Interesting idea. Would the two lovers be able to communicate? At first I thought if one dies the other should live but on second thought it might not be a good idea. The reason being the innocent lover would know who the wolves are and could give them up upon her loves death. It would be a fun yet difficult role to play especially for the wolf lover.

But why should the lover know who the other wolves are? They would only know of the one they communicated with, and that one would be dead. Could they not then live?

I think the idea would be interesting to try. Of course, it should be in a village that has a roughly equal number of male and female players so that the identity of one of the Lovers is not too obvious. The alternative, of course, is to ignore gender in that scenario, but I am really not in favor of doing so.

But if the lovers communicate and the way they win is by being the only two left then it would make sense for the wolf to tell his lover who the other wolves are in an attempt to help lynch them off.

Ah cheers morm, hadn't thought of that!

No, this wouldn't be a problem, not till the very end of the game--the lovers have to kill not only the other wolves, but ALL of the other villagers (and a grim pair they must be--was it Titus Andronicus you were thinking of, Cailin?) to win the game. Lynching the other wolves before the precise correct moment would be a win for the villagers and a loss for the lovers. I think it would be all right for the "innocent" (if we can use that word for someone who wants EVERYONE dead) lover to know the identity of the other wolves, because s/he couldn't really do anything directly with that information without losing the game. The trick for the lovers, in addition to keeping their own identities secret, would be timing.

I like this idea a lot! If you get to implement it, Cailin, I'd love to play in that game.

Cailin--could the non-wolf lover also be Gifted? (Not the Seer, since the lover would already be aware of the wolves' identity, but the idea of a Hunter or Ranger who's treacherous is intriguing.)

Ah, the Lovers - I've heard of this, and think it sounds cool.

I've seen slightly different versions though - one, there is a "Cupid" role, and after day one, he/she picks two players to be lovers, or two, two people are picked randomly to be lovers, it could be a Wolf and the Seer, perhaps.

But yeah, I think it's a cool idea.

Yes they would be. It will be hard enough to come up with a strategy as it is, so I suppose they should - like the Shiriffs - be able to communicate during Day phases. So Morm has it right - if the non wolf lover would survive after the wolf lover's death, the game would be instantly over.

Well, I'm not making any promises. But I guess I agree.

I thought it would be better for the non-wolf to be an ordinary, otherwise I think it could seriously unbalance the game. A Ranger Lover would be far too powerful and a Hunter Lover quite useless - the Lovers are one team and when they die, they should not really care who eventually wins.

Good to see some people like the idea! :D

some additional comments
 

Not only that is the reason I wanted the Lovers to die together. Though the wolves are supposed to be a team, we have seen that in the past, they have thoughtlessly sacrificed each other for their own benefit. Also, villagers are quick to kill people they believe innocent just for clarity. It would be interesting to see two people really forced to work together. Also, if you’d allow them to live on after their lover’s death, you give them a choice to which team they’d want to belong – and I wish to avoid that. It would make the Lovers role too easy.

Or, of course, the Lover wolf could choose to eat all other villagers by himself without attracting suspicion, but I personally believe that would be the harder way of winning the game.

I looked up the ‘Cupid’ role and I see what you mean. However, in that scenario, the two Lovers could easily be two innocents, and we’d be left with plain Shiriffs again.

By all means! That's what it's for. I'm glad you've resurrected it.

Not the Ranger. The Ranger is supposed to be good, even if seeming evil, not the other way around. But the seer? :eek: That would be a deadly combination, but not altogether unwonted. And yes, it would unbalance the game to have the non-wolf lover be gifted.

I also think that it would be needful to have an extra werewolf in this scenario, which wouldn't be a problem if everybody expects there to be a Lovers combination in the game, anyway. Just to give the werewolves an even chance.

Um, this is confusing me. Could you explain this so my eyes can deal with it? :p Is the "or" in this list the splitter between two possibilities?

Hmm yes, perhaps you are right, but would that not seriously damage the chances of the villagers? That would mean - in a village consisting of 18 players - five people are a potential danger to the village. Within a day, probably a third is evil. And 18 players is already quite a large town.

And I thought I was being quite clear. Just for your eyes then, I indeed meant there are two possibilities for a Lovers' win other than them being the sole survivors. They also win when they are still alive and there's only one other villager, whether it be a wolf, an ordinary or a Gifted, still walking and talking.

Now I come to think of it, when the last one standing together with the Lovers is the Hunter, I'd say we have the extremely rare scenario of a Moderator Win. Anyway, I hope I have not just further confused you.

