I agree with Kuru. In a game where deductions are made based on what people say, how they react, etc., etc., the participants need to be available for the majority of the time. If you aren't there, people are either voting for you because you aren't there or aren't voting for you because there is no evidence. That's not how it's supposed to work.

I don't think people should be allowed to miss more than a day, maybe two.

I like the fact that the werewolves can't communicate during the day, at least at this point. If it starts to get to a point when the werewolves just aren't winning any more, maybe that option will need to be re-enabled. But for now, I think it works well. If the werewolves can talk during the day, it gives them an excellent opportunity to shift their strategy and the game to their advantage (speaking from experience).

I will refrain from making the obvious reply to that.

That is another thing I was thinking about mentioning. I realize there is a desire to hurry things along, but considering all the bother that people (including the moderators) have been having with times, shouldn't there just be one consistent schedule of when the DAYS and NIGHTS will begin and get rid of this shuffling the times along.

As a matter of fact, Esgal's and Hookbill's PMing behavior on the first NIGHT boded ill for our tenure as werewolves. We hamstrung ourselves in having almost no communication. I waited eleven hours for the first response to my initial pm. Frustrating.

I really have no problem with not being able to PM during the day, as that makes the game challenging. But if someone cannot be involved on a daily basis, and knows it, and is selected to be a wolf, that person should remove voluntarily from that game.

I know. But I assumed that would be the only DAY that I would miss, and so figured that why miss out on a game when, with the exception of one day, I'll be there the whole time. If I had realized I would be so hit-or-miss for those three days of playing, I'd have definately thought twice about joining up for this round.

I don't have a problem with Werewolves and Shirrifs PMing DAY and NIGHT whenever they want.

As for participation, I do agree that you should be prepared to be on the internet a fair bit. Maybe I'm just being hard-to-please because internet access is so easy for me but dammit! I like a bit of discussion! And this will be essential in a game with only 12 players.

Is it at all likely that we might have 24 interested players this time, thus allowing us to play two parallel games?

Well having received clearance and made a few decisions I will shortly set up a Recruitment / Noticeboard thread for the next game..... please wait and read and sign up there if you are prepared to commit ........ :D

I'm not sure wether I like the idea of two villages being attacked at the same time. Of course it will allow more players to participate but I'm afraid that it'll lessen the enthusiasm and eagerness to play in the future. If everyone gets to play right away as many times as they want, the game might lose it's excitement.

Now that there has been only one village every participant has (naturally) been really closely involved in the game but also those who have not been playing at the time have closely followed the life of the village. I wonder if two villages can create such a nice atmosphere of community as these previous games have created. Or maybe I just ought to stop whining. A village or two, I'd like to play again anyway. ;)

I also think it should be kept to one village at a time. I also think the 24 hours ought to be locked in to a consistent, predictable set that works for most time zones from which players and mod are active.

I'd like to recommend that some mod (maybe Mithalwen) receive PMs from players in which the players say what they're interested in doing, and then let the mod shuffle to fit the most desires. That way those who don't feel up to giftedness or werewolvishness can start at their level of comfort. I was definitely outside mine! I won't be in the next game. We'll see about future ones.

But that could deaden variety and make the game predictable. Part of the fun of playing the game is playing outside your usual box. The other part of the fun is to try to deduce who are the werewolves. Without random selection the choices become painfully predictable.

Not so. I'm sure that more than three gamers would say they're interested in being werewolves, more than two shirriffs, more than one ranger, hunter, and seer. And by doing it all via PM, only the moderator and the person assigned the role would know what s/he is (and partners in cases of ww and sf).

But that still takes too much from trying to guess from the normal personalities of people. If this is done then we are going to have all sorts of problems with the same people getting hung on the first couple of DAYS over and over again, and Eru knows we have enough problems with people being suspected from prior games already.

:eek: *GASP* Dirty little secret that nobody is supposed to admit to has just been exposed... ;)

Believe me, random selection is the way.

Lmp, you're doing yourself down - honestly, you were a werewolf natural. :smokin:
For various reasons (size of game, Esgal's disappearance) you had a really tough job and you did it well. I know what you mean, I'd *hate* to be a wolf, I'm really bad at lying, but I think Kuruharan is right, I mean, if roles were elective, we'd just be suspecting phantom every time, right?

