Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by LMP

26 Eonwe ~ husband of Lhunardawen ~

Wha!?! I never agreed to this! We definitely left that one in the air. You can't just go marrying people behind their backs!

But now that you mention it, it doesn't sound like too bad of an arrangment, if you can get past the arranged part...

Originally Posted by the phanotm

I'm with Lalaith. You don't have to tell us when the deceased became whatever he was, or if he used to be something else, but you should at least tell us what he was at time of death.

I guess I'm with Lalaith too. I would be nice to know if you're making some progress.

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm with SPM and Celuien. The whole thing goes back to what new strategies are up- the GW will know who was what, so it's up to him/her whether or not to reveal it. A tally is just enough info to keep us sane, while being ambiguous enough to throw up some questions.

Speaking of those two- there are some young eligible maidens in need of parents. Willing to adopt?

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Speaking of those two- there are some young eligible maidens in need of parents. Willing to adopt?

I'm willing to bring some children and young eligible maidens into the house. What do you say, SPM?

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by lmp & SPM

Perhaps we could know the current tally but not the final roles of those who have died ...?

If I'm understanding this correctly, the only difference between what I'm asking for (revealing roles at time of death) and what you are suggesting is that when a gifted is killed we won't know the role.

If a wolf is killed, you don't have to tell us "So-and-so was a wolf" because the tally will suddenly have one less wolf. And there are no multiple lynchings, so only one can die at a time during the day. At night, no wolves will be killed by wolves- the EW would see to that. And Wizards- well, they can't die without us knowing.

The only time it will make a difference is when the Seer, Ranger, or Hunter dies, instead of lmp telling us "you lost your Seer", he will simply say Gifteds=2 in the tally.

(the exception is when the Hunter is killed and he/she kills a wolf- in that case we won't know who is who and that is the primary source of confusion I can see resulting from a tally only system, but a Hunter killing a wolf doesn't happen every day of course)

All in all, I suppose a tally only system would not pose a huge concern during the Wizard phase, because the GW will just reassign that role with the nightly scry, and before the GW dies, he/she can tell the village which gifted was lost and when, if he/she feels like that information is somehow useful.

I suppose I really don't care during the Wizard phase. But, I certainly want roles revealed upon death as usual once we enter the standard Werewolf phase.

Eomer- nice to have you along for the ride!

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I'll shorten my opinion (and don't let this go to your head) to "I agree with the phantom."

[Roa_Aoife]

phantom, I think you forgot to take into account that the EW can de-gift a gifted, and the GW can unwolf a wolf, so even with a tally saying, "Oh, you only have a seer and a hunter, and this many wolves" we still wouldn't know if the villager who died was the protector, a wolf, or just a hapless innocent. And the EW could allow for a wolf to die, for their own intentions. The only one who would know about being a gifted would be the GW, while the only one who would know about being a wolf is the EW.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I'm ok either way it goes-- I'd prefer, obviously, to know the final role of the deceased...But not knowing/just getting a tally adds to the suspicion and suspense.

I think that the game is going to be (brilliant) chaos, and that we're going to need whatever shred of sanity we can get, be it a tally, or an actual role.

And welcome to the fun, Eomer!

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Roa

the EW can de-gift a gifted, and the GW can unwolf a wolf, so even with a tally saying, "Oh, you only have a seer and a hunter, and this many wolves" we still wouldn't know if the villager who died was the protector, a wolf, or just a hapless innocent.

Under normal circumstances we will always be able to tell by virtue of the tally if a gifted was slain or de-gifted. If the number of wolves goes up, the gifted was slain since the EW's nightly curse was obviously used to create another wolf. If the number of wolves remains the same, then the EW's nightly curse was used to de-gift. The only exception is if the nightly curse found the GW, which is not a likely option, and can only happen a maximum of once in a game.

As far as wolves killing wolves, I'm discounting that because it doesn't seem too likely that the EW would be a fan of that.

Let's look at a complex situation. If the GW de-wolves, the EW de-gifts, and the wolves kill an ordo all on one night, the number of Gifteds would decrease by one, Wolves would decrease by one, Wizards would stay at two, and Ordinaries would increase by one.

The village could quickly deduce that only one kill was made. Only the wolves, the hunter, or a meeting of wizards can kill. If it was a meeting of wizards that killed, then how could the number of both gifteds and wolves be reduced? In order for the Hunter to kill, he must be killed, but that would result in two deaths. The village would quickly work out that the death must have resulted from the wolves, and that the loss of the wolf and the gifted was due to the Wizard's nightly activities, meaning that it was an ordo who was killed and not a gifted.

As you can see, in most situations it is possible to figure out from the tally if a gifted was killed or de-gifted.

Now, once there are multiple killings at night, then the situation is more complicated, because there is no way of knowing which of the three individuals killed was the gifted (though as always we will be able to tell if the reduction in the number of gifteds was due to the EW or the wolves, which is nice).

And, of course, the GW can help clear up any confusion if he/she chooses by moving into the open.