Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Encaitare]

The lessened ratio of wolves to villagers is countered by the bear -- there are two kills a night until either the bear or all the wolves are found.

Do many people still feel that the Werecreatures have an unfair disadvantage? If so, we could reintroduce the Cursed villager in this game.

I think that going over 22 players would be making the games too large and too complicated.

I agree. As I said before, the list is closed unless someone steps down to let someone else play.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

The lessened ratio of wolves to villagers is countered by the bear -- there are two kills a night until either the bear or all the wolves are found.

NB I was referring to arcticstorm's proposal in general not to the next game specifically. The bear tilts the balance dramatically. But with the 18 player scenario to which I was referring, I feel that 1 wolf per 6 villagers with a seer, hunter, guardian, and sherriffs is a bit unbalanced ... the mythomaniac has more chance of being a gifted than a wolf and the cursed only becomes a wolf if attacked by wolves. It is clearly a very different balance of power to 1 wolf per 4 and only 1 gifted...

[Cailín]

I am fine with the roles as they are now - though I'm not sure if I like the bear. I play werewolves on some other fora and to avoid multiple lynching we choose a leader (mayor, if you like) on day one. If the votes are tied, he or she has the final say in who is being lynched. It adds something extra to the game, because a corrupted leader could turn the game in favor of the werecreatures. Maybe an idea for another game in the future, I don't know.

As for professions, I shall be the woman making crochet scarves all day. Since this is a very useless thing to do, I shall mostly just gasp and bat my eyelashes a lot.

[wilwarin538]

I think the roles are ok. I'm 50/50 about the bear though. If stays I'm fine, if it goes I'm fine.

[mormegil]

Eomer has a point that I think should be considered. I for one am opposed to any game larger than the current. The main reason is that with 20+ players it's too difficult to try and read so many posts (some of great length), keep track of 20 players, work and maintain a family life.

So it might be worth considering a limit on the number of players I think 15 to 17 is ideal with no bear. I'm excited to see how this game goes though and see how the bear functions, hoping that I stay in longer than one day. So my opinion may change but that's my 2 cents.

Also, if there is somebody dying to get in that hasn't yet I am willing to give up my spot to somebody that wants it badly.

[SamwiseGamgee]

I guess I kind of agree with Mormegil- over 20 villagers is a big number to keep track of. However, with the bear thrown in for an extra kill every night it's really not very long before the numbers are quite a bit lower. It's always going to be crazy and random for the first couple of days, so I don't have a problem with bigger numbers. Although I would like to be in a 'straight-werewolf' game- just 3 werewolves and maybe 9 innocents.

[arcticstorm]

While I agree with Morm that over 20 may make it too much for those of us in college or who work. I have also played many games of Mafia with 30 or 40 people and it just made the game a lot more intersting

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

Do many people still feel that the Werecreatures have an unfair disadvantage? If so, we could reintroduce the Cursed villager in this game.

I'm not playing this time, but I think the innocents got lucky in the last game, and are really getting experienced. I predicted wrongly that the werebeasts would eat the village up. I don't think the Cursed Villager makes enough difference to offset any advantage the innocents have. Just make sure you have a Cobbler; especially if s/he also roots for the Beorning. My two cents.

I didn't know that the basic form was 1 in 4 villagers is a werewolf. It helps to know that. That means that there ought to be 5 werewolves in a village of 20; but if there are 3 werewolves, a Beorning, and a Cobbler, I think it sort of evens out; especially with two kills per night.

[Alcarillo]

I would like to be the mayor, if there are no objections.

[SamwiseGamgee]

I don't think that'll work Alcarillo, if you mean to be the mayor as Cailín described. In that case a mayor would have to be elected at the end of day one, and it wouldn't really be a role assigned by the mod, it'd have to be agreed upon by the villagers. I just don't think you can choose it as an occupation like that.

As far as my opinion goes on the mayor, I don't particularly like the idea. At the end of day one you really don't have any idea who's innocent or guilty, and I think the scope for a werewolf, werebear or cobbler being elected is too great. However, I'm sure there'll be those who think that's a great idea, so who knows!

[Holbytlass]

I think Alcarillo is just saying that as an occupation, like when I was a cobbler but not THE cobbler.

[WaynetheGoblin]

Yes I agree with Holbytlass.

[Encaitare]

I fear I may have been a bit too hasty before. Roles will be assigned either Thursday or Friday, with the first post, a.k.a. NIGHT 1, being put up on Saturday. That means I only have until Sunday to live...

I was thinking about it, and if the Cobbler is on the side of all the Werecreatures, that should make it pretty challenging, as well as get rid of the problem of what to do with the Cobbler if all the wolves are dead.

[the guy who be short]

I think I would very much being a politician. Infact, I shall be the leader of the Opposition in the village. Ah, I'll enjoy this...

