Admin thread for T-I-G LXVII: The Rangers of the North - The Fell Winter

[Thinlómien]

I'd love to play, especially with Roa and Valier playing, but to be honest the rules are too complicated. (Too complicated for your own good, Nogrod. At least you should clarify them a bit because "nobody wants to read half a thread of flip-flopping before you make the final rule", says Legate, but I was merely thinking that the final rules should be understandable with less than an hour's studying.)

Or maybe it's just that some of them annoy me - let's take the Captain for example. It's a good idea, yes, but quite unfair in practice: there are going to be some people who just won't be able to be around the DL to make the decisions the Captain should or would want to be able to make which makes it probable some (many) people will/can never be elected as Captains, which is rather unfair. (And yes, that's at least half of Americans, I guess, and at least me and Greenie if we have school and the DL is 1am.) If you want to keep the Captain role, I think it should not be dependant on the DL. Maybe the Captain should just PM the mod the list of everybody in the order of how much s/he wants them killed at any time before the DL when s/he leaves the thread for good? Or something else, but the current rules are difficult and unfair.

I also think there's too much PMing allowed. It will make it utterly confusing and also put wolves at a disadvantage, because their strength is in being able to hold secret council, but now half of the village can do it so it is kind of pointless. And I'd rather have five wolves and one kill per Night than four wolves and two kills per Night, but that's just a personal preference.

Okay, I guess that's enough ranting (especially from someone who isn't even necessarily playing - I'd like to, but might be I won't have the time, especially for a complicated and Night-active game like this...)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

but to be honest the rules are too complicated. (Too complicated for your own good, Nogrod. At least you should clarify them a bit because "nobody wants to read half a thread of flip-flopping before you make the final rule", says Legate, but I was merely thinking that the final rules should be understandable with less than an hour's studying.)

Well, I guess I said it in the beginning that the rules are "in progress" and that there will be clear final rules to be read before the game begins.

The first post actually has the first line: "Here be the final Rules & Regulations when they are decided on..."

I have appreciated Roa's comments a lot and if anyone else finds points that need clarification - or notice a problem - please let me know. You Lommy make a good example of what I would like you to do. Here's a few answers to the points you raised.

let's take the Captain for example. It's a good idea, yes, but quite unfair in practice: there are going to be some people who just won't be able to be around the DL to make the decisions the Captain should or would want to be able to make which makes it probable some (many) people will/can never be elected as Captains, which is rather unfair. (And yes, that's at least half of Americans, I guess, and at least me and Greenie if we have school and the DL is 1am.) If you want to keep the Captain role, I think it should not be dependant on the DL. Maybe the Captain should just PM the mod the list of everybody in the order of how much s/he wants them killed at any time before the DL when s/he leaves the thread for good? Or something else, but the current rules are difficult and unfair.

Good that you reminded me about that. I had thought I had figured out the DL-independency for the Captain but I had forgotten about that "ten minute -interval" I had thought of when I first sketched the rules...

First of all, when the Captain "leaves the thread for good" he should name his candidates for being his BG's publicly eg. in the thread. But he should also send me maybe a list of four or something if someone happens to die before the Day ends. I wouldn't like to see the Captains pick for BG meaning immunity from lynching in any way.

But that "canceling of lynching" or changing the lynched-one possibility. Well, I'd say that the Captain could work as he sees fit. He could send me a list of players he will not allow to be lynched whatever happens. Or he could send me a list of priorities - including everyone if he so wishes. Or he could send me a wish that if these two are neck by neck in the end then this one dies: or if these two are leading neck by neck the lynching will be cancelled (oftentimes you know already who are the probable candidates for lynching quite early in the Day - but not always and surprises do take place for sure)... I would give the Captain the power to decide what kind of orders he would give.

The only limitation would be that the Captain couldn't pick someone to be lynched from two votes down from the leading candidate.

And anyhow, how eager different Captains would be in meddling with the lynches on regular basis is another question...

I also think there's too much PMing allowed. It will make it utterly confusing and also put wolves at a disadvantage, because their strength is in being able to hold secret council, but now half of the village can do it so it is kind of pointless.

You're probably exaggerating a bit... I see you being my daughter in that.

But isn't confusion actually a weapon for and not against the werewolves? I mean in a PM discussion by Night two innocents can share views but they have no way of knowing whether their partner is an innocent in the end. Nice wolves could use those discussions in furthering their own ends as well... More people would have something to do during the Nights (and no, no one is forced to make ten PM's during the Night) and the wolves would still have their normal secret council. And when the wolves discuss themselves they know who the others are unlike those guards or random-talkers.

And I'd rather have five wolves and one kill per Night than four wolves and two kills per Night, but that's just a personal preference.

I don't have a strong opinion on that so I'd like to hear what you others think. Why I thought of the two kills per Night -rule was the fact that in this game there are more possibilities for villagers to deny the wolf-kills. But what do you others think?

(especially from someone who isn't even necessarily playing - I'd like to, but might be I won't have the time, especially for a complicated and Night-active game like this...)

Hey Lommy, we want you to play!

