Dueling Wizards Werewolf Suggestion Thread [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet

05-28-2006, 12:56 PM

GW Scry on Night One

My rationale for this is that the GW & EW should not find each other on the first night. Possible solutions have been provided for that:

I think that's remedied easily enough by changing the ruling that the GW/EW find out each others' identities by scrying/cursing the same person.That ruling is in place because it seemed to be the nature of magical power such that the two wizards would sense, and be able to identify each other, in such a case. So it's about trying to be realistic instead of arbitrary and artificial. Not that I have anything against other mods' choices for arbitrary rulings; in and of themselves, arbitrary rulings (that is, mod-initiated & not worrying about 'realism') are not a bad thing; I just don't like to use them.

GW prepares a list of people to scry (Possibly three or four people, as these are common numbers...). Good mod randomly picks one of these as a given gifted.

Much like the GW, the EW prepares a list of wolves, and the evil mod randomly chooses wolves from this list.

This is done so that neither wizard finds out who the other is on night one. This is done under the premise that the wizards, gifted and wolves had existed prior to Night One, and they simply take action on this Night.This is feasible and not overly artificial or abitrary. Worth using, I think.

Also, I think that it is not right for the evil wizard to be down to 2 werewolves before Day One even begins. That's not fair either. Loki's plan could be used to prevent that too.

Number of Posts per Day

I built that problem into the game on purpose. It wasn't hard. :p Again, it's like real life. On single villager can be in more than one place in the village at a time, and can't possibly keep track of every conversation that's going on in the village, although listening to other villagers' reports can give any other villager a sense of what's been going on, but then they're necessarily depending on the other villagers' perceived veracity. I like that. And there were a number of villagers who provided helpful summaries under the guise of analyses. Very much like things would run in a real village. So I don't mind the huge number of posts in a day. I like it, and support it. It's part of the game. A new "difficulty level" challenge for you accomplished blokes. ;)

Hunter's Powers

The hunter, also, must choose their kill-- they do not automatically kill any wolves that attack them.Any moderator who wished to run a dueling wizards game is free to abide by this. I won't. I don't like a weak hunter. That's why I made the choice I did. If there's some way to find a middle ground between the weak hunter I don't like, and the strong hunter I used in the last game, I'm interested.

Number of Players

Also, this game should almost exclusively be played with a large number of players. Else, the EW won't have a chance. Large being over 10. I absolutely agree. I would say no less than 16 players, and 20 or more is preferrable.

Lynching Tie

And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?

Diamond18

05-28-2006, 01:22 PM

That ruling is in place because it seemed to be the nature of magical power such that the two wizards would sense, and be able to identify each other, in such a case. So it's about trying to be realistic instead of arbitrary and artificial. Not that I have anything against other mods' choices for arbitrary rulings; in and of themselves, arbitrary rulings (that is, mod-initiated & not worrying about 'realism') are not a bad thing; I just don't like to use them.

If it's the RP aspect you're worried about, I think such an event is easily explained. When the two "powers" collide each can surely sense that the other wizard is after the same person, but I don't necessarily see a reason why they should be able to see beyond the veil of wizardy to the "regular villager" behind the power. Especially since they are, technically, not focusing their own powers on each other but on the villager in question. Etc. Frankly, I think all such ideas about the nature of the wizards' powers are arbitrary to the mod, just like an author has the creative say over the nature of magic and how it works in their story. It's all in how you rationalize it to fit the game.

Loki's idea is also feasible, of course. Either way, it could work, and his is better for ensuring that the wizards don't pick each other night one. I am not that against the idea of them finding each other out in such a way, though. Like I said, if one wizard is smart enough to pick the other right off the bat, more power to him! Having a large village is the best defense against this, anyway, since the more people mucking about the better for the wizards to hide. Which is why I think it goes without saying that the village should be large. Plus, has there ever even been a -10 player game on the 'Downs? :p

Diamond18

05-28-2006, 01:26 PM

And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?

I'm a little puzzled as to why this is more Tolkien themed?

It's an interesting idea, though I fail to see why the villagers should let anything stop them from a little bloodshed. From an RP aspect. It would have to be explained rathr well to really make much sense in the narration. But, laying that aside and looking at it purely from the more strategic aspect of the game, it's very interesting and would make for some intriguing desicions on both sides.

Nogrod

05-28-2006, 03:40 PM

[Hunter's Powers
Any moderator who wished to run a dueling wizards game is free to abide by this. I won't. I don't like a weak hunter. That's why I made the choice I did. If there's some way to find a middle ground between the weak hunter I don't like, and the strong hunter I used in the last game, I'm interested.

We thought about the Hunter's role today with Lommy as we were figuring out our WWJ-game, and decided to try this kind of version of it.

The logical hunter works as follows:
- she can change her pick whenever she wants to
- if she has picked a wolf and is attacked at night she will take her pick with her
- if she has picked someone who has voted her she will take her pick with her when lynched
- so the logical hunter does not take innocents/gifteds with her when killed by the wolves nor take someone who hasn't voted her with her when lynched

The third point should make playing the Hunter - and the whole role - more interesting, if not openly stronger. As the hunter sees she is to be lynched, she will probably have time enough to change her target. That way she can either try to save innocent villagers voting for her or target her suspicion that has "bandwaggoned" her. At least this makes it more nerve-wrecking for the hunter...

In a game, where hunter and ranger are allowed to PM together, that kind of rule might make the Hunter a formidable player.

Gurthang

05-28-2006, 04:24 PM

So it's about trying to be realistic instead of arbitrary and artificial.
Sorry, but I just thought it funny that you said 'realistic' when we're talking about Wizards and Werewolves. :D

Alright, since I was the GW, most of my suggestions will be concerning such.

1. Let the GW and gifteds PM at Night.

Night is when everything happens. It's when people become cursed/gifted and when they perform the related tasks. Not being able to PM new gifteds right away meant quite a few things against us. I could not bring them up to speed on what the Good Team has been doing up to that point. I could not direct them as to who, if anyone, I wanted to be protected/hunted/dreamed of. In fact, I would much rather PM at Night and not in the Day than have it the way it was. If you want to see an example, look in the WW XXI thread at my post #1046.

2. The new Hunter rules.

Okay, at first I wasn't so sure about these rules. After all, in effect they make the Hunter a Seer until they dream of a wolf. This is because if they hunt someone and they do not die, then the person is obviously innocent. Although, if you want to make it slightly less powerful, you could just limit it to that, and not allow the automatic wolf kill if the Hunter is killed by the wolves. Just say that the Hunter will not Hunt unless they choose a wolf, and then those two automatically die.

3. Stick with the dry runs/simulations. (That is, if they seem fair.)

LMP, you said you made many dry runs and came out fairly even as far as wins and losses were concerned. With that in mind, I'd stick with those rules as best you could. The thing that sort of irked me in this game was when the rules changed. The Hunter role, I was surprised at, but, being a Good Teamer, wasn't opposed to. And it made sense to do it because that was how it had gone in your runs. But Night 4 was not something that had been in your pre-game simulations, so I was *ahem* not happy. :rolleyes: In the end, it worked out very much in the Evil Teams favor. We were able to eliminate (counting wolf-Loki) 6 wolves in 7 Days, and still ended up losing with 3 wolves left.

4. The Evil Team still has a huge advantage.

Even barring Night 4, the Evil Team has it made. Virtually unlimited wolf-making potential, yesterDay's innocents might be wolves toDay, multiple nightly kills, etc. The Good Team is limited to 3 gifteds, only 1 Seer dream a Night, etc. I said so it was unbalanced before the game even started, but your dry runs more or less convinced me that it would be okay. Still, I think that the Good Team needs... I don't know what exactly, but something to counterbalance the Evil Team.

Plus, has there ever even been a -10 player game on the 'Downs?
Actually, I've thought about it. You might see something about that in the Scenerios thread. ;)

Boromir88

05-28-2006, 06:58 PM

I can't even keep up with all the posts in a regulard 14-15 player game. :rolleyes: Morm, if you had trouble keeping up (and I gave up by the end of Day 2) you should nominate a villager who would be so kind to give a summary at the end, or near the end of the day. :p

1. Let the GW and gifteds PM at Night.
That sounds reasonable.

4. The Evil Team still has a huge advantage.
I'm beginning to think it was the bumped up Hunter role that evened things out a bit. Because the hunter role was like another seer, and in our haste it seemed to be like we called "Foul" this is too strong. When in fact it could have evened things out for the Good side a little more.

Beside this let's also consider the play of the players as well. I felt like Roa played extremely well...and Gurthang, I don't think your gifteds played top notch (no offense to Nilp and them), but with the time zone issues it just didn't seem like you had a plan when going into the Day. And they didn't utilize their talents to their full ability. Perhaps this could be because of the inability to PM at night.

JennyHallu

05-28-2006, 08:08 PM

Gurthang

05-28-2006, 09:24 PM

Beside this let's also consider the play of the players as well. I felt like Roa played extremely well...and Gurthang, I don't think your gifteds played top notch (no offense to Nilp and them), but with the time zone issues it just didn't seem like you had a plan when going into the Day. And they didn't utilize their talents to their full ability. Perhaps this could be because of the inability to PM at night.
Exactly. During the Day, not only did I have to worry about trying to keep up with the thread and post my own thoughts, but I had to try to get messages through to my gifteds. The result was not being able to really talk about much other than who I would prefer that they dream/hunt. We had a 'plan' going into the Night, but that didn't really help us a whole lot, as the evening kill changed things and I wasn't able to adjust accordingly.

I'm beginning to think it was the bumped up Hunter role that evened things out a bit. Because the hunter role was like another seer, and in our haste it seemed to be like we called "Foul" this is too strong. When in fact it could have evened things out for the Good side a little more.
I've thought much the same thing. I thought the Evil side had a huge advantage, but I did not know about the heightened Hunter power.

littlemanpoet

05-28-2006, 10:13 PM

Next time I mod Dueling Wizards, the Good Team and Evil Team will both be able to PM at Night but not in the Day.

I'm leaning toward something like what Nogrod suggested for the Hunter. Just so long as the Hunter isn't too weak.

I'm trying to decide between two different options in regard to the first Night:

1) a sub-mod directed first Night's choices, as suggested by Loki, in order to avoid both wizards picking the same player.

2) have the wizards discover each other by means of direct scrying/cursing OR being attacked by the other wizard's hunter/werewolves, and NOT by picking the same player to scry/curse. I admit that that was an additional wrinkle I threw into my dry run mix for the fun of it. And as far as "the fun of it" goes, I liked it.

Naria

05-28-2006, 10:54 PM

I seem to be alone in not liking the new Hunter.

In my opinion a Seer should be a Seer and a Hunter should be a Hunter, and never the twain should meet. I am not averse to altering the Hunter rules, but the Hunter should not become just another Seer. Better that the GW be able to Gift multiple Seers than that any Gifted he makes is more or less a Seer, no matter the Gift.

Plus I was horrendously confused and still am as to what exactly the Hunter did/could do/etc. And an automatic wolf kill if attacked in the Night means there is no difference between a clever and foolish Hunter.