[Alcarillo]

Yes, I did mean mayor as an occupation within the village (like cheese-maker, llama herder, etc.), not as a role for the game (like seer, hunter, etc.). And I will be running a wonderful ad campaign against TGWBS.

[SamwiseGamgee]

Well I'm sure that will be most interesting- if not rather cobblerish!

Anywho, I shall take as my occupation a philosophical badger farmer. Having spent my life in the big city I quickly realised nobody had any time for badger farmers, and so I have moved to our town in the hope of prosperity and some quiet to formulate my treatise on the great minds of badgerdom.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Alcarillo

And I will be running a wonderful ad campaign against TGWBS.

I'm afraid I have you at a disadvantage, good sir. After all, it is your town being over-run by werewolves. The potential for capitalising on that is almost unsurpassable... I mean, what kind of image does that send to the people about those currently in power? Can't even stop werewolves. Useless.

Thanks for starting with a Night, your Encaness.

Just to add my two penn'orth, I don't care about the Bear or the Cobbler or anything. At all. Have 'em all, Have 'em none, Have 'em some, it all works.

[Alcarillo]

Ah, but if you urge the people to vote for you, tgwbs, then you will surely be taken as a cobbler.

And my views on the cobbler and bear are indifferent. I don't care if they're left in the game, and I don't care if they're left out.

[Glirdan]

Im fine with anything that's in (or out) of the game. The Cobbler, the Bear and mass lynchings. Your decisions are fine by me.

[the guy who be short]

I think we should get rid of mass lynchings. They make the game too easy for the villagers - once the seer knows one innocent, a circle lynch can be organised. It takes away the FEAR.

Ah, but if you urge the people to vote for you, tgwbs, then you will surely be taken as a cobbler.

Ah, but we're not near an election are we? I'll simply use every opportunity to take a swipe at you.

And my views on the cobbler and bear are indifferent. I don't care if they're left in the game, and I don't care if they're left out.

Already we're beginning to resemble British politics - two leading parties saying exactly the same things!

[Kath]

With the mass lynching thing I think Enca already said that they were only to be used a last resort. So possibly we could have either a time limit on them, say none before the 7th day or whatever (that is a completely random number) or depending on the number of werewolves/bears killed compared to the number of villagers still alive. So that if the number of villagers less than doubles the number of evil guys then mass lynchings would be allowed.

[Oddwen]

...maybe mass lynchings can be used only if both Werewolves and WereBear are alive.

[Gil-Galad]

it could be used as a special power, used only once

basically everyone votes for one person for a limited time, the votes are tallied up and the rest of the vilalgers vote again, they do this till, oh lets say half of the village? a quarter? then they do the mass lynching, they can only do it once though

[the guy who be short]

If two or more people get the same amount of votes, only the first to get the votes should die. Or the last. Or something like that.

*Looks up hopefully at Enca*

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I agree, I think mass lynchings should go...just because it kills too many at once, and gets rid of some of the suspense.

I also think that the size of the village should go down in future games. 20 seems like a good high-end limit to me. I am at a disadvantage in this game because I share the computer with three other people, and I have school during the day, homework in the afternoons and weekends...so I can easily see myself not having time to get online more than twice a DAY. As a result, I'll have pages of posts to read and consider all at once. I don't have hours and hours to spend on the computer every day. I think this puts me in a place where I'm much more likely to make a mistake and lead in lynching the wrong person, or mess up and get lynched myself.

If the werebear is involved, I think it's good in a larger game like this. It adds a new level of suspicion and intrigue....and that's just what Werewolf needs, isn't it: more suspicion!

That's not to say I'm not excited about playing. I can't wait to get started. Just the list of names of people involved promises a very interesting game indeed! Can't wait for the start of the game!

[The Saucepan Man]

I agree that the maximum number of players should not be much over 20 per game. Although, in the next game, I will be posting much less so that should reduce the post count considerably ...

I really don't hold much with this idea of mass lynchings being permitted but "frowned upon" or only used in the "last resort". They are not a feasible tactic for the Villagers except in "last resort" circumstances anyway, so the Villagers would be able to use them whereas they would be pretty much unavailable for werecreatures to use as a tactic. So, in my view, they should either be allowed or not allowed. No halfway-houses.

Originally Posted by Azaelia

I agree, I think mass lynchings should go...just because it kills too many at once, and gets rid of some of the suspense.

Actually, I thought that the mass lynching plan added a lot of suspense in the last game, for me anyway. I was absolutely sure that something would go wrong or that there was a loophole which I had not spotted. Indeed, Gurthang did manage to spot a loophole and played it very well indeed. Had I not had a last minte realisation, he would have succeeded in forcing a draw. As it was, the game ended not with a mass lynching but with a double lynching.

However, the general consensus seems to be against mass lynchings and I have no problem with that. The more I think about it, the more I think that it would be fun, and add another tactical element, if in the event of a tie the person first voted for is the one who is lynched.