Well thanks, Lal. :)

Sometimes you have to get outside your comfort zone to really experience life and learn new things, right? Even if it is incredibly draining :eek:

Sorry, can't help it. I guess it comes naturally. :p

I definitely think that the roles should be random, for the same reasons as Kuru stated. Besides, I doubt many people would ask to play an ordinary villager (I sure wouldn't ;) ).

And I would say that one village at a time is preferable.

And this is a completely random thought that occurred to me earlier today. By taking the initials of Werewolf (WW) and adding a Roman Numeral, you get the same thing as the abbreviation for World War (insert apropriate number). :eek:

What you say about the comfort zone is interesting, lmp. The exciting thing about werewolf is that unless you are a rather unusual personality type, the whole thing is outside the comfort zone. Even if you are just an ordinary villager. I don't tend, in RL, to go around not trusting anyone around me and doubting everything they say, and to have others do the same to me. I found it surprisingly stressful, psychologically, to put myself in that mindset. But I'm sure it was good for me, really.... :)

Is anyone else not too fond of the multiple lynchings?

In The Barrow-wight's original game he didn't have them. In Werewolf IV the villagers won the game by utilising the rule to their advantage: they killed three villagers in one go, confident that the wolf would be among those three.

Does anyone else think that this makes the game less fun? That only one person should die in any one day?

If there was some mathematical probability of catching all three wolves on the first day by killing all but one of the villagers, would you do it? That would be a horrible way to play the game.

Eomer I would agree with you on this one. I can see that it's a strategy that works but somewhat ruins the enjoyement of the game. If anyone were to try and step in and break the tie they would be branded a wolf, whether they are one or no.

As a mod (an endeavor that will/won't be officially okayed in about a week), I would strongly discourage multiple lynchings (with the exception of the non-participation rule, and with extremely boring deaths all around for multiples that die). Numerical logic takes away much of the fun of hovering around for hours wondering if your intuition failed you miserably. Another change is that there will be set hours for DAY and NIGHT (because I don't know about you, but the mod needs to know when she has to be in front of a computer). Other than that, we'd play by the same rules as TGWBS.

Fea, word of advice. People often leave voting extremely late, so if you have set times, you'll need to incorporate writing-time into this. For long deaths, writing could even take half an hour. So make sure you fit that in.

Thanks TGWBS. Though I haven't got anything set in stone yet, I do need to have the times between 8:30 AM EST and 9:30 PM. I was thinking of 24 hour days and 12 hour nights, but if that doesn't work for the majority, it can be tweaked. It would go something like DAY 1 starting at 8:30 AM and ending at 8:30 AM the next RL day, with NIGHT ending at 8:30 PM that night. And I can have death outlines written in advance, to be filled in when the time comes. Say Feanor of the Peredhil was playing, and she's chosen the role of the village quilter. I may decide to silence her permanently by way of sufficating her with a large amount of cotten (to soften the screams from her otherwise loud mouth), stitching her mouth shut, and leaving her otherwise unharmed body hung, much like a tapestry, upon a wall. The only things to fill in would be how she died, when she died, and what her Role was. That sort of thing.

It's good to know I'm not alone. O, and Fea if......I mean..... when you get to moderate Werewolf VI, don't forget your favourite Scot. ;) I hope Saucepan Man can play in that game too. I'd like to battle words with that one!

(Man, how pathetic is that? Stealing a place in VI when V hasn't even started!) :D

I'm very intrigued by Mithalwen's game; she has taken the bold step of really shaking things up a bit. Credit to her, I say. Although, I also hold that a game played by the original rules would still thrill me. I guess I'm easily amused.

The multiple lynching strategy will only be viable when there is at least one proven innocent. But this is quite likely to be the case in any game where the Seer survives into the second day at least and is able to make the import of his or her dreams apparent.

Accordingly, although it was my idea, I agree that it will be better to revert to one lynching per day. I suppose that the best way to do this, where one or more villagers are tied, is for the moderator to randomly select one of the tied villagers to be lynched.

It's a shame, though, as I rather liked the element of one or two villagers hanging around towards the end of the day to either break or force a tie. It could be quite revealing.

Ah, random selection. That's where you go on AIM, pick somebody who has no idea what you're talking about, and say "Dude, A, or B?" and so somebody dies. Or of course there are coins to flip, straws to pull, and eenies to meeny.

Quite frankly, I like the idea also. Which is why I've taken part in a scheme where we forced a tie. But I would hate to see the Seer dream of one innocent, and have everyone circle-vote so that everyone dies, and have the village win by default.

