Dueling Wizards Werewolf II discussion thread - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Brinniel · 05-14-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I would suggest that you would consider being the mother of Legate / Brinn / Kitanna -trio of 20+ children.

But Noggie, isn't Roa our mommy? But I do agree Celuien should be the mother of Gwathy and McCaber. Somebody has to put those two in their place.

the phantom · 05-14-2008, 01:31 PM

Okay, so I've got parents, a sister, a fiance, a grandmother, an aunt, an uncle, and cousins. Now I need a job.

Legate- that's a big herd you have for just one person to take care of. Perhaps we are best buddies and are in the sheep business together. We've been raking in a good little bit the last few years, but these Werewolves are threatening our business.

Legate of Amon Lanc · 05-14-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the phantom

Legate- that's a big herd you have for just one person to take care of. Perhaps we are best buddies and are in the sheep business together. We've been raking in a good little bit the last few years, but these Werewolves are threatening our business.

Good idea. I think two could take care of the job a lot better than just one. Let's join forces and make business...

Nogrod · 05-14-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brinniel

But Noggie, isn't Roa our mommy? But I do agree Celuien should be the mother of Gwathy and McCaber. Somebody has to put those two in their place.

That was just a suggestion as well... Maybe Roa could be the mother of you three and Celuien could be the mother of the two guys? And they could be sisters together?

And if Volo would like to be my father (as he says) then I could sit in my right place as the big-brother of Lalaith and possibly the husband of Roa or Celuien? (don't worry my friends, I will be dead after Night1

).

That would still leave open the possibility of morm being the actual patriarch if Volo is a weak gamling and morm is my brother (and the other child of Volo's and husband of either Roa or Celuien - with this scenario I'd say I would have to be tha husband of Roa... just thinking of our shared history in WW...

).

I'm going to see how it would work - tomorrow. And if you people have any preferences let me know about them.

Feel free to disagree or to suggest better options!

Roa_Aoife · 05-15-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

That would still leave open the possibility of morm being the actual patriarch if Volo is a weak gamling and morm is my brother (and the other child of Volo's and husband of either Roa or Celuien - with this scenario I'd say I would have to be tha husband of Roa... just thinking of our shared history in WW...

).

Is that a proposal, Nogrod?

I accept! And I promise to make a suitable ruckus over your death.

Retractable votes in a village of 25 or more will make for a big confusing mess. Best avoid that.

Double lynches are also probably a bad idea, considering how fast the numbers would drop.

The last game, the wolves had two kills for being four or more, (something that took me a few Days to achieve, so fewer people were cut out of the game early.)

The GW never actually reached a situation where he had all three gifted last game. *looks very pleased with herself* Of course, different Wizards could turn out very differently this game. I don't know about being an extra Ranger with scrying, though. After all, he's already an extra Seer, which is an advantage as it is, even with out the ability to turn wolves into ordos, which is a BIG advantage for the good side. As the EW, losing my wolves to scrying was my biggest fear, especially Morm, who knew my identity (by accident). Having all three to start with is a big balancer from the last game, and he should definitely be allowed to re-gift as many times as he needs to replace lost gifted.

I never had a limit on the number of wolves I could have, but with the way I burned through them, the most I ever managed was six. I'm not sure about limiting the number, because on the one hand, if the EW and the wolves are crafty enough to get high numbers and keep them (not as easy as it sounds), then Kudos to them. Besides, if the EW managed to reach the limit, what would she do for scrying? I can see how the GW could be ranger-esque (even if I don't really agree with it), but honestly, what would the EW get to do?

That's just the perspective of the former EW, though. Where's Gurthang? I remember his biggest complaint was having to communicate during the Day instead of the Night.

EDIT: Also, I vote that the first to reach the highest number of votes gets lynched. Random just makes it harder on both teams.

Lhunardawen · 05-16-2008, 12:26 AM

I vote for the first to get the highest number of votes to be lynched. *grumbles about coin-flipping*

Roa makes a good point about the GW being an extra Seer, and I agree that turning the extra scries into Ranger protections will be a bit too advantageous for the Good Team. It's enough that the GW finds out that the villager is not a wolf or the EW.

the phantom · 05-16-2008, 01:15 AM

Personally, I'd like the last person to reach the vote total to be lynched. That leaves open more voting possibilities in my mind. If you need to surpass the vote leader rather than simply tie them in order to get your candidate lynched you are obviously less likely to be successful, and therefore less likely to try it.

I've always thought one of the most telling things about voting behavior is when people swoop in to "save" someone from the chopping block. And making the last person to reach the count be the one who gets the axe would encourage that sort of saving behavior.

