Dueling Wizards Werewolf Suggestion Thread

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Loki

"Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as, lynch non-participants"

Bad idea. Then you're taking away from the village's choice of who to lynch. Also, you'd be taking it away from the villagers' chances of finding a wolf. Wolves are rarely non-participants.

Precisely as Roa said.

In all previous scenarios in which Mods have removed non-players from games, they have been killed together with those being lynched for the day. It does not supercede the villager's right to choose (to use a potentially loaded term).

Ultimately, there is NO way to ensure a completely noisy village. Even the Phantom's "by invitation only" game saw Lhunardawen killed arbitrarily (the same day I was lynched) due to real life circumstances that completely prevented her from being on a computer.

The impression that Quiet = Innocent is not always correct, though. Loki is correct in stating that wolves are NORMALLY not quiet, but Alcarillo in Valier's WWJ (J:VII) game proved that 100% wrong. He survived almost to the very end on being quite quiet. He also did it in my very first game, Holbytlass's (WW: XI). Alcarillo probably posted a maximum of twice a day, with maybe two paragraphs, either of those games. It wasn't a lack of time. It was a ploy.

[Valier]

I think perhaps Loki since you seem to have much to say about it why don't you mod your own game with all your own rules and stipulations and see how many people will play. That would give you the chance to do it anyway you want.

I would suggest playing in a few more games and obeying their Mods rules and then try it for yourself. Modding is not always easy especially in a large game with many rules.

[Loki]

"Originally Posted by Loki
"Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as, lynch non-participants"

Bad idea. Then you're taking away from the village's choice of who to lynch. Also, you'd be taking it away from the villagers' chances of finding a wolf. Wolves are rarely non-participants."


^
|

You didn't take it out of context, but I would like to point out for future posterity that I misunderstood what Roa had said. It's a bad idea because I had thought that she meant IN the villagers' vote, and that would be used to lynch quiet players instead of anything else.

Formendacil-- I'm aware. However, two posts per day is not outside of reasonable bounds. That's clever. Unfortunately, 5 posts in two weeks in utter nonsense. I'm looking at you, Eonwe. Naria played the quiet game. Alcarillo played it quietly. I get your point, but I do not change my opinion. There is a difference between five posts and eleven posts. Like 220% a difference.

Now quit bringing this topic up, I've said my peace, and you know my opnion. I'm not going to address it again.

[Loki]

Will do, Valier. We both know how many people will join, though. Look for the thread.

[Valier]

Be aware Loki there is a list for Mods though. I am not sure who is on it and in what order. I am sure someone could fill you in. You must put your name down and wait your turn, but this always gives you lots of time to think up what you would like to do as in theme, rules, roles etc...

[Boromir88]

As Valier says, you should check out this thread. Where there are already people waiting in line to mod the next game.

Plus with 2 games going on (or one that is about to start in a few days) I doubt you'll get the number of players you are looking for.

[Gurthang]

I agree with Loki. And also I don't. I definitely think that the mod should make rules, the rules should have consequences, and that those rules and consequences should be adhered to strictly. But, I also think that each moderator has the choice about what rules are in his or her game and what rules are not. So the decision, as always, lies with the opinion of the moderator.

Originally Posted by Loki

Let's face it, the only reason they weren't completely lost to the ages was because LMP HANDED their kills to them with the Hunter. The Seer didn't dream, the hunter didn't hunt, and the GW refused to coordinate their efforts until late in the game.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and it's legal for me to disagree.


LMP... I still am wary of your rules. It's up to you, as I just mentioned, but I think a lot of people misunderstand what the Wizards do. Or maybe they do understand, but I want to make my point anyway.

The Evil Wizard is there to survive and make wolves. That's all. Roa did a good job on both accounts. By sacrificing some of her wolves, she stayed well hidden, but left wolves that survived for the win.

The Good Wizard is there to find and take out the Evil wizard, but to do so when the Good Team has an advantage. The Good Wizard is not there to take out wolves. The village cannot win if he tries to do that. He must find and kill the Evil Wizard as soon as it is possible and convenient.

Those being the goals of the two Wizards, to make it so that the Good Wizard has less 'chances' per night to find the Evil does two things. It makes the Good Wizard's goal harder to attain and makes the Evil Wizard's goal easier to attain. Resulting in great unbalance.

But maybe the unbalance is wanted... (Who knows?)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Diamond

I would think that someone else should get the chance to mod a DW before you do it again.

I appreciate the suggestion, Diamond, but must admit to a certain proprietary sense about this: I'd like to "get it right" before unleashing it to the world, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

I'd be happy to be the evil team sub-mod...