I haven't checked yet, so I may be all wet, but if Mithalwen is going with (1) only 12 villagerse, (2) 5 gifted innocents, and (3) multiple lynchings, I'll be interested to see how long the werewolves last. They won't win. You see, that means there's 9 innocents villagers, 5 gifted and 4 ungifted; gifted outnumber ungifted. That's already advantage to the villagers. Throw in multiple lynchings and it's just a matter of time before the werewolves are found out. Check out the odds for yourselves.

lmp, Mith isn't having multiple lynchings.

Anywho, I think in smaller games multiple lynchings don't work, but they could work in larger games. I'd dislike phantom-style number manipulation though. ;)

LMP - there are only four Gifteds. Seer, Hunter and Guardian are indelibly good, but the Mythomaniac could end up as good or evil. Which = Cool.

time for a phantom rant
 

It can't work like that. It's not that simple.

For one thing, the person the seer declared innocent is not a proven innocent until the seer dies, so no one (including me) would be willing to fully trust that someone is innocent until the seer dies.

For another thing, it only takes one wolf to step out of line and keep the multiple lynching from occuring, therefore the other wolves would remain hidden and the game would continue.

The circular voting technique should only catch one wolf per day if the wolves play correctly. Therefore, if there are not enough proven innocents to last for three days worth of voting, the circular voting technique is not an end all strategy.
So it appears that everyone wants to make brains as small a factor as possible. :rolleyes:

Do we really want to do that- to make the games more... stupid? But then, I suppose many people equate stupid with fun, so I guess I can understand the reasoning, though I find it revolting.

Also, adding a rule that keeps the villagers from utilizing their superior numbers as well as the dreams of the seer is a really bad idea. Population advantage and seer dreams are by far and away the largest assets a village has, and so ruling out a strategy based upon these advantages is sort of like adding an extra werewolf to the game.

Is everyone wanting to help the wolves or something? Why? Because the villagers finally won a game? Are we wanting to return to the days of endless werewolf domination?

Or does everyone just hate strategy, and would prefer to run around like a headless chicken and make random accusations and lynch people because you, for some unknown reason, think they are guilty? And at the end do you want to shake the werewolves' hands and congratulate them on winning for the tenth straight time? And then you will tell everyone "Well, we could have won that game by employing a good strategy, but I'm glad we didn't, because ten pages of mindless yammering is way way better than thinking and such!"

Just in case my hints haven't been strong enough, I believe that multiple lynchings are a good thing.

(this rant was sponsored by the phantom inc, the opinions expressed are very true but not necessarily the opinions of all of phantom's friends and associates, make sure and watch next week's episode during which phantom will express his opinions on strategic Candyland gameplay)
Well, I suppose that means that I am unusual. :p

LOL-I'm sorry, it is totally out of context but I couldn't resist!! :D

Actually, the game ending on a first (or second) day circular lynching would never happen because of all the pages of debate about doing so or not. The mass lynching was brilliant and didn't detract from the game to me. I'm of the opinion that anything is fun and neat to try at least once. It certainly gives each game variety.

Multiple lynching adds a new dimension to the game - a fun and exciting one. Anybody goes. :D

I'm quite sure this won't work for the werewolves who live about ten time zones away. Just remember that there will be players who are all the way in Asia. *cough* *cough*

You can say that again, Eomer. :D

As for multiple lynchings...like most rules it could work to the advantage of both sides. Maybe multiple lynchings could be allowed, but there would be a maximum number of lynchings at a time. (Or the player who got the most votes first would be the one lynched? Nah.)

No, but if all the players understand it, the multiple lynching strategy is likely to be used in every game where the conditions are right, which would be rather dull.

Isn't that half the fun of the game? ;)

Seriously, the fun of the game for me is in looking at what people say, trying to read bluffs and double-bluffs and voting (or killing) accordingly. If the game is simply reduced to a statistical exercise every time, then I think that it does become rather dull.

Uh-huh. Like he said. :D

By the way, Fea, in the event that you do get to moderate Werewolf VI, will you be having shiriffs as tgwbs had, or will you adopt Mith's rule of allowing the Hunter and the Ranger to know each other's identities?

Well, it appears that each new Mod is willing to tweak the rules a little. So if you don't like multiple lynchings, don't kick and scream, just don't join those games. Likewise but vice versa (:confused: That made sense. Do not doubt me.) if you do support multiple lynchings.