I am still wary of allowing the Cobbler to side with the Werebear, not only because it will make the Werebear very difficult to track down other than through a lucky hit, but also because it puts the Cobbler in a very strong position since s/he will have two chances of winning. Nevertheless, I will accede to the wishes of the majority. Will the Cobbler be working for both the Werewolves and the Werebear from the start, or will his/her first duty be to the Werewolves and s/he only switches to the Werebear's side if all the Werewolves die?

Enca, given that you now have a full complement of players, is there any possibility of starting the game earlier? Otherwise, in the unlikely event that I survive until near the end and the game goes over two weeks, I may be in difficulties continuing.

[littlemanpoet]

A lot of these mass lynching limiter ideas are rather arbitrary. So how about this?

The King considers multiple lynching to be tantamount to mob rule. So if mass lynching occurs, the King's Bailliff (moderator) comes to town the next day and hauls off one of the mass lynch voters to the King's Dungeon (picked at random by the moderator) for the remainder of the "game". It's the same as dying; the randomly picked individual is done.

Or on the same principle, the Bailliff orders a vote amongst those who voted for one of those lynched in the multiple lynching; whoever gets the most votes is guilty of instigating it (about as arbitrary as other aspects of Medieval law), and is dragged off to the King's Dungeon.

Every time a multiple lynching occurs, the King's Bailliff shows up on the following day.

[Nonnacedak]

I think I will be a Armorsmith.

[The Saucepan Man]

LMP - both of your suggestions mean that people who voted earlier in the Day for one of the "multiple lynchees" could be out of the game without having done anything wrong simply because someone comes along later and forces a tie. Indeed, this could be used by either side (but most probably one of the werecreatures) as a tactic, albeit a desperate one.

I still say that, in the event of a tie, the lynchee is either randomly chosen or, better still, the person who attracted the first vote out of all those tied.

[Lalaith]

Regarding the Cobbler, it's all very well saying the Cobbler is on the side of the Bear but s/he presumably has no idea who the Bear is. The wolves are hard enough to spot, the Bear is far worse.
I think it does make more sense, however, for the Cobbler to support all weres, not just the wolves.

[Lalaith]

Oh, and I also think that multiple lynchings make a Cobbler's role more fun, and also more risky.

[the guy who be short]

Multiple lynchings mean that, once the Seer has named an innocent, the villagers pull a phantom and win.

[mormegil]

On multiple lynchings I agree with SpM that they should either be allowed or disallowed. I see the problem that TGWBS brought up

Multiple lynchings mean that, once the Seer has named an innocent, the villagers pull a phantom and win.

However if I were an innocent and I thought we could still win the traditional way I wouldn't support such a plan. I know that would seem wolfish but I would rather try and win the old fashion way of killing one a day then the mass lynching. I think we are needlessly complicating many aspects of the game.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Mormegil

I think we are needlessly complicating many aspects of the game.

By banning mass lynchings? Uh-uh. All we're doing is taking away an opportunity for villagers to de-paranoia the game.

[mormegil]

I was meaning more of these rules we are trying to contrive where we will allow mass lynchings but only under the following circumstances......I think that either mass lynching should be banned or allowed but add retractable votes to make them completely ineffective.

[arcticstorm]

Originally Posted by mormegil

I was meaning more of these rules we are trying to contrive where we will allow mass lynchings but only under the following circumstances......I think that either mass lynching should be banned or allowed but add retractable votes to make them completely ineffective.

I agree that retractable votes would make them ineffective, and here is why, the werecreatures could vote with the group and retract it at the last second so as to not give the known innocent time to retaliate. It would make the game extremely interesting

[littlemanpoet]

I'm actually for banning multiple/mass lynchings, but if they must be had, I offered my system which would indeed be beneficial to the lycanthropes, which just seems right to me. They benefit from multiple lynchings, so if innocent villagers are cynical enough to use them, they ought to pay the price. Oh, and the moderator should remove the lycanthropes from the random selection by the Bailliff, too. Do I root for the lycanthropes? Only when I'm not an innocent actually playing the game, yes.

[wilwarin538]

I'm against mass lynchings, its not as much fun. I also think votes should be non-retractable, makes people think a little harder about who to vote for.

[The Saucepan Man]

This thread now seems to be going round and round in circles.

Either mass lynchings are allowed or they're not. If they are allowed then they are a legitimate tactic. If not, then they are not. It's as simple as that. And it's up to Enca to decide. I think that more than enough ideas and opinions have been offered as to how they might be made impossible, impractical or unattractive.

Let's just leave it to Enca to make the final decision.

[Glirdan]

Just to add my two cents in, I think that mass lynchings would really, as TGWBS puts it, de-paranoia the villagers, and I like to be paranoid. But as I said before, I'm all for having it in or out. Rather it out though, just so I can be paranoid.