Okay. You got it. And Valier will be good team sub-mod. If you've peeked at the admin thread, you'll see that I'm about 5th in line (if everybody's okay with my mod list), so it's some time off yet. Certainly after July. And Diamond, that's plenty long enough of a wait!

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Think about this scenario. On Night 1 the Evil Wizard makes 3 wolves, the Good Wizard makes a Seer. Evil Team has four chances to find the GW, Good Team has 2 chances to find EW. On Night 2, the Evil Wizard makes 4 wolves (so 2 kills), the Good Wizard makes a Hunter. This would give both teams 3 chances that Night to find the opposing wizard. So you see it all works out very well, from the chances per Night look.

The italicized part of your quote is incorrect. The three werewolves get ONE kill choice, thus only ONE chance to find the GW. The EW's curse plus three werewolves' singe kill = only 2 chances at the GW per Night. Once the ETeam has 4 werewolves, it's 2 kills per Night and 1 EW curse = 3 chances at the GW. Meanwhile, the GW + the Seer = 2 chances to find a werewolf, and once done, if they have the Hunter, an automatic take-down SAME NIGHT.

I think you're limiting the GW's effectiveness too much by saying that his sole purpose is to find the EW while the villagers try to pick off werewolves. The GW scries one of 3 types of players: 1) the EW; 2) a werewolf; 3) an innocent. If he finds the EW, wizard battle as soon as he likes; IF he finds a werewolf, either uncurse or send the Hunter after him. Why would the GW NOT do this? If the scry finds a werewolf, you deal with the find instead of wishing you'd found the EW instead, or wishing you'd found an innocent to gift. I think it's a huge mistake to limit the potentialities of the Good Wizard, especially if the GW can PM all Night.

I still think that the Good team starts out with a disadvantage but can make up ground if it plays right. If the Good team had had Night PMs in this last game, I think at least 2 of the "critical errors" would have been avoided, and maybe 4 of them could have been.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The italicized part of your quote is incorrect. The three werewolves get ONE kill choice, thus only ONE chance to find the GW. The EW's curse plus three werewolves' singe kill = only 2 chances at the GW per Night. Once the ETeam has 4 werewolves, it's 2 kills per Night and 1 EW curse = 3 chances at the GW. Meanwhile, the GW + the Seer = 2 chances to find a werewolf, and once done, if they have the Hunter, an automatic take-down SAME NIGHT.

Well, first, I can't see what you italicized. The quote tags automatically put everything in italics, so I can't see the difference.

But, as to what you do mean. I don't think it's incorrect. For the first night, and Night 1 only, the Evil Wizard has three scries. That plus a wolf kill means 4 chances to locate the Good Wizard for Night 1. After that, providing there are four or more wolves, it goes back down to 3 per Night.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I think you're limiting the GW's effectiveness too much by saying that his sole purpose is to find the EW while the villagers try to pick off werewolves. The GW scries one of 3 types of players: 1) the EW; 2) a werewolf; 3) an innocent. If he finds the EW, wizard battle as soon as he likes; IF he finds a werewolf, either uncurse or send the Hunter after him. Why would the GW NOT do this?

Well, he would. Only a fool wouldn't. But think about this. The Good Wizard himself does not have to worry about the wolves at all. If he scries one, well that's an innocent villager now, not a wolf. His gifteds are there to take care of the wolves. He would also make it a point to keep his gifteds informed of what the other gifteds do and find, but he is looking for the Evil Wizard. If he discovers a wolf, well lucky him.

From my own experience (And, might I add, the only actual Good Wizard experience you have, though bad you may think I was. ) I was not worried about wolves. Ask Kuru. I directed my Seers, the few Nights they dreamed, to dream of who I thought might be the EW. When the Hunter was created, and I found out exactly what it was they did, I told spawn that she would be finding wolves while Kath and I searched for the EW.

Call it whatever you want, but I call it trying to kill the greater of two evils.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I still think that the Good team starts out with a disadvantage but can make up ground if it plays right. If the Good team had had Night PMs in this last game, I think at least 2 of the "critical errors" would have been avoided, and maybe 4 of them could have been.

I think much the same.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, first, I can't see what you italicized. The quote tags automatically put everything in italics, so I can't see the difference.

Ack. Oops. I forgot about that. Well you get it anyway.

Originally Posted by Gurthang

But, as to what you do mean. I don't think it's incorrect. For the first night, and Night 1 only, the Evil Wizard has three scries.

