Tol-in-Gaurhoth CXIV – The Evil Breath of Morgoth in Dor-lómin, discussion thread

[Huinesoron]

Does this mean the "Wolves" are asymptomatic carriers? I kind of love it.

I wonder whether a full-fledged Quarantine Vote might not disrupt things too much, though - for instance, if a Seer gets killed without explicitly revealing their results, the village would almost have to follow the first Quarantine Vote on the assumption that the Seer was behind it. I don't really know whether that would be a problem, though, or if it's just part of the fun.

As far as the seniority system goes: rather than pinning the timing down to a single person being available at the right moment, I'd suggest making a tie go to whichever person had the most veteran Quarantinee vote for them, out of the QTs who were involved in the tie. So if the Day 1 lynch votes for a third party, we'd look at the Night 1 kill's vote instead (or the Day 2 lynch, etc etc). That makes it slightly more automatic, and means a less-active Quarantine House isn't a game-breaker.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

That would seem to have a large effect on the Quarantined votes. How likely are the Innocents there to listen to a known baddie?

That depends - is the know baddie saying 'you definitely shouldn't vote for him, he's totally not a wolf' - and are they telling the truth when they say it? They're definitely giving you information - you just need to work out if it's a bluff or not.

hS

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

As far as the seniority system goes: rather than pinning the timing down to a single person being available at the right moment, I'd suggest making a tie go to whichever person had the most veteran Quarantinee vote for them, out of the QTs who were involved in the tie.

That is actually a fair point: we can't be sure we have the most senior Quarantined person available if s/he hasn't voted for either or the tied candidates. So let's say that in a case of a tie in QT the most "veteran" quarantined player's (in sense of how early that person got there, that is) vote for either / any of the evenly voted is the tie-breaker.

[Galadriel55]

Something I wanna clarify: does the QT vote to empower a living vote, or casts a vote of their own independently of the living thread?

[A Little Green]

Late to the party, but count me in! Also can I say that I love the abbreviation QT as it makes the dead thread sound very cute

[Boromir88]

Yes....let's do it

Thanks Nog!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Late to the party, but count me in! Also can I say that I love the abbreviation QT as it makes the dead thread sound very cute

I like that much better than my first association...

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I like that much better than my first association...

Argh, you beat me to this. Also made me wonder if the Evil Breath causes death by cardiac dysrhythmia. (Hush, no bad words on the Downs!)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

One more question about that QT-vote came to mind from your comments. Should it actually be just one hour before the DL they have to vote? In a normal game the action tends to pack into the last hour of the Day - or the last 1½ hours - if the Deadline is good for most people. I wouldn't want to leave it to the very end but would like to leave the Villagers some time to mull the QT vote over before the DL. On the other hand, the later the QT can follow the things folding out the more reasoned choices they can made - and the more fulfilling the game is for them.

Personally won't matter to me; I'll still be voting way before any of the quarantined or uninfected/suspected/probable cases. But if the Living are going to wait for the QT vote I suppose two hours would be better to leave them more than enough time to factor it in? It's bad enough that some people leave out their votes until right before the Day ends without the QT vote adding to the last-minute frenzy.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The only thing I'm thinking about are the Wolves. Especially given that they are going to be vastly outnumbered by (this time known!) innocents, allowing them to PM (with only other quarantined Wolves, of course) might alleviate the ostracisation-feeling. Then again, it isn't such a big difference, plus if the first Wolf is quarantined alone for a long time, it won't change a thing. Most of all, it would be a narrative problem, how to explain that quarantined people still communicate. Unless you made it so that those awful people are breaking quarantine even inside the quarantine house and meeting with each other when other quarantined ones are sleeping. (Actually, that would be a reasonable narrative explanation... But whichever. Not being able to talk otherwise could give the Wolves an incentive to participate on the QT more actively.)

I like the idea of quarantined wolves being able to PM each other. I don't think it tips the balance too much over to the dark side since their ability to converse doesn't necessarily translate to being able to manipulate the rest of the quarantined, but it would be interesting to see what havoc they can wreak together nonetheless.