*Raises hand*
I am in total agreement with not liking the new Hunter in this game.

My two cents for what it's worth

I am also in agreement that sometimes roles have to be played with a little in order for things to not be so boring(regular gifted in a regular game),but I didn't like what happened in this game. I thought and still do think that it was an unfair and bad call for Lmp to make The Phantoms pick for him! I had no idea that The Phantom was able to have the luxury of not making a pick himself and let Lmp do it. I freaked when I turned up dead the next Day.

I still don't understand the need for the Hunter(or mod :rolleyes: ) to have to kill the first wolf that votes for him/her. How does this make that role stronger?

Kuruharan

05-29-2006, 09:06 AM

How does this make that role stronger?

Because the Hunter is an automatic termination of a wolf is why it makes the role stronger.

littlemanpoet

05-29-2006, 09:07 AM

I feel bad, Naria, that you got nailed by a rule that was clear enough in my head but not communicated well.

The logical hunter works as follows:
#1 - she can change her pick whenever she wants to
#2 - if she has picked a wolf and is attacked at night she will take her pick with her
#3 - if she has picked someone who has voted her she will take her pick with her when lynched
- so the logical hunter does not take innocents/gifteds with her when killed by the wolves nor take someone who hasn't voted her with her when lynched

Thinking out loud here:

#1- The hunter can't change her pick absolutely whenever she wants to. There has to be a point at which the moderator can say, "okay, THAT'S toNight's pick." So how does that particular rule work, then, because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "whenever she wants to".

#2 - is the classic approach, which I'm fine with as long as it's augmented - - - which it needs to be in a Dueling Wizards game in order to balance it out against the ability of the evil wizard to create a new werewolf each Night.

#3 - I like this. And I don't like it. I like it because it gives the Hunter extra means to be effective, but I don't like it because this makes the Hunter's power a double edged sword that could cut against the good team instead of the evil team, and the good team doesn't need any more knocks against it than I've already put in the system.

I would call her the vengeful rather than logical hunter, however. To answer Naria's question in this regard, this gives the Hunter an extra way in which she can be effective.

After taking the time to thoroughly understand Nogrod's idea, I have to say 'no' for Dueling Wizards, because the good team needs strength, not unintentional double crossing. Ordinary innocents do that enough to the good wizard already. :rolleyes:

So unless a better idea is offered for the Hunter, s/he will stay as is for the next game of Dueling Wizards that I mod.

littlemanpoet

05-29-2006, 09:58 AM

Okay, let's put this to a vote ... including reasons as you like.

What would be better:

1) Both Good and Evil Teams being able to PM all the time.

2) Both Good and Evil Teams being able to PM only at Night.

3) For a really perverse scenario .... :D ..... Evil team only able to PM during the Day, and Good team only at Night. :D (only half serious ... could get really interesting)

The Saucepan Man

05-29-2006, 10:50 AM

The Good Wizard must be able to scry the first night. Otherwise the innocents would be even worse off than they are already. If the GW and the EW pick the same person at night, I would suggest that the person in question simply remains an ordo and that they remain oblivious to the fact that they have been the subject of a wizardly power struggle. There is nor reason, as far as I acn see, why the wizards need be revealed to each other when they each pick the same villager.

As for the Hunter, I would not label the classic Hunter a weak Hunter. They are as strong or as weak as their skill and instincts enable them to be. There are a number of different ways to play the classic Hunter role, and therefore great scope for strategic play. If the Hunter always kills a Wolf, then there is much less flexibility to the role. Basically, the only way to play is to act in a way likely to get killed, since your only worth is in being killed, preferably as early as possible. For that reason, I don't really like it. That said, it probably suits the Wizard phase of a Duelling Wizard game where the Gifteds have less scope for using their own discretion anyway. When both Wizards are dead, the Hunter should revert to the classic Hunter role.

The logical Hunter is, as the name suggests, logical. But I think that it makes the role less interesting. Half the fun of the role is in the risk of killing an innocent, at Night as well as during the Day.

As for game balance, it seems to me that this game would have been far more balanced had the EW not been given the opportunity to make two additional Wolves. As a result of this, the EW had one more Wolf than she was strictly entitled to, and it also forced out the GW slightly earlier than he would probably have liked.

Nogrod

05-29-2006, 11:47 AM

After taking the time to thoroughly understand Nogrod's idea, I have to say 'no' for Dueling Wizards, because the good team needs strength, not unintentional double crossing.I see your point. If the hunter role must first of all serve the balance of power, which is not corrected otherwise, then the hunter most surely must take a wolf with her. I remember being myself also of the opinion that the baddies seem to have the upper hand in this game before it started. A powerful hunter might balance that (or at least correct it somewhat).

But then again, this kind of automatic wolf-slaying ability kind of takes the sport out of the role, as the hunter can't herself make the difference with her own gaming... The good side PM'ing would be much more efficient way to balance the game - and it would even make it more fun to play to those who are the gifteds, I suppose.

PS. - this probably should be somewhere else, but as Saucepan commented here, I would like to answer...
= Spm
The logical Hunter is, as the name suggests, logical. But I think that it makes the role less interesting. Half the fun of the role is in the risk of killing an innocent, at Night as well as during the Day.Partly yes. But when we combine the lynchingvote-rule (being lynched, hunter will only take with her someone who has actually voted for her) to the ruling that she can change her pick at any time - practically 1 minute before the deadline - it makes that evening something to remember for the hunter! Think of your chances: pick up an innocent voter of yours and make things worse, play it safe and change your pick to someone who has not voted for you not to kill anyone, or become the hero and pick the wolf bandwaggoning on you from the lot and take the beast with you! Some heart-pumping thinking for the last hours...

Ainaserkewen

05-29-2006, 02:19 PM

Holy crumbly muffins. I just wanted to take this posting oppertunity to say "Wow, it's amazing that Werewolves is still so popular."

It's been a while.

:cool:

littlemanpoet

05-29-2006, 04:35 PM

For First Night:

If the evil wizard and good wizard pick the same player, the player becomes a werewolf but is known to the good wizard.

What do you think?

I'm willing to go with SPM's take on the Hunter. With the Good Wizard being a virtual #1 seer and the seer being #2, the Hunter doesn't need to be yet another Seer, I suppose. But I still wish there was some way to bolster the role, even with SPM's sensible explanation in mind. *LMP shrugs*

Valier

05-29-2006, 04:42 PM

I was thinking of trying my hand at Modding one of these, but I would definitely need some help, so if others are interested please pm me and we can discuss it.:)

Gurthang

05-30-2006, 04:02 PM

For First Night:

If the evil wizard and good wizard pick the same player, the player becomes a werewolf but is known to the good wizard.

Sounds like a pretty good plan. Be sort of like a Seer dream in that case.

I'm willing to go with SPM's take on the Hunter. With the Good Wizard being a virtual #1 seer and the seer being #2, the Hunter doesn't need to be yet another Seer, I suppose.
Actually, I think that's how it should be, with the Hunter basically like a Seer. The reason being is that it evens out the playing field a lot. The Evil Team at minimum has 2 chances at Night to find the GW(EW scry + at least 1 wolf kill). The Good Team, with a traditional Hunter, has at maximum 2 chances at Night to find the EW(GW scry + Seer dream, if there is a Seer). By making the Hunter basically like a Seer, it means the Good Team could have up to 3 chances each Night, just like the Evil Team would likely have 3 chances.

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.

And if you doubt the value of chances each Night, then think about this: Roa found me on the Night she got 5 chances. :p And furthermore, at the moment I was found, the Evil Team had scried/killed 13 times and the Good Team had only scried/dreamed 6 times*. So Basically, she was searching the village about twice as fast as I was able to.

*This should have been 7, but actually should have been 6. Nilp should have dreamed Night 2 but didn't, so that should have been 7, but he should not have dreamed Night 4 and did, so it should be 6.

littlemanpoet

05-30-2006, 09:14 PM

So what I'm beginning to conclude is Saucy's original suggestion, ratified by Gurthang, is that the Hunter needs to be stronger while the wizards live, then after the wizard battle the Hunter becomes the classic style hunter. I think I'm okay with that construction.

I'm also beginning to lean toward both Evil and Good Teams PMing ONLY at Night.

You know, I must confess that it totally escaped me that I had put in the rules that the Good Team could only PM in the Daytime; with Kuru handling all aspects, I just didn't think about it, and assumed (wrongly and stupidly) that the Good team were PMing at Night. :rolleyes: It's something that deserves correction. I really wouldn't mind running another one of these Dueling Wizards games again some time, but you can bet I won't be writing quite the narratives. :eek:

Roa_Aoife

05-30-2006, 10:29 PM

I'm both for and against the stronger hunter- I do think that the hunter role should be made stronger, but automatic wolf kills are in no way fair to the game. There's no sport in it, and it takes all challenge away from the role. Like giving the hunter a wolf if no kill is chosen- that's just rediculous. The seer doesn't automatically dream of a wolf if they don't pick someone, and the hunter shouldn't automatically kill a wolf if they don't pick someone. If that's allowed, then the hunter doesn't have to do anything except die, and that's far too close to cheating. Also, and I say this with Naria in mind, it is wholly unfair to the wolf who gets killed, especially if they've avoided suspicion up till that point.

So, sure, make the hunter stronger, but don't give automatic wolf killings. That's really unfair, and it takes out all the challenge in the role. While I'm sure the phantom would have been a great hunter (he was going to choose me, after all), he can take no credit for Naria's kill, because he didn't do anything at all. Doing nothing should never be rewarded in this game.

Loki

05-30-2006, 10:40 PM

#1.
The Good side should be allowed to PM at any point during the game.
The Evil side shold only be allowed to PM at night.

===== This helps the Good side out, and they really ought to be able to PM at any time anyway. Game mechanics balance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2.
When GW and EW scry same person they discover each others' identities.
++Optional: Person may or may not be killed.

BEWARE, this may upset game balance in favor of EW. This is up to mod's discretion, as it is not a major flaw, but it can influence the swing of a close game.

===== This is another game mechanic balance. It gives the Good side a fighting chance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3.
Hunter is just a normal Hunter. Case closed.

===== Changing this factor destroys the actual role of a Hunter, de-valuing the player's actual gaming and making them naught but a pawn for the GW. Players should be able to influence the game. This detracts from the position, and makes it a strategic move on the GW's part, with nothing to be done from the Hunter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4.
The Hunter ought to be able to change their decision at any time.

===== This shouldn't be such a problem-- every PM contains a timestamp. The mods can sort time out as they wish. If someone could not handle this simple task, then they ought not to be mods. Plain and simple.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#5.
"And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?"

No. Bad idea.

===== If you implement this, this reduces the effectiveness of the voters/Ordos, allowing the wolves to make extra kills that night, etc. etc. This only gives the Evil side an extra advantage. Bad idea. If there's a tie, either multiple-lynch or take the first person to reach given #.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that, largely, the reason that you guys (LMP, Gurthang) do not like some these systems is because they put the Good side at a possible disadvantage. That's the point. The Evil side can fail naturally, through playing badly. The Good side can only fail through playing badly. Both sides depend largely on luck and how the game is played. Honestly, I've been saying that the Evil side has been at a huge advantage since before the game had started. Goodness knows, there's plenty of reasons why.

