[The Saucepan Man]

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

A few thoughts.

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

By way of example:

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

… is fine, whereas …

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

… is not.

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

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

Originally Posted by Loki

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

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

Originally Posted by lmp

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

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

Two further questions.

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

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

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

Edit:

Originally Posted by TP

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

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

I thoroughly agree.