Would 24 hours and 24 hours work better? That had been my initial idea, but I thought that it would slow the game down quite a lot. Other mods dealt with that by allowing the extra time, but if it was finished early, they would begin the next set of times. I can't guarantee that I'll be sitting near a computer when the voting finishes, unpredictable as it is, or when all of the PMs stream in, which is why I had aimed for set times so that I would know when to continue each day.

To clarify my view on multiple lynchings (this is mostly so the phantom stops whining):

They are a fantastic idea. It is a great way of securing a victory when you've got the right circumstances. My previous statement was a generality (*glares at tp*). I know that you could not have a conclusive and finalizing vote on day one. However I would hate to see what The Barrow-Wight referred to initially as

turn into a game of numerical logic. Quite frankly, instead of a game where we search out werewolves using our instincts and their screwups, I can see the game morphing into one where every player tries their best to confuse the phantom. As hilarious as that would be, it takes away from the point of the game.

Where I can understand the strategy involved in mass lynchings, I do not desire to see them employed as a given occurence in every game. Therefore, as the [potential] mod of Werewolf VI (subtitle yet unknown), my formal statement is this:

EDIT:

Clarification: You can die in a mass death, but if you do, your death will suck. If you want to go in an interesting way that is not along the lines of

then you want to bandwagon, back-stab, and follow intuition a little more.

There will be shirriffs as tgwbs had them.

Gil- Mith's game, last I knew, begins this afternoon.

It starts today does it not?

Yeah, I know it was a joke but... I see that as a very interesting idea, and I'd be willing to try it. I mean, we'd need to bend a lot of rules and such, but a game where every other player is trying to confuse the phantom would just be too good.

If you like TGWBS, I can add a chaser rule where, instead of becoming a wolf upon slaying, the cursed villager becomes the anti-phantom of the village, having his/her entire existence based upon keeping him confused about everyone. Each night, the cursed villager PMs the mod with a cryptic comment, to be forwarded to the phantom. If the phantom accurately guesses the identity of the cursed villager, his side automatically wins. The downside is that once the cursed villager is revealed, the phantom dies. So if he's the only one left on his team, ironically, he'll lose.

Or... you know... not. :rolleyes: What a complicated addition to the game. :p

Seems to me that the games in which the phantom plays are phantom-centric enough without introducing special rules to make them more so ... ;)

phantom, there isn't anything wrong with strategy as such. For example, your plan in Werewolf IV was headscratching and highly interesting. But (and this is just a rehash of what Sauce said) the lying, cheating, bullying, deceiving, manipulating and detective work that goes on in the game is what makes it such fun. Just because we're scrambling in the dark for clues doesn't mean that intelligence goes out the window.

You could organize a mass lynching of four villagers in the probability that one of the four is a wolf........but that's the opposite of fun. For a start, it robs some villagers of his/her moment in the sunshine (or shadow of death, might be more appropriate).

Who wants to be killed and chucked into a large grave with other people? Who doesn't want to be the focus of the game for one morning or one night?

And all that would continue. The last game is a perfect example. It was a very fun game, and on the last day, to make sure they bagged the final wolf, the villagers did a multiple lynching.
In other words, it would be dull if everyone got very good at the game.

I, personally, think it would make the game better, seeing as the wolves would know that they either had to kill the seer early or at least kill people that the seer is identifying as innocent. It would make for some tricky strategy. If there are two people that the wolves think might be the seer, and one of them seems to be saying that the other one is innocent, it would be a good bet to kill the one being declared innocent by the other one. That way, if they are the seer of the two then the wolves have killed the seer, but if the other person is the seer then the wolves have at least killed someone the seer declared innocent. And if the wolves are able to kill off proven innocents, it will keep the villagers from using the multi-lynch technique because there need to be proven innocents to make it work.

The more everyone knows about the game and strategies, the touchier the game becomes, meaning that everything the wolves and seer do must be done with more consideration, planning, and subtlety.

That sounds like a very fun game to me.
:p
No no, it would just create a new point of the game.
I'd be inclined not to play considering every player is against me and my defeat certain from the outset, but.... how could I disapprove of a game revolving around me?

Well, just go ahead and map the game out and pm me when you're ready to start (I probably won't be around much until late August, so that'll give you some time).
Well, there always seems to be plenty of anti-phantoms in each game without assigning someone such a role, though I'd love to have a role named after me. ;)
Ha ha! :D

I'd like to point out that there were definitely times in the last game that were not terribly phantom-centric.

Of course, those times were after I was dead- but they still count.

And speaking of things that are phantom-centric, is it safe to say that this thread has toppled into phantom-land?