Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, quite frankly I'm confused about what 'in favor' and 'not in favor' is actually saying at the moment, so I'm just going to explain what I want.

I'd like to see only the current role revealed of whoever is dying at the time. Any previous roles can be talked about later, after the game is completed. So:

++Whichever choice makes sense with what I just said

Originally Posted by Sleepy Ranger

++What he said

Actually, I'm a bit confused too and don't know what list my vote is in, so:

++agree with the brother of my brother's crush and my daddy

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, quite frankly I'm confused about what 'in favor' and 'not in favor' is actually saying at the moment

As am I. And so:
++ Do not care

[Oddwen]

As I said earlier -

++ HIDE THE ROLES

[Roa_Aoife]

To all the people not in favor- as the phantom pointed out, discerning the roles using the tallies won't be terribly difficult, it will simply require more than a read through. This will also continue to generate discussion later in the game (you know, when everything gets so frustratingly quiet?) Don't be intellectually lazy.

[Roa_Aoife]

I just thought of this (For all you nay-sayers):

If the EW finds out who the GW is, he/she/it can simply wait until they see that the seer is dead then call the GW out, thus pretty much finishing the game for the villagers. It allows the EW to time his or her reveal to their own advantage. Of course, if we have only tallies, the EW can't really know when the best time for the wizard deul is.

[littlemanpoet]

9 in favor, 13 opposed, 4 don't care.

We will be revealing the most recent role as well as to who was killed each Night.

"So it was said, so it shall be done."

-or-

"Make it so."

[Roa_Aoife]

LMP- I thought you said voting on this was open until 6 pm EST today. 3 poeple have yet to vote.

[Loki]

It may not be the most fair, but there are explicit exploitations to be made either way. The question is: which side has the smallest chance of winning? Then throw it their way.

I realize that it's pointless at the time, seeing as how everyone makes decisions and votes are made before I even get online, but...
++Not in favor.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Roa. Though it really doesn't change my meaning.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Roa

discerning the roles using the tallies won't be terribly difficult, it will simply require more than a read through. This will also continue to generate discussion later in the game (you know, when everything gets so frustratingly quiet?) Don't be intellectually lazy.

Exactly!

Come on, those of you who have voted to see roles revealed- change your vote! Let's make this game more interesting. Surely there are some of you who enjoy a bit of mental acrobatics.

Not revealing who is who could give the Wizards, Gifteds, and Wolves chances to either speak truth to the village or fool it. It would generate discussion. It would force people to form multiple theories.

If those things sound attractive, you need to vote "IN FAVOR".

[The Saucepan Man]

Given the amount of space it has taken up (to which I am now contributing), and the difficulty I just had in finding the latest version of the rules (despite lmp’s helpful update posts), it might (with the benefit of hindsight) have been worth creating an admin thread specifically for this game.

A few thoughts.

First, I think that everyone should steer clear of criticising the playing styles of others. Everyone has a different style of play, whether adopted for tactical purposes, because of general inclination or as a result of RL events. Provided it stays within the game rules, then people are free to adopt whatever style they wish. That does not mean that particular styles may not be used tactically (either by or against the person in question), but please can everyone avoid direct criticism of other players.

By way of example:

“I think that X should be lynched because he hardly says anything and is not contributing towards finding a Wolf.”

… is fine, whereas …

“X hardly says anything and is spoiling the game.”

… is not.

Secondly, the thorny issue of OOC comments. It has become rather common for people to mention previous games and their fellow players’ exploits therein. I have never been entirely comfortable with that, as it somewhat detracts from the role-play aspect. Nevertheless, it is inevitable (and understandable) that people will use their previous experiences of games and other players in their decision-making and it is only fair that they be allowed to explain those decisions, rather than looking like they are simply making random decisions. Any rule against direct references to previous games is, in any event, easily circumvented by prefacing statement with things like: “I have heard tell that in other villages …” or “Knowing X as I do …” or "In a past life ..." etc. It’s up to lmp whether he wants to ban references to previous games, but I would not be in favour.

As far as Nogrod’s reference to Kath and I using “ungentlemanly tactics” in the previous game is concerned, well I am afraid that I take the view, in a game based on bluff and deceit like Werewolf, that anything which is not specifically prohibited by the rules is a legitimate tactic. It is, I think, as well to be clear on that point up front.

Originally Posted by Loki

It seems to me as though "Day 1" decisions will be based solely on happensay and witless suspicion.

Usually, yes (although not always). But I’m not so sure that will necessarily be the case in this particular game. We’ll soon find out, anyway.

