Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[mormegil]

Having played in several games I am for various roles. I think it adds some extra elements that make it very interesting. I was reticent to have the cobbler role introduced but I loved it. The Shirriff's I feel neutral about but I've always enjoyed the other roles, with the exception of the cursed villager which hasn't played too much of a role yet. I think the mythomaniac, introduced by mithalwen, was fun but needs to be used in a larger game. And finally I guess I don't fully understand this new role the werehamster or black beoring. I don't know what I don't understand to tell you

[Oddwen]

Should we have four Wolves, a Werehamster and a Cobbler?
Or three Wolves, a Werehamster, a Cobbler and a Cursed?

Gee, there's an awful lot of roles. Let's take the Seer out for this game.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Can I sign up for WWVIII? I haven't played in the past two games, due to being busy at the wrong times, so I'm really hoping I can join in this time!! *pitifil little-kid "please" look*

So if there's room for me, count me in!!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Oddwen

Should we have four Wolves, a Werehamster and a Cobbler?
Or three Wolves, a Werehamster, a Cobbler and a Cursed?

Gee, there's an awful lot of roles. Let's take the Seer out for this game.

How about 3 wolves a Werehamster, a cobbler and a mythomaniac

[Firefoot]

Right now I think there are 19 players. For the game to be "fair," gifted villagers should not outnumber the ordinary villagers.

So if we have:

3 wolves
1 werehamster
1 cursed
1 cobbler
2 shirriffs
1 seer
1 ranger
1 hunter
7 ordinary villagers

The number of ordinary villagers equals the number of gifteds (if you count the cursed). I could go for this set up. If anyone else drops out, though, I would consider removing one of the gifted roles (not sure which).

I am against having another wolf. Between the werehamster and the cobbler, I think having a cursed villager is plenty fine.

And something I'm wondering about: If the Werehamster attacks the Cursed Villager, what happens? Does he/she become another hamster and do the two hamsters then work together like the wolves?

This question of Menel's wasn't answered, and I've been wondering about it, too. I think that working together sort of goes against the concept of a werehamster; however, if there were two werehamsters, one would know who the other was (this would seem to have strategic implications), and it would be up to three kills per night. I think that if the werehamster attacks the cursed, the cursed should probably just die.

And if the werehamster dies when the seer dreams of them, does it still get its kill for the night? And, Oddwen, somehow you didn't finish your response to that question of why the hamster dies when the seer dreams of them; the sentence ends "I always supposed it was because".

[Mithalwen]

4 wolves would bake a complete bloodbath certain surely. REmember the Hamster will double teh number of night kills... and if the cursed turns wolf ..... My what long teeth you have grandma.......

[The Saucepan Man]

Those currently down to play (taking account of recent withdrawals) are as follows:

Azaelia of Willowbottom
Meneltarmacil
Nonnacedak
Durelin
Gurthang
Arcticstorm
Encaitare
Alcarillo
The Saucepan Man
SamwiseGamgee
Wilwarin538
Boromir88
CaptainofDespair
Firefoot
Mormegil
Dancing Spawn of Ungoliant
Mithalwen
Laitaine
Gil-Galad

As Firefoot says, that's 19 players. On which basis, I agree with her that the following roles should work:

3 wolves
1 werehamster
1 cursed
1 cobbler
2 shirriffs
1 seer
1 ranger
1 hunter
7 ordinary villagers

Concerning the Werehamster (or Black Beorning):

Originally Posted by Oddwen

If only one Villager is left with the Hamster, the Hamster would trump. But since the game ends when all the Wolves are dead, if there's more than one Villager left with the Hamster, the Hamster would lose (die).

Is there any reason why the game should not continue if all the Wolves are dead but the Werehamster remains alive? It gives the Werehamster more of a chance of winning. Otherwise, the conditions required to bring about a Werehamster victory are very limited indeed. He or she will have to rely on getting the Village down to four people as the final NIGHT begins, make sure that he or she kills the Wolf and rely on the Wolf killing the innocent.

What if there are four people remaining as the final NIGHT begins, the remaining Wolf kills an innocent and the Werehamster kills the Wolf. Does the game end with a villager victory because all the Wolves are dead? That would seem rather unfair on the Werehamster. A similar issue arises if, at the beginning of the final DAY, there are three players left: one Wolf, the Werehamster and an innocent villager. If the Wolf is lynched, would the villagers or the Werehamster be victorious?

I like the idea of the game continuing with the Werehamster against just the remaining innocent villagers, but I certainly think that the Werehamster should win if the final Wolf dies leaving just the Werehamster and one innocent villager.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

And, Oddwen, somehow you didn't finish your response to that question of why the hamster dies when the seer dreams of them; the sentence ends "I always supposed it was because".

I still think that it's rather unfair if the Werehamster dies simply because the Seer chooses to dream of them. The Werehamster will have problems enough if the Seer simply knows who they are.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I think that working together sort of goes against the concept of a werehamster; however, if there were two werehamsters, one would know who the other was (this would seem to have strategic implications), and it would be up to three kills per night. I think that if the werehamster attacks the cursed, the cursed should probably just die.

That's probably the best solution. Although it might be fun if the Cursed villager were to become another Werehamster, working on their own. Although the original Werehamster would almost certainly kill the new one the next NIGHT, the new one would still have a chance to win if the original gets lynched before that can happen. In these circumstances, there would probably only be three kills for one NIGHT. Then again, maybe the original would want to keep the new one alive to profit from the three kills per NIGHT. So perhaps Firefoot's solution is best after all.

[littlemanpoet]

With two kills per night (minimum) as long as the black beorning survives, and one lynching per day, throw in a cobbler and a cursed villager, the werewolves have a statistical advantage.

Can the Black Beorning kill a werewolf during the night? If so, that evens things out a little. If not, I predict a werewolf win in a shatteringly quick game.

Consider:

Night 1: Oddwen dies

Day 1: one lynching: 18 villagers remain: 3 werewolves, 1 cobbler, 1 beorning, 13 innocents.

Night 2: two killings; statistical likelihood of it being two innocents:
------ 16 villagers remain: 3 werewolves, 1 cobbler, 1 beorning, and 11 innocents.

Day 2: one lynching: 15 villagers.

Night 3: two killings: 14 villagers remain: probably 3 werewolves, 1 cobbler, 1 beorning, and 8 innocents.

My numbers look to be off somewhere, but you get the picture. As the number of innocents goes down, the chance of a werewolf lynching increases, but the deaths happen too fast.

What's the solution to this? 1. Make darned sure the shirriffs get to announce themselves when they want to. 2. Can the black beorning or cobbler. My opinion.

[wilwarin538]

I really like the cobbler role, I wasn't sure of it at first but now I really like it.

The shirriff role would have been better if we could have revealed ourselves.

I'm not to sure about the werehamster/black beorning. I think we should drop that role, maybe replace it with the mytho, that sounded interesting to me.

[Alcarillo]

I agree with littlemanpoet that it seems as though the wolves would have a statistical advantage. If we drop a role, I think it should be the werehamster/black beorning. It's too complicated for me. The cobbler was a great addition to the games and I'd like to see it too.

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

maybe replace it with the mytho, that sounded interesting to me.

Well, we might as well just add another seer. I think another ranger or hunter would be better.