Now a question that developed in my mind last night is what do you think would happen if there were only 3 wolves and one was killed early. That would leave the lover and a wolf. Obviously the wolf would know he's not the lover. Could this cause problems? Would it simply result in the wolf pushing for the lovers death and the lover pushing for the wolves death?

Good question, I had not even thought of that! I suppose it would not matter though - it would just add some extra tension to the game, because the non Lover wolf could of course not reveal himself without losing the game. Only it might be rather difficult for the two wolves to decide on a victim together then, but I can't see why it would not work.

My reasoning is the same as for the werebear scenario: the forces of evil are split; therefore, the non-lover werewolves are in just as much of a predicament as the innocent non-lover villagers. There are THREE sides, not TWO. Even though five people would be a potential danger to the village, there is one werewolf plus all the "innocent" villagers who are against the non-lover werewolves. So it's fractured. Therefore, the need for an extra werewolf to balance things out in a three-way game.

The Oracle
 

The Oracle knows all the roles of all the characters in the village.

The Oracle may not use the name of any other villager, and may not name the role of any other villager, not even an Ordinary Innocent, and may not vote. All the Oracle can do is speak in riddles. If s/he flat out names roles and other players, the moderator's wrath comes down upon the oracle, and the oracle is summarily executed, and Night falls immediately; all roles are redistributed and Day begins 24 hours later (The threat has to be there to break the incentive; more's the pity if the Oracle could not resist the temptation).

This doesn't have to take the place of any other role.

At first I was going to say that the Oracle cannot be killed by the werewolves until (1) s/he is the last innocent villager; or (2) s/he slips from riddling. But the Oracle maybe should be just as assailable as any other gifted.

The thing is, once the Oracle speaks, everyone will be discussing the riddles instead of who they think is guilty. I'm not sure that still works with the nature of the game. Still, it's an interesting concept. I do wonder if the oracle is automatically on the villagers team, or could they pick to be on the werewolves, just have to 'riddle' only during day.

I've thought of something that might be interesting. What if we had a Healer? The idea behind it would be that they could choose one dead innocent player to revive.

Now, whether they could choose to do this at any time, or if they could only do it when they died is up to whatever the moderator decides. But whenever, they just tell the moderator who they want revived, and that player comes back. The moderator might also make a rule concerning bringing back gifteds, but that could all be worked out for each individual game.

Littlemanpoet wrote:
If the Oracle can't use the name of any other villager, he or she will be unable to act like an ordinary innocent and take part in the usual discussions.

I suppose one could make the prohibition one merely against stating the role of any other villager. But then you'd get into a lot of grey area in terms of moderation.

Everybody could know who the Oracle was, but s/he could be immune to wolves. Each Day, their riddling could swap from hinting at the wolves' identities to hinting at those of the villagers'.

Hm?

You're taking this in the direction I had been thinking for it. The only thing is, if the Oracle is immune to wolves, there has to be an end to that invincibility so that the werewolves could win. So maybe if there's only one werewolf left and the Oracle, then the werewolf wins.

Back to the lovers scenario....
 

Sorry I am still reading the oracle idea...I was just wondering if the lovers would be male and female or possibly homosexual? This might make things a little tricky. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by Gurthang:
Not that I'm currently biased but how about a healer that can bring wolves back. How about a healer that is assigned, by the mod, whether he is evil or good for that day.
Not that I'm biased.

Because it would be too easy to figure out the wolves / lovers if they have to be male and female, I think homosexual couples would be allowed in my scenario. ;)

The Oracle idea sounds interesting but very complicated in practice, I should think.

I like Gurthang's Healer idea, though it needs a wee bit of thinking...

It would interesting to have an intrepid spy within the wolves-though that idea would probably necessitate four wolves. They could communicate secretly with the Seer, and reveal anything except the identity of the other wolves. IE, plans the wolves are considering employing, who the wolves attacked if the Ranger intervened, who the wolves think is Gifted, that kind of thing...

Oh, and if they were the lynched, the Seer could either choose to reveal them as the Spy, and himself as the Seer, or cold-bloodedly let them swing! A revealed Spy would be killed extremely quickly by his erstwhile comrades, of course, but that's the price of espionage. If the Seer let them hang, they would only be revealed as a spy if the Seer subsequently explained or at the end of the game.

Further complication-if the wolves especially suspected one of their number, they could execute him instead of an innocent in the night. Of course, they might be wrong!

These Oracle and Healer roles sound as if they might work better if all the roles were secret.

That's how WW is played in real life mostly, the roles aren't revealed when the player dies, and the outcome isn't known until one team is dead.

