Yup. So I suppose I should amend my earlier point to suggest that you should wait twelve games to apply, since we bump new mods up. Good point, and thanks for the reminder! :)

Actually why not amend it so the New mods have to wait in line I think That'd be easier than a game minimum... because you are right it does make the waiting period longer just by doing that.

I should have realised that every BD werewolf-geek would just love to be the one who makes the official rules for the game - like every teenager roleplayer wishes to make his/her own roleplaying-system... Aren't we that similar? :)

Actually I'm not so much culpable of the latter but I do recognize myself belonging to the former group. :D

Anyway, Im not able to delve into this in two weeks but what I have skimmed through (hastily) looks good and I'm assured you can make it good. If there are any unresolved issues when I come back home I'll gladly take part in the discussion, but for the time being I'm just unable to even read all that has been written.

Catching up a bit...

I was in a rush and explained myself poorly. My example with players not reading the Admin thread, wasn't a proposed rule (and I don't think it should be), it was an example of what I find personally a bit annoying. However, just because I find something annoying, doesn't mean it should be a universal rule for all the games.

That's what I was trying to say about the banning of players who repeatedly sign up for games and then just do nothing. To make myself a bit clearer, I don't think there should be any rule banning players unless they repeatedly break forum policy (vulgar language, insulting or bullying, that type of stuff). I do remember xyzzy, but how much of a problem is it? And where is xyzzy now? I really see no point in having such a rule, because the xyzzy's disappear on their own and as someone else said, the mod is in control of the player list and sign-ups. I think rules banning any players from games (aside from someone repeatedly breaking forum rules) is a bit much, as well as unnecessary to have.

Regarding meta-gaming, I don't know how to condense it in an easy form, but here's been my understanding of it. Like Rikae, I always assumed referring to peoples past games was alright, or saying something like "When Boro's been innocent, he's done such and such" or "Last 3 times Boro-wolf has killed his own cobbler first night." :rolleyes:

I was talking to Nienna awhile ago, who was angry because she thought she was a victim of meta-reasoning (I can't recall the exact situation), but I do remember telling her that it seems like people only hate meta-reasons when it's used to suspect someone. We all seem to overlook the fact that we use meta-reasons to defend ourselves, "I'd do this if I was innocent..." "I was here at this time, and couldn't post/didn't have time to read." Anyway, my point was we find meta-reason perfectly acceptable to defend ourselves, but for some reason it's a touchy thing for people when they are being suspected by it.

So, it looks like I think along the lines with Mac more, and that is if we know someone was gone, there was no night kill, it's rather silly to just ignore that. Also, it's hard enough as it is to try and come up with suspicions on Day 1, eliminate meta-reasoning completely, Day 1 will become even worse.

Any privvy communication between the Mod and active players (that isn't stated in the rules) or the Mod doesn't announce to all the players is definitely I think a no-no. In the very least, Fea's suggestion I find acceptable, if a mod wants a secret or a twist, you obviously can't let everyone know what it is before it happens. However, if you let everyone know there are twists, or just don't tell anyone the secret until after it happened, than go for it. I find twists irritatingly fun.

The other part of meta-reasoning is communication between players (living and dead) about the game, outside of the game, while the game is going on. With how much of a community this place is, and with how we can easily communicate outside the forum, it's ridiculous to forbid any type of communication if a game is going one. What I can't talk to Kath about Freud because we're both in an active game? Rubbish. :p

Any type of communication about the game should be forbidden, and no one can obviously watch that type of thing, but it's like Rikae said about having honor and respect for the game. While a game is going on, don't talk about it with any of the other players (should we include non-players?), should definitely be included under meta-reasoning.

The game I modded was one where I happened to see some "Boro's friends with Mira and I think would pick her for the bear, because it's the best role." I absolutely hated that, and it should also be a no-no under meta-gaming. It's more I just hate people assuming things that most likely just aren't true. I mean it could be a fact, I hate Mira, if I see her face in my presense again, I'm going to punch it. :p But seriously now, that type of argument is just a mess of assumptions, the main one being that I don't like anyone else enough to give them such an "awesome" role, or it assumes anyone who's an ordo, I hate...like that phantom, I can't stand that arrogance, ordo-ship for you!

So, now someone condense that, chop-chop.