Originally Posted by lmp

The gifteds know who the good wizard is; the good wizard may PM the gifteds during the Day, and the gifteds may PM the good wizard during the Day.

I think that we may have touched on this issue before, but I just wanted to revisit it. I am not so sure that the Gifteds should automatically know the identity of the GW since, should they become de-Gifted and then Werewolfed, they will be able to pass this information on to the EW. I realise that the GW can seek to avoid this by scrying the de-Gifted person following their de-Giftication and, if necessary, allow them to die, but this may get in the way of his/her other plans. Would it not be better, therefore, if it was left up to the GW whether or not to reveal him/her-self to the Gifteds (and, if so, which ones)? The EW enjoys such a privilege, so why not the GW?

Two further questions.

I assume that the GW gets to scry a villager on Night 1. Is that right?

This may have been addressed previously, but I’ll be darned if I can find it. Do Gifteds/Werewolves get to carry out their Night-time activities on the same night that they are scried/Werewolfed, or must they wait until the next Night?

Finally, I know from experience just how emotionally, as well as intellectually, absorbing Werewolf games can become. But, in light of events in recent games, please can everyone bear in mind that it’s just a game.

Edit:

Originally Posted by TP

Not revealing who is who could give the Wizards, Gifteds, and Wolves chances to either speak truth to the village or fool it. It would generate discussion. It would force people to form multiple theories.

If those things sound attractive, you need to vote "IN FAVOR".

I thoroughly agree.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

In the last game I played, I was so stupid as to tell openly, I would be very badly available for the next 5-7 hours. Quite immediately the goose-Spm and the duck-Kath lynched me and won the game just by that.

So it's not so gentlemanlike as you might think...

Nogrod I'd like to point out that a lot of people miss 5 to 6 hours at a time so I don't think that you are required to point it out and that it won't look suspicous if you are gone. One should not be granted immunity based on absence. I do agree with SpM though and state that this game is based on deception, bluff, and treachery, to a degree, especially when you are on the 'evil' side so they can and should use any means needed to accomplish victory. Plus I rarely accept anyone's comments about RL if they are not posted on the admin thread as they can be used in the game thread as deception.

[Kuruharan]

I am not so sure that the Gifteds should automatically know the identity of the GW since, should they become de-Gifted and then Werewolfed, they will be able to pass this information on to the EW. I realise that the GW can seek to avoid this by scrying the de-Gifted person following their de-Giftication and, if necessary, allow them to die, but this may get in the way of his/her other plans. Would it not be better, therefore, if it was left up to the GW whether or not to reveal him/her-self to the Gifteds (and, if so, which ones)? The EW enjoys such a privilege, so why not the GW?

As LMP has conceived it, it basically does not matter who knows who the GW is. The GW is invincible except by the EW. Essentially, the GW could be announced at the beginning of the game (in fact, perhaps this should just be done and get it over with...?) and it might not really impact the game at all (well, except there will suddenly be a player who will basically just pontificate and everybody will be toadying up to in a nauseating fashion). The GW wants the EW to challenge because that is the end of the spawning of werewolves.

The GW basically lives to die (hopefully after getting a full stock of gifteds) while the EW lives to spawn werewolves.

[Loki]

I assume that the GW gets to scry a villager on Night 1. Is that right?

Now that's just plain silly. What motive would the GW have to spy on the lives of innocent townfolk? He would have to wait for Night 2. Unless, of course, the GW is The Saucepan Man, that lecherous barkeeper... that godless sodomite...

[Roa_Aoife]

There is the possibility the EW good use the knowledge of who the GW is to his or her advantage- say the EW waits until there are plently of wolves, sees that there are few or no gifted, and then chooses to kill the GW, essentially leaving the village in a horrible spot. There are advantages to secrecy on both sides.

Edit: Cross-posted with Loki. Yes, the GW scries one villager on Night 1, then gets to choose which gift to bestow upon said villager. Or the GW could choose not to bestow said gift, not that he/she would choose that, but it's a possible choice.

[Kuruharan]

There is the possibility the EW good use the knowledge of who the GW is to his or her advantage- say the EW waits until there are plently of wolves, sees that there are few or no gifted, and then chooses to kill the GW, essentially leaving the village in a horrible spot.

That is basically what the EW wants to do anyway...I don't see what the difference is.

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm just pointing out one reason why the GW wouldn't want to reveal themself right off the bat. Of course, this all better as in game speculation. I think it should be up to the GW as to whether or not they are revealed to the gifted.

[Oddwen]

Then what have we the Herald of Benevolence for? Let the GW decide wether to reveal themselves or not.

it will simply require more than a read through.