Bear in mind, however, that the Evil team is ALWAYS going to be at an advantage. Look at a normal WW game. The Good team could win-- with a little luck and skill. However, the Evil side is at the advantage. Let's face it, a rough tally of all of the WW game leaves the Evil side winning about 70% of the time. What makes this REALLY unbalanced is the incorporation of people picking their own wolves. This is pretty unfair, period. Just bear in mind that it's a game. There are going to be different variations, different styles, and different methods. Most of the flaws in design were instituted in trying to change things to make it more fair. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Loki

05-30-2006, 10:47 PM

IMPORTANT:

Just had a good idea. Game Moderator automatically kills off silent people. Wolves or not. If you don't participate, you don't play. Silent players are the worst problem in these sorts of games. A moderator should be able to kill a player because they haven't met an active post count.

Be strict. Be serious. If someone can't make enough posts per day, then they should have sat it out. It may not be their fault, but they ought to behave reasonably and accept that **** happens. This probably won't be implemented (everyone is so nice nowadays... so afraid to step on anyone's toes), but I figured it's worth a shot, and if I run any games, it will be implemented in them.

Roa_Aoife

05-30-2006, 11:01 PM

Bear in mind, however, that the Evil team is ALWAYS going to be at an advantage. Look at a normal WW game. The Good team could win-- with a little luck and skill. However, the Evil side is at the advantage. Let's face it, a rough tally of all of the WW game leaves the Evil side winning about 70% of the time. What makes this REALLY unbalanced is the incorporation of people picking their own wolves. This is pretty unfair, period. Just bear in mind that it's a game. There are going to be different variations, different styles, and different methods. Most of the flaws in design were instituted in trying to change things to make it more fair. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Loki makes a good point here- the WW games are all slightly unbalanced towards the evil side, and they always have been. It's the nature of the game, and it's what makes it fun to play as an ordo. The wolves know each other and can act as a team, whereas the good side cannot. That advantage has all but been eliminated in this game.

#1. I'm perfectly fine with the good side being able to PM all of the time. I've been in other games where that was the case, and it helped even things out a bit.

#2. I see no reason why this should not be the case. If it's night one, in a village of 30, that could be unfair, and certainly the person should live, though perhaps be uninformed. If we use Loki's earlier idea of the wizards sending a list to the sub mods, and the sub mods picking at random from the list, we can eliminate that problem. I would say that if both sub mods randomly picked the same person from their respective lists, then that player should go to the wizard who sent in the list first, and the other mod would pick someone else, with niether wizard ebing made aware of it. This should be for night one only, though, as the picking of certain players for certain roles is strategy and gives roles of the wizards some actual purpose other than just wolf/gifted making factories.

#3. I'd disagree that the hunter should be completely normal. A super hunter, such as what LMP has, is really unfair, but a slightly stronger hunter is okay. Make it completely normal after the death of the wizards though, since that's only fair.

#4. The only thing I see against this is the time it takes for the mod to write up a narration. If the mod is willing to deal with it, then I see no reason against it.

#5. Really, I fully agree with Loki on that one. There should always be a lynch at the end of the day, otherwise it's just an advantage for the evil team, since, beyond the hunter, there's no other way to kill the wolves, and even Superhunter couldn't handle them all.

I'm all for evening the game out. After all, it's hardly gratifying to win when everyone attribute's your victory to a slant in the rules rather than your own skill.

EDIT: Cross-posted, actually, this is implemented in most werewolf games. Mods set up a limit such as, no vote for two straight days, or no posts for a full day with out prior warning, or whatever else the mod decides to set the limit at. LMP didn't because I think he was trying to keep things from swaying too far into the Evil side's advantage.

The Saucepan Man

05-31-2006, 06:34 AM

Just had a good idea. Game Moderator automatically kills off silent people. Wolves or not. If you don't participate, you don't play. Silent players are the worst problem in these sorts of games. A moderator should be able to kill a player because they haven't met an active post count.I have said it before, and I'll say it again. People should not sign up for games if they know beforehand that they are going to be unable to post (and vote) at least once per day. Obviously, situations can arise during the game and that cannot be avoided. That's primarily what the admin thread is for. But it is not difficult to anticipate beforehand that certain factors will limit your participation. I have missed a number of games for this reason.

It is all very well to have a rule stipulating that players who do not post at least once per day will be eminated, but that still has the potential to skew the game and can give (or be used to suggest) clues about their roles. Far better that such players simply restrain themselves from playing in that particular game if they know beforehand that they will be away for a day or more. There will always be another game to play in.

That is different from saying that people's whose style is to make only a brief post once each day (or similar) should be prevented from playing. That can either be a habitual approach or a deliberately adopted tactic. Either way, the player who plays in this way takes their chances in doing so, and it is up to the other players to judeg them based on it. More often than not, they end up being lynched fairly early on.

Loki

05-31-2006, 08:20 AM

Quite frankly, there are a lot of should's and would's in your words, SPaM. Unfortunately, life is not quite so simple. I agree with you, but from what I've seen, it just doesn't work that way.

I was the 6th lowest poster in the game, and I was lynched on Day 1. I SHOULD have been the person with the least posts. Other people SHOULD have left the game. Eonwe SHOULD not have only had 5 posts within a Week's time, and still lasted until the game's end. Honestly.

Even if it's a game with 30 people, 6 people is one fifth of the population. So one fifth of the population did nothing. That destroys the gameplay. Let's be honest, with numbers like this (Bear in mind that plenty of people did play, but even that FIFTH of people is a serious problem.), there really needs to be some sort of strict adherence to the rules. It's not mean, it's not being a dick, it's necessary.

Roa_Aoife

05-31-2006, 09:41 AM

Well, everyone knows where I stand on non-participants.... :rolleyes:

Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as, lynch non-participants, ie. people who don't post, or don't vote, with in a certain time frame, while the wizards live, but stop after the wizards die. Or vice-versa. No offense to Eonwe, but he didn't vote for 5 days straight, and he didn't even show on the last few days. That shouldn't be allowed, as it's not really fair to either side. Far too many innocents are lynched by villagers for not participating, when the village could be going after truly suspicious people.

However, this something that should be left up to the mod of each game. Which leads me to think- we have created a whole new werewolf game. Now we'll have three games running at a time! WW, WWJ, and DWW (Dueling Wizards Werewolf). We already have a mod list started! LMP, you've created a montster.

littlemanpoet

05-31-2006, 09:54 AM

I've finally hit upon the major solutions to the biggest problems with Dueling Wizards. It's really quite simple, really.

So I'm going to mod another one as soon as I can find the time. I'll go step in line on the Admin thread. Valier, are you okay with sub-modding for me?

#1: For the Good team to be able to PM twice as much as the Evil team seems unnecessary to me. Both can PM all Night long, and that will be sufficient.

#2: When EW & GW scry the same person, the EW will get a werewolf and the GW will know the player is a werewolf. 'Nuff said.

#3: I'm going to go with a normal Hunter. Here's why: with Night-time PMs, the GW, Seer, and Hunter together make a virtual "smart-bomb" for catching werewolves. There are 2 chances each Night for the good team to spot a werewolf; all that has to happen is for the GW to tell the Hunter who to pick, and SMACK one werewolf dead. .. on, and the hunter too, but a powerful effective way to go. The GW can make a new hunter the very next Night unless s/he scries a werewolf or the EW, which is even better anyway. 'Nuff said.

#4: The Hunter will be able to change his/her decision right up until 2 hours before the new Day starts. In fact, ALL Night-time decisions need to be made by 2 hours before the new Day starts. After that, it's time for the narration. 'Nuff said.

#5: tie resulting in no lynch: you guys are only seeing this from one angle. The Good team may not lynch a werewolf, but they also don't shoot themselves in the foot by lynching an innocent. The only problem they have is, that without a lynch and the voting record, there's even less to go on for making decisions. But I'm not sold on this one anyway, and won't use it unless there's a hue and cry in favor of it.

Regarding non-participating participants: I allowed for it. I allowed for a big village for non-participants because I wanted the effects of both to be felt in the game. I almost gave in, but didn't in the end. I wanted it to reflect real life such that not everybody is always on task or as committed as others. Let the village deal with it using the methods available to it. On this one I stand with Saucy: I don't want to skew the game. 'Nuff said.

The Saucepan Man

05-31-2006, 10:28 AM

Quite frankly, there are a lot of should's and would's in your words ...This applies to all Werewolf games, not just Duelling Wizards, and so the point really belongs in the main admin threads. I have raised it there before but, as you note, it continues to be a problem.

Yes, I am talking in terms of "shoulds" and "woulds", but what would you have me do instead? Stipulate that people shall not sign up for games if they know beforehand that they are going to be unable to post (and vote) at least once per day? Not only does that smack of an inappropriate dictatorialism (people ought to be able to take responsibility themselves for not signing up in those circumstances), but it is also highly impractical. There is nothing to stop anyone signing up for a game without diclosing that they will be away for part of it. And by the time this becomes apparent, it will already be too late. The game has become skewed through the limited participation of one of the players, whether or not they are removed.

My own view is that each mod should make clear when recruiting that they expect each player to commit to at least one post per day (possibly more, if they are so inclined) and that anyone who cannot meet this expectation should not sign up. If someone nevertheless signs up and is then absent (other than as a result of unforeseen circumstances), then they are reomved from the game immediately. Serial offenders could then be treated with caution in future games. It's up to the mod of each game, but that is how I would handle it were I to mod another game.

Formendacil

05-31-2006, 11:51 AM

#3: I'm going to go with a normal Hunter. Here's why: with Night-time PMs, the GW, Seer, and Hunter together make a virtual "smart-bomb" for catching werewolves. There are 2 chances each Night for the good team to spot a werewolf; all that has to happen is for the GW to tell the Hunter who to pick, and SMACK one werewolf dead. .. on, and the hunter too, but a powerful effective way to go. The GW can make a new hunter the very next Night unless s/he scries a werewolf or the EW, which is even better anyway. 'Nuff said.
....
#5: tie resulting in no lynch: you guys are only seeing this from one angle. The Good team may not lynch a werewolf, but they also don't shoot themselves in the foot by lynching an innocent. The only problem they have is, that without a lynch and the voting record, there's even less to go on for making decisions. But I'm not sold on this one anyway, and won't use it unless there's a hue and cry in favor of it.

I agree with both points- particularly the second. (The first I agree with more on the basic principle of "random is good" in this game.) Killing innocents (and silent innocents) is what lost the village this game, as much as rule slants. The difference is that the village has to take some of the credit for the killings. :p

Diamond18

05-31-2006, 11:58 AM

My goodness, LMP, you are tireless. :p But, I would think that someone else should get the chance to mod a DW before you do it again. Maybe you could co-mod this next time around? However, since I'm not volunteering to take on head role, this is merely a cautious suggestion to hold up a bit. Others are, I'm sure, eager to have their turn at the concept.

