Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[JennyHallu]

Does not in favor mean we get final roles? If so, then I am not in favor.

++Not in favor

(p.s. You dratted Brits! I can't read your votes and then have any chance of spelling mine!)

[Caranlondien]

I'm still ambivalent...

++Doesn't care

[Gurthang]

Well, quite frankly I'm confused about what 'in favor' and 'not in favor' is actually saying at the moment, so I'm just going to explain what I want.

I'd like to see only the current role revealed of whoever is dying at the time. Any previous roles can be talked about later, after the game is completed. So:

++Whichever choice makes sense with what I just said

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Okay folks, here be goods!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...milyTrees2.jpg

The table with changes as requested by LMP.

[Thinlómien]

Maybe it should be made clearer that LMP is Diamond's father? I mean, the line from him and R.I.P. leads to the = mark of Diamond and Nogrod's marriage... Well, I don't think it's a big problem anyway and maybe doesn't need to be corrected.

Great work, Hookbill!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Maybe it should be made clearer that LMP is Diamond's father? I mean, the line from him and R.I.P. leads to the = mark of Diamond and Nogrod's marriage... Well, I don't think it's a big problem anyway and maybe doesn't need to be corrected.

Great work, Hookbill!

Argh! I just noticed that. Oh well. I can't be bothered changing it now. Takes up too much memory anyway.

[littlemanpoet]

9 in favor, 13 opposed, 4 don't care.

We will be revealing the most recent role as well as to who was killed each Night.

"So it was said, so it shall be done."

-or-

"Make it so."

[Roa_Aoife]

LMP- I thought you said voting on this was open until 6 pm EST today. 3 poeple have yet to vote.

[Loki]

It may not be the most fair, but there are explicit exploitations to be made either way. The question is: which side has the smallest chance of winning? Then throw it their way.

I realize that it's pointless at the time, seeing as how everyone makes decisions and votes are made before I even get online, but...
++Not in favor.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Roa. Though it really doesn't change my meaning.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

In the last game I played, I was so stupid as to tell openly, I would be very badly available for the next 5-7 hours. Quite immediately the goose-Spm and the duck-Kath lynched me and won the game just by that.

So it's not so gentlemanlike as you might think...

Nogrod I'd like to point out that a lot of people miss 5 to 6 hours at a time so I don't think that you are required to point it out and that it won't look suspicous if you are gone. One should not be granted immunity based on absence. I do agree with SpM though and state that this game is based on deception, bluff, and treachery, to a degree, especially when you are on the 'evil' side so they can and should use any means needed to accomplish victory. Plus I rarely accept anyone's comments about RL if they are not posted on the admin thread as they can be used in the game thread as deception.

[Sleepy Ranger]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, quite frankly I'm confused about what 'in favor' and 'not in favor' is actually saying at the moment, so I'm just going to explain what I want.

I'd like to see only the current role revealed of whoever is dying at the time. Any previous roles can be talked about later, after the game is completed. So:

++Whichever choice makes sense with what I just said

++What he said

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, quite frankly I'm confused about what 'in favor' and 'not in favor' is actually saying at the moment, so I'm just going to explain what I want.

I'd like to see only the current role revealed of whoever is dying at the time. Any previous roles can be talked about later, after the game is completed. So:

++Whichever choice makes sense with what I just said

Originally Posted by Sleepy Ranger

++What he said

Actually, I'm a bit confused too and don't know what list my vote is in, so:

++agree with the brother of my brother's crush and my daddy

[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.

[Kuruharan]

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?

As LMP has conceived it, it basically does not matter who knows who the GW is. The GW is invincible except by the EW. Essentially, the GW could be announced at the beginning of the game (in fact, perhaps this should just be done and get it over with...?) and it might not really impact the game at all (well, except there will suddenly be a player who will basically just pontificate and everybody will be toadying up to in a nauseating fashion). The GW wants the EW to challenge because that is the end of the spawning of werewolves.

The GW basically lives to die (hopefully after getting a full stock of gifteds) while the EW lives to spawn werewolves.

[Loki]

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

Now that's just plain silly. What motive would the GW have to spy on the lives of innocent townfolk? He would have to wait for Night 2. Unless, of course, the GW is The Saucepan Man, that lecherous barkeeper... that godless sodomite...

[Roa_Aoife]

There is the possibility the EW good use the knowledge of who the GW is to his or her advantage- say the EW waits until there are plently of wolves, sees that there are few or no gifted, and then chooses to kill the GW, essentially leaving the village in a horrible spot. There are advantages to secrecy on both sides.

Edit: Cross-posted with Loki. Yes, the GW scries one villager on Night 1, then gets to choose which gift to bestow upon said villager. Or the GW could choose not to bestow said gift, not that he/she would choose that, but it's a possible choice.

[Oddwen]

As I said earlier -

++ HIDE THE ROLES

[Roa_Aoife]

To all the people not in favor- as the phantom pointed out, discerning the roles using the tallies won't be terribly difficult, it will simply require more than a read through. This will also continue to generate discussion later in the game (you know, when everything gets so frustratingly quiet?) Don't be intellectually lazy.

[Roa_Aoife]

I just thought of this (For all you nay-sayers):

If the EW finds out who the GW is, he/she/it can simply wait until they see that the seer is dead then call the GW out, thus pretty much finishing the game for the villagers. It allows the EW to time his or her reveal to their own advantage. Of course, if we have only tallies, the EW can't really know when the best time for the wizard deul is.

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Well, quite frankly I'm confused about what 'in favor' and 'not in favor' is actually saying at the moment

As am I. And so:
++ Do not care