I wonder what a game of WW would be like on the Downs, with no excellent death scenes? :eek:

Dueling Wizards Werewolf Game Described
 

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.

Evil Wizard: each Night the evil wizard picks a villager to curse as a werewolf, or werebear (only one), or cobbler (only one). The new werewolf is immediately informed and the mod requests a kill choice, which the werewolf provides by the end of the 24 hours.

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 (smfew) PMs back to each werewolf about the others' choices, and serves as a go-between until the werewolves have come to a majority choice.

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. 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.

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.

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 at any time thereafter, call out the evil wizard to battle, 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. If a gifted is killed, the gift may no longer be assigned.

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

The gifteds know who the good wizard is; the good wizard may PM the gifteds during the Day, and the gifteds may PM the good wizard during the Day. They do not know who each other is unless the good wizard tells them. (why wouldn't the good wizard tell the gifteds who each other is?)

The good wizard is allowed to mis-inform and/or withhold information from his gifteds.

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.

If the good wizard and the evil wizard choose the same previously innocent villager on the same Night, that person dies from the struggle; the result being that neither wizard added a player to her/his side.

Just to be perfectly clear: a wizard battle always results in the death of both wizards.

There is a vote for lynching every Day. 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 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 48 hours long instead of 24 hours; if such a time frame proves somehow unworkable, it may be changed (with notice of course!) during the game.

There. I think that's all the rules I can think of. Are there any holes? Problems? Difficulties? Please let me know. I hope to spring this upon the Dead relatively soon.

1. Name a Dead (BD'er that is) you want to see as a werewolf; and why?
Saucepanman - hes too helpful so noboyd suspects him


2. Name a Dead you want to see as the Ranger; and why?
hmmm... Firefoot, she'll be good with it


3. Name a Dead you want to see as the Seer; and why?
Glirdan - he always has weird ways of drawing suspicon to himself, so if he turns out to be the seer it'll change the whole way of voting, way to take one for the team Glirdy!


4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?
the hunter... hmmm... i would have to go with Rune, Rune to me as been a pretty great WW player and he'll be a good hunter




5. What two Downers would you like to have as fellow werewolves; and why?
fellow werewolves... Boromir88 and LMP


6. (suggested by Kath)Name a Dead you would never like to see as a Werewolf; and why? me, i would die so quickly

Wow. That's a complicated game you have there, Elempi. But it's very much interesting...

Overrule, meaning he gets to decide who dies instead, or the wolves have to change their victim?


What is the evil wizard supposed to accomplish in doing this? Or can he just play around with his were-creatures as he wills?

What if for some odd reason both wizards refuse to engage in battle?

That's all I can think of for now. All I can say is that, my, these wizards have in their hands a LOT of power. (My Captain Obvious statement for the day.)

And I guess the poor players inflicted with timezones will have a hard time coping up at some point. Yes, even with 48-hour phases. Especially when they are wolves, and they have to decide on a(nother) death.

LMP, I think I was the one who proposed the wizards to be volunteers in the first place, but I might get back on that now… At least, not in the way it is currently proposed. I think you might be better off telling people to PM if they definitely do not wish to be a wizard. Otherwise, it might be too easy to guess which players may have volunteered and besides, some people just cannot be bothered volunteering at all while they would have done a decent job as a wizard.

You could always 'dream-team' the wizards if you doubt people are up to it. No one will be able to tell anyways.

I didn't find any other loopholes, though. It sounds like an exciting game! Oops, I'm late for class now.

My first thought is that, with 20+ players, 48 hours for both night and day and no (or few) deaths overnight, it would be a very, very long game ...

Not necessarily a bad thing, of course.

Overrule only if the werewolves' majority vote is to kill a werewolf or the evil wizard. Gotta let them have a little fun...

First, s/he IS evil. But the good wizard can do it too. So.... Second, there may be situations in which the best (and perhaps only) way for the wizards to get what they want from their underlings is to tell them other than the truth. Thus, it becomes interesting to see just how Sarumanish (or not) the good wizard gets by the end of the game.

The only way for the innocent villagers to win is for the good wizard to eventually sacrifice him/herself for the greater good, because the only way for the evil wizard to die is in battle with the good wizard (and it gives the mod an extra kill narrative to write :D).

Which is one of the primary reasons why I'm allowing for 48 hours instead of just 24.

I see the sense of this; but it cuts both ways. It's a PM, after all, so no matter what, the rest of the villagers don't know who has volunteered. I might just recruit my wizards in any case, but there are a lot of BDers who would be great wizards, so I don't think I'll have a hard time finding them. Besides, they ARE the juiciest roles in the game.