Okay, I see that I need another rule to clarify what I've always intended: the wizards are not going to find each other on Night One. I won't allow it. I just don't know how to make that work in an actual game yet, because if one wizard actually picks the other, how do you make it not happen without implying that the wizard has found the other? Oh, freepin' grrrr! Something to think about. I'll listen to any ideas on this one.

You're right that it's the seer who will inform of a dreamed werewolf and then the hunter will pick that one to kill, while the GW will always turn a werewolf into a known innocent. That makes sense. I could be wrong, but I think the balance will be there with a game played like this, INCLUDING the additional clause that wizards will not find each other on Night One. That's just plain no fun. blah.

[Roa_Aoife]

Okay, I see that I need another rule to clarify what I've always intended: the wizards are not going to find each other on Night One. I won't allow it. I just don't know how to make that work in an actual game yet, because if one wizard actually picks the other, how do you make it not happen without implying that the wizard has found the other? Oh, freepin' grrrr! Something to think about. I'll listen to any ideas on this one.

If we go with Loki's idea about sending a list to the sub mods to pick from for night one, it wouldn't be a problem. I personally think it's a very good idea.

IF he finds a werewolf, either uncurse or send the Hunter after him. Why would the GW NOT do this?

Because there's no garuntee that the hunter will be killed (and therefore able to hunt) and it leaves a werewolf running about. Now, you could have the hunter come forward as the seer and reveal the wolf, but then you lose the hunter that night, and risk losing another innocent in the process. And if the GW is already down some gifted, well that just puts them in a spot of trouble, doesn't it? But then, I think of these things.

[littlemanpoet]

So the EW would make a list of 4 to curse, and the sub-mod would pick the first 3, or if the GW is in the first three, then #4 replaces the GW. That works.

Hmmm... maybe my Hunter is still a little stronger than the classic version: I was thinking that if the hunter knows who a werewolf is and goes for him/her, that werewolf will die but kill the hunter. This gives the Good team some clout, and it's how I'm viewing the set-up.

[Boromir88]

So the EW would make a list of 4 to curse, and the sub-mod would pick the first 3, or if the GW is in the first three, then #4 replaces the GW. That works.

That would be too easy to figure out. If one of the first 3 the EW chooses was not cursed, they will know that person was the GW.

At the bare minimum I would say 5, therefor the sub-mod has more wiggling room and the EW would not so easily figure out which one was the GW (if one even was). At the most 6 should be safe. This would increase the likelihood of the EW picking the GW on Night 1, but if the GW is amongst them there are a few people that the sub-mod can put in, instead of just one where then it could be easily figured out why one of the first 3 was not cursed.

Or atleast don't make the rule "if one of the first 3 is the GW have the 4th one replace," that's too easy to figure out. Just tell the EW to send in a list of 4, if the GW is not in there then the sub-mod chooses who to leave out, if the GW is in there then the sub-mod excludes the GW.

[Roa_Aoife]

Or atleast don't make the rule "if one of the first 3 is the GW have the 4th one replace," that's too easy to figure out. Just tell the EW to send in a list of 4, if the GW is not in there then the sub-mod chooses who to leave out, if the GW is in there then the sub-mod excludes the GW.

I would opt for a larger list, since the EW can always test this theory with either a curse or a kill.

I was thinking that if the hunter knows who a werewolf is and goes for him/her, that werewolf will die but kill the hunter. This gives the Good team some clout, and it's how I'm viewing the set-up.

NO. Just no. Part of the evil team's strategy is to figure out who the hunter is, then decide on their posts if killing them is good or bad. The good team must figure out how to best utilize the hunter in any case.

This is an automatic wolf kill, and automatic anythings should NEVER be allowed. If the hunter can't get themself killed, then they're doing a bad a job. It's not right to just hand the wolves over. You can't do the good team's job for them.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

That would be too easy to figure out. If one of the first 3 the EW chooses was not cursed, they will know that person was the GW.

Hmmmmm.... maybe use codes. Maybe assign the first werewolves and the first scry? That might be the best solution.

Roa, this technique has been used before regarding the Hunter; it's not original with me. I didn't happen to play in the game, so I don't know what the reactions were. But let me clarify: (A) if the hunter fails to pick a werewolf, and picks an innocent villager, while the werewolves pick the hunter, the hunter dies without taking out a werewolf. (B) if the hunter picks a werewolf and the werewolf picks the hunter, both die. (C) if the hunter picks a werewolf and the werewolf chooses someone else to kill, the someone else dies but so do the hunter and the werewolf.

So this is NOT as powerful a hunter as the way I used it in the last game, but stronger than a classic set-up.

