WWLVIII: Escape From Angband (or Behavioral Modification)

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The bolded one kind of jumps up from there as an ordo (or any non-duck/wolf) would know that because of herself not being one the whole option of all being wolves is not possible. A wolf doesn't know that of course and might speculate on it...

Well, it seems Nogrod is just Nogrod, though we have yet to see if he must be a 'quiet' Nogrod. I thought that would spark at least some amusement if not a theory or two.

Our moddess has the most posts now on the thread I believe...

Here we go.

Evil and Trying So Hard:

Nogrod
wilwa
Izzy


Evil and Not Trying at All/Amused:

Lari
Mira
Mac


Evil and Uninterested:

Brinniel
Nienna


Innocent and Trying So Hard:

Lommy
Legate
Kath


Innocent and Amused:

Rikae
Nerwen


Innocent and Uninterested:

Gwath
Shasta
Fea


Nilpish + a dash of Nogrod:

Nilp


Hope I didn't miss anyone.

And sorry Wilwa, hehe!

[Durelin]

Ah, well, I missed Mith because she has not posted yet.

Well there's certainly a lot more of interest on this page. I knew I could count on you Europeans!

Originally Posted by Wilwa

There are atleast 3 were-ducks, with a game this size it makes no sense to have less, not fair odds, could maybe be more though
I think we can assume there is a seer, though Sally probably messed around with the role, I don't think I've seen too many games that have taken out this role
There is probably a hunter or ranger, if not both at least one, and they too are probably decked out with some crazy extra ability, though I'm sure there's a chance they were left out completely
There is atleast 1 cobbler, but I think we've all suggested that there is probably more then 1, just cause it's a crazy role that is known to cause problems and, well, it's Sally
Lovers, probably, and it probably isn't a normal pairing

This is definitely good to keep in mind - I think it's a good general assumption, though after tonight we might need to add in a werebear.

Originally Posted by Lari

I was thinking something along the lines of being a tricked out ordo.

That is an interesting idea, though I don't think we should dwell on all the possibilities. If we have some tricked out anythings (ordos, seers, rangers, etc.), we should let them do their work and hope it helps us. Or just let them have their fun and let all be revealed most dramatically at the end of the game.

Originally Posted by Kath

It seems that people are focusing on that little group of chatterers which might be a good idea.

Really I don't think that's such a good idea. Wolves can easily keep their mouths shut if they're worried about drawing too much attention. Now, has it so far been easy to just kinda mingle and be forgotten? Yes. It's Day 1, we're at full numbers, and even the dead are filling up the thread.

I love how the most thinking we've done and conclusions we've come to is regarding who has what posting assignments/restrictions.

Btw, I think we have a grumpy Nilp on our hands. He might well vote for someone other than himself.

[Durelin]

Just a quick question though I know we should move on from discussing the roles...

So, lovers. If one dies, the other dies. In the past I believe they were usually between a werecreature and a non-werecreature, but is that actually usually the case? And if so, then is the werecreatures lover essentially akin to a cobbler even if they are not specifically the 'cobbler'?

Unfortunately I have to run. Sorry to leave everyone with that, basically adding to the confusion, but I don't remember the last time I played in a game involving lovers.

[wilwarin538]

I knew I could count on you Europeans!

Well, I'm actually Canadian, but oh well, I don't mind be included among you.

x'posted with Durelin

Well, it could be that it is a were-duck and ord coupling but the ord in the relationship doesn't know that her lover is evilness. That way she would be innocent but technically would be helping to keep a were-duck from being lynched, so like a cobbler by proxy. That's one possibility. Or, two ducks could be lovers, be able to PM at all times, and if we lynch one then the other goes down too. Or just two goodies, like a gifted and an ord, or two gifteds or two ords. There's lots of combinations.

[Mithalwen]

I am sorry I haven't posted before. This is because having not actually agreed definitively to participate in this game I have been being following Voltaire's advice in the pleasantly suprising springlike weather my part of the world has been experiencing and havent' been on line for three days.

However after the last game, it seems my will is irrelevant to my participation so in this- is this what they call a meta-existence? I may as well try and work out what on earth is going on.... *sighs*

Exixtence - without him, what is the point?