A mild disclaimer: you're thinking about these rules in a too complicated way my dear. It is quite a simple game: hunters, rangers, wolves, ordos and a few little things like a Captain and some Night-chatters in safety just to give people more to do (and you're not forced to chat all Night if you don't want to or do not have time for it).

What a player needs to do is to try to make his side win with fairly normal procedures: fool the villagers if you're a wolf or catch the villains if you're innocent.

Any one player only has one role and it is enough if the player understands his own role. The wolves need to think a bit more but there are hopefully four of them so they can help each other out... and anyway, in the end the wolves also just try to kill people and what turns out turns out as they can't know who has which role...

[Roa_Aoife]

The idea of two kills doesn't bother me so much, especially with so many ways to prevent them from happening. What does bother me is the stunning number of ways the wolves can die. I always hate auto-kills by hunters. The idea that the hunter can just take a wolf with them but not risk innocents seems overly weighted, and having not one but two in the same game seems worse. I might allow the master hunter, but the "Hates conspiracies" ought to be the same as the "hates dark deeds" - that is they should take with them whomever they choose, wolf or not. Otherwise, you create wolves that must be overly cautious for fear that a hunter will get them regardless.

To be fair, I've hated smart hunters since the idea came up, and especially since DW I. Hunters are supposed to deliberate over their choices, and think carefully, lest they kill an innocent (or more likely the seer) by mistake. So my opinion is clearly biased.

Still more than one is just too much.

Further more, what exactly do the NG's do besides not get killed themselves? Do the actually protect anyone? For that matter, besides the decisions about lynching, what does the captain do? You make it sound as though not having one at night would be detrimental to the village, but how?

Last question (for now): Is the assassin playing for himself or the village? I think it would be better if he worked for himself. He wins if he's the sole survivor. That doesn't mean he won't hunt for wolves, it just means that he's not solely against them. With so many hunters, I think that seems fair.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

The idea of two kills doesn't bother me so much, especially with so many ways to prevent them from happening. What does bother me is the stunning number of ways the wolves can die.

A lot will depend on when we start and how many we are. If we're going to start the game with around 15 players (like we have now), we'd surely need to leave a few roles out - basically I think the assassin, one hunter, one wolf... that should be thought of.

But let's hope we'll get about 5 more players in the next three days or so, that we could make a kind of "full version" of this.

Actually I had started to have second thoughts of this assassin-role anyway. But now as you bring up the idea that he could just be on his own eg. try to be on the winning side, whichever it seems him to be the one, I kind of started liking that role again...

I always hate auto-kills by hunters. The idea that the hunter can just take a wolf with them but not risk innocents seems overly weighted, and having not one but two in the same game seems worse. I might allow the master hunter, but the "Hates conspiracies" ought to be the same as the "hates dark deeds" - that is they should take with them whomever they choose, wolf or not. Otherwise, you create wolves that must be overly cautious for fear that a hunter will get them regardless.

All these different versions came in as I tried to make as many different hunters as possible but you maybe right. I kind of like the idea of an "hates conspiracies" -hunter who singles out the wolf driving for his lynch (kind of a hero character) but maybe we should make him rather one that has a list, let's say of three, and could bring down the wolf in the list who took part in his execution... but if there is no wolf who voted for him in his list then he takes the number one in the list?

Further more, what exactly do the NG's do besides not get killed themselves? Do the actually protect anyone?

Actually nothing else: they don't protect any individual player but are like guardians of the whole camp (not that there would be any "outside-game interference" to be expected in-game -terms). Well they can talk if they wish... That idea came to me as I tried to think of a reason why some people should be allowed to PM each other during the Night to add player-involvement (especially for those who have no special role). So it's actually a narrationally / structurally plausible explanation to give a few people a licence to PM during the Nights. If they are voted by the others it introduces an interesting added element as to why people wish to give certain people the chance to PM during the Nights and / or to give them immunity over a Night-kill...

Remember, the villagers can also vote for a wolf to be one in safety and to PM someone.

For that matter, besides the decisions about lynching, what does the captain do? You make it sound as though not having one at night would be detrimental to the village, but how?

Sorry, a wrong signal from me if that actually is what comes through. The Captain is the boss. So he has a kind of limited master's voice in the lynchings (as a ranger captain surely would have in that kind of conditions) but otherwise he's just one the "village" thinks should be safe at Night (and someone on whose judgement on matters of life and death the "villagers" trust on) - and as one having the right to choose his BG's will influence who gets to talk with each other during the Nights and who are safe...

Partly following my answer to Lommy: I'm not too worried about fex. the information going slowly due to the time zones on these matters. Sometimes in the most basic games the wolves miss their Nightly kill because of confusion and time zone issues so why not accept things might happen this or that way in here as well? The people in the roles they have do the best they can and rest is mechanics only I need to be on top of... (surely I have to interpret the situations "by the book" ie. according to the pre-set rules)

Last question (for now): Is the assassin playing for himself or the village? I think it would be better if he worked for himself. He wins if he's the sole survivor.

Wouldn't it be enough he is alive when the other "team" is dead and gone? It's a bit tough ordeal to win only as a sole survivor (and in that case he should be counted as an innocent in the tallies which determine whether the game is over or not). I'm not sure... What do you think?