[Thinlómien]

I'm very sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I'm too lazy to reread through the thread:

I think the wolves' kill nomination system is a bit shady. I think all wolves should give three choices and the one who gets most votes dies. Or then the wolves could nominate primary, secondary and tertiary kill. Being a primary kill is worth 3 points, secondary 2 and tertiary 1. Then the sub-mod sums up who has the most points and that villager is killed.

Or another, more complicated system. The wolves have "kill points" which they divide between their suspects. For example, if the wolves had 5 kill points and I was a wolf, I could give Roa 3 points because I slightly feared her to be the seer and lmp and Boro both 1 point, because I thought they might be dangerous too. Or then if I was convinced Roa was the seer I could giuve her 5 points. Or if I was vaguely worried about Roa, LMP, Boro, Gurth and Valier I could give them all one point. And so on and so on... The villager who gets the most kill points dies.

Do these make sense? Or are they too complicated?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I think the wolves' kill nomination system is a bit shady.

Do these make sense? Or are they too complicated?

Your idea is interesting, but I want to know what you think is shady about the current kill nomination system.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Your idea is interesting, but I want to know what you think is shady about the current kill nomination system.

***warning: I'm not probably completely aware how the system works, so I might be doing some mistakes (I played an ord, after all)***
Say there's four wolves. How probable is that one villager gets more than one vote? Depends from the situation, of course, but especially in the beginning, it's very unprobable.
Now, in the stalemate-case the EW makes the decision (right? I'm not sure about this one). Several times during the game s/he thereby has more power over the wolf-kill than the wolves themselves. I think it limits the woves' already weak ability to do any tactics.
Emphasising the voice of the wolves would help the village too. If the kills were totally (or at least almost totally) chosen by the wolves, the villagers could do more analysis on the wolves' identities based on that. That would also balance the sides a bit.
I think the current system doesn't give the wolves enough power to decide their kill themselves.
Am I making any sense with this?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

***warning: I'm not probably completely aware how the system works, so I might be doing some mistakes (I played an ord, after all)***
Say there's four wolves. How probable is that one villager gets more than one vote? Depends from the situation, of course, but especially in the beginning, it's very unprobable.
Now, in the stalemate-case the EW makes the decision (right? I'm not sure about this one). Several times during the game s/he thereby has more power over the wolf-kill than the wolves themselves. I think it limits the woves' already weak ability to do any tactics.
Emphasising the voice of the wolves would help the village too. If the kills were totally (or at least almost totally) chosen by the wolves, the villagers could do more analysis on the wolves' identities based on that. That would also balance the sides a bit.
I think the current system doesn't give the wolves enough power to decide their kill themselves.
Am I making any sense with this?

Yes you are.

You see the situation correctly... almost. The werewolves & evil wizard are told by the evil team submod what nominees are up from the werewolves, and then the werewolves either stick with, or change their choice in order to reach a consensus. Failure of consensus means that the evil wizard gets the choice by default.

While there are Wizards, they do have the power to a large extent. Since this is Dueling Wizards Werewolf, I like the power in the Wizards' hands in the early going. It does create a more panicked feeling for ordos, which I also intended. (evil LMP) There is, however, a Good Wizard who will get to talk to her/his gifteds at Night (through the good team sub-mod), so I still think it evens out. After all, the evil team are just as much in the dark in the early going as the good team.

[JennyHallu]

From the wolvish point of view, it is still difficult to reach any kind of consensus because we have no way of learning the reasoning behind the other wolves' desired kills. We're given the list of candidates, look at it, and think "Lommy? Who on earth would want to kill Lommy? And why?" and then vote again for the same candidate we nominated to begin with.

[littlemanpoet]

....until the evil wizard is dead. Then it turns back into all the gamesmanship of werewolves cahooting at night.

This is the nature of Dueling Wizards Werewolf. It's one of its core elements. If I change this, it's not dueling wizards werewolf anymore.

The problem, Lommy, with your primary, secondary, tertiary, or point award system is that the werewolves may nominate nine to sixteen different characters, three or four of whom are tied, or maybe less, but more often than not, it still ends up being the evil wizard's choice. Since that's the way it runs in my simpler system, I think I'll stick with simple.

[JennyHallu]

I simply wondered if the wolves could provide a one-sentence explanation of why, to accompany their nomination.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

I simply wondered if the wolves could provide a one-sentence explanation of why, to accompany their nomination.

This could possibly work, although, I think the moderator would have to paraphrase each wolves explanation. That way you couldn't guess the other wolves by spelling/grammar, unique word usage, accent(), etc.

