Dueling Wizards Werewolf Suggestion Thread

[littlemanpoet]

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]

Originally Posted by Loki

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.

[Diamond18]

My goodness, LMP, you are tireless. 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]

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]

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

[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.

[Roa_Aoife]

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!

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Loki

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

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

Precisely as Roa said.

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

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

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

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Diamond

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

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

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

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

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

Originally Posted by Gurthang

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

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

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

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

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

I think much the same.

[Gurthang]

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

Originally Posted by Loki

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

#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.