Speaking of the phantom, and having rules about how people should play the game, and whether it's ok to switch allegiances...etc. What the...you really want to regulate that? Nerwen's right, the underlying personal glory to win, assures that people won't switch teams. If you want to control how people play, watch yourself play against 15 phantoms, 3 phantom-wolves, a phantom seer, phantom-ordos, and simulate how a phantom-wolf, would react to the phantom-seer making a claim or something. When you start limitting how people play, you are only capping creativity and some of the best games are created because someone did something you could never have expected.

Seems everything interesting happens while I'm away... ;) As most of you probably now, I'm currently on vacation and can't really take part in the debate actively. But what people (especially Mac :p) have said looks good and I agree with the majority of things - Tolkien themes and co-mods recommended but not obligatory, you must play five games before modding and so on. And I'm very happy you agreed on sending ordos role PMs too because it gives everybody a nice feeling of the start of game AND prevents confusion (careless player on admin thread: "hi why haven't I got a role yet?" mod: "um..." OR uninformed player: "have the roles been sent out already?" mod: "yes" everybody else: "ok, that person's an ordo and so on...)

There's one objection to the general lines of the discussion I have, though. Why should it be the standard that the ranger can protect himself? It wasn't like that in the begininng, and it wasn't like that for the first several years of BD werewolf, and it has just suddenly become a trend, which is something I personally dislike (and Nogrod and Aganzir are against it too, so you have three veteran players opposing the idea ;)). Gotta dash now so I won't give you more grounds for my dislike but Aganzir feels very passionate about this so maybe she'll be back to write a novel on the topic...

Well, those definitions are just the default for when the mod doesn't say - mods can override them in the admin thread. But if self-protecting is less traditional, I'd agree that the glossary should say "usually can't protect self".

"Can't protect him/herself unless otherwise specified" is a rather nice way to put it if you ask me. Just for extra clarification. :)

I disagree with this. Modding isn't something that you should do just because. Either you should want to mod because you have a brilliant idea, or because you want to see something different around, like a more traditional game. Most newbie players don't have a good enough grasp of what's going on to be able to have a brilliant idea, or to decide what Downsian Werewolf needs to be like. Case in point, I believe, is rather obvious. And I don't mean to be insulting, but I do think that while maybe most people could handle modding a game, the few who couldn't would ruin it for everyone.

Anyways, I think this thread is a really good idea. I agree with most of what's been said, especially about making the end result guidelines, not rules - but, as I think has been said, with some exceptions, like the mod list.

Why Aganzir hates rangers who protect themselves
 

Just a quick post because there are two other people who want to use our laptop before going to sleep... I have only skimmed through the thread, but it's good the rules are being discussed.

I think a certain balance should be preserved between the evil and the good team. All the gifteds should have their weakness.
The seer is the strongest gifted in the sense that she can cause the greatest damage to the wolf team, thus she should also be relatively easy to eliminate. The ranger can give the seer an extra night or two, but this should be all. It is too big an advantage for the village if they can, even in theory, keep all their gifteds alive for an extended period of time. The ranger is enough of a problem for the wolves as the last defense between them and their target, and it's simply too much if they can't count on being able to kill the ranger when they want to.

Lommy might have exaggerated a bit when she said I feel very passionately about this, but I do dislike playing with a ranger who can protect herself, even if it's just once during an entire game and I'm innocent myself. Of course it's up to the mod to decide, but in my opinion a self-protecting ranger should never be the default.

Will read and post more when I have more time.

Is this thread going to continue? I was under the impression that somebody would submit a draft to me and that I would post it on a sticky thread. Do you all still want this? I don't care either way but to those that play often just let me know.

Thanks

I thought the discussion was going to continue, but then it kind of died. I can post a final-ish draft by tomorrow and then get everybody's last opinions.

Thank you

Well, we started a new game in the middle of this, which distracted everyone, and also I think we've been waiting around to see if anyone would come up with something that's been overlooked.

A. Guidelines for Players:

I. Expectations and Responsibilities:
1. Read the rules of the game you are playing in and abide by them.
2. After signing up for a game, you are expected to participate (post at least once per day and vote) throughout the entire game or until your death.
3. If a player cannot participate for a Day, it should be stated and explained on the Admin thread (and only there). Extensive absences can lead to modfire subject to the mod.
4. Remember that the team you are playing on is counting on you. Lack of participation or deviation from your role (in particular its intended alignment) will spoil the game for the other players.