The night would have to be done in two stages then. You'd get each wolves top pick with an explanation. Then you'd have to paraphrase and send all the choices and reasons back to all the wolves, then get the final vote from each wolf. And doing it that way gets you into timezones trouble.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

I simply wondered if the wolves could provide a one-sentence explanation of why, to accompany their nomination.

Oh! I didn't understand the first time. I'm sorry. I think this could work, so long, as Gurthang has implied, as the werewolves honor a need for brevity. (And even if they don't, the evil team sub-mod could create the brevity her/himself.

[Roa_Aoife]

Piping in with the EW's point of view- sometimes it depends on the wolves' personalities. They were never stopped from providing explantion to me, some just didn't. Morm launched into whole analysis and players lists which he eventually summed up with two choices. Other wolves just sent me a name.

However, part of my strategy was direct my wolves almost entirely through the game. They couldn't talk to each other, and had only a limited knowledge of what was going on. (Some knew more than others.) I on the other hand had a very good handle on the situation, so I deigned to direct my wolves like a military Sgt directing her squad. Mostly during the night, but sometimes during the day as well. It was my understanding that this was part of the EW role, if I so chose it. That's not saying I ignored my wolves' choices- sometimes I defered to them rather than go with my original.

My point is, if a wolf wants to provide explanation to the EW, let them do it in anyway they want. After that, it's up to the EW if they want to send an explanation or not. It ought to be a strategy choice, not a rule. If we keep making strategies into rules, then it makes no difference who is in what role, or whether that player is good or bad. Challenge may disappear.

So, yeah... I actually had no problem with the way the kill choices happened. (After all, I made a good majority of them anyways.)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

So, yeah... I actually had no problem with the way the kill choices happened. (After all, I made a good majority of them anyways.)

I defer to the only Downer who has experience as the EW.

[Roa_Aoife]

Thanks LMP, though I'd like to hear from the wolves I had around the longest- Eomer and Morm.

I admit, part of the sending just names may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake on my part, not the rules. I assumed that when the wolves recieved the list of candidates, they wouldn't just think "Why so and so?" and vote for their original choice anyways. I assumed they would think, "Why so and so?" and then go look at that player to see why another wolf would want them dead, then give it some consideration before voting. One wolf may have been looking in a direction that another had completely missed, and so I thought the list of names would be enough to draw their attention that way, if not for the kill, then during the day. A "kill list," much like Gurthang's "list of doom", also provided a list of people safe to go after during the day.

I guess I thought a name would be enough. This may be a suggestion for a future EW, but it would really be up to them. I know most of the time I would have picked one person to kill already, and left the second kill up to whoever got their votes in fastest. Other times I would send specific names, and couldn't give a good reason without risk of hinting my identity. I believe I said specifically at one point, "Kill phantom," and left no room for questions. (Of course that was before I learned of that dratted hunter role...*grumble* ) But that's my style. Another EW may do it differently. And they should be free to do so.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Thanks LMP, though I'd like to hear from the wolves I had around the longest- Eomer and Morm.

I would like to add a voice of a little more short-lived wolf...

First of all, being a wolf in the wizard game was not at all fun... or well, it was, but not so much as it is in a normal game (as I experienced it in my next game - there was a difference in quality, not only in quantity there).

But why is that?

Some points...

- I'm of the opinion that we were strictly informed not to make any cases or arguments about our wannabe-kills but just to give the name of our choice to the sub-mod. That I think was made pretty clear from the beginning (and I protested against it before knowing myself to be a wolf). The arguments would have been futile anyhow, because it was said that no arguments would be posted to other wolves to ponder about. So a question of a simple majority rule, with the EW having the possibility of overriding it at her wish. (If Morm actually produced wealthy arguments, I think he broke the initial rule - or at least the rule I frustrated myself on)

- Without knowing your "partners" it makes you feel quite cornered from the beginning (I realised it after I woke up to see the end of Day1). One might say it's just more suspense and excitement, but actually it's also quite frustrating as you can't help your situation or really "play" a game. It becomes just a run for your life and hide your head -game with no point whatsoever (you don't decide the kills, you don't argue them, you can't make any tactical decisions etc.) with the added ingredient of "don't let down your EW" (I really started to believe in Roa being the EW on Day2 in the middle of her relentless attack on me, but of course I couldn't jump with a full counterattack on her, as that could have weakened our overall chances as the evil side - in a normal game I really would have enjoyed a fight there...).

