narrator could simply say something like- One villager pointed out werewolf tracks down by the river, but this time, instead of finding three sets of tracks, the villagers found four! The situation had suddenly become more perilous.

But you see phantom, you should have argued that point when we were debating the merits of the choices with Saucepan Man a few days ago. It is a good observation on your part.

I had thought of a much creepier way for a fourth wolf to be introduced...

However, I am taking a rather cruel pleasure in watching the struggle and misery of the villagers. I'm afraid you'll just have to deal with the pain. :p

And the mystery will now last until the end of this game.

Well, that does it! You don't get to mod any more games, young man! :p

The game needs a strict level of difficulty for the villagers; that's the whole fun of it, no?

I agree whole-heartedly with Eomer.

Watching villagers squirm and wolves "herd" is a wonderful experience. :D

I think that we are going to have to place a prohibition on active players posting on this forum, except on purely administrative matters. There is just too much risk that any comments made will influence the game in progress (whether intentionally or not).

Regarding villagers' "double-lynching" concerns
 

From the rules:

I see your point and agree. I will adhere to a voluntary prohibition starting after this post of course.

I have been following these games with almost childlike glee.
I have a query on gameplay - if a cursed villager has become a werewolf, and is then lynched by the others, is it exactly the same, in terms of result, as if they had lynched a villager who was originally a werewolf at start of play?

Yes Lalaith.

Sono, I believe that rule was superseded in Saucepan Man's rules.

Thanks. So if a cursed villager is lynched, would the post-mortem announce exactly what he was, ie cursed and transformed?

Not everything is revealed during the game; some things are revealed only afterwards.

Thank you Eomer. Those of us who are just following the game are also speculating as to the outcome!

It seems I have caused confusion in my previous posts, and for this I apologise. What seems so clear in my head obviously does not necessarily translate into my posts, so I must clear this up.


If the Cursed Villager has become a werewolf, and is then lynched by the villagers, then the villagers will know that they have killed a werewolf. All I was trying to point out was that the villagers will not know whether that werewolf was an original or Cursed.


For example: if Eomer of the Rohirrim is a cursed villager turned werewolf and is lynched, then the villagers will know that they have killed a werewolf.

However: they will not know that he was Cursed.

They would have to kill the others or wait until the end of the game to find out who the Cursed villager was. It's only this really minor aspect of the game I was focusing on.

Nothing to worry about! ;)


In no way am I suggesting that the lynchings are confusing.


For example: if the innocent Feanor of the Peredhil is lynched (which doesn't seem so far-fetched), she is found to be innocent as soon as she is dead. So don't worry: anyone killed after a lynching stays dead; there are no ghosts floating about the village!


I hope that clears up any worries.

Thanks for that further elucidation. That makes for a very interesting game, that the villagers never know if they are dealing with 3 or 4 werewolves until the very end.

I like the idea of the villagers being completely in the dark on the number of werewolves. They need rousing every so often, what with the growing idea that simplicity should be foremost in thinking during the games. "Hey, Eomer of the Rohirrim just confused me... let's lynch him! But first... we'll get out the largest scales and see if he floats in the same water as lead and very small rocks." :p

Note to self: If you are an innocent Villager, don't shoot yourself in the foot on Day 1 by agitating for the lynching of the person who turns out to be the Seer ...

What a stressful game! But immensely enjoyable.

Good luck fellow innocents. You'll need it!

:D

Help! I wanna follow along and have only started reading now, and can't find the current actual game. Can someone help me?

It's been so frustrating watching! I was desperate to defend the Phantom and SpM...and I fear the village is going to fall now on another fellow I think innocent...

Here's the link, lmp: Werewolf 3.

You can say that again. And again, and again... :rolleyes:

I realise that I'll have to await the beginning of the next game, but this looks like a lot of fun! Full of suspense and the unknown! Just what we corpses need on our lowly days on the Barrows!

When is the next game beginning? During that time, I'll probably look at the other games in order to get to grips with it. Looking forwards to it!


P.s. Tol-in-Gaurhoth would probably make for a good Film, don't you think?

Well I knowwho I would be gunning for at the moment...... :D

Yipes
 

I am so, so sorry. I could not get online yesterDAY, except for the very beginning, and even then, I didn't have enough time to vote. I had just gotten home from school and had to head off quickly after that for more classes. So my dad started yelling at me for being online. I know I haven't said much, and yesterDAY not at all... but it really isn't in my control. I realise how guilty my "Real Life" is making me look!

Is it just me or are the villagers losing again? Come on guys!

Don't cheer for them. Don't you want to be a part of the first village to win? The more the wolves keep winning, the greater the victory will seem when the villagers finally win. ;)

It is my experience that the villagers usually win. The good guys should always win.

If nobody has any major objections, could I jump in now and claim the role of Moderator next game?

Gah!
 