II. General Rules:
1. Name-calling, swearing, and abbreviated/implied swearing are not allowed. This is against the rules of the forum and may lead to consequences beyond the game.
2. Turn your status on invisible so that people do not know when you are online when playing.
3. Editing a post for reasons other than grammar or crossposting is prohibited. Once a post is submitted, the content within it must not be changed.

III. Deadline and Voting:
1. Posting in the game thread has to stop at the deadline.
2. Unless otherwise specified by the mod, votes should be on a separate line, preceded by a "++", and bolded. Otherwise they do not count.
3. Votes are counted up to deadline 'downs time. Votes posted after this time do not count. (F.ex., for a 1pm deadline, a vote posted at 1:00 counts, at 1:01 does not.)
4. Votes can be regarded as non-retractable unless otherwise specified by the mod.

IV. Guidelines on communication between players during a game:
1. No PMing or other outside communication about an ongoing game is allowed, unless your role specifically allows it.
2. No game-related communication between living and dead players is allowed.
3. PMs and other private discussion may not be quoted during the game.
4. Post-game discussion including the dead should not begin until after the final narration or until the mod officially allows it.
5. Admin threads are only intended for rules, signups, game management, and notifications about absences. They are not a place to chat.


B. Guidelines for Mods:

I. Before Signing up for Modding:
1. Would-be mods must have participated in at least X games of Barrowdowns werewolf before modding.
2. When you sign up to mod you should say when you are or aren't able to do it.
3. Mods who miss their turn twice or miss a reserved month once are removed from the list.
4. Members who have already moderated a game cannot mod again until at least 6 months after their last game.
5. It is very strongly recommended that your game should have a Tolkien-related theme.
6. Try to keep the number of traditional and experimental games even.

II. Before the Game:
1. If there is a foreseeable chance that you might not be available at one of the deadlines, consider appointing a co-mod.
2. Among the first posts in the admin thread one post should contain all of the following
- List of players
- List of roles including the respective number.
- Any special rules or events, in particular an announcement of any secret twists.
- Deadline time.
- Deadline for submission of picks (if differing from general deadline).
- Rules in case of a voting tie.
- Modfire rules for no-shows or inappropriate behavior.
3. If your game is experimental, make sure that you thought everything through and that the game has equal chances of victory for all sides.
4. The rules post should be as clear, complete, and detailed as possible.
5. If you change rules, edit the post and point out the change.
6. The mod has to pm the roles to all players, including ordos.

III. During the Game:
1. Mods should abide by their own rules. Should changes be necessary, they have to be made known to everybody.
2. Mods must not make any extra knowledge available to any player outside of what is covered in the rules.
3. Make sure to start/end all days and nights exactly on time.
4. The game thread should contain a list of players and dead players with time of death and role at the end of every Night and Day.
5. The mod should reveal the role of a lynched player within 30 minutes of the deadline.
6. At the end of the game, the mod has to ensure the beginning of post-game discussion within reasonable time.

Don't forget that your players are counting on you. You are responsible to provide them with a well-managed game.

I might have gone a bit overboard with the numbering. Feel free to delete them if you want.

I left an 'X' for the number of games you have to have played before you can mod, because I don't think we reached a conclusion about this.

Do you want an introduction for the post? If so, what should be in it?

I thought of an addition for the glossary:

ToDay: Since a day is usually 24 hours long and two days are separated by a 24 hour night, the terms Day, toDay, toMorrow, yesterDay are often used to refer to other WW days to avoid confusion.

Looks good, Mac. :)

Are we still going to come up with a glossary?

And I think x = 5 sounds good, although I would be fine even with something like x = 3.

I think it'd be fair for a new mod to have to wait as long as a returning mod. Thus, six months should be more than enough time for someone to get a good feel for Downs Werewolf. I think most people (with of course a few exceptions) have played more than twelve games before modding (I personally waited sixteen, for what that's worth) and considering that we average two games a month, a dozen game minimum isn't really all that insane. If we continue the practice of bumping first time mods to the top of the list (which I think is a good practice, honestly, unless of course returning mods have time restrictions on when they can mod their games) a twelve game or so wait and then a bump to the top of the list would ensure that new mods are experienced enough to handle themselves and that everyone, new and returning mods alike, have to wait about the same amount of time to mod their first/next game. It seems fair.

I don't think a person could be ready to mod a Downs WW game after only five times playing. I know I wouldn't have been, or at least have been confident enough to mod very well.