- There is very little point in being a wolf if you don't have any means to make a difference. I see the fun in being an ordo (and I love it) when you try to find who to trust and who not - when you get to see how to best play the game for a mutual victory (even if it demands sacrificing yourself), and being a wolf is just so much fun: how to co-operate, how to deceive, how to see things right from your team... But in DW it was being hunted by everyone without any reason or goal to go for or risk yourself. Not good. More frustrating. A handless basketball-player I felt myself to be - and that's not far from the truth.

So the wolves should have more liberties. What should they be? I don't know, but at least they should have the feeling of actually playing a sensible game themselves where they can make their own mark in, or just feel they are playing in the first instance. The EW should have the final right of decision, that's in the spirit of the game, but at least allowing the wolves to argue for their own cases would be an improvement (even though I think the EW would still not owe an explanation about her decisions in the case of an overrule). I also think that Lommy's ideas should be considered if any argumentation is ruled off.

But how to balance the basic inbalance between the sides (here I side with Gurthang - as I did before the game), when the EW has a 30 yard head start with the GW in the 100 yard hurdles - and demanding more stakes to the individual wolves at the same time? Maybe the EW should have to start by one at night -basis too (maybe two in the beginning to not allow the game to end after Day1), or something - the GW being allowed two gifteds on Night1 - or additional gifteds along the way over the three?

Well, happily I'm not going to be the next DW-mod. But surely will participate if time allows.

Great concept lmp, but needs some polishing before it actually works in a balanced fashion that would offer the same possibility of gaming satisfaction to all different roles.

[littlemanpoet]

Noggie, you make an impressive case for there to be more Night time freedom for the werewolves. So I'll think out loud for a bit. That means that the following is not conclusive possibility, but bouncing off ideas.

1. The werewolves and EW choose kills, and explain them in as much depth as they feel appropriate (EW acts like a werewolf).
2. The sub-mod (poor bloke/blokette) SUMMARIZES the explanations to the EW and other werewolves.
3. The werewolves and EW repeat step 1.
4. The sub-mod repeats step 2.
5. The werewolves and EW repeat step 1 again.
6,7,8.... This continues until consensus is reached, or until 2 hours before the end of the Night phase. If there is consensus, the werewolves' choices are communicated to the Moderator. If there is no consensus, the EW makes a decision.

What do you think?

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

- I'm of the opinion that we were strictly informed not to make any cases or arguments about our wannabe-kills but just to give the name of our choice to the sub-mod. That I think was made pretty clear from the beginning (and I protested against it before knowing myself to be a wolf). The arguments would have been futile anyhow, because it was said that no arguments would be posted to other wolves to ponder about. So a question of a simple majority rule, with the EW having the possibility of overriding it at her wish. (If Morm actually produced wealthy arguments, I think he broke the initial rule - or at least the rule I frustrated myself on)

I was never aware if this. Can you point out what it was that made you think this way? I thought that the wolves would PM Boromir in whatever fashion they deemed reasonable, and he just quoted what they said in a PM to me. I see no reason why it couldn't continue like that. It may be a lot of reading for everyone, but that's what would be happening if there was no sub mod and everyone was just talking to each other. The only risk would be if the wolves were able to figure each other out by type, which is why the reasons should be sent to the EW first, and then the EW should decide what goes where. The sub-mod would send the messages of the EW not as a quote but as a paraphrase.

It seems that your biggest problem with the game was how isolated you were as a wolf. If we let the wolves reason at will with the EW via the sub-mod, and then let the EW decide how to send the choices to the wolves, it should solve a lot of that. And maybe the wolves could send multiple names andreasons, so the EW can compile a "kill list" of people safe to attack during the day (which would give the wolves more direction and a strategy so as not to be so paranoid about who to attack.) However, the extra names should not be required, and should come at the request of the EW. Remember, the EW is not a "teammate" on the Evil side- s/he is team leader, and should be treated as such.

So, Wolves message sub-mod with whatever kind of reasoning they want
Sub-mod Fwd's all messages to the EW with the wolf's name as the subject
The EW looks at the reasons and decides either who to kill, or which group it would be okay to kill. At this point the EW could add another name to the list if s/he so desired.
The EW sends this list with the reasons to the sub-mod, who then paraphrases everything and sends it to the wolves.
The wolves then look at the reasons, and then offer arguments or consensus, which is forwarded to the EW via the sub-mod.
This continues until a consensus is reached, or the EW makes a decision.

The EW should have a "last resort kill" in case a choice is not made by the deadline (which is, infact, 2 hrs before the deadline). That way there will be a kill regardless.

