View Single Post
Old 01-29-2008, 06:15 PM   #90
Roa_Aoife
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
Roa_Aoife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
Roa_Aoife is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate
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.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy

I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen
Roa_Aoife is offline   Reply With Quote