Dueling Wizards Werewolf Suggestion Thread

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Legate

I thought I'm going to die before I finish reading that

Well, if you of all the people feel like that I guess there's not a lot of people reading and / or thinking about this...

Happily being able to play does not require one to know all the niceties of the game. In the end only the Wizards and the sub-mods need to have a clear conception of what to do and what is possible / allowed. And they should be volunteers as they were the last time.

No one should just state their wish to be a Wizard here or anywhere else in the 'downs but they should PM the mod eventually declaring their willingness.

Originally Posted by Legate

what if the sub-mod misinterpretates what the Wizard told him? And there may be importance in every word and the formulation of the Wizard, and this will be lost by the sub-mod's interpretation.

In this one I could see it as a natural possibility like the idea that in a really big village everyone does not have a chance of hearing everything all others are saying (not time to read all the posts that is)... So maybe the minions just didn't get the full picture of their Wizard's intentions if they were so finetuned? Narrationwise we could come up with an idea that makes that kind of scene possible... no problem with that. I think it more important for a Wizard to be able to decide herself whether she wishes to reveal her identity to her chosen ones.

Originally Posted by Legate

To the rest: good, good, only don't overcombinate the rules. I think the game looked good enough as it was, don't overstretch it (I'm referring to introducing more gifteds etc...).

I hope I'm not doing it. On the contrary I'd wish to see a few balancing acts to bring the GW and the village to a bit more competitive position and to make certain things a bit more fluent. So not overstraching but making it straighter and more even.

I can see that all the talk I made above may look like nitpicking and too thorough... but in the end when the game is played one needs clear rules to every situation and deciding those rules requires every thing and chance to be thought patiently beforehand (so that we don't make a same kind of blunder the first game suffered from just because the mod had to make a decision about an un-thought-of situation in a hurry).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Well, if you of all the people feel like that I guess there's not a lot of people reading and / or thinking about this...

I hope I'm not doing it. On the contrary I'd wish to see a few balancing acts to bring the GW and the village to a bit more competitive position and to make certain things a bit more fluent. So not overstraching but making it straighter and more even.

Well, the point is that I am not that much a kind of person who should read and reply to this - the most input should be made by the ones who played and experienced the first game for themselves and know what seemed balanced or unbalanced. My view is only theoretical and I'm saying only what I think; but lack the practical insight and personal experience.

In this one I could see it as a natural possibility like the idea that in a really big village everyone does not have a chance of hearing everything all others are saying (not time to read all the posts that is)... So maybe the minions just didn't get the full picture of their Wizard's intentions if they were so finetuned? Narrationwise we could come up with an idea that makes that kind of scene possible... no problem with that. I think it more important for a Wizard to be able to decide herself whether she wishes to reveal her identity to her chosen ones.

Yup, that's plausible. I like that.

I can see that all the talk I made above may look like nitpicking and too thorough... but in the end when the game is played one needs clear rules to every situation and deciding those rules requires every thing and chance to be thought patiently beforehand (so that we don't make a same kind of blunder the first game suffered from just because the mod had to make a decision about an un-thought-of situation in a hurry).

No way looking too nitpicky - you are doing a good job, as I said before - it's the best for the mod to have everything checked, if only for his own feeling of safety...

[Roa_Aoife]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Volo]

Originally Posted by Roa

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.

It's risky to have more Seers around than daily kills. It's rather boring when you have "known Wolves" around but can't lynch them. However in this specific game it might work somehow.
Are the Seers told the EW's role if the dream of her? In that case there shouldn't be 3 Seers.

Rangers. They're easier to add, if you make sure that the same person can't be protected two Nights in a row.

It might actually be fun to have a game with loads of Hunters some time, but not now.

Originally Posted by Noggie

After the wolves and gifteds have given their points (within the 10-14 hour framework or whatever it will be) the wizard could then add her own suggestions and preferences. That would then be passed back to the "chosen" and they could have again a time limit to make further suggestions (like 4 hours before the deadline or something - all these exact hours should be decided when we have the actual people in). Then on the basis of that discussion the Wizard would announce the choices to the sub-mods & the mod - preferably one hour before the deadline so that everything could be counted and a narration could come in time.

I myself am worried more about timezones. There is really little time for Nightly actions and I wouldn't like to wake myself up at three in the morning just to send a PM at the right time. If I understand the stuff correctly, I vote for longer Nights.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Legate

No, I think the possibility that one Wizard reveals another on Night One is not such a problem:

We could always make a rule that they can only challenge each other from day three (or so) on.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

That said it looks pretty straightforward to me that in the beginning of the game both the EW and the GW send the mod (and the sub-mods?) a list of 6 or something (depending on the number of gifteds we will give the GW in the beginning: I personally would be ready to give the GW more than one but more of that later) whom they wish to make wolves / gifteds. After that the mod checks the overlaps, makes a lottery if needed and deals the picks. After that he sends the names of the wolves to the EW and notifies the wolves about their status. To the GW the mod would send the names of those selected so that the GW could assign them their roles herself. After the allocation the GW then notifies the sub-mod (or the mod) of her choices and those would then be passed on to the players via the sub-mod (or the mod).

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I hope I'm not doing it. On the contrary I'd wish to see a few balancing acts to bring the GW and the village to a bit more competitive position and to make certain things a bit more fluent. So not overstraching but making it straighter and more even.

I think I'll trust you that you'll find a good way to define the rules. Just keep them as simple and accessible as possible in this kind of game.