[Roa_Aoife]

All these different versions came in as I tried to make as many different hunters as possible but you maybe right. I kind of like the idea of an "hates conspiracies" -hunter who singles out the wolf driving for his lynch (kind of a hero character) but maybe we should make him rather one that has a list, let's say of three, and could bring down the wolf in the list who took part in his execution... but if there is no wolf who voted for him in his list then he takes the number one in the list?

Eh, I still wouldn't like it. (How should they know who among their killers is wolf?) But I will always be on the side of the hunter shooting in the dark. It's just not as much fun when they don't have to deliberate as much over their one choice. But that's me, and I've always been a bit on the extreme side. Certainly there are people who like "intelligent" hunters.

It would just be the master hunter, only with lynches instead of both lynches and nightly kills, so I would be inclined to prefer one or the other, not both, as two is bordering on unfairness.

Also, with your clarification, it could be that the game ends up without having NG's or a captain. If I don't trust anyone, why would I want to protect them? And why would I put control of the lynch, limited as that control may be, in the hands of someone I don't trust? Perhaps there ought to be more incentive? Though I can't think of what that wouldn't completely unbalance the game...

[Boromir88]

Eh, I still wouldn't like it. (How should they know who among their killers is wolf?) But I will always be on the side of the hunter shooting in the dark. It's just not as much fun when they don't have to deliberate as much over their one choice. But that's me, and I've always been a bit on the extreme side. Certainly there are people who like "intelligent" hunters.

As your 'Logical Hunter' in one of your game's Nogrod, I agree with Roa. I thorougly enjoyed making the wolves terrified of me, but getting a wolf in my list of three wasn't as satisfying as a successful single choice.

Although I'm still trying to figure out if the game is really all that unbalanced. With no seer (even though the last who knows how many games we manage to lynch the seer...so maybe it's for the village's own good that there isn't one. ) and the roles unable to reveal themselves (is that correct?) it seems not a bad spot for the wolves.

Perhaps an updated, latest draft, of the roles and rules are in order? If you wouldn't mind Nogrod?

[Nienna]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Perhaps an updated, latest draft, of the roles and rules are in order? If you wouldn't mind Nogrod?

I agree. I've gotten a little lost at where the roles are currently so an updated draft that is still open for change would be fabulous!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Perhaps an updated, latest draft, of the roles and rules are in order? If you wouldn't mind Nogrod?

I'll try to work it out... soonish.

Just now I'd love to hear as many views as possible to see where the possible problems might be. But like Boro said, I'm not too sure this is unfair for the wolves - on top of what he said there's always the chance different goodies kill other innocents as they go...

But that's just why we need to discuss these before we go; to make sure there are no major flaws around.


FYI: We're (myself, Lommy, Greenie, Aganzir...) heading for our summer-cottage for the weekend and will be back on Sunday-afternoon Finnish time, meaning something like mid-day GMT. I'll post something for the rules before we leave tomorrow and try to wrestle the rules into more or less final shape during the weekend.

I hope we have around twenty players when we come back and we can start the game on Sunday evening with N1 (10PM GMT that was) and the rules cleared.

Meanwhile I would appreciate your comments on the possible problems or things you're possibly uncomfortable with. I'll take a print of this thread with me for the weekend so everything you post in the next 14 hours or so I can take with me to think about there. I will surely read thoroughly also those comments that come during the weekend and take them into account while forming the final rules on Sunday.

If it feels there are major issues to be settled - or if we have like 17 players and some might still come in - we could wait to start the game on Monday or Tuesday but I don't think we should wait for this to begin for ages.


EDIT: Welcome Gwath! And don't worry, it seems the beginning of the semester isn't the best time to play werewolf so many will share your problems - and so there will be less to read... or will there?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Also, with your clarification, it could be that the game ends up without having NG's or a captain. If I don't trust anyone, why would I want to protect them? And why would I put control of the lynch, limited as that control may be, in the hands of someone I don't trust? Perhaps there ought to be more incentive? Though I can't think of what that wouldn't completely unbalance the game...

The game ends up without any guards anyway as when there is only 1/3 of the players left there will be no such roles anymore (if we get into around 20 initial players it would be on 7 players left). It would be too much to have many people immune to Night-kills when there are only a few players left. I think I said that somewhere...

But yes, it would be up to the players to decide with the Captain. I mean I'm trying to make this a moldable game - what you players choose you choose.
Now sure when there is a Captain you have that person there and your way of getting rid of him and his powers is to choose another one by voting - or lynching him. Your choice.

The wolves may get your captain in the last Nights as well (when there are no guards anymore) unless a ranger lives and protects him. Then it's up to you if you wish to elect a new one or go the last Days without one. Both decisions would sound realistic thinking about the situation...

So I won't be "ordering" you to choose a new Captain later when the one you had has died, but you will have to choose one on Day1. That's all I require. The rest - what you do with him or whether you change him to someone else - is up to you.

So you can only get rid of a/the captain by
- voting for another person to be a captain
- lynching him and not choosing a new one
- not voting for a new one after the wolves kill him during the last Days