As to what to do with non-participants, I think those who read WWJVIII know my stance... Mod Fire from Heaven, charred remains smoking on the ground, and all that. You can hardly prevent non-participants from signing up (unless you do your recruitment by invitation only) so the only way to deal with it in game is to zap them.

Valier

05-31-2006, 12:45 PM

Well since I myself have offered to be a mod for the next game, since others want someone else to do it, LMP could be my co-mod. But I'm afraid my narrations would be fairly weak compared to LMP's so I would rather have someone else write them and I would do the roles and rules stuff. Unless someone else wants to Mod then LMP and I could be the co-mods...:)

Roa_Aoife

05-31-2006, 01:58 PM

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

Loki

05-31-2006, 02:19 PM

Roa_Aoife

05-31-2006, 02:25 PM

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant in conjuction with the daily lynch, not in place of it. Like Diamond's Mod-fire from heaven. SMITE BUTTONS! :D

Formendacil

05-31-2006, 03:15 PM

"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

05-31-2006, 03:34 PM

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

05-31-2006, 03:37 PM

"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

05-31-2006, 03:42 PM

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

Valier

05-31-2006, 03:47 PM

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

05-31-2006, 04:11 PM

As Valier says, you should check out this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=471487#post471487) 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

05-31-2006, 05:54 PM

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.

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. :D

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

05-31-2006, 06:45 PM

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.

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! :eek: :D

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

05-31-2006, 07:25 PM

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.

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. :p) 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. :p

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

05-31-2006, 07:35 PM

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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

05-31-2006, 09:00 PM

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

06-01-2006, 03:14 AM

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

06-01-2006, 04:54 AM

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

06-01-2006, 07:56 AM

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

06-01-2006, 09:02 AM

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

06-25-2006, 09:39 AM

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

06-25-2006, 12:26 PM

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

06-25-2006, 12:38 PM

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

06-26-2006, 09:46 AM

***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) :D 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

06-26-2006, 10:01 AM

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

06-26-2006, 07:28 PM

....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. :p

JennyHallu

06-26-2006, 08:00 PM

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

Gurthang

06-26-2006, 10:27 PM

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

06-27-2006, 03:30 AM

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

06-27-2006, 10:39 AM

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

06-27-2006, 02:31 PM

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

06-29-2006, 04:36 PM

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

06-29-2006, 07:41 PM

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

06-29-2006, 09:08 PM

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

06-30-2006, 07:03 AM

- 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

06-30-2006, 07:13 AM

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

06-30-2006, 07:45 AM

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

06-30-2006, 07:57 AM

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

06-30-2006, 08:54 AM

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

06-30-2006, 11:02 AM

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.

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

06-30-2006, 12:03 PM

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

06-30-2006, 05:44 PM

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). :rolleyes:

littlemanpoet

06-30-2006, 08:58 PM

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

01-22-2008, 11:39 PM

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

01-23-2008, 06:14 PM

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.

Macalaure

01-24-2008, 08:35 AM

Alright, alright...

I'm not sure I really understand how this works exactly. I hope someone can help me. :)

The rules for the werewolves to pick a kill appear a bit too complicated for my little brain... :rolleyes:
1. Each werewolf sends a candidate to the evil sub-mod.
2. If a majority is already achieved, then that is the night's kill, if not, then the ESM sends each werewolf the list of candidates back.
3. The werewolves may change their pick, but only from one of the candidates.
4. If still no majority is achieved, then the Evil Wizard is handed the list of candidates and may choose.
5. If the werewolves happen to like to kill one of their own, or their wizard, then the EW may overrule their choice by a free choice of his own.

Did I understand that correctly? And did that really work in the past game, even with all the different time zones (of sub mod, wizard, and many wolves)? :eek:

From the outside, this game appears to be somewhat unbalanced in favour of the Evil Team. The EW can create a new werewolf every night (unless a gifted is picked), but can only lose more than one, and therefore have his team decrease in number, if both a wolf is lynched and the GW saves one from lycanthropy. At the same time, it takes the Good Wizard three nights to have his whole set of gifteds arranged, and he can never have more than that.

Roa_Aoife

01-24-2008, 07:44 PM

You're sort of right. The EW, as well as the GW, can override the decisions of the wolves or gifted at any time. This is actually necessary, because you don't wanter a hunter hunting a seer, etc, or wolves killing another wolf. And sometimes the Wizards just know more.

The wolves can provide any ammount of reasoning they like to the EW, or none at all, with only a name. Depends on the wolf. Likewise the seer can reason who to dream, and the hunter whom to hunt, and the protector whom to protect. It's all ultimately the Wizard's decision how much autonomy they give their team. This allows for varying strategies and creative plays.

As for the unbalance- keep in mind that if the EW picks someone who is gifted to turn, the gifted merely becomes innocent, and the EW gains almost nothing, not even information. If the GW tries to turn a wolf, the wolf becomes innocent and thus switches teams, and if the wolf knows anything, s/he can tell the entire village. There's also the logical hunter- only makes a kill if they target a wolf.

I do agree that the good team should start with three gifted, rather than one, though.

Also, multiple kills for four (perhaps five?) or more wolves just helps keep the game from dragging on too long.

Nogrod

01-29-2008, 02:56 AM

Just to refresh the memory and to introduce people who did not play the first DW-game here are the complete rules from the actual game-thread reprinted...

Dueling Wizards Werewolf Rules

There are two wizards, and no other gifted at the beginning of the game, which must have a minimum of 20 players, and an arbitrary maximum (first time) of 30. The two wizard roles are assigned from a list of volunteers who are willing to play the roles.

The two wizards don't know who each other are. One is evil, one is good. Neither wizard can be killed, except by each other.

The game begins with a Night phase.

Evil Wizard: each Night the evil wizard picks a villager to curse as a werewolf. The new werewolf is immediately informed and the mod requests a kill choice, which the werewolf provides by the end of the 24 hours. On the first Night of the game, the Evil Wizard chooses three werewolves; thereafter s/he chooses one per Night.

The werewolves do not know each other's identity because while they are werewolves at Night, they cannot detect the identities underlying the curses. When there are multiple werewolves, and they make differing kill choices, the person with the most werewolf "votes" is killed.{**} If there is a tie, the sub-mod for the evil wizard PMs back to each werewolf about the others' choices, and serves as a go-between until the werewolves have come to a majority choice.

{**First, the werewolves place their individual nominees before the Evil team sub-mod. The sub-mod informs the EW & werewolves of all nominees. The werewolves then pick from amongst the nominees until there is a consensus for the Night as to whom to kill. If there is not unanimity, the kill will be based on majority votes. If no majority has been established by the end of the Night, the EW will choose from among the nominees. The EW may overrule all of the nominees (but should be cautious about doing so), and informs the Evil team sub-mod when s/he does so; the sob-mod then informs the werewolves and gives a summary of the EW's reason(s) for the overrule, if the EW wants to give one.}

If the werewolves happen to pick the EW or a werewolf, ALL will be told to pick another kill.

Note: Werewolves do not PM each other and therefore cannot debate with each other; thus, they are not going to find out each others' identities. If in some odd circumstance, a werewolf gets the most votes for the werewolf kill, the evil wizard has the right to overrule the choice, and the werewolves are told to make a different pick. If in some even odder circumstance, the werewolves choose the evil wizard as their kill, the evil wizard of course has the right to overrule their choice. In a 20 or more player game, if there are 4 to 6 werewolves, there are 2 kills per Night; if there are 7 or more werewolves, there are 3 kills per Night.

If the evil wizard chooses a gifted villager to curse, the gifted villager loses the gift but does not turn into a werewolf ... this time. The good wizard is informed of the loss of the gifting.

If the evil wizard picks the good wizard at Night, he is informed that he has discovered the good wizard, and has the option from then on to call out the good wizard to battle during any Day.

The evil wizard may choose to inform one or more werewolves who one or more other werewolves are; but this is a risky option and should be used with great care, considering the possible consequences.

The evil wizard is allowed to lie to his were-creatures.

Good Wizard: each Night the good wizard picks a villager to scry.

1. If the good wizard scries the evil wizard, the good wizard is informed of that, and can call out the evil wizard to battle during any Day, which results in the death of both wizards.

2. If the good wizard scries a werewolf, the werewolf is turned back into an innocent by the good wizard's power.

3. If the good wizard finds an innocent, the good wizard has the option of turning that innocent into a gifted, the choices being seer, ranger, and hunter. If a gifted is de-gifted by the evil wizard's curse, the good wizard may assign that gift to another. A newly assigned gifted may immediately function in the gift the same Night. If a gifted is killed, the gift may be assigned to another innocent. The new assignment is made via the nightly scry.

NOTE: There may only be one seer at a time, one ranger at a time, and one hunter at a time.

The good wizard may choose to inform one or more gifteds who one or more of the gifteds are.

The good wizard and gifteds may PM during the Day. The good wizard may withhold from, or divulge information to, the gifteds as the good wizard sees fit. All PMs between gifteds and good wizard must pass through the good team sub-moderator. The gifteds do not know who each other is unless the good wizard tells them.

The evil wizard and werewolves win when the werewolves equal or exceed the number of innocents. The villagers and good wizard win when there is no evil wizard left, and no werewolves left.

There are no shirriffs, no werebears, and no cobblers.

If the good wizard and the evil wizard choose the same previously innocent villager on the same Night, the two wizards discover each other's identity by means of the contest. Since the evil wizard still wants a werewolf, the good wizard must choose whether to let the villager die as a casualty of the wrenching experience of the contest, or let the villager survive and become a werewolf.

Just to be perfectly clear: a wizard battle always results in the death of both wizards, and may only happen during the Day. Once both wizards are dead, the werewolf game reverts to classic rules: no PMing between gifteds during the Day.

There is a vote for lynching every Day. If there is a tie vote, then the first player to have received that many votes, is lynched. If a wizard is voted to be lynched, he will be lynched but cannot die that way, and is thus forced to declare himself, and the opposing wizard can call him/her out for a wizard battle the following Day. A wizard cannot be killed by lynching; instead, nobody dies that Day.

If the evil wizard dies, the werewolves are informed of each other's identity, and revert from there on to traditional werewolf group dynamics.

Each Day and Night will be 24 hours; if such a time frame proves somehow unworkable, it may be changed (with notice of course!) during the game.

Order of Night Activities:
1. Evil wizard picks whom to curse.
2. Good wizard pickes whom to scry.
3. Affected players are informed of results of #1 & #2 (if both wizards pick same villager, this phase gets longer but is completed before the next phase begins).
4. Ranger picks whom to save.
5. Seer picks whom to dream.
6. Hunter picks whom to hunt.
7. Werewolves pick whom to kill.
Note: Steps 4 - 7 can happen simultaneously, but will be recorded by the moderator in the order as listed so as to keep the game straight.