Phantom? Whyfor did you go and leave me?

[Macalaure]

Durelin's reply to Nogrod's point strikes me as fishy (Nogrod is just Nogrod... eh?).

I'm a bit queasy about the recent lovers discussion. There might be the possibility of "blind lovers", who have to guess their partner's identity. Same with the cobbler discussion before. I can see secret messages flying left and right.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Durelin

So, lovers. If one dies, the other dies. In the past I believe they were usually between a werecreature and a non-werecreature, but is that actually usually the case? And if so, then is the werecreatures lover essentially akin to a cobbler even if they are not specifically the 'cobbler'?

If so, essentially, yes. However, I think it may not be the case, like you say - we can surely have other lovers as well.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I'm a bit queasy about the recent lovers discussion. There might be the possibility of "blind lovers", who have to guess their partner's identity. Same with the cobbler discussion before. I can see secret messages flying left and right.

I can see you flying left and right here, so watching you. (And also accusing people who are discussing, completely legitimely - I hope - that.) But the idea of "blind lovers" is also not as impossible, even though in this setting it would be quite hard role to play.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Legate

I can see you flying left and right here, so watching you.

What else is not new.

Originally Posted by Legate

(And also accusing people who are discussing, completely legitimely - I hope - that.)

Well, this game is sort of slowed down. The banter phase took three pages, and now we're in the rules-and-roles discussion of questionable value. It's legitimate for sure, but your immediate and strong defense, well...

Originally Posted by Legate

But the idea of "blind lovers" is also not as impossible, even though in this setting it would be quite hard role to play.

Now this is most peculiar. The most straightforward way to identify your lover, and have your lover identify you, is to talk about the lover role in general. I raise a point against it, and you give a half-hearted "it's not impossible" along with "it would be really hard to play". You see right above there how easy it can be played, possibly, so the first part of that statement is fishy and the second false.

Does this make you guilty? No. You might be a lover, but the problem is: there's no telling of what sort, and blindly lynching lovers is the path to defeat. I'm watching you, too, though.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Badger.

Or, alternatively, mushroom.

Or even snake.

I'll be back after the heavy lifting.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Dury

though we have yet to see if he must be a 'quiet' Nogrod. I thought that would spark at least some amusement if not a theory or two.

It's so sad to disappoint people but my orders / guidelines didn't mention anything about posting a lot or a little. I've just had a terrible 11-hour working-day. So I may be making a few posts in the near future after I stick myself to this.

Just a meta-comment before I start looking backwards a bit more closely. Even if it is legitimate, I don't see there being a host of reasons to discuss the possible roles there are on Day1 too extensively in a game where everyone has a role of sorts and not all roles are even known.

But if you have nothing else to go for let's then rather discuss the guidelines / orders different people may have. It looks like a good guess that Dury needs to produce tallies or statistics - and that Fea has been told not to banter (that would explain why she complained her assignment being so hard: her friends having fun-banter to no end and she was not allowed to join it!). But not all guidelines concern themselves with the "playing-style" of the player. Well, mine doesn't. I have been told of different kind of requirements.

I'm not sure if we should talk openly about our own guidelines / orders as I feel it would be a bit against the spirit of the game at least this early (and surely anyone can claim anything) - but we should be able to speculate over that of other players as it might help us in making up our minds when voting - that we don't vote for people for reasons that have to do more with the ModDuck's orders than the lynchee's possible role. What I mean is "let's lynch Fea because she doesn't banter in this game" would be a bad reason to lynch her in this game - at least before something more enlightening comes to the fore. Which doesn't say we shouldn't lynch her in principle...

Having better grasp on these guidelines / orders everyone has to obey we could in the best case avoid some stupid lynches.

Btw. I find Rikae's comment here interesting if not even a bit troubling:

Originally Posted by Rikae

I feel a bit left out, since I don't have any special posting requirements.

Compare it with this...

Originally Posted by ModDuck

you will each receive personalized PMs detailing your obligations and/or role for the game.

Hmm...

Okay. Back to the thread now.