*singing* Don't stop the werewolves when they lynch you, this game is more than just a read-through */singing*

[Kuruharan]

Then what have we the Herald of Benevolence for?

I'm here basically to do all the normal moderating stuff (i.e. Seer dreams, keeping track of Ranger protection and Hunter targets) so that LMP and Boro88 can do all the sorting out of the werewolf decision-making and cursed player stuff (and I don't particularly envy them because I think that job is going to be similar to herding cats...especially since we will operate with 24 hour days and have all that annoying Trans-Atlantic and Pacific communication to iron out).

[Loki]

Edit: Cross-posted with Loki. Yes, the GW scries one villager on Night 1, then gets to choose which gift to bestow upon said villager. Or the GW could choose not to bestow said gift, not that he/she would choose that, but it's a possible choice.

What? That's utter nonsense! How will the Good Wizard have known that werewolves were in his town without them first making their appearance?

"Oh, well, he's the Good Wizard." Then how does that explain the presence of this evil? An Evil Wizard could have been tampering with his magic. Seriously, that's ludicris. That's assuming that the GW knows all about the werewolves and is preparing for it, or just randomly bestows gifts of hunter or ranger or seer upon his people, and that's infeasible. Else, everyone would have some kind of power to combat this threat. The only explanation is that no one saw it coming, and thus the GW would not be spying on his own people unless he was some kind of pervert. Didn't anyone get the The Saucepan Man joke?

*grumble* *grumble*

I say let the damn players do what they want. If they want to PM each other, fine. if they want to "reveal" their roles to each other, fine. If the GW/EW want to reveal the roles of the wolves or gifted to them, fine. It's their decision, it's their way of playing the game. If they want to screw themselves over by playing badly, it's, quite honestly, their own fault. If we have to suffer for it, it sucks, but that's just called being "fair."

What is up with all of this useless banter?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Do I detect a smidgeon of sarcasm, Ye Trickster?

[Roa_Aoife]

"Oh, well, he's the Good Wizard." Then how does that explain the presence of this evil? An Evil Wizard could have been tampering with his magic. Seriously, that's ludicris. That's assuming that the GW knows all about the werewolves and is preparing for it, or just randomly bestows gifts of hunter or ranger or seer upon his people, and that's infeasible. Else, everyone would have some kind of power to combat this threat. The only explanation is that no one saw it coming, and thus the GW would not be spying on his own people unless he was some kind of pervert. Didn't anyone get the The Saucepan Man joke?

Loki, you must realize that this is not an actual RP. The back story is there for entertainment purposes only. It's a game, certainly, but not one where we must all be in character constantly. (In fact, too many in character posts could get you lynched.) The narration doesn't have to make sense. The back story doesn't have to make sense. The only thing that matters are the rules and the jobs we are given. If one is the GW, then they should behave as the rules dictate they should behave. If one is the EW, then one should behave as the rules dictate the they should behave. The narration, no matter how wonderfully done, is just dressing and is inherently unimportant as to how the game is played.

And I got the Saucepanman joke.

I say let the damn players do what they want. If they want to PM each other, fine. if they want to "reveal" their roles to each other, fine. If the GW/EW want to reveal the roles of the wolves or gifted to them, fine. It's their decision, it's their way of playing the game. If they want to screw themselves over by playing badly, it's, quite honestly, their own fault. If we have to suffer for it, it sucks, but that's just called being "fair."

Exactly. The rules as they are now state that the gifted automatically find out who the GW is, which some people are disagreeing with, including myself. The GW should be allowed to do as they wish, which includes choosing to not reveal themselves.

What is up with all of this useless banter?

Welcome to my world....

[Loki]

Loki, you must realize that this is not an actual RP.

My apologies. That was my mistake. I had not considered that. Still, I feel that it is more conducive to the story if the GW was not allowed to make a scry one the first night, but that's just my opinion. That rule would be up to the mod to decide. I mean, if this were a total democracy, you'd get complete and utter... ah. Well, that explains a lot.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kuru

The GW basically lives to die (hopefully after getting a full stock of gifteds) while the EW lives to spawn werewolves.

If the GW reveals at the outset and gets killed for his or her troubles with only one Gifted (or none, if there is no Night 1 scry), then I don't hold out much hope for the village. At any particular point in the game, there may be good reason for the GW to reveal to all the Gifteds, there may be good reason to reveal only to some and there may be good reason not to reveal at all. It depends how the game goes. I just think that the GW, like the EW, should be given the option.

Originally Posted by Loki

Still, I feel that it is more conducive to the story if the GW was not allowed to make a scry one the first night, but that's just my opinion.