Miscellaneous Rulings:
*There are no multiple lynchings.
*A killed or lynched persons previous roles will not be revealed until the game is over.
*Regarding player etiquette: Accusations and suspicions are what the game of werewolf is all about, and that's why we play. This sometimes includes insults which must be considered as 'all in fun' (using appropriate 'smilies' helps to show that it's all in fun); however, there are limits that must not be crossed: if your gameplaying insults are beyond the pale (you're going to have to accept the moderator's judgment on this), you will be considered to have gone overboard. Therefore, anyone going overboard will get a PM from the moderator with a warning to use better etiquette. Any player that "goes overboard" a second time, will be summarily removed from the game with no death narrative. As one of the Wise once said: "It's only a game - don't be offended, but it's only a game - don't be offensive."
*The seer may dream of the same person more than once. The Ranger may NOT defend the same person two Nights in a row; but may defend the same person every OTHER Night.
*The Hunter may kill (and be killed) either by being killed by a 'picked' werewolf, or when lynched.
*No retractable votes.
*When a player dies, the identity and last role of the player will be named, but previous roles will not.
*References to past werewolf games may be made as follows: "My werewolf lorebook(s) say(s) ....."

The Game begins at 6 p.m. today with Night One.

At that time the following things may happen simultaneously:

1. The evil wizard may officialy pick the first three werewolves.
2. The good wizard may scry one player, resulting in the discovered evil wizard, a discovered and uncursed werwolf, or gift an innocent player.

Immediately following that, the next things may happen simultaneously:

3. The three werewolves may nominate one victim to kill, by sending a PM to Boromir88, the evil team sub-mod.
4. If the good wizard has bestowed a gift, the gifted player may, if a seer, pick a player to dream; if a ranger, pick a player to guard; if a hunter, pick a player to hunt.

The victim nomination process will continue until (1) a consensus is reached regarding the werwolf kill, or (2) a majority is reached, or (3) the evil wizard overrules the werewolf choice, which ever happens first.

There will be another narrative post roughly around 6 pm EDT today. Following that will be the first Day post, which will go up at roughly 6pm Friday. Once that post is up, posting may commence.

CRITICAL EDIT: The first Night's kill is Elempi, widowed father of Diamond of the Battledores. Therefore, the werewolves do NOT need to nominate a kill for Night one. Sorry for the confusion.

A Note on Rules

The first loophole has been discovered. The good wizard chose to scry one of the players that the evil wizard had cursed. On any other Night, I would have allowed the rules to function as I have written them. This Night, however, is a special Night, and I decided that the play of the game would be compromised if the good wizard found out the identity of the evil wizard before there was even a Day One. So I made a decision that the evil wizard's choices would be made early on this Night, and the good wizard's scrying performed late. If this game is ever played a second time, I would strongly recommend that: The Good Wizard does not scry on Night One. The plot does function more cleanly that way, as Loki has suggested. But the gameplay was the deciding factor. There you have it. We shall see how many more of these snap decisions will be needed during this game. Not too many, I hope. Bear with me, it's going to be an interesting ride!

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-29-2008, 05:46 AM

Wow, I must say it looks really very interesting (now that I finally read the rules as whole). Only let me raise some questions. First, what bothers me, is what Macalaure already said, yet it did not seem to be answered:

And did that really work in the past game, even with all the different time zones (of sub mod, wizard, and many wolves)? :eek:
Because I imagine it the way that every Night the sub-mod simply cannot sleep but stay awake 24 hours, and the wolves anyway need to send their kills a long time before the DL so that there can be eventually some re-sending if they pick a wolf etc. And still the Wizard needs to be informed and everything... so did it really work, or was it that every night only half of the wolves voted or something?

I do agree that the good team should start with three gifted, rather than one, though.
Well, that's another thing that bothers me after I read elempi's last note that Nogrod posted. After thinking about it, I realise it can be really bad for the GW to scry on Night One, on the other hand, if he cannot pick a Gifted, he already has significant deficite. I disagree with what Roa said here, however, because you have to count with the possibility that both the Wizards pick the same people, or worse, the GW picks two wolves and the EW: this is almost total victory for the good team even before the game itself started.
Concerning the possibility of GW picking the EW on Night 1, let's not forget that the EW can likewise pick the GW on Night One and we have the same problem. No, I think the possibility that one Wizard reveals another on Night One is not such a problem: after all, they can now decide whether to try to tacticise and wait or whether to bet on the village (resp. wolves) and choose to duel the other Wizard right on Day 1. But I think, after all, that the GW should be allowed to pick his one Gifted on Night 1. In the worst case, he saves a wolf and so the village will start with two wolves on Day 1. But I don't see this as a big problem and anyway, how often this happens?

Nogrod

01-29-2008, 11:03 AM

I have lots of work to do so I decided to avoid them by reading this thread through. And you bet I have some ideas and suggestions now... :D

It's clear we need a big village in this kind of game. I'd say at least 20, hopefully a bit more (there were 30 in the original version but I'm afraid we'll not be able to get that many this time - but who knows?).

That said it looks pretty straightforward to me that in the beginning of the game both the EW and the GW send the mod (and the sub-mods?) a list of 6 or something (depending on the number of gifteds we will give the GW in the beginning: I personally would be ready to give the GW more than one but more of that later) whom they wish to make wolves / gifteds. After that the mod checks the overlaps, makes a lottery if needed and deals the picks. After that he sends the names of the wolves to the EW and notifies the wolves about their status. To the GW the mod would send the names of those selected so that the GW could assign them their roles herself. After the allocation the GW then notifies the sub-mod (or the mod) of her choices and those would then be passed on to the players via the sub-mod (or the mod).

If the Wizard wishes to give any instructions to her minions she would be free to do it before Day1 starts via the sub-mod (who'd actually need to rephrase them).

On the other Nights than the initial Night1 we should have something like a clear system. Not too complicated but still one that would make playing a role other than a Wizard interesting enough. The Wizards should be the ones to make the final decisions though. That's the idea in "Dueling Wizards Werewolf" in the first place. But I'd like to see the people with roles being able to voice their minds as well and be able to make a difference.

So how about something like the wolves and gifteds being able to make PMs where they argue their choice to their respective sub-mods in say 10-14 hours (or something) after the Day has ended and the sub-mod being required to pass that on to the Wizard immediately? Other discussion than that of the choices should be allowed to all people with a role at any time during the Night. It's only this choosing stuff where we'd need to have some deadlines during the Night.

The wizard should also be able to pass information to her minions as much as she wishes. That's something the Wizard and the sub-mod should then work out together (as to when the sub-mod can be online) as the authentic PMs should not be quoted but the sub-mod should alway paraphrase it so that the minions would not quess the identity of their Wizard if she doesn't want them to know it. And in any case if I'm the one modding this one I'd be ready to help in this PM traffic as well if fex. a sub-mod lives in a timezone which limits the possibilities of channeling the posts in time. This all can be fixed when the game starts and we know the particular people involved.

After the wolves and gifteds have given their points (within the 10-14 hour framework or whatever it will be) the wizard could then add her own suggestions and preferences. That would then be passed back to the "chosen" and they could have again a time limit to make further suggestions (like 4 hours before the deadline or something - all these exact hours should be decided when we have the actual people in). Then on the basis of that discussion the Wizard would announce the choices to the sub-mods & the mod - preferably one hour before the deadline so that everything could be counted and a narration could come in time.

That's what I'd call the minimum requirements. Naturally people would be able to PM more and make comments when and as many times they wish. There should just be some clear timelines when certain decisions are made. And it's up to the Wizard whether she wishes to reveal herself to someone in her team which would then allow them to PM without going via the sub-mod.

All this would require the mod and the sub-mods to be able to be online at certain times - the more often the better - but in the end they are all there voluntarily... :)

The important thing in the "conversation" between the minions and the Wizard is that the minions' PMs can be just passed forwards as they are but the Wizard's PM's should be rephrased by the sub-mods (or the mod if needs be).

I'll take a break now but will come back soon as I still have a few suggestions to make...

Nogrod

01-29-2008, 01:06 PM

A few more thoughts on the rules...

I kind of liked lmp's idea that in a case of a tie no one gets killed but at the same time I can see the arguments against that ruling.

So how about we tried something along the lines of "Wizard's battle" over those people? One idea would be that both Wizards could nominate one they would like to keep around and one they would like to get rid of and submitting their choices to the mod. If they agreed the person dies if they don't the person lives. The downside in this would be that only innocents would be killed but it might also save people. Another chance is that the end-result would not be death but "conversion" (so from gifted or a wolf to ordinary or from ordinary to either one according to the result between the Wizards). This one needs to be thought of.

The GW should probably be restricted to one seer at the time but otherwise I might be tempted to allow more than the three gifteds... the EW may appoint an unlimited number of wolves anyhow. But this also depends on the exact capabilities of the gifteds.

I'm not wishing to turn the hunter into a 100% killing-pawn of the GW who could "assasinate" a wolf paying it with her life. Instead I would be persuaded to make it in the way that the hunter in the end - like other gifteds - are responsible of their actions themselves but that the GW could give them instructions on the basis of anything they have discussed or what she seems fit. It would then be the GW's task to make her minions to see why her plans are better than an individual gifted's feeling (and she'd need to decide how much to reveal her knowledge to gain her ends) although in a case of fex. the seer trying to dream of someone already known to the GW she should have a right to override the decision of the seer.

We'd need to think about this one too as I'd like to make the gifteds / wolves to feel they are involved in what happens but still retaining the Wizard as the one who pulls the strings...

About the hunter still. If the hunter gains the information from the GW she should be of the "classical" style eg. bringing down whoever she has targeted, a wolf or an innocent. It might also be possible to think that the GW first would like to keep her in shade about the other gifteds but if the hunter wishes to take another gifted down with her the GW could then override it (when it would be known to the hunter as well). That would indeed sound "realistic"

If both Wizards choose the same people during the Night that one would be turned a werewolf but be known to EW. That sounds good to me.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-29-2008, 02:17 PM

Nog, it looks good but terribly exhausting to read and decipher. I thought I'm going to die before I finish reading that :) Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll make a good mod after seeing the effort you put to it.

That said it looks pretty straightforward to me that in the beginning of the game both the EW and the GW send the mod (and the sub-mods?) a list of 6 or something (depending on the number of gifteds we will give the GW in the beginning: I personally would be ready to give the GW more than one but more of that later) whom they wish to make wolves / gifteds. After that the mod checks the overlaps, makes a lottery if needed and deals the picks
This is the best idea of all of that.

The wizard should also be able to pass information to her minions as much as she wishes. That's something the Wizard and the sub-mod should then work out together (as to when the sub-mod can be online) as the authentic PMs should not be quoted but the sub-mod should alway paraphrase it so that the minions would not quess the identity of their Wizard if she doesn't want them to know it.
Not sure about this one. Now putting aside the effort of passing the information (imagine a sub-mod getting flow of information from a person like me), what if the sub-mod misinterpretates what the Wizard told him? And there may be importance in every word and the formulation of the Wizard, and this will be lost by the sub-mod's interpretation. I mean, what if the sub-mod ignores, or interpretates as less important something that the Wizard intended to be more important. We don't want it to become a Paper Telephone.

To the rest: good, good, only don't overcombinate the rules. I think the game looked good enough as it was, don't overstretch it (I'm referring to introducing more gifteds etc...).