This may be a lot of work for the EW and the sub mod, but that comes with the territory. People shouldn't volunteer for these positions if they don't have the time to do the work.

[JennyHallu]

Sure, we're welcome to put as much reasoning as we please, but we can't see any of it, and nothing we say has any effect. That's the issue, Roa. Plus, I didn't like that we had no way of knowing who the kill would be or why that person was killed...we didn't know who we killed any sooner than the village did, and thus couldn't plan ahead.

Frankly, I don't think the EW should have the power he or she does over the choices of the wolves. One danger of creating minions is that the minions may take some initiative that goes beyond or outside your own plans. The GW cannot dictate the seer's dream or the hunter's choice, and werewolves are much less likely, by nature, to be easily controlled. The werewolves should be more autonomous from the EW. He/She should be able to make suggestions, but not an out and out veto. What point is there to being a wolf, really?

[Roa_Aoife]

Sure, we're welcome to put as much reasoning as we please, but we can't see any of it, and nothing we say has any effect. That's the issue, Roa.

You may have missed it, but I did say the EW sends back the reasoning to the other wolves for them to see and think over. So, the others do see it, and it does have an effect.

Plus, I didn't like that we had no way of knowing who the kill would be or why that person was killed...we didn't know who we killed any sooner than the village did, and thus couldn't plan ahead.

Half the time it was a surprise for me too. This was because I would have to leave before the dealine, and so I told Boromir that whoever had the most votes by deadline would get killed. A few days I was honestly surprised by the kill of the night.

Frankly, I don't think the EW should have the power he or she does over the choices of the wolves. One danger of creating minions is that the minions may take some initiative that goes beyond or outside your own plans.

But it's wizards werewolf. The point of the game is that we have two wizards running things from behind the scenes. Sure that's a danger with monions, unless you instill order by force. (Dictator like and all.) The real danger of the wolves if that if they get scryed they imediately change sides. This is not so with the gifted. It doesn't behoove the EW to turn a gifted except to get rid of them, becuase They stay on the same side. Wolves who get scryed by the GW are imediately back on the good team. The evil side is disadvantaged at this point. Hence the need for the EW to closely manage the wolves, and if necessary to be able to override the kills.

I told Boromir outright, because of all the information Morm had that if he was turned he was to be killed imediately. This would override all wolfish discussion, but it was for the good of the team.

The GW cannot dictate the seer's dream or the hunter's choice

Gurthang is free to correct me on this, but I do believe he did. That's why phantom refused to make a choice on who to hunt. He was waiting for Gurthang's directions.[/quote]

werewolves are much less likely, by nature, to be easily controlled.

Actually wolves are pack animals who will defer to the alpha of the group, in this case, the EW.

The werewolves should be more autonomous from the EW. He/She should be able to make suggestions, but not an out and out veto.

But what if the wolves pick the EW or another wolf? The only one who would know it is the EW. You forget the nature of evil is to be controlling. The EW and the wolves are a team, and the EW is the leader of that team. What would be the point of Wizards Werewolf if you took away the power of the Wizards?

[JennyHallu]

But that was phantom's choice to wait for direction, not a requirement.


And Roa, I never saw a blip of reasoning sent back to me on why the choices were what they were.


And we aren't wolves, we're werewolves, who go into a berserk hunger-rage when changed.


To me it seemed the greatest power of the wizards was the ability to choose their team, and what seemed most frustrating to me was that the way the rules played out the job was to have the biggest team, and not at all to have the best team. Especially in the beginning, and especially the hunter...that quite irritated me) My role as a team member was passive, not active: It was more important that I existed than what I did. The game became all kinds of thrilling fun as soon as you were dead, Roa.

[Roa_Aoife]

There was no reasoning sent back because I chose not to do that- I figured you were bright enough to look at the people on the list for yourself and make your decision this way. But I am reffering to changes that could be made in the future game, not about what I did in the last game- try to keep up.

I chose my wolves carefully and I had many reasons for who I chose when I did. I chose Valier for the specific reason of sacrifice. I chose Alcarillo for longevity. I chose you for your deviousness. But you were only a wolf for two nights before I died. Had you spent more time as a wolf, then our interactions would have likely changed.

I remind you that I never got more than a name from you. Why would I try reasons with someone who didn't seem prone to using them? Morm was active long before he knew who I was- first night he sent me a list of all players with evalutations, then the next day he started a strategy that worked very well up until Spawn got him. You're role was passive because that's how you played, not because of how things were set up.

