WW General rules discussion

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I like this. One small change, though: I'll be the Supreme ModGod.

So long as you agree to act as my puppet and allow me to rule from the shadows.

But seriously, I think these are the two most important rules. The Great Commandments of Werewolf, if you will-

1) Mods should clearly define all roles and rules in his or her game.

2) Players should read (not skim, but R-E-A-D) the moderator's rules.

I've seen many times where doing those two things responsibly and carefully would have made play more enjoyable or prevented some sort of fiasco. If you don't have enough time in your schedule to read the rules, you should not be playing. I mean, geez, reading the rules is so basic. Sorry if I sound extreme on this, but in my opinion a player should be booted from the game and banned from the next if he acts in such a way that demonstrates he clearly did not read the rules (e.g. votes and then asks, "Do we have retractables?" or asks if there is a Cobbler in the game, or something similarly simple).

As far as enforcing rule number one, I think that would fall to Morm as the mod of this sub-forum, but I imagine he could privately contract Downers to keep an eye out for lists of rules that are incomplete, or clearly won't work for some reason, and these Downers could PM him and point out the problems they believe they have spotted and then Morm can send a PM and tell the Mod what needs to be fixed.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, I don't think we need a rule about how people should play. That's up to them, isn't it?

I understand your point, but no. People cannot play any way they wish, and they are not free to choose any side they wish. Deciding to act in a way that is against affiliation throws off the balance of the game that the Mod crafted via role assignments, not to mention it is no more proper to strip away small wins than it is to strip away overall wins. What I mean by that- let's say in a game of dueling wizards the Evil Wizard converts a player that used to be the Good Ranger, and the former Ranger knows the identity of the Seer and Hunter. I'm sorry, but that player despite any lingering feelings of affiliation must act in such a way that is true to his new role as a Wolf, which means he must completely switch sides and spill his guts to the Evil Wizard and rat out his former team mates.

From the Evil Wizard's view- his successful and by-the-rules conversion of a former gifted is a victory. Not the overall game final victory, but a small victory that was gained fairly and justly, and no one should be allowed to rob him of this (in this specific example, the new Wolf cannot just up and decide that it wouldn't be proper and sporting to give away his former companions).

If all of the players are posting and making votes and picks in such a way that assumes certain rules and behaviors, these rules and behaviors must be preserved in order to make the game legitimate. Coming up with strategies and such becomes completely pointless when you have zero assumptions to work with. And honestly, what are we trying to create here with these games- complete and total random chaos? That is no fun whatsoever for most people. The people who do enjoy such things- sorry, but I guess this isn't your place to have fun. To quote from a recent private discussion I had-

Sorry, but I've never seen it as my duty to welcome and ensure everyone has fun playing. That goal is impossible, as the way some people wish to play ruins it for everyone else. Everyone shouldn't play.

[Rikae]

Phantom - good to see someone else sees why it doesn't work to have players switching allegiances. You explained it very well, I think.
The problem is that this is a rule which can't really be enforced and is open to interpretation (but then, so is the meta-reasoning rule). Both are sort of what I would consider matters of good form vs. bad form; I disapprove of meta reasoning and that sort of "switching sides", but I'm not sure whether or not it merits an actual rule.
Anyway, I don't want to dominate this process too much. Some veteran (more so than I) players have expressed concerns about having rules, and the last thing I want to do is participate in forcing rules on people who don't want them. I was thinking primarily of getting newbies up to speed, not cramping people's style... I think I'd better back off, since I have the uncomfortable feeling that I may have caused the problem in the first place by complaining about Paranoia's modding. If most here feel things were going fine and there is no need for rules, they shouldn't have to have them.

[Mithalwen]

I do think a Glossary is sensible. And I have to admit that among the reasons I don't play anymore is that the games have become too complex and divorced from the rest of the forum with games without a notional connection to Tolkien and played by people who do not participate elsewhere.

I don't have time to follown the games usually but given that the catalyst of this discussion only had a small number of posts exclusively in WW, I would have to concede that there should be some restriction on who may mod.

I just feel that rules and committees are a bit "heavy", we will end up having to get SpM back to adjudicate. Maybe call them guidelines/advice? I would be sorry for responsibility for a game to be devolved from the mod to some committee.

Have a glossary by all means, and maybe a check list of things to consider when planning and then let the mod take the consequences.

[Blind Guardian]

as A noobie this Is a great idea. You come on the downs see a game and start playing. Then you ask a million questions in that game thread

I don't mind there being a 5/6 game restriction on modding. (Maybe also take a test to see how well you know the game and the rules?). I agree that mods should list all of the rules in the game (or admin) thread.

Okay that's all I got. Already I have learnt something that I didn't know nor ever thought about