I am sure there was another thing I wanted to mention, but I forgot it. :p

Nogrod

01-29-2008, 04:09 PM

I thought I'm going to die before I finish reading thatWell, if you of all the people feel like that I guess there's not a lot of people reading and / or thinking about this... :rolleyes:

Happily being able to play does not require one to know all the niceties of the game. In the end only the Wizards and the sub-mods need to have a clear conception of what to do and what is possible / allowed. And they should be volunteers as they were the last time.

No one should just state their wish to be a Wizard here or anywhere else in the 'downs but they should PM the mod eventually declaring their willingness.

what if the sub-mod misinterpretates what the Wizard told him? And there may be importance in every word and the formulation of the Wizard, and this will be lost by the sub-mod's interpretation.In this one I could see it as a natural possibility like the idea that in a really big village everyone does not have a chance of hearing everything all others are saying (not time to read all the posts that is)... So maybe the minions just didn't get the full picture of their Wizard's intentions if they were so finetuned? Narrationwise we could come up with an idea that makes that kind of scene possible... no problem with that. I think it more important for a Wizard to be able to decide herself whether she wishes to reveal her identity to her chosen ones.

To the rest: good, good, only don't overcombinate the rules. I think the game looked good enough as it was, don't overstretch it (I'm referring to introducing more gifteds etc...).I hope I'm not doing it. On the contrary I'd wish to see a few balancing acts to bring the GW and the village to a bit more competitive position and to make certain things a bit more fluent. So not overstraching but making it straighter and more even.

I can see that all the talk I made above may look like nitpicking and too thorough... but in the end when the game is played one needs clear rules to every situation and deciding those rules requires every thing and chance to be thought patiently beforehand (so that we don't make a same kind of blunder the first game suffered from just because the mod had to make a decision about an un-thought-of situation in a hurry).

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-29-2008, 04:41 PM

Well, if you of all the people feel like that I guess there's not a lot of people reading and / or thinking about this... :rolleyes:
I hope I'm not doing it. On the contrary I'd wish to see a few balancing acts to bring the GW and the village to a bit more competitive position and to make certain things a bit more fluent. So not overstraching but making it straighter and more even.
Well, the point is that I am not that much a kind of person who should read and reply to this - the most input should be made by the ones who played and experienced the first game for themselves and know what seemed balanced or unbalanced. My view is only theoretical and I'm saying only what I think; but lack the practical insight and personal experience.

In this one I could see it as a natural possibility like the idea that in a really big village everyone does not have a chance of hearing everything all others are saying (not time to read all the posts that is)... So maybe the minions just didn't get the full picture of their Wizard's intentions if they were so finetuned? Narrationwise we could come up with an idea that makes that kind of scene possible... no problem with that. I think it more important for a Wizard to be able to decide herself whether she wishes to reveal her identity to her chosen ones.
Yup, that's plausible. I like that.

I can see that all the talk I made above may look like nitpicking and too thorough... but in the end when the game is played one needs clear rules to every situation and deciding those rules requires every thing and chance to be thought patiently beforehand (so that we don't make a same kind of blunder the first game suffered from just because the mod had to make a decision about an un-thought-of situation in a hurry).
No way looking too nitpicky - you are doing a good job, as I said before - it's the best for the mod to have everything checked, if only for his own feeling of safety...

Roa_Aoife

01-29-2008, 06:15 PM

I kind of liked lmp's idea that in a case of a tie no one gets killed but at the same time I can see the arguments against that ruling.

So how about we tried something along the lines of "Wizard's battle" over those people? One idea would be that both Wizards could nominate one they would like to keep around and one they would like to get rid of and submitting their choices to the mod. If they agreed the person dies if they don't the person lives. The downside in this would be that only innocents would be killed but it might also save people. Another chance is that the end-result would not be death but "conversion" (so from gifted or a wolf to ordinary or from ordinary to either one according to the result between the Wizards). This one needs to be thought of.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. A tie as in both Wizard’s pick the same person? A tie in the lynch votes? And a Wizard’s battle over what people? The people picked? How does that tie into voting for a person to kill? Please clarify.

The GW should probably be restricted to one seer at the time but otherwise I might be tempted to allow more than the three gifteds... the EW may appoint an unlimited number of wolves anyhow. But this also depends on the exact capabilities of the gifteds.

I wouldn’t be opposed to two seers, maybe 3, given the sheer number of villagers, and numerous rangers. Multiple hunters I would oppose for the simple fact that they could heavily unbalance the game- either acting as landmines to severely cripple the wolves, or taking out multiple innocents and really hurting the odds of the village.

I'm not wishing to turn the hunter into a 100% killing-pawn of the GW who could "assasinate" a wolf paying it with her life. Instead I would be persuaded to make it in the way that the hunter in the end - like other gifteds - are responsible of their actions themselves but that the GW could give them instructions on the basis of anything they have discussed or what she seems fit. It would then be the GW's task to make her minions to see why her plans are better than an individual gifted's feeling (and she'd need to decide how much to reveal her knowledge to gain her ends) although in a case of fex. the seer trying to dream of someone already known to the GW she should have a right to override the decision of the seer.

While I agree that the GW, being Good and all, shouldn’t act like a dictator, it’s a bit unfair to give the EW final say over what the wolves do, and not afford the same option to the GW. In any case, what gifted wouldn’t listen to the GW in this instance. I think it should be left up to the Wizards if they want to override their team, or give them autonomy.

We'd need to think about this one too as I'd like to make the gifteds / wolves to feel they are involved in what happens but still retaining the Wizard as the one who pulls the strings...

This was discussed ad nauseum in this very thread. It’s up to the wolves and gifted how involved they get. They have the option to send a name, or to send reasoning and points. Morm for example, immediately jumped in with long messages and detailed reasoning for his choices, and had multiple choices that he offered to me as the EW. Other wolves chose to send only a name.

About the hunter still. If the hunter gains the information from the GW she should be of the "classical" style eg. bringing down whoever she has targeted, a wolf or an innocent. It might also be possible to think that the GW first would like to keep her in shade about the other gifteds but if the hunter wishes to take another gifted down with her the GW could then override it (when it would be known to the hunter as well). That would indeed sound "realistic"

I partially agree. The GW should be able to override the hunter at anytime. For example, the seer dreams of a wolf. The seer passes that info to the GW. The hunter wants to hunt someone the GW knows is innocent from a previous Night, but has already left for the Night due to RL, and can’t get the GW’s response. The GW should be able to change who is hunted regardless of the hunter’s choice. That’s the power the EW has, the GW should have the same.

If both Wizards choose the same people during the Night that one would be turned a werewolf but be known to EW. That sounds good to me.

This is dangerous. Say the EW curses a gifted, turning them into an ordo. The turned person had some knowledge of who their other gifteds were. The next night, both wizards try to turn this person, but if they become a werewolf, then all the knowledge they had is now in the hands of the Evil team. Granted this is only a possibility, but it’s there, and should be considered.

Because I imagine it the way that every Night the sub-mod simply cannot sleep but stay awake 24 hours, and the wolves anyway need to send their kills a long time before the DL so that there can be eventually some re-sending if they pick a wolf etc. And still the Wizard needs to be informed and everything... so did it really work, or was it that every night only half of the wolves voted or something?

Boromir was the sub mod for the evil team last time, so you’ll have to ask him how it went, but in my opinion it worked well. If I was going to be gone by the voting deadline, I sent him a provision, such as, “The first kill is X. The wolves can decide the second kill. If they choose one of their fellows, then kill Y instead,” or something similar depending on what was going on at the time.

I suggest that no one who doesn’t think they have the time for it attempt being a wizard. I agreed to be a sub mod because by the time the game starts I’ll have plenty of time to waste on it. I wouldn’t have volunteered if I didn’t think I could put in the work.

Volo

01-30-2008, 12:03 AM

I wouldn’t be opposed to two seers, maybe 3, given the sheer number of villagers, and numerous rangers. Multiple hunters I would oppose for the simple fact that they could heavily unbalance the game- either acting as landmines to severely cripple the wolves, or taking out multiple innocents and really hurting the odds of the village.It's risky to have more Seers around than daily kills. It's rather boring when you have "known Wolves" around but can't lynch them. However in this specific game it might work somehow.
Are the Seers told the EW's role if the dream of her? In that case there shouldn't be 3 Seers.

Rangers. They're easier to add, if you make sure that the same person can't be protected two Nights in a row.

It might actually be fun to have a game with loads of Hunters some time, but not now.

After the wolves and gifteds have given their points (within the 10-14 hour framework or whatever it will be) the wizard could then add her own suggestions and preferences. That would then be passed back to the "chosen" and they could have again a time limit to make further suggestions (like 4 hours before the deadline or something - all these exact hours should be decided when we have the actual people in). Then on the basis of that discussion the Wizard would announce the choices to the sub-mods & the mod - preferably one hour before the deadline so that everything could be counted and a narration could come in time.

I myself am worried more about timezones. There is really little time for Nightly actions and I wouldn't like to wake myself up at three in the morning just to send a PM at the right time. If I understand the stuff correctly, I vote for longer Nights.

Macalaure

01-30-2008, 08:30 AM

No, I think the possibility that one Wizard reveals another on Night One is not such a problem:We could always make a rule that they can only challenge each other from day three (or so) on.

That said it looks pretty straightforward to me that in the beginning of the game both the EW and the GW send the mod (and the sub-mods?) a list of 6 or something (depending on the number of gifteds we will give the GW in the beginning: I personally would be ready to give the GW more than one but more of that later) whom they wish to make wolves / gifteds. After that the mod checks the overlaps, makes a lottery if needed and deals the picks. After that he sends the names of the wolves to the EW and notifies the wolves about their status. To the GW the mod would send the names of those selected so that the GW could assign them their roles herself. After the allocation the GW then notifies the sub-mod (or the mod) of her choices and those would then be passed on to the players via the sub-mod (or the mod).Sounds good to me. :)

I hope I'm not doing it. On the contrary I'd wish to see a few balancing acts to bring the GW and the village to a bit more competitive position and to make certain things a bit more fluent. So not overstraching but making it straighter and more even.I think I'll trust you that you'll find a good way to define the rules. Just keep them as simple and accessible as possible in this kind of game. :)

About the messages via the sub-mod: They definitely need to be reformulated. You could narrow down the Wizard's identity by their style/amount of writing. The information flow should be encouraged to be very concise, I think, for the sake of the sub-mod.

About more than three gifteds: I think the situation is already a bit balanced by the fact that the three can always be replaced, and the knowledge of the old ones is passed over to the new ones by the Wizard. Two seers I could agree to (esp. considering the size of the village and the inconstancy of the roles). Two rangers, as long as even together they can't protect one villagers twice in a row, don't have much more power than one alone. The hunter already has an advantage due to the information s/he obtains from the Wizard and the seer (if the seer is successful only once, the hunter cannot go wrong anymore). Furthermore, s/he can be replaced after death, so no more than one at any rate.

This is dangerous. Say the EW curses a gifted, turning them into an ordo. The turned person had some knowledge of who their other gifteds were. The next night, both wizards try to turn this person, but if they become a werewolf, then all the knowledge they had is now in the hands of the Evil team. Granted this is only a possibility, but it’s there, and should be considered.
Absolute agreement. If both choose the same villager, s/he should simply be killed by the excessive amount of sorcery applied to the poor individual. I'm not sure whether it's really necessary to have the Wizards learn each other's identity because of it, though.