So my suggestion is that if you mod with that few games under your belt, you have to have a co-mod. If you've played more than a dozen (or even ten, for that matter) you can mod on your own, but otherwise I don't feel very comfortable with newer players at the reigns. I have to be honest, it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

I think it would be a good idea to put a higher limit on minimum games required to mod rather than a lower one, because it could also make it less awkward in the future if, say, Mary Sue comes to play Werewolf here, decides she has an idea for a game after playing three times, and signs up to mod. Mary Sue has been in three games, an early lynch/kill in three of them. We're not putting a limit on how active the person was in their initial games, just that they played; Mary Sue could be modfired in one of those games and it would still count. Granted this is a worst case scenario, but if Mary Sue has played enough games to mod by our rules, who are we to turn her away? Do we really want to be put in the position of having to say, "Listen, Mary Sue, but we don't think you'll make a good mod yet". Or do we let her mod and have a disastrous game? Why not just set a standard by which it's almost impossible to have someone not understanding the game and have that be the rule? Sure, there may be Mary Sues who are ready to mod after only a game or two, but they will not be the norm. Norm, as we know him ;), is a tricky bloke, and unpredictable. I think it's best to raise the bar a bit.

Besides, consider the recent trend of....erm, not-so-serious Werewolf players. To be frank, we've had players not understanding the DLs even after a couple times playing and we've had some fairly heated games of late, with the possibility of players not understanding their roles or doing things that may be acceptable on other sites but that are frowned upon in Downs Werewolf. A player may be able to handle themselves in running a facebook game (which doesn’t even count, but meh) or on another forum, but that doesn’t mean they understand the atmosphere of Downs wolfing. This is not other Werewolf forums, this is the Downs. You need to get used to the culture and the accepted practice as much as the game, and I don't think everyone can do that in just a handful of games. If people really want to mod, they'll wait their turn.


Note: I say this without any consideration to Paranoia's game, so don't think I'm just picking on him or anything. That's certainly not the case. I would have the same thoughts regardless of his game.

Also, the glossary sounds like an excellent idea to continue. I'll poke around while I'm in Lincoln today waiting for Master Phantom and will see if there's anything else that needs to be defined. :)

Overall it looks good. I will post it in a few days when the is a general consensus. I say 5 games is sufficient before you mod. Also I am VERY tempted to say that Tolkien theme is mandatory. I guess if it is not taken seriously and mods continue to deviate too far too often I will make it such.

Thanks Mac.

Quite honestly I don't think that would be fair to the game mods. Sure, you could easily mandate that a game can't be themed on another book series, movies, fandom, etc., but to say that each game has to be Tolkien-themed could cut out some fabulous game ideas.

That's just my two cents, which probably aren't worth much, but there you go. :)

Last minute thought...
 

Except that Paranoia's game was the first I can remember where a mod's newness actually sunk the ship. Which isn't surprising, because it's not like there are hordes of new players clamouring to be mods. (Last, I believe, was Morsul back in March.) And such newbie mods as there have been have usually acquitted themselves pretty well.

No, I'm not trying to pick on the absent Paranoia either, just pointing out that his was a very unusual case. I feel the upper limit may be overkill.

I've been fairly open on this topic and I have mentioned once but I will do so again. The admins have discussed in the past of banning WW altogether for its lack of Tolkien theme. The rules on this forum are very clear. I have been exceptionally lax in the WW department but it may be worth taking this opportunity to tighten it down. That way if the admins ever look in on this again they will see that there is some Tolkien theme to it and will perhaps smile on us instead of smite us.

I should have been much more clear, for which I apologize. I don't think mandating that there should be a Tolkien element to every game is a bad idea, but sometimes it's hard to make a theme expressly Tolkien. I do, however, see your point, considering the nature of the forum and all. And to be fair there have been a lot of other fandom games (though of course they were fun!) so I'm certainly not against saying that either X% have to be Tolkien-related or saying that there can't be other fandom games on the board. I just was concerned about how strictly you would enforce the "Tolkien only" rule and how it might affect the game mods' ability to come up with unique ideas.

Is somebody preparing a final draft for the glossary right now, by the way?

It's a Tolkien website. We should be playing Tolkien games.

That said, it's really not difficult to come up with creative ideas within constraints.

The very first game, introduced and modded by His Wightness Himself, was 'Tolkien'-ish just by having werewolves be the bad guys.

