Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So maybe we could just limit the number of players for each game to something like 16 - unless it was a really special game like Dueling Wizards

I think it should just be left up to the mod to decide how many players the want in their game.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I think it should just be left up to the mod to decide how many players the want in their game.

That's what I was going to say. I know my game is going to have a limit (but just because it's easier to plan this particular concept if I know how many players I'll have) but as a general rule I think it's a bad idea to limit how many people can be in a game. Unless the mod him/herself decides to do it.

[Boromir88]

I don't think there was ever a status issue with Junior games. That is where generally first time players would start, but gaming wise it was the same experience. The reason it was shut down is because there weren't enough people interested in playing to keep them going simultaneously.

If two get started up again, I agree with Shasta that you shouldn't be allowed to play in both of them.

But, I don't see an issue with Nog's suggestion on limitting the number of players. The page count gets tediously long, and you can't just blame it on the people who do post more. The diverse styles are one of the best things about WW, and if the page count is tedious to read through (which has been a reason for some deciding to stop WWing) I would rather see a cap on the players than any type of rules on posting limits.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I think it should just be left up to the mod to decide how many players the want in their game.

I agree with this. *points up*

[Pitchwife]

First of all, thanks to SpM for starting this discussion! I, too, have to admit I sometimes find it quite excruciating to find two or three pages of new posts to digest whenever I come back to the game after those tedious but necessary intervals of work and sleep. At the same time, I quite admire those who actually manage to make long and detailed summaries or present a case in a thorough, elaborate analysis of half a page or so - it's utterly beyond me, but I wouldn't want to miss that sort of contribution. Limiting the amount of players looks like a viable solution to this problem.
I don't have any problem with the idea of two games running simultaneously. OK, sometimes it'll be hard to choose between two attractive games running at the same time, but such is life. As to playing in two games at once, I really can't see anybody in their right senses wanting to do this - as if Werewolf wasn't complicated enough without engaging in voluntary schizophrenia!
Finally, I'm not going to play in anything that starts before