Nogrod

01-30-2008, 04:09 PM

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. A tie as in both Wizard’s pick the same person? A tie in the lynch votes? And a Wizard’s battle over what people? The people picked? How does that tie into voting for a person to kill? Please clarify.I was thinking about a tie in a vote to lynch someone.

Now lmp entertained the idea that in a tie neither of those gaining the highest number of votes would get killed. I'm afraid that might put the villagers' most important tool into jeopardy if that would be automatic. But I'd like to try something new with the lynching procedure this time.

So my idea was to put the Wizards face to face during the Night and trying to see through each others bluff and risk-taking capabilities. One way to gain this would be that they have a chance to protect one of those reaching a tie and a chance to try to kill (or change) the other one (they could surely restrain from using both or eother of their capabilities if they so wished). I think you can imagine different possible scenarios there could be: a wolf and a seer reaching a tie, a wolf and an innocent, two gifteds, two wolves, two innocents... How would the Wizards play their cards here thinking of both the "objective" outcome of it and the bluff-factor?

So the basic idea would just be that in a case of a tie in votes the Wizards would play it off.

It might look to favour the EW but remember also that if there is a wolf there in the pair and the GW suspects her and tries to kill / change her only to learn that the EW protected her then what should the GW think about it? Or does the EW have the nerve to bluff here as she doesn't know which one the GW will pick?

It might also be worth considering that this poker-game between the Wizards could be made to consist of two rounds where initially the Wizards are asked about their choices and those would be then channelled to the other one and then their second decision would be the one that counts... (that would be easily adapted in to the narrations as the Wizards try to sense the air around the two candidates and trying to see what the other one is trying to do)

But as I said this is one of the things we should think about. It's just a suggestion and I'm not sure whether it would work in a balanced manner.

I wouldn’t be opposed to two seers, maybe 3, given the sheer number of villagers, and numerous rangers. Multiple hunters I would oppose for the simple fact that they could heavily unbalance the game- either acting as landmines to severely cripple the wolves, or taking out multiple innocents and really hurting the odds of the village.The number of the gifteds is a tough one I admit. I mean it sounds pretty inbalanced if the EW can summon as many wolves she wishes (if she plays it right) but the GW is limited to three in the original rules. But then again one conversion makes a wolf to change sides while a gifted scried by the EW only loses the gift but stays a goodie.

One way to try to balance this would surely be to make some clear but flexible limits to the number of gifteds / wolves. Like that there could at any time be three but as long as there are a lot of players the maximal amount would be something like a quarter of the village or something like that (So with 20 players left there could be at most five wolves etc. - surely any already nominated "chosen ones" would not be ripped of their status because of this rule but when the roster is full the Wizard would be banned to scry/curse more; and there probably needs to be some restrictions with the GW's scries as five Seers, or four rangers able to protect the seer(s) everyNight would be just unsporty).

Or maybe we just limit the number of wolves to the quarter of the village or something and hold the gifteds in the three-max. all through the game?

Okay that's just a thought as well. What do you people think?

I do agree with you Roa that both Wizards should be able to override their minions' decisions in the end. You made me convinced about it.

The issue with both Wizards trying to scry/curse the same villager during the Night. You are right Roa and Mac. That might be a bit too dangerous.

Right now I kind of like the idea that that person gets under so strong influence of magical powers that she crushes dead with it. That would be simple, elegant and "realistic". Also that way both Wizards will know they were after the same person without learning each others identities (which I think they should not learn if they are after the same person).

I myself am worried more about timezones. There is really little time for Nightly actions and I wouldn't like to wake myself up at three in the morning just to send a PM at the right time. If I understand the stuff correctly, I vote for longer Nights.Even if I see your concern as a legitimate one I'd be very reluctant to change the Day/Night -cycle. With 36-hour Nights the possibility of different confusions would be big indeed (just look how hard it is sometimes with even rutinely 24-hour cycles) and with 48-hour cycles the intensity of the game would suffer considerably I'm afraid. I mean we managed nicely the last time. Although I'd like to hear from Kuru and Boro (the sub-mods last time) how it went behind the curtains.

Roa_Aoife

01-30-2008, 05:07 PM

I understand now. I agree that no lynch on a tie isn't very good for the village. It would be too easy for the evil team to manipulate that. I'm intrigued by this Wizard's Battle idea, however, with everything that has to happen at Night, it may be overstretching the capabilities of the mods and wizards alike.

I like the idea that the number of wolves/gifted rely on the number of villagers, but I wouldn't like to limit the kind too much. After all, the GW needs to be able to strategize. If we have wolves= 1/4 village, then the number of gifted should also rely on the size of the village, though maybe not in equal numbers. (As you pointed out, when the gifted are cursed they don't change sides, but when the wolves are scryed, they do.) Perhaps 1/5? So 20 villagers would mean five wolves and four gifted, whereas 30 villagers means seven wolves (or eight depending on if you want to round up or down) and six gifted. This is total of course, and assuming that either team can manage to keep all their members alive (quite a feat, I assure you.) Then for the gifted, as long they stay withing the limits of each type (such as no more than two seers, etc.) they can be arranged however the GW wishes.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-30-2008, 06:17 PM

Nog, to that wizard battle over lynched people - if this rule was used, what will happen if a tie is reached and the Wizards are already dead?

Anyway, I must say I don't particularly like this rule, it seems still too much more of an advantage for the EW. Or: I can't see an advantage for the GW in it. And by the way, why can't we simply have a double-lynch or the lynch when the first person who reaches... etc?

As to the Gifteds/Wolves: was the last game really that badly unbalanced or what? Remember that with the rising number of wolves, the possibility that the GW turns a WW into an innocent rises every night, so that maintains balance, sort of. And with three Gifted...

As to the 36-or more hour days/nights: definitely not. Whatever transmission problems it may take, I'm strongly against changing the times.

Roa_Aoife

01-30-2008, 07:04 PM

As to the Gifteds/Wolves: was the last game really that badly unbalanced or what? Remember that with the rising number of wolves, the possibility that the GW turns a WW into an innocent rises every night, so that maintains balance, sort of. And with three Gifted...

If you read through this entire thread, you'll see that some people believed it unbalanced in favor of the Evil team. I can understand it as well. Personally, I don't have a problem with it staying the way it was before, but we're trying to satisfy all ends here, so bear with us as we work it out.

Perhaps 3 gifted total, but they can all start on night 1?

As to the 36-or more hour days/nights: definitely not. Whatever transmission problems it may take, I'm strongly against changing the times.

I believe the 36 hour day was how we managed last time, and I don't recall a problem occuring.

Volo

01-31-2008, 04:27 AM

Nog, to that wizard battle over lynched people - if this rule was used, what will happen if a tie is reached and the Wizards are already dead?I vote for normal "first to reach tie is lynched".

This looks like an unnecessary rule at first sight. However my argument for it working is that the more days we are into the game, the better the chances to spot a Wolf. I say that it would be interesting to see this work in practice.

I believe the 36 hour day was how we managed last time, and I don't recall a problem occuring.Oh, ok. Sounds fine. Or if the game did work well with 24 hour Days/Nights, that's fine too.

Putting a limit to the ammount of Wolves and Gifteds sounds good for the balance, but to me it diminishes both the Wizards quite a lot. What would happen if the when the border is reached? Will the Wizards still be able to curse/scry?

What about the GW giving her targets "protection" from being cursed after the Gifted limit is reached? Being a Gifted is basically having a protecting from becoming a Wolf. So if there would be limit to Gifteds, but the Wizard could still protect?

Roa_Aoife

01-31-2008, 02:39 PM

Putting a limit to the ammount of Wolves and Gifteds sounds good for the balance, but to me it diminishes both the Wizards quite a lot. What would happen if the when the border is reached? Will the Wizards still be able to curse/scry?

What about the GW giving her targets "protection" from being cursed after the Gifted limit is reached? Being a Gifted is basically having a protecting from becoming a Wolf. So if there would be limit to Gifteds, but the Wizard could still protect?

The GW shouldn't be able to protect more than one a night. Otherwise you take away some of the power that the EW has. Remember, gifteds don't become wolves if cursed. The just lose their giftedness. And for that matter, the EW should also be able to protect at least one wolf from being scryed. Afterall, it's no guarantee that either team will have their roster filled at any time. It's possible that the GW may still need to scry gifted while the wolves have as many as is allowed.

Legate of Amon Lanc

01-31-2008, 03:49 PM

Wait, wait. I am kinda confused. I thought that the GW can scry on people still, all the time, and if he already has three Gifteds, he still can scry, only he does not turn the innocents he scries into Gifteds, but if he scries upon a Wolf, he turns him back. So I don't see why Volo is suggesting what he is suggesting, as the GW is already doing this thing by which he can save people who already are wolves (and if he scries upon a person who becomes a wolf the very same night, he un-curses him, so in fact, it's the same as if he Protected him, technically). And I don't see why Roa is opposing it, as the GW already does this thing, as I just wrote. Or am I totally confused and misunderstood the rules, the posts, or everything?

Volo

01-31-2008, 04:09 PM

Ok, if Legate is correct, then I was talking nonsense and everything was just as it should be.

Roa_Aoife

01-31-2008, 05:14 PM

Wait, wait. I am kinda confused. I thought that the GW can scry on people still, all the time, and if he already has three Gifteds, he still can scry, only he does not turn the innocents he scries into Gifteds, but if he scries upon a Wolf, he turns him back.

That is partially correct. We were discussing (or at least I was) how to handle scrying/cursing after both teams have filled their limits, should we choose to apply limits. If the GW continues to scry with out making gifteds, they act as another seer, but able to change wolves. Volo's suggestion was that instead of being yet another seer, the GW have the option to protect the gifted from cursing.

So I don't see why Volo is suggesting what he is suggesting, as the GW is already doing this thing by which he can save people who already are wolves (and if he scries upon a person who becomes a wolf the very same night, he un-curses him, so in fact, it's the same as if he Protected him, technically).

If the GW and the EW choose the same person to scry/curse on the same night, that person dies, so they really aren't protected. If the GW scries a wolf, then the wolf becomes an Innocent. If the EW curses a gifted, that person becomes an Innocent. Volo, as I was understanding it, was suggesting the GW be able to protect people who are already gifted from being cursed by the EW, and thus losing their gifted status.

And I don't see why Roa is opposing it, as the GW already does this thing, as I just wrote. Or am I totally confused and misunderstood the rules, the posts, or everything?

I think you misunderstand what we were talking about. As I said above, this isn't the scrying ability- it's something else entirely. If the GW could protect all the gifted from being cursed, it stops the EW from being able to remove gifteds in the same way the GW could remove wolves. I was saying that if you give such a power to the GW then it should also be given to the EW, but they should only be able to protect one of their team members a night.