If you want a pirate game, just call them corsairs from Umbar. Evil horsemen? Nazgul. Talking animals? Set it in the Shire, where there's Hobbitish precedence for talking foxes. Or in Dale, where the birds chat with folk, if you know the language.

It does not constrain the types of roles a mod may choose to include, it merely constrains the types of story lines of the narratives. And really, it doesn't do that much either.

As a sign of respect to our admins and to the website that we're on, a literary discussion forum that's dedicated to J.R.R. Tolkien, I quite firmly think that games, whether traditional or experimental, should be Tolkien-oriented.

I mean, you could stretch it to calling the ordos 'linguists' and calling the werewolves 'publishers' and it would still relate to Tolkien and the spirit of the website.

We should at least be making a cursory attempt to pretend like we care about the TOLKIEN website whose resources we are utilizing.

I have a question that doesn't really pertain to the immediate conversation (whether or not games should be Tolkien-based):

Do the badguys have to turn to werewolves in the night, or can they just be bad? Like supposing there was a game based around dwarves, and in the night instead of some of the dwarves turning into some creature, the badguys are just a group of evil dwarves who mean everyone else harm and meet together?

-- Foley

You just gave me a horridly brilliant idea. :rolleyes:


Anyway, to the rest....

I'm not saying we shouldn't have Tolkien based games. I was just making sure that we wouldn't be disallowing elements that weren't tied to Tolkien. Repeat, elements, not necessarily themes. I personally think we can bring in elements or references to other things and still have Tolkien-related games, and vice versa. I'm not saying you disagree with this, of course, because it's totally possible to pull it off. I'm just expressing this here so that new players or mods who read this don't think they have to be tied to werewolves devouring hobbits or elves coming in to save the village from baby-stealing Gollums. (Although....) I think each game should have explicitly Tolkien themes inherent in its construction, but we also can reference other things as well. I'm not saying you're trying to shove out anything that's not expressly Tolkien related, because I know you and I have both modded games that didn't have explicit Tolkien themes, but I want to make sure that we can be as unpredictable and wide-based in our game ideas as possible.


In short, I agree. Let's make sure we at least try to have something of a Tolkien nature. Whether it's Phantom's pub game, my Denethor seer, or Brinn's Downs itself related game, there should be at least an attempt to include a Tolkien theme. Even if you have a non-Tolkien theme there should be at least Tolkien-tied roles or characters. It is a Tolkien board. Even the craziest theme can involve a Rings role or make references to Tolkien's life or works. We don't have to be tied to wolves or rangers or palantirs, but we can at least try to involve Tolkien somewhere. As you said, we owe it to the board we're on.


Then again, the day we start having Tolkien characters in Mario world, we know we're in trouble. But as long as everyone is creative but sane we should be fine.

Now here's hoping this post doesn't give anyone any ideas. :rolleyes:


EDIT: x'd with Foley

Also, I need to find the discussion about this, but I suggest that the official DL times are :00. By this I mean that votes AT :00 count, but :01 do not. I think that's the more common practice, and making it a Werewolf-wide rule will cut down on confusion.

Sorry if I'm repeating what's already been decided, but I didn't want to forget to mention it.


ETA: Good, it was on Mac's list earlier on the page. :D

No one's actually done that, have they? :confused:

Sally, I concur with your comments. They make me think of the Thursday Next series, or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I frankly think it would be funny to combine a game of hobbits and Mario characters, where all the special powers stemmed from eating wonky mushrooms. ;)

And Foley, no, bad guys don't have to be werewolves. They just often are.

I am in awe.



Oh, and Foley, ditto what Fea said. I've had were-ducks and Fea's had politicians, which are clearly always evil, even in the daylight. ;)

But they were politicians in a village in Middle Earth. I loved that game...

Sally and I have had a further discussion of the newbie-mod rule via pm. As a result of this:

How about eight games as the minimum? Or else, how about we don't count a game towards the total unless the player survived to Day 2? Or both?

I'll do it. I've got a bit a spare time toDay, which is a nice change.

Up to 8 sounds reasonable enough. More than that is too much for my taste. And thank you for doing the glossary too.

Here we go, then. So far this is all Mac and me– if anyone else has suggestions you're welcome to contribute, but you'd better be quick because morm wants to get the thread up.