And to SPM, 48 hours may seem long, and yes, it probably won't be a bad thing.... but with the potential for more than one kill per Night, as well as more than one lynching per Day, I'm not worried about length of game.

One final point in that regard: I'm thinking that for every three additional werewolves there will be one additional kill per Night. Still thinking about that one, so please feel free to comment.

I had an ingenious idea this afternoon in the bath for a Werewolf role...

The Thief

Every night, the Thief prowls the streets looking for suitable houses to burgle or villagers to rob.

Each Night, the Thief selects a player.

If he selects an Ordinary Villager, he steals some trinket and nothing further happens, except the Thief has a bit more swagger in his step the next day.

If he selects a Ranger, Hunter or Seer (or other Gifted), the Gifted player's choice for that night is ignored and the ability-for that night only-devolves to the Thief instead.

If he selects a Werewolf or Werebear (or other nasty thing), he is mangled by their bloody revenge at the attempted robbery. His body will be found in the morning.

One rule to stop him getting too powerful: the Thief is vowed to keep the secrets of the underworld. He may not reveal his identity as the Thief, even if he risks hanging (it wouldn't save him anyway!) and he may not overtly reveal the roles he has discovered-though he can hint as usual.

The Thief is a pretty powerful asset to the village in some ways, but can also screw things up for them.

What do you think?

Possibly he could be balanced further by making him cancel Gifted abilities for a night, not use them himself.

regarding the Thief
 

Sounds like two roles in one.

1. Swiping things, which would be basically harmless and extraneous to the game.

2. Stealing abilities, which is the real difference maker. I think it ought to be called Trickster instead, considering certain Book discussions we've had. Sort of a Cobbler in reverse, isn't it?

You know, you read my mind. I considered calling him the Trickster.

And in my long experience of werewolf experimentation, I have discovered that almost any role can be labelled as a Cobbler in reverse...

I'd like to try him (or her actually-Trickster's Consort anyone?) out in the next game I mod. She could represent Thuringwethil rather well...

Though of course if anyone wants to give this rogue a trial run before then I'll be happy to watch his progress...

I actually got an idea yesterday. I don't know if it makes sense, but I try to explain it. It includes two new roles:

The One Who Knows
The One Who Knows is an ordo, who knows all gifteds.
If you know a better name for the role, it would be great.

Then we have Wolf Agent/ Traitor (whichever you want to call him )
The Wolf Agent is a kind of cobbler or wolf seer. He is an ordo that wants the wolves to win. That's how he plays at days. At nights, he tries to catch The One Who Knows. So every night he chooses one to find out if he's The One Who Knows or not. If he catches him, he informs the wolves. After The One Who Knows is found, he is every night blackmailed to reveal one gifted to the wolves.
I just wonder should he know who the wolves are or not.

A good idea? A bad idea? Any thoughts?

Well...I'm not that keen on that idea, partly because it's part of the job of a skilled wolf to spot the Gifteds anyway, and they often succeed in doing so without help...

That's true, but it isn't that easy to the wolf agent to spot the one who knows. And those roles would create quite interesting situations...

Oh, and in terms of names...

How about the Sophist and the Cynic?

The essential problem with this plan is it sort of distracts both sides from the focus of the game to the Gifteds-who should ideally be adornments, not ends in themselves.

But it could be fun.

I would suggest that the Cynic should not know the identity of the wolves (it's dark and they're transformed during their dealings). This means he'll have to work through the mod-a tad exhausting-but otherwise he'll just have too much power concentrated in his devious hands.

Nice names, Ang. :)
I agree with the identity thing; a cobbler doesn't know the wolves either.

I got a new idea, which is a role called whore in the RL version, but we could maybe call it poisoner instead. I don't know if there's been any games with a similar role.

The poisoner is a bit like werebear, a lone killer. But he kills with delay. The poison doesn't affect very fast; it kills the victim next night after poisoning, not immediatly. Ranger can protect people from poisoner, though ranger should probably be called "healer" or "doctor" in this game, since I think he should be able to cure the poisoned both on the night of the poisoning and on the night he or she would die.

This is not at all unlike my Oracle idea. Oracle post

I did see that post, but I think there are also big differences between the roles.

If you're talking about more killings, there's a character called the Witch. He/she has two potions - one to kill, and one to heal. They could be on either side really, depending on the player. Though I don't see if they could be on the winning side unless the Werewolves are dead. I suppose it's not a winning role, merely a surviving role.