Lecherous Wizards notwithstanding, it seems to me that the game would be rather biased in favour of the EW if the start of the Giftification process is deferred to Night 2. The usual rule is that the Seer gets a dream on Night 1, irrespective of the fact that the Werewolves have not yet struck. While this is no usual game, I see no reason why that usual rule should not apply. If you want a "story-based" reason, call it Wizard's intuition.

Originally Posted by Loki

That rule would be up to the mod to decide.

Agreed. That's why I asked the question.

Originally Posted by Loki

What is up with all of this useless banter?

I think it's best that the rules are sorted out before the game starts, so that questions such as these do not need to be raised during the game (and thereby, possibly, affect it).

To which end, a further question (or two, strictly speaking).

Do the usual Seer and Ranger rules apply, whereby the Seer can dream of a particular villager only once and the Ranger cannot guard the same person two nights running? If so, then later Seers and Rangers are presumably not bound by the choices made by their predecessors.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Loki

How will the Good Wizard have known that werewolves were in his town without them first making their appearance?

Originally Posted by Loki

I feel that it is more conducive to the story if the GW was not allowed to make a scry one the first night

First, as Roa already said, this is not RPG, this is a game of Wizard Werewolf.

Second, lmp can solve your objection quite easily. He hasn't started the story yet. Why are you getting worked up about a supposed plot-hole now when the plot has not yet been written?

lmp has a quality brain and can no doubt think of a dozen ways to explain the GW's Night 1 activities without even putting his thinking cap on.

[Kath]

This is a game of Wizard Werewolf.

Never thought you'd be saying that in your life I'll bet! Nice shortening though.

[Loki]

First of all, the phantom, all the credit to him, but I believe you're giving LMP a little too much credit. I have no doubts of his rationalization of improbable events, but an explanation of such would be tenuous at best.

Regardless, these points had already been expressed to me, and I conceeded to them. No need in beating a dead horse. I understand that it's just a game. It was simply that I had gathered the impression that more role-playing was required.

EDIT: After being spoken to by... a friend, I realized that I may have been a bit insulting to LMP. *nod* My apologies, I had meant no disrespect to you, and if I've said anything to belittle your RPing skill, please, take it as "I haven't seen you RP, so I make no assumptions of the quality of your writing. I only know that I declared an obscure and nearly impossible task, and recognised that few people would live up to it. Even if it were accomplished, it would not hold up well, being a true stretch of the imagination. I would not assume that any old RPer I met on some forums would possess such skill." If you can see where I'm coming from on this.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Loki

but I believe you're giving LMP a little too much credit

We'll see.

Originally Posted by Loki

these points had already been expressed to me, and I conceeded to them. No need in beating a dead horse.

I only restated one point that had already been made- in one single sentence.

My primary point- the fact that no plot-hole exists because lmp has not yet provided the set-up- was a point that had not been made, and a point which you seem to not be conceeding, so I'm not exactly sure what multiple-already-conceeded-points I am beating like "a dead horse".

[Loki]

the phantom, there is no need to get touchy over this. My deepest apologies for attempting to help improve upon the game by pointing out plausible failures in matching story to game mechanics. I'll remember to keep any help that I may have to myself in the future.

In my defense, now, I was neither worked up, nor did I say that there was a hole in LMP's story. I said that I felt that it was silly to have the GW be able to scry on the first night, when he would likely not have known about an attack beforehand.

I would have called your "primary" point a fallacy within logic, considering that it was so far beyond the point (Obviously, LMP has not yet set up the storyline; I was providing a noted fallacy beforehand considering details that were already provided. More than enough data has been presented to assume that:

a. Werewolves attack.
b. The Good Wizard does nothing to try to stop this (i.e.- warn the townsfolk).
c. The Good Wizard PROBABLY didn't know about it, and therefore would not waste energy spying on the good populace for no damn reason.

Then again, I originally did not consider your "point" worth mentioning, and simply ignored it. However, if you would like to get into a fully-blown argument about this, I'm more than prepared to grind you into the dust. I simply request that it be done elsewhere. If you're ready to take a beating, I suggest that you PM me and we do not clutter the board with useless arguments.

[Kuruharan]

If the GW reveals at the outset and gets killed for his or her troubles with only one Gifted (or none, if there is no Night 1 scry), then I don't hold out much hope for the village.

It depends on what that one gifted is. If it is a Seer...hmmm... There would be only the three werewolves with no possibility possibility of getting any more. The wolves would be outnumbered something on the order of eight to one. Even those of us who have won by ourselves probably wouldn't fancy those odds.

(You do remember that in order for one Wizard to die, the other one has to go too...)