Glossary

General Terminology

Analysis: The systematic investigation of a player, kill, or voting. Differs from a summary by being rich in observations, opinions, and conclusions.

Bandwagon: A large number of votes for the same person.

Bolding of names: The practice of bolding player names occurring in your post. Usually required when casting a vote.

Bus: (Of a wolf) to betray your packmates or allies. (From "throw under the bus".) See also: Wolf-on-wolf.

Day: The phase during which players can post on the game thread, and at the end of which a lynch (q.v.) takes place. Usually lasts 24 hours.

Day One: First Day of the game. Lacking the information provided by previous kills and lynches, Day One is regarded by many as random and not very useful. This is debated, however.

Drive-by Fenris: A wolf who is Fenrissed (q.v.) seemingly by accident.

Endgame: The last stage of the game, in which most players have been eliminated and the outcome will soon be decided.

Fenris: A wolf who is lynched on Day One; (as a verb) the act of lynching such a wolf.

Gifted: A player with special abilities. The term is usually only applied to good-aligned players. The standard gifted roles are Ranger, Seer and Hunter (q.v.) but others are possible.

Kill: (also a noun) To eliminate a player directly through the use of a special ability. Roles with this ability include the Wolves, Hunter, Werebear, Assassin and (sometimes) the Lovers (q.v.)

Known innocent/wolf/etc.: A player whose role has been revealed, usually by a known seer. Players with known roles frequently have quite a limited life expectancy.

Legate-180: A sudden reversal of opinion about another player. (From Legate of Amon Lanc, d. 11-15-2006.)

Lynch: (also a noun) To eliminate a player from the game by general vote.

Meta-reasoning: The practice of trying to deduce roles from factors outside the current game. This tends to be frowned upon.

Modfire: Ejection of a player from a game, usually due to prolonged absence.

Multiple Lynching: Happens when the mod rules that a voting tie is not broken. All players (sometimes limited to two) that received the maximum number of votes die.

Night: The phase in which no one may post on the thread, but in which designated players (wolves and certain gifteds) can pm, and during which the wolves pick a player to kill. Usually lasts 24 hours.

Night One: The first Night phase of the game. Occurs before Day One. Generally, players with pm-ing abilities may use them on Night One, but no kill may take place.

Pack: The wolves.

Packmate: One's fellow-wolf.

Reveal: To openly claim a special role, such as the Seer.

Submarine: Quiet player who is overlooked by the majority.

Summary: Synopsis of information available about a certain player, kill, or voting. Differs from an analysis by missing the poster's individual opinions.

Tally: A list of votes cast on a Day up to the point of posting.

Throwaway: A vote which is highly unlikely to affect the outcome of the lynch.

ToDay/toNight: The current phase of the game. "YesterDay", "last Night" "toNight" and "toMorrow" are used to refer to past and future, to avoid confusion with day and night in the real world.

Turning: The transformation of a Cursed Villager (q.v.) into a wolf.

Under the radar: A player who has largely escaped another player's attention.

Under the reindeer: See "Under the radar".

Village: 1. The good-aligned players ("a village victory"). 2. The entire group of players ("there are three wolves in this village"). Comes from the fact that early games were always set in an actual village.

Villager: A player who counts for the village (in sense 1.) in the tally. 2. Any player. 3. An "Ordinary Villager" (q.v.).

Vote Count: See "Tally".

Wolf-on-wolf: A tactic in which members of the wolf-pack accuse and even vote for one another, in order to make the survivor(s) look good.


Roles

Basic Roles

Cobbler
Alignment: Evil. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if number of wolves becomes equal to that of villagers. Special abilities: appears as ordo to the Seer. Note: typically, cobblers do not know the identity of the wolves.

Hunter
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to hunt each Night. If the Hunter is killed or lynched, this player will die also. Note: there are many versions of this role, however, the two standard ones are the Logical Hunter (kills target only if a wolf) and the Non-Logical Hunter (kills target regardless of role).

Ordinary Villager ("ordo")
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: none.
Note: By default, all players are "supposed" to be ordinary villagers, though in reality some have other roles.

Ranger
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to protect each Night– this player cannot be killed by the wolves. Note: typically, the Ranger may not protect the same person two Nights in a row.

Seer
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to "Dream" each Night– this player's role is revealed to the Seer (with some exceptions).

Werewolf
Alignment: Evil. Counts for the wolf-pack in the tally. Wins if the number of wolves becomes equal to that of innocent villagers. Special abilities: may pm other wolves at Night. May choose one player to kill each Night.