I'M STILL A RELUCTANT BADDIE, just so we're clear. But this makes for an interesting story.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

But what about the most junior "dead" being the tie-breaker? This way it would change every Day, and possibly cause more chaos because the tie-breakers would have fresh grudges from the living thread in their minds. Of course, here the problem is that two people die for every lynch (the lynch and the night kill), so not everyone would get a go as the tie-breaker anyway. But I would give the tie-breaker role always to the previous lynchee - if it's the night kill, it cannot be a wolf (which is a little boring), and furthermore it might make sense storywise (the strongest in the qurantine is the one who was quarantined the last without showing any symptoms).

I agree with this (especially the last point haha). It might get boring if it's always the same person who gets to break a tie, not to mention maybe a bit lopsided if the senior quarantined is a wolf. How often do ties occur in the dead thread in the past, anyhow?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What do you think of tiebreaking among the living / healthy? It has traditionally been either the first to get the votes (basically the "original suspect") or the last one (basically the one who's "under heat" just before the decision"). They have a bit different effect on the game mechanics depending on the situation and I'm quite open to either one. I'd rather not randomize it (will do it, if you insist it being the best way to do it).

I vote for the last one to get to the tie. Agreed, the last-minute frenzy can indeed be telling. I guess this might also better allow the QT vote to be factored into the final count, like for example if it happens that a lot of votes come in before the QT vote is revealed.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But yes, I'm quite okay with a larger game as well - and am not exactly pushing for added roles (just add more "wolves" if there are more Villagers), but probably the Cobbler.

Possibly unpopular opinion: Could we not have a Cobbler? Not just because I still have a grudge against the role (grumble grumble Estel in Werewolf VII grumble grumble), but also there might be so much to consider already for a supposedly simple comeback game. Or maybe it's just me and my nearly decade-long Werewolf-deprived brain.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

-I'd prefer it if the quarantine vote is only revealed during the death narration. It wouldn't be much fun if a day's play just comes down to waiting to learn who the dead chose and then bandwaggon on that. And you know that's what's going to happen once a gifted is dead.

Hm. Excellent point. I vote for this.

++LHUNARDAWEN for flip-flopping

Originally Posted by Macalaure

-And if the QT lot essentially counts as one villager, can the living lynch the dead thread as a whole, too?

Can we do this? Please? Please?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Argh, you beat me to this. Also made me wonder if the Evil Breath causes death by cardiac dysrhythmia. (Hush, no bad words on the Downs!)

It's ok. We know the counter-curses: defibrillators, epinephrine, amiodarone, mag sulphate, and a performance of the ritual chest compression dance.

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Can we do this? Please? Please?

Oh, but you know who's gonna get the Day 1 votes if we allow that...


I am having a bit too much fun, and the game hasn't even started!

[Nogrod]

Nice too see you Greenie and Boro!

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Something I wanna clarify: does the QT vote to empower a living vote, or casts a vote of their own independently of the living thread?

They are like one villager - and they have one vote.

Think of it like this (I'm not sure I got your question correctly). Every living villager has one vote each but the QT has one vote as a unit whatever the number of them are (and that is a result of their own "internal voting").

The QT is like one villager then, voting with the other villagers at the end of everyDay. And like a villager can give her/his vote any time of the Day, the QT gives it's vote at a certain time of the Day. I was thinking about two hours before the DL to be fair to both parties (the QT would have as long time as possible to see what happens on the Day they give their vote - and the villagers would have some decent time to pay heed to what the QT voted).


I think it could be very interesting if the game goes on for longer: as the number of people in QT arises in proportion to the living villagers, the weight of their vote also increases. For example an early game one vote from 15 votes (14 villagers remaining) is pretty insignificant, but one vote from four in the endgame (three villagers remaining) is quite huge indeed!

I love the abbreviation QT as it makes the dead thread sound very cute

Hehe. Didn't kind of vocalise it in my mind before you mentioned it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

They are like one villager - and they have one vote.

Think of it like this (I'm not sure I got your question correctly). Every living villager has one vote each but the QT has one vote as a unit whatever the number of them are (and that is a result of their own "internal voting").

The QT is like one villager then, voting with the other villagers at the end of everyDay. And like a villager can give her/his vote any time of the Day, the QT gives it's vote at a certain time of the Day. I was thinking about two hours before the DL to be fair to both parties (the QT would have as long time as possible to see what happens on the Day they give their vote - and the villagers would have some decent time to pay heed to what the QT voted).

Sounds like a good idea. However, I wonder whether it may not be better to do the thing that has been done a few times in the past - that the Dead Thread (or in this case, QT) "empowers" a villager by voting for someone, and the person they vote for then gets, for instance, an extra weight for their vote - i.e. their vote counts as two.