[Diamond18]

Oh goody, the game hasn't even started yet and already the insults are flying.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by SpM

whereby the Seer can dream of a particular villager only once

I never knew this to be a rule, if so why is it a rule? It seems that usually there wouldn't be a point in it and if there was the seer should have that option to redream of a villager. Let's assume there was a cursed villager turned wolf and the seer wants to recheck on them. Why should he not be able to do so?

[Celuien]

++ Allowing the Good Wizard to remain hidden from his/her/its gift recipients.

It seems somewhat unfair for a gifted turned wolf to automatically have the ability to reveal the GW's identity to new colleagues when the EW does not face the same risk if a wolf turns gifted.

[Roa_Aoife]

Now children....

The point was made, countered, remade, and recountered. Let's drop it now before this gets ugly. We don't need a repeat of past events. Everything is up to the great MOD-GOD, LMP, anyways. No need to argue. And don't either of you bother to respond to this. I much prefer it was just dropped.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Loki

the phantom, there is no need to get touchy over this.

I'm not getting touchy, I'm just stating opinions and having a spot of fun with you in the process. It's a nice warm up for the game.

Originally Posted by Loki

My deepest apologies for attempting to help improve upon the game...

That's all right, I forgive you.

In my defense, now, I was neither worked up

Not worked up, eh? Well, you certainly care about it enough to say things like-

Originally Posted by You

Now that's just plain silly.

Originally Posted by You

What? That's utter nonsense!

Originally Posted by You

Seriously, that's ludicris.

I sort of interpretted the strength of your words and the amount of space you took up saying that the Night 1 Scry was not logical to indicate a certain amount of worked-upedness (that's my made up word of the day).

I said that I felt that it was silly to have the GW be able to scry on the first night, when he would likely not have known about an attack beforehand.

Yes, and I think it's silly for someone to waste their breath trying to say that a certain game rule or function is not logical and cannot possibly be rationalized, considering that-
1) It's a game
2) Almost anything can be rationalized within a story when there is absolutely no restrictive frame work.

And that is certainly the case here. The writer, lmp, has complete liberty to make anything any way he wants, and can set up any premise. If you have a problem with the reasoning behind the Night 1 scry, you ask lmp about it, suggest a premise, or just wait for the darn game to start- you don't start posting about how the rule doesn't, or can't, make any sense.
(and you certainly don't state that you feel the game moderator is not talented enough to set up a story)

I'm more than prepared to grind you into the dust

Children.

I'm done. All that needs to be said has been said.

[Oddwen]

Originally Posted by Father of Fenris

Now that's just plain silly. What motive would the GW have to spy on the lives of innocent townfolk?

How else will we get our Gifteds?

[Roa_Aoife]

phantom, that is wholly unecessary and a clear attempt to antagonize a new member just so you can have the last word. Frankly, you're above that sort of behavior. You have taken his posts out of contest, twisted them into something else, and you were highly insulting whole doing it. If anyone is acting like a child, it's you. Now, I asked you via PM, and I'm asking you here, please delete your previous post, as it is wholly unecessary. When you do, I'll delete this one.

EDIT: Cross posted with Oddwen- Loki has already said that he didn't realize this wasn't an actual RP. Please leave it alone now.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Come off it... Unless Loki him/herself takes offense and asks the phantom to lay off, I see no reason why their mutual antagonism can't be viewed as entertaining on both sides.

Look:

Haha, a newbie is giving the phantom a hard time. That's hilarious.

Haha, the phantom is teasing the newbie. How droll.

If anybody is worried that only certain players are being teased, allow me to rectify that:

Y'all are a bunch of morons. Any chance you have of winning this game will be based purely on luck. The end.

Remember, everybody: this is a GAME.

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Roa

Let's drop it now before this gets ugly... No need to argue...I much prefer it was just dropped.

Seconded. Please, let's drop it. Watching this argument is making my head hurt.

I'm sure LMP can answer any questions, comments or concerns. No need for anyone to get into unpleasantries on any side of this issue (my own being that I fully believe in his writing abilities).

Would anyone care for some hot chocolate? Tea? Cake? Anything to change the subject?

[Diamond18]

I agree with Fea.

Though I do find the rush to referee tp and Loki entertaining in and of itself.

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm all for mutal teasing Fea- it's makes the game funny as well as fun- however, somethings are crossing the line. That just brings down everyone else as well as causing rifts in the Downs community.

I also think that if Loki doesn't respond, he is showing a great deal of maturity.

Y'all are a bunch of morons. Any chance you have of winning this game will be based purely on luck. The end.

Finally, someone who agrees with me!

And yes, Celuien, I'd love some cake.