About the messages via the sub-mod: They definitely need to be reformulated. You could narrow down the Wizard's identity by their style/amount of writing. The information flow should be encouraged to be very concise, I think, for the sake of the sub-mod.

About more than three gifteds: I think the situation is already a bit balanced by the fact that the three can always be replaced, and the knowledge of the old ones is passed over to the new ones by the Wizard. Two seers I could agree to (esp. considering the size of the village and the inconstancy of the roles). Two rangers, as long as even together they can't protect one villagers twice in a row, don't have much more power than one alone. The hunter already has an advantage due to the information s/he obtains from the Wizard and the seer (if the seer is successful only once, the hunter cannot go wrong anymore). Furthermore, s/he can be replaced after death, so no more than one at any rate.

Originally Posted by Roa

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.

Absolute agreement. If both choose the same villager, s/he should simply be killed by the excessive amount of sorcery applied to the poor individual. I'm not sure whether it's really necessary to have the Wizards learn each other's identity because of it, though.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Roa

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.

I was thinking about a tie in a vote to lynch someone.

Now lmp entertained the idea that in a tie neither of those gaining the highest number of votes would get killed. I'm afraid that might put the villagers' most important tool into jeopardy if that would be automatic. But I'd like to try something new with the lynching procedure this time.

So my idea was to put the Wizards face to face during the Night and trying to see through each others bluff and risk-taking capabilities. One way to gain this would be that they have a chance to protect one of those reaching a tie and a chance to try to kill (or change) the other one (they could surely restrain from using both or eother of their capabilities if they so wished). I think you can imagine different possible scenarios there could be: a wolf and a seer reaching a tie, a wolf and an innocent, two gifteds, two wolves, two innocents... How would the Wizards play their cards here thinking of both the "objective" outcome of it and the bluff-factor?

So the basic idea would just be that in a case of a tie in votes the Wizards would play it off.

It might look to favour the EW but remember also that if there is a wolf there in the pair and the GW suspects her and tries to kill / change her only to learn that the EW protected her then what should the GW think about it? Or does the EW have the nerve to bluff here as she doesn't know which one the GW will pick?

It might also be worth considering that this poker-game between the Wizards could be made to consist of two rounds where initially the Wizards are asked about their choices and those would be then channelled to the other one and then their second decision would be the one that counts... (that would be easily adapted in to the narrations as the Wizards try to sense the air around the two candidates and trying to see what the other one is trying to do)

But as I said this is one of the things we should think about. It's just a suggestion and I'm not sure whether it would work in a balanced manner.

Originally Posted by Roa

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.

The number of the gifteds is a tough one I admit. I mean it sounds pretty inbalanced if the EW can summon as many wolves she wishes (if she plays it right) but the GW is limited to three in the original rules. But then again one conversion makes a wolf to change sides while a gifted scried by the EW only loses the gift but stays a goodie.

One way to try to balance this would surely be to make some clear but flexible limits to the number of gifteds / wolves. Like that there could at any time be three but as long as there are a lot of players the maximal amount would be something like a quarter of the village or something like that (So with 20 players left there could be at most five wolves etc. - surely any already nominated "chosen ones" would not be ripped of their status because of this rule but when the roster is full the Wizard would be banned to scry/curse more; and there probably needs to be some restrictions with the GW's scries as five Seers, or four rangers able to protect the seer(s) everyNight would be just unsporty).

Or maybe we just limit the number of wolves to the quarter of the village or something and hold the gifteds in the three-max. all through the game?

Okay that's just a thought as well. What do you people think?

I do agree with you Roa that both Wizards should be able to override their minions' decisions in the end. You made me convinced about it.

The issue with both Wizards trying to scry/curse the same villager during the Night. You are right Roa and Mac. That might be a bit too dangerous.

Right now I kind of like the idea that that person gets under so strong influence of magical powers that she crushes dead with it. That would be simple, elegant and "realistic". Also that way both Wizards will know they were after the same person without learning each others identities (which I think they should not learn if they are after the same person).

Originally Posted by Volo

I myself am worried more about timezones. There is really little time for Nightly actions and I wouldn't like to wake myself up at three in the morning just to send a PM at the right time. If I understand the stuff correctly, I vote for longer Nights.

Even if I see your concern as a legitimate one I'd be very reluctant to change the Day/Night -cycle. With 36-hour Nights the possibility of different confusions would be big indeed (just look how hard it is sometimes with even rutinely 24-hour cycles) and with 48-hour cycles the intensity of the game would suffer considerably I'm afraid. I mean we managed nicely the last time. Although I'd like to hear from Kuru and Boro (the sub-mods last time) how it went behind the curtains.

[Roa_Aoife]

I understand now. I agree that no lynch on a tie isn't very good for the village. It would be too easy for the evil team to manipulate that. I'm intrigued by this Wizard's Battle idea, however, with everything that has to happen at Night, it may be overstretching the capabilities of the mods and wizards alike.

I like the idea that the number of wolves/gifted rely on the number of villagers, but I wouldn't like to limit the kind too much. After all, the GW needs to be able to strategize. If we have wolves= 1/4 village, then the number of gifted should also rely on the size of the village, though maybe not in equal numbers. (As you pointed out, when the gifted are cursed they don't change sides, but when the wolves are scryed, they do.) Perhaps 1/5? So 20 villagers would mean five wolves and four gifted, whereas 30 villagers means seven wolves (or eight depending on if you want to round up or down) and six gifted. This is total of course, and assuming that either team can manage to keep all their members alive (quite a feat, I assure you.) Then for the gifted, as long they stay withing the limits of each type (such as no more than two seers, etc.) they can be arranged however the GW wishes.