I believe that sometimes this was done for the Day at hand, making it kind of more of a wild card for the living (suddenly, one player's vote counted as two and everyone realised it only at the narration); but sometimes it was also done for the next Day (and the villagers knew who was chosen?).

The advantages of this were among other things that the Dead could thus send the Living some messages, as in, not only empowering people in order to catch Wolves, but also to signal, say, "hey, you can trust person X" or "what X has been saying makes sense" etc. To be sure, it offered plenty of room for the Living (with the Wolves assisting merrily) to bicker about what exactly it was that the Dead were exactly trying to say etc. Sometimes however this mechanic got straightaway "hijacked" by the Living dictating the Dead what they should do (not that the Dead listened, if I remember correctly).

But I don't know honestly whether the option you presented (just giving a vote) may be better and more straightforward.

Just one more concern I wanted to mention - having a "QT DL" as you say, e.g. 2 hours before real DL is nice idea, it kind of equalizes the fact that the Dead can figure out a bit more than the Living with the fact that they won't have all the facts (usually lots of things can happen in the last 2 hours). And it MAY serve as an incentive for the Living to start voting from there - my only concern is whether the Living won't be reluctant to vote before the Dead vote. But not that people are usually in a hurry with their votes anyway.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Sounds like a good idea. However, I wonder whether it may not be better to do the thing that has been done a few times in the past - that the Dead Thread (or in this case, QT) "empowers" a villager by voting for someone, and the person they vote for then gets, for instance, an extra weight for their vote - i.e. their vote counts as two.

I actually like the separate vote (as opposed to an empowering vote) better. I've never played in a dead thread game, but I followed them, and the empowerment did seem like more stress and complication than good use. Besides, the big debate in past games was how to use the vote to communicate information, as roles were not known. However, Roles will be known here, and the information left to convey is more vague (e.g. who we think the dead wolf's pack is, who the Seer dreamed as innocent two nights ago). I think it's cooler to let the dead keep voting a diluted vote that directly affects the tally.


By the way, what happens to the Gifteds when they are in quarantine? Can the Seer still dream? And how about Wolves - can dead Wolves PM amongst themselves?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Sounds like a good idea. However, I wonder whether it may not be better to do the thing that has been done a few times in the past - that the Dead Thread (or in this case, QT) "empowers" a villager by voting for someone, and the person they vote for then gets, for instance, an extra weight for their vote - i.e. their vote counts as two.

...

The advantages of this were among other things that the Dead could thus send the Living some messages, as in, not only empowering people in order to catch Wolves, but also to signal, say, "hey, you can trust person X" or "what X has been saying makes sense" etc. To be sure, it offered plenty of room for the Living (with the Wolves assisting merrily) to bicker about what exactly it was that the Dead were exactly trying to say etc. Sometimes however this mechanic got straightaway "hijacked" by the Living dictating the Dead what they should do (not that the Dead listened, if I remember correctly).

That part in bold is just what I wanted to avoid. Back in those games those discussions took most of the air from the thread and people talked less about who to vote than how to best use the game mechanics and why the other thread should comply...

So yes, I was willing to make it more straightforward.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

By the way, what happens to the Gifteds when they are in quarantine? Can the Seer still dream? And how about Wolves - can dead Wolves PM amongst themselves?

I think it has been the general rule that all the special abilities and advances the different gifts bring to people are negated in death aka. in quarantine. So no more dreams to the Seer, no more PM'ing with the other "Infectors" (wolves) by Night, no more hunting or rangering...



One more question about that QT-vote came to mind from your comments. Should it actually be just one hour before the DL they have to vote? In a normal game the action tends to pack into the last hour of the Day - or the last 1½ hours - if the Deadline is good for most people. I wouldn't want to leave it to the very end but would like to leave the Villagers some time to mull the QT vote over before the DL. On the other hand, the later the QT can follow the things folding out the more reasoned choices they can made - and the more fulfilling the game is for them.

Just remember, that a "more reasoned choice" doesn't equal "the right choice"



Talking of the Deadline...

As no-one wishes for an early morning Deadline (US late evening translates into early morning in Europe), I'd suggest we'd go for something like little bit before Midnight GMT. That would be Midnight or little after in Finland, little before in Continental Europe and an hour earlier in the UK - and something like afternoon in the Eastern US.

What do you think?