Or you could also have a situation like this-
Person 1- 5 votes
Person 2- 4 votes
Person 3- 4 votes

There are still a couple people left to vote who would like to see Person 2 or 3 lynched, but if the rules say the first person gets lynched then their votes are essentially worthless. But if the last person gets lynched their votes are still very powerful and then they will have to compete with each other to be the last to cast their vote, and how hard they try at it might be an indicator of how badly they want to lynch their candidate (or save the other candidate).

In my opinion the longer you can keep the decision up in the air and the more room you leave for multiple candidates to be under the gun, the better.

Legate of Amon Lanc · 05-16-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So Myself and Roa will be the parents of Legate, Kitanna and Brinn.

So I am the son of Nogrod and Roa? Fantastic! I couldn't have imagined a better WWing family here

(and that's not speaking about my sisters...)

(And it's not diminished by the fact that Nog dies immediately. The better actually, what if I was later forced to kill him? It can still happen with Roa though.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by the phantom

Personally, I'd like the last person to reach the vote total to be lynched. That leaves open more voting possibilities in my mind. If you need to surpass the vote leader rather than simply tie them in order to get your candidate lynched you are obviously less likely to be successful, and therefore less likely to try it.

Ha! At last a question I can give my opinion on. Seriously now, also given the fact that lot of us... or me actually

may be sometimes N/A for the DL (what was that? A sentence composed of abbreviations? It could have been worse though), I would fancy the idea of coin-flip. But that's just one personal vote... for it being personally convinient...

Aganzir · 05-16-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Roa makes a good point about the GW being an extra Seer, and I agree that turning the extra scries into Ranger protections will be a bit too advantageous for the Good Team. It's enough that the GW finds out that the villager is not a wolf or the EW.

Seconded.

And hey, a proper occupation just occurred to me. I want to be the little match girl!

Thinlómien · 05-16-2008, 05:34 AM

As smart as all we others are, I'm so glad to see Roa around and pointing out the flaws in the rule speculations.

Her words about GW and EW make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cailín

There should definitely be modfire for those inactive players who fail to vote two days in a row.

I'm inclined to agree. We have enough to hunt in the wolves and the EW, we don't want to go around chasing the mutes as well... (Sorry for rather horrible phrasing...

) But if there's a consensus against severe modfire, what if it's just for those who don't post at all ie vote things etc don't count? Althoguh, that does look like a bad compromise...

Aganzir · 05-16-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

what if it's just for those who don't post at all ie vote things etc don't count?

I think that might be a good solution.

05-14-2008, 01:31 PM	#2
the phantom Beloved Shadow Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Stadium Posts: 5,971	Okay, so I've got parents, a sister, a fiance, a grandmother, an aunt, an uncle, and cousins. Now I need a job. Legate- that's a big herd you have for just one person to take care of. Perhaps we are best buddies and are in the sheep business together. We've been raking in a good little bit the last few years, but these Werewolves are threatening our business. __________________ the phantom has posted. This thread is now important.

05-16-2008, 12:26 AM	#6
Lhunardawen Hauntress of the Havens Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IN it, but not OF it Posts: 2,538	I vote for the first to get the highest number of votes to be lynched. grumbles about coin-flipping Roa makes a good point about the GW being an extra Seer, and I agree that turning the extra scries into Ranger protections will be a bit too advantageous for the Good Team. It's enough that the GW finds out that the villager is not a wolf or the EW. Last edited by Lhunardawen; 05-16-2008 at 12:35 AM.

05-16-2008, 01:15 AM	#7
the phantom Beloved Shadow Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Stadium Posts: 5,971	Personally, I'd like the last person to reach the vote total to be lynched. That leaves open more voting possibilities in my mind. If you need to surpass the vote leader rather than simply tie them in order to get your candidate lynched you are obviously less likely to be successful, and therefore less likely to try it. I've always thought one of the most telling things about voting behavior is when people swoop in to "save" someone from the chopping block. And making the last person to reach the count be the one who gets the axe would encourage that sort of saving behavior. Or you could also have a situation like this- Person 1- 5 votes Person 2- 4 votes Person 3- 4 votes There are still a couple people left to vote who would like to see Person 2 or 3 lynched, but if the rules say the first person gets lynched then their votes are essentially worthless. But if the last person gets lynched their votes are still very powerful and then they will have to compete with each other to be the last to cast their vote, and how hard they try at it might be an indicator of how badly they want to lynch their candidate (or save the other candidate). In my opinion the longer you can keep the decision up in the air and the more room you leave for multiple candidates to be under the gun, the better. __________________ the phantom has posted. This thread is now important.