However, either way, the protected person is a goner. If the EW chooses to curse someone, only to find out that s/he can't, then it'd be obvious that that person is gifted. If the GW tries to scry someone and can't, then it becomes obvious that that that person is a wolf. So really all it would do is maybe give either a gifted or a wolf one more day on that team.

Volo

02-01-2008, 06:15 AM

Stupid as it may sounds, I think I was a bit confused when I answered Legate. :D

Ok, this is what I meant in the very beginning:

If the Wizards can't create more Minions (Wolves/Gifteds) because the limits are reached.
If a Wizard targets a Minion, the Minion will be turned to an Ordo.
If a Wizard targets an Ordo - What happens? My suggestin is that the Ordo is now protected from the other Wizard's powers for the next Night/the rest of the game as if it was the Wizard's own Minion.

How my suggestin would work:
The limits are 5 Wolves and 4 Gifteds.
There are 5 Wolves and 4 Gifteds at the moment.

Night5 begins.

The EW targets Ordo #1.
The GW targets Ordo #2.
Neither of the Ordos turns into anything, but the EW marks Ordo #1 as her property while the GW marks Ordo #2.
Both Ordos survive the Night.

Day5 begins.

A Wolf is lynched.

Night6 begins.

Now it makes sense for the EW to target an Ordo to turn it into a Wolf.
She decides to target Ordo #2.
In a normal case Ordo #2 would now become a Wolf, but since it was protected by the GW on Night5 is stays an Ordo.

Does that make sense?

Legate of Amon Lanc

02-01-2008, 06:44 AM

Yes, it makes sense and that's (except for the limits, about which I was not thinking back then) the same way as I believed the game works. I would vote for this.

Nogrod

02-01-2008, 07:39 AM

I believe the 36 hour day was how we managed last time, and I don't recall a problem occuring.I just checked the actual game thread back there. The Days and Nights were 24 hours.

If the GW could protect all the gifted from being cursed, it stops the EW from being able to remove gifteds in the same way the GW could remove wolves. I was saying that if you give such a power to the GW then it should also be given to the EW, but they should only be able to protect one of their team members a night.
My suggestin is that the Ordo is now protected from the other Wizard's powers for the next Night/the rest of the game as if it was the Wizard's own Minion.This (the bolded parts together) sounds good with first read at least. But I would be very reluctant to give that "protection" to the rest of the game. It might be pretty strong weapon especially in GW's hands if she gets two or three gifteds already in the beginning...

Volo

02-01-2008, 07:43 AM

Nogrod

02-01-2008, 11:48 AM

I don't think they should be able to protect their own Minions, but it should come as a part of scrying/cursing Ordos if their Minion limit is already reached. The protection lasting one Night is probably too little, but the whole game too much. Maybe the next two or three Nights?I'd say bringing forwards rules like "this enchantment expires on Day three from the casting" just make the game too complicated (and who could trail on all those different expiry-dates!). So I'd say that one Night or then to the end. Which would leave me to one Night indeed.

But I do like the idea that the Wizards could not "protect" their minions from a scry but only others. That might also bring forwards a possibility that the GW protects a wolf on one Night... but also that she could try to foresee EW's actions and try to override them with her anticipation. When there is no one to scry (roster full) it would give a Wizard some nice things to think about trying to figure whom the other one would like to target and to bar that conversion.

Though the possibly academic question remains what if both Wizards have their rosters full? Maybe just one Night with one less problem to solve to both of them? :p

Legate of Amon Lanc

02-01-2008, 01:09 PM

But I do like the idea that the Wizards could not "protect" their minions from a scry but only others. That might also bring forwards a possibility that the GW protects a wolf on one Night...

Surely not? Because under such circumstances the Wolf would be turned into an Innocent. Or should I shut up and wait till the rules are issued in some nice, summarized, easily-readable version? :p (which is an important and even necessary task which is in front of you, Nog ;) )

Boromir88

02-01-2008, 02:06 PM

Alright, so just some observations from the first Dueling Wizards game that I remember.

I will first tell Legate, that yes the sub-mods had to be around a lot, but I knew that when I told lmp I'd do it. I assure you I got enough sleep, and I hope to all my evil companions I did an efficient job of sending the information to all the necessary people. As soon as I saw a message I forwarded it right back out. So, yes, the sub-mod needs to be someone who has a lot of available time, and is on often, but I didn't have any issues with getting the information to the right people in a reasonable time. (Well at least I didn't hear Roa complaining about me :D)

But, the sub-mod definitely has to be someone with the time and comittment to do the job...something I can't do this time around but I am hoping to be able to get into a DW game if one is started.

As far as the game balance, lmp, had many many dry runs before starting his game and it had turned out pretty even. I think the Good team was disadvantaged with only being able to PM during the day, because on top of trying to do the ordinary day business of analyzing and voting, the GW had to try to communicate with his gifteds as far as what action should be done. And it didn't seem like Gurthang could plan as effectively as Roa, simply because of only being able to PM during the day. So, definitely letting both teams only PM at night should alleviate some of the "work load" the GW has to do, and they could plan more effectively.

Also, before we do start, clear rules for everything definitely has to be established for a game as complex as this one. I remember an issue right off the bat, it was a while ago and don't remember the exact details (maybe someone else does?). I just remember lmp, Kuru, and myself awarding Roa an extra kill at one point because of something we all felt was unfair. At that time that was the decision we thought was appropriate, and I believe as Gurthang pointed out before the extra kill hurt the good team.

However, that wasn't the only reason the evil team was able to win and win pretty decisively. I thought the biggest reason was Roa's play as the evil wizard. She definitely had a great plan, did a great job of executing her plan, and overall just being in control. I think the GW could have done a better job of planning had he been able to communicate at night, because only being able to communicate during the day was, when you also have to worry about posting and finding wolves, was just too much. You had that situation when tp was awaiting for directions from the GW and so on, so allowing both teams to only communicate at night I think would solve that.

Roa_Aoife

02-01-2008, 03:01 PM

Alright, so just some observations from the first Dueling Wizards game that I remember.

I will first tell Legate, that yes the sub-mods had to be around a lot, but I knew that when I told lmp I'd do it. I assure you I got enough sleep, and I hope to all my evil companions I did an efficient job of sending the information to all the necessary people. As soon as I saw a message I forwarded it right back out. So, yes, the sub-mod needs to be someone who has a lot of available time, and is on often, but I didn't have any issues with getting the information to the right people in a reasonable time. (Well at least I didn't hear Roa complaining about me :D)

I thought you did a great job. You were very helpful.

As far as the game balance, lmp, had many many dry runs before starting his game and it had turned out pretty even. I think the Good team was disadvantaged with only being able to PM during the day, because on top of trying to do the ordinary day business of analyzing and voting, the GW had to try to communicate with his gifteds as far as what action should be done. And it didn't seem like Gurthang could plan as effectively as Roa, simply because of only being able to PM during the day. So, definitely letting both teams only PM at night should alleviate some of the "work load" the GW has to do, and they could plan more effectively.

I'd forgotten that LMP did a bunch of dry runs. Perhaps the ability to talk at Night is the only thing we need to change to even things out.

Also, before we do start, clear rules for everything definitely has to be established for a game as complex as this one. I remember an issue right off the bat, it was a while ago and don't remember the exact details (maybe someone else does?). I just remember lmp, Kuru, and myself awarding Roa an extra kill at one point because of something we all felt was unfair. At that time that was the decision we thought was appropriate, and I believe as Gurthang pointed out before the extra kill hurt the good team.

Are you refering to the extra kill my wolves got each Night once they reached a certain number? I thought that was to move things along more quickly (30 people is a lot to kill, after all). The only extra thing besides that I got was an extra turn one Night to replace a wolf that was unfairly taken from me. If you recall, TP, the new hunter, refused to pick a person to hunt with out talking to the GW (as you mentioned) so when my wolves killed him, LMP decided to give him an automatic wolf kill. I protested, Gurthang protested, and I was given an extra cursing the next Night.

However, that wasn't the only reason the evil team was able to win and win pretty decisively. I thought the biggest reason was Roa's play as the evil wizard. She definitely had a great plan, did a great job of executing her plan, and overall just being in control. I think the GW could have done a better job of planning had he been able to communicate at night, because only being able to communicate during the day was, when you also have to worry about posting and finding wolves, was just too much.

Aww, thank you. I agree, the good team should be allowed to communicate during Nights, rather than Days. That could significantly balance things, if the GW has the opportunity to plan like the EW.

I like the idea of Wizardly protections, but not whole game. That would just get silly. The next Night should be good enough. I don't think it would be easy to keep track of who was protected and who wasn't, and when the protections were up if we did it for multiple Nights. Trust me, by the time each wizard has their roster full, IF they ever get their roster full, there won't be that many people left in the village. People drop like flies in this game.

Kuruharan

02-01-2008, 03:10 PM

I would love to grace everyone with the sparkling brilliance of my input at being the good submod...alas, I don't really remember anything about it.

The only thing I really remember is having to step in when lmp couldn't be there to post about the wizards duel and everyone was just twiddling their thumbs.

I'll try to re-read and see if I can remember anything.

Nogrod

02-01-2008, 06:17 PM

So, yes, the sub-mod needs to be someone who has a lot of available time, and is on often, but I didn't have any issues with getting the information to the right people in a reasonable time.I do agree with this. If the mod and the sub-mods are up to their task there should be no problem there. And if Roa actually is the other one of the sub-mods I have not a slightest doubt about her commitment. And in the end the Wizard decides so it's only the problem of the "Chosen ones" if they miss their chance of making their stands.

As far as the game balance, lmp, had many many dry runs before starting his game and it had turned out pretty even. I think the Good team was disadvantaged with only being able to PM during the day, because on top of trying to do the ordinary day business of analyzing and voting, the GW had to try to communicate with his gifteds as far as what action should be done. And it didn't seem like Gurthang could plan as effectively as Roa, simply because of only being able to PM during the day. So, definitely letting both teams only PM at night should alleviate some of the "work load" the GW has to do, and they could plan more effectively.I think it is obvious we'll let the GW PM with her team during the Nights this time. The only problem is whether that is enough to balance the game.

And even if I myself think one should run a host of dry-runs before trying a new concept I'd also remind of the fact that dry-runs are only random results. If Lommy and A little Green will take the bait we might try the dry runs some weekend we'll be together and we could see how it works with some more specified gaming as well. *

Also, before we do start, clear rules for everything definitely has to be established for a game as complex as this one.Absolutely! I think no one wishes to relive the situation where lmp needed to make a hasty decision. And that's the reason why I have wished to have this discussion going on. I mean not everyone needs to know all the rules by heart when the game begins but there should be a place where anyone could check them if they just became interested or if their role-change made it important

but I am hoping to be able to get into a DW game if one is started.I'd surely like to see in our game!

* I thought of trying this one out with Lommy & Greenie in a way that would also take notice of the different personalities of people possibly playing. I mean the any one seer looks differently to Legate and Shasta (or Spm and Valier) as they have very different profiles... The Wizards surely take these different profiles into account but I would just be intersted to try it out not purely random but with a few different scenarios where the Wizards would have different tactics (scrying the silent ones vs. scrying the opinion-shifters etc.). But we'll see about that...