Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[The Saucepan Man]

Those currently down to play (taking account of recent withdrawals) are as follows:

Azaelia of Willowbottom
Meneltarmacil
Nonnacedak
Durelin
Gurthang
Arcticstorm
Encaitare
Alcarillo
The Saucepan Man
SamwiseGamgee
Wilwarin538
Boromir88
CaptainofDespair
Firefoot
Mormegil
Dancing Spawn of Ungoliant
Mithalwen
Laitaine
Gil-Galad

As Firefoot says, that's 19 players. On which basis, I agree with her that the following roles should work:

3 wolves
1 werehamster
1 cursed
1 cobbler
2 shirriffs
1 seer
1 ranger
1 hunter
7 ordinary villagers

Concerning the Werehamster (or Black Beorning):

Originally Posted by Oddwen

If only one Villager is left with the Hamster, the Hamster would trump. But since the game ends when all the Wolves are dead, if there's more than one Villager left with the Hamster, the Hamster would lose (die).

Is there any reason why the game should not continue if all the Wolves are dead but the Werehamster remains alive? It gives the Werehamster more of a chance of winning. Otherwise, the conditions required to bring about a Werehamster victory are very limited indeed. He or she will have to rely on getting the Village down to four people as the final NIGHT begins, make sure that he or she kills the Wolf and rely on the Wolf killing the innocent.

What if there are four people remaining as the final NIGHT begins, the remaining Wolf kills an innocent and the Werehamster kills the Wolf. Does the game end with a villager victory because all the Wolves are dead? That would seem rather unfair on the Werehamster. A similar issue arises if, at the beginning of the final DAY, there are three players left: one Wolf, the Werehamster and an innocent villager. If the Wolf is lynched, would the villagers or the Werehamster be victorious?

I like the idea of the game continuing with the Werehamster against just the remaining innocent villagers, but I certainly think that the Werehamster should win if the final Wolf dies leaving just the Werehamster and one innocent villager.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

And, Oddwen, somehow you didn't finish your response to that question of why the hamster dies when the seer dreams of them; the sentence ends "I always supposed it was because".

I still think that it's rather unfair if the Werehamster dies simply because the Seer chooses to dream of them. The Werehamster will have problems enough if the Seer simply knows who they are.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I think that working together sort of goes against the concept of a werehamster; however, if there were two werehamsters, one would know who the other was (this would seem to have strategic implications), and it would be up to three kills per night. I think that if the werehamster attacks the cursed, the cursed should probably just die.

That's probably the best solution. Although it might be fun if the Cursed villager were to become another Werehamster, working on their own. Although the original Werehamster would almost certainly kill the new one the next NIGHT, the new one would still have a chance to win if the original gets lynched before that can happen. In these circumstances, there would probably only be three kills for one NIGHT. Then again, maybe the original would want to keep the new one alive to profit from the three kills per NIGHT. So perhaps Firefoot's solution is best after all.