[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

The idea of two kills doesn't bother me so much, especially with so many ways to prevent them from happening. What does bother me is the stunning number of ways the wolves can die.

A lot will depend on when we start and how many we are. If we're going to start the game with around 15 players (like we have now), we'd surely need to leave a few roles out - basically I think the assassin, one hunter, one wolf... that should be thought of.

But let's hope we'll get about 5 more players in the next three days or so, that we could make a kind of "full version" of this.

Actually I had started to have second thoughts of this assassin-role anyway. But now as you bring up the idea that he could just be on his own eg. try to be on the winning side, whichever it seems him to be the one, I kind of started liking that role again...

I always hate auto-kills by hunters. The idea that the hunter can just take a wolf with them but not risk innocents seems overly weighted, and having not one but two in the same game seems worse. I might allow the master hunter, but the "Hates conspiracies" ought to be the same as the "hates dark deeds" - that is they should take with them whomever they choose, wolf or not. Otherwise, you create wolves that must be overly cautious for fear that a hunter will get them regardless.

All these different versions came in as I tried to make as many different hunters as possible but you maybe right. I kind of like the idea of an "hates conspiracies" -hunter who singles out the wolf driving for his lynch (kind of a hero character) but maybe we should make him rather one that has a list, let's say of three, and could bring down the wolf in the list who took part in his execution... but if there is no wolf who voted for him in his list then he takes the number one in the list?

Further more, what exactly do the NG's do besides not get killed themselves? Do the actually protect anyone?

Actually nothing else: they don't protect any individual player but are like guardians of the whole camp (not that there would be any "outside-game interference" to be expected in-game -terms). Well they can talk if they wish... That idea came to me as I tried to think of a reason why some people should be allowed to PM each other during the Night to add player-involvement (especially for those who have no special role). So it's actually a narrationally / structurally plausible explanation to give a few people a licence to PM during the Nights. If they are voted by the others it introduces an interesting added element as to why people wish to give certain people the chance to PM during the Nights and / or to give them immunity over a Night-kill...

Remember, the villagers can also vote for a wolf to be one in safety and to PM someone.

For that matter, besides the decisions about lynching, what does the captain do? You make it sound as though not having one at night would be detrimental to the village, but how?

Sorry, a wrong signal from me if that actually is what comes through. The Captain is the boss. So he has a kind of limited master's voice in the lynchings (as a ranger captain surely would have in that kind of conditions) but otherwise he's just one the "village" thinks should be safe at Night (and someone on whose judgement on matters of life and death the "villagers" trust on) - and as one having the right to choose his BG's will influence who gets to talk with each other during the Nights and who are safe...

Partly following my answer to Lommy: I'm not too worried about fex. the information going slowly due to the time zones on these matters. Sometimes in the most basic games the wolves miss their Nightly kill because of confusion and time zone issues so why not accept things might happen this or that way in here as well? The people in the roles they have do the best they can and rest is mechanics only I need to be on top of... (surely I have to interpret the situations "by the book" ie. according to the pre-set rules)

Last question (for now): Is the assassin playing for himself or the village? I think it would be better if he worked for himself. He wins if he's the sole survivor.

Wouldn't it be enough he is alive when the other "team" is dead and gone? It's a bit tough ordeal to win only as a sole survivor (and in that case he should be counted as an innocent in the tallies which determine whether the game is over or not). I'm not sure... What do you think?