Typical Special Roles
In theory, special roles can be almost anything, but in practice most fall broadly into one of the following categories.

Assassin
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: can kill another player, typically either once a Night/Day or once during the game at a time of the assassin's choosing.

Cursed Villager
Alignment: Variable. The Cursed is an ordinary villager who becomes a wolf if "turned" (attacked by Night). Note: The Cursed may or may not be aware of his or her status from the start.

Lovers
Alignment: Neutral/Good (usually). Count for the village in the tally (usually– see note). Win if both survive the game. Special abilities: may pm each other. Often the death of one will kill the other, or the survivor may be allowed a "revenge-kill". Note: there are many possible variants of Lovers; sometimes one or both has another role, which may be evil. Otherwise Lovers are generally assumed to play for the village, but this is not always the case.

Werebear
Alignment: Evil. Counts for neither team in the tally. Wins when everyone else is dead. Special abilities: May choose one player to kill each Night. Often has one or more extra special abilities.
Note: typically, though not always, gifted abilities work on the werebear just as on the wolves. The presence of a werebear changes the victory conditions for the other players, as they now have to kill the bear as well as the wolves in order to win.

Also–

Guide to Players' Nicknames

Agan– Aganzir
Alona– Alonariel
BeiGe, BeiGei– Blind Guardian
BG– Blind Guardian
Boro– Boromir88
Brinn– Brinniel
Cabbie– McCaber
Cel, Celly– Celuin
CoD– Captain of Despair
Cupcake, the– satansaloser2005
Di– Diamond18
Dun– Inziladun
Dure, Dury– Durelin
EW– The Elf Warrior
Fea– Feanor of the Peredhil
Foley– Folwren
Form– Formendacil
Glirdy– Glirdan
Glirdypie– Glirdan
Greenie– A Little Green
Gwath– Gwathagor
Kit– Kitanna
Kuru– Kuruharan
Inzil, Inzy– Inziladun
Izzy– Isabellkya
Lal– Lalaith; Lalwendë
Lari– Lariren Shadow
Leggy– Legate of Amon Lanc
Lhuna– Lhunardhwen
Lommie, Lommy– Thinlómien
Lottie– Loslote
Lottiepop– Loslote
Mac– Macalaure
McCobbler– McCaber
Menel– Meneltelmacil
Miggy– The Might
Mira– Mirandir
Mith– Mithalwen
Mnemo– Mnemosyne
Morm– mormegil
Mr Agreeable– Pitchwife
Mr 88– Boromir88
Muffin, the– wilwarin538
Ni– Nienna
Nilp– Nilpaurion Felagund
Nog, Noggins– Nogrod
Pitch– Pitchwife
Sally– satansaloser2005
Sallycakes– satansaloser2005
Sauce– The Saucepan Man
Shasta– Shastanis Althreduin
Steve– Eönwë
Stick– Mirandir
SPAM– The Saucepan Man
SpM– The Saucepan Man
tgwbs– The Guy Who Be Short
tp– the phantom
TORE– The Only Real Estel
tum– autume98
tummy– the phantom (mormegil only)
Vanilwa Muffin, Vanilwuffin etc.– wilwarin538
Wilwa– wilwarin538
Xed– Celuin
Zil– Inziladun

I've left out names like Rune, Legate and Eomer, which I think are self-explanatory.

I demand that Stan be removed from that list. :mad:


:p


Really though, it's likely best, 'cause no one actually calls me that. I don't personally care, because it is rather funny, but I don't particularly want all the newbies thinking I'm a guy. o_O


Also, do we need to clarify which Downers are which desserts? ^_^

Sure, Stan, I just did that to annoy you.:p

Yes, I suppose so.

btw, no wonder n00bs get confused. Some of these nicknames aren't exactly obvious, are they?

No trying, just do. I realize I am completely hypocritical when saying this, seeing as my game was made up of d-list superheroes, and completely unrelated to Tolkien in anyway. But I shall do better next time, and we should respect the admins and purpose of the 'Downs existance to keep games Tolkien related.

I don't think it has to be as rigid as an RPG, but still Tolkien elements have to be involved. I'm in favor (inspired by Nerwen) of a futuristic WW game, with the SS Lothlorien going where no Elves have gone before to seek out werewolves, wherever they may be... :p