I will be unable to post until Sunday Morning, EST. :(

Hmm. It doesn't seem to be going that way on the Barrow-Downs. :(

Clearly, in all three games so far (and whatever may come to pass in the current one), those playing the Werewolves have played extremely well, which accounts for a large part of their success.

But I do wonder whether the odds are stacked a little too much against the Villagers. While they have the advantage of numbers, the Villagers' accusations during the first day or so are almost entirely random. While it is possible to pick up on the things that are said or the way that they are said to identify a Werewolf, such things might also lead an innocent Villager to accuse the Seer or Guardian as being a Werewolf (believe me, I know :rolleyes: ). The Werewolves, on the other hand, know who is innocent and can thus "guide" the accusations, while using what is said to try and identify the special Villagers themselves.

So, unless they strike lucky and hang a Werewolf on the first or second day, it is only on the third day that the Villagers can begin get any real idea as to who might be guilty. But, if two innocent Villagers have already been hung (particuarly one of the special Villagers), then those innocent Villagers who were instrumental in that are hampered in their ability to hunt out the Werewolves, being under continuous accusation themselves (again, I know this only too well :( ).

So, for the next game, I would propose two rule changes, either or both of which I hope will find favour.

First, while I like the idea of the moderator being killed on the first night, I do think that the Seer should be allowed to dream on the first night. This will make the deliberations on the first day, and possibly its outcome, slightly less random.

Secondly, I think that the Werewolves should be prohibited from talking behind the scenes (by PM) during the day. They can plan a strategy for the day during their night-time discussions but to give them the opportunity to coordinate what they do during the day as the day unfolds does, I think, give them rather too much power.

Finally, can I ask that the rule against discussing previous games be strictly enforced. And that should apply to comments on what might or might not be a good Werewolf strategy backed up by the fact that the speaker has previously been a Werewolf. By all means, ex-Werewolves can base their comments on having previously been a Werewolf, but they should not be allowed to refer to their previous role as a means of strengthening the force of what they are saying.

Just a few thoughts ...

I thought Werewolves could only PM at NIGHT anyway?

And I agree about the Seer dream on the first night. Will make it better.

phantom, I agree entirely. The celebration will be huge! Remember that the odds are stacked against the villagers, but the werewolves can sometimes say more than they mean to. In every game there have been tiny clues scattered hither and thither from start to end.

Although remember that first game, when two wolves went down very early, and Kuru still managed to go the distance? Remarkable.

Villager Odds
 

After becoming hooked to the Werewolf Game on the BD, I looked around and did some research on other sites discussing gameplay. Apparently, there are usually only two wolves until there are something like seventeen players.
Perhaps instead of allowing the Seer to dream on the first NIGHT (when s/he doesn't even know there are werewolves about, might I add ;)) we could tweak the werewolf:villager ratio a little. I'm pretty sure the next game will have record numbers of players, so I propose we keep only three wolves and make it a little easier on the villagers.

In any case, I believe the entire point of the first DAY is meant to be random finger-pointing :p.

I don't see why the seer couldn't dream the first night. I would think the magic would come from impending danger not from an internal desire to dream of werewolves.

Only two wolves? Not sure how that would feel now that we've been up against three. They would be harder to spot probably (their advantage) but would have potentially less influence (village advantage). I would be in favor of keeping three as our standard myself.

I'd agree with keeping at least three wolves. However, if we're adding more players, I'd advise against adding more werewolves. That way, we could keep three werewolves, but lessen their influence and also tweak the odds slightly more in favour of the villagers as it is elsewhere.

I agree.

And I still think we should add masons to the mix. That could balance the power.

Also, when I play "mafia" (same thing as werewolf) my friends and I have a non-participation rule that I really like. If someone goes through a day period without making an accusation, defending someone, or putting forth a theory, that person is automatically killed at the end of the round (after the lynching).

The moderator simply says "You didn't say enough- you're dead".

Now, this would be more difficult to do online, since voting can sometimes move very quickly, but on days that don't see much voting until the final hour, I don't see why we couldn't do this.

I would say we give them one day in which they didn't vote, accuse or overall contribute. But if there are multiple offenses then I think they should be put to the front of everybody's suspect list and probably be lynched by all left in the village.

You have to remember that people have lives outside the BD too. Circumstances could prevent people from getting to a computer.

That's why I said it would be more difficult to do in an online game.

But you know, when the day period lasts a full 24 hours, that's easily long enough to institute a non-participation rule. But since we are online, I suppose it might be okay to take Morm's suggestion and give them one free pass.

But if they have two days in a single game where they do not make a reasonable contribution, I think it would be fine to kill them. Someone shouldn't enter themselves in a game if they're going to be on a trip or doing something that they think will keep them from playing. If you overcommit yourself, that's your own fault- you're going to get killed. That's just tough luck.

And before someone asks "What about in extreme circumstances?", I will answer and say that if someone has a heart attack, gets lost at sea, or loses a family member, I seriously doubt they'll care if they get penalized for non-participation in an internet game.