And therianthropes, or "werecreatures" are people who take on the chracteristics, both physical and behavoral, of a certain animal. Hence lycanthropes or "werewolves" are people who take on the characteristics of wolves both physically and behavorally. That includes pack mentality.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Roa

Gurthang is free to correct me on this, but I do believe he did. That's why phantom refused to make a choice on who to hunt. He was waiting for Gurthang's directions.

True, sort of. I did not have direct control, as in they had to send the choice to the mod for it to count. I did ask/tell them about who to dream/hunt (never was a surviving Ranger, so...), but they still had to say that's who they would pick.

If I could just have told the mod who they were going to dream of, it would have eliminated their job. In that case, as long as they stay alive, they wouldn't even have to do anything, because I would just tell the mod what they were going to do each Night.

Originally Posted by Jenny

But that was phantom's choice to wait for direction, not a requirement.

Right. He chose to wait so that he would not accidentally kill the Seer. But he did not have to wait.

That's one thing that always bugged me. I could never bring the gifteds up to speed the first Night they were changed. I had to wait until the next Day to tell them what was up. So their first dream/hunt could have been a repeat of an already known (to me) innocent, and therefore a waste. Although, we've already stated that the Good Team should PM at Night from now on.

[Roa_Aoife]

My point was that you had the option to direct them at will if you so chose. That was not the strategy you went with most of the time (and in part that may have to do with your in ability to communicate at night) but you could have. I'm just saying that we risk eliminating the Wizards' ability to strategize of we cement who can say what and when. I could have given my wolves more autonomy, but I didn't. I used them like tools to further my plans, and hey, it worked. As the saying goes, if something ain't broke....

The basic rules of communication for both sides is that it must happen through the sub-mod, and the choices must be in to the sub-mod to before deadline. If we set down much more than this, we squash creativity. Let the EW and GW run their teams as they see fit. They know what's going on better than anyone else. Hence the name of the game.

Though this brings up another issue- the kill choice must be in two hours before the start of the day. Does communication stop at this point as well, or can the EW and wolves continue discussion up until the day begins? And if a message is sent to the sub mod before the start of the day, but the sub mod doesn't get it untill after the start of the day, do they still send it? And is the Good team held to the same rules?

EDIT: Forgot this part- Keeping my wolves in the dark for the most part was the safest strategy. After I started filling morm in on information, like the identities of two other wolves, and some of my plans, like killing Valier, I began to get paranoid that he would get srcyed. I moved him to emergency kill because the info he had could have devestated my team. Boromir was informed that in the event of Morm's turning, he was to be killed immediately, no and's if's or but's. This was most prudent, because sometimes I wouldn't find out what was going on with my wolves or my picks until it was Day. Boromir can tell you that I started getting very pushy for info at the end, and in every case I would demant to know if I had my pick, and if I still had all of my wolves after the GW's scry. In this case, it was the good of the team that the EW had the power to do that.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have to say that, while sympathising with the experiences of Nogrod and Jenny, I rather agree with Roa. The whole point of Duelling Wizards is that the Wizards are, ultimately, calling the shots. It was inevitable that the Wolves would have much less discretion than in a normal game and, I believe, some of us pointed this out beforehand. By agreeing to play, you effectively subscribe to this in the event that you are turned into a Wolf.

With all the Werewolf games going on, it's not like there is no opportunity to play a standard Wolf role elsewhere. Being a Wolf in Duelling Wizards, while the EW is still alive, means playing a different kind of game. While I agree that there is scope for passing more information, in terms of rationale for kill nominations etc, between the Wolves and the EW, the EW should always have the ultimate say, for the reasons that Roa has outlined.

And, if you didn't like being a Wolf with restricted choices, think what it was like being an innocent killed on Night 2! At least you had a bit of a run out. I would have relished the opportunity, had either Wizard chosen me (as I rather hoped they might).

[littlemanpoet]

This was a good discussion. It was helpful to hear out both sides. I think Roa & SPM have a strong case. I think I'll be leaving it up to the EW and GW how they want to run their teams. I have to hand it to Morm for having taken the proverbial bull by the horns; I'm sure it made Roa's game much more interesting than having all relatively passive werewolves; Morm had an idea and was allowed to run with it because the EW saw its merits.

[Naria]

Since there is interest in bringing this game back and some very good ideas in this thread, I thought it best to give it a bumpity!

[Roa_Aoife]

I think we should go with LMP's method of choosing the wizards- they PM the Mod with their desire to be a wizard (either Good or Evil) and from that list a random choice is made. That way, someone who doesn't feel they can put in the time to be a wizard, or doesn't want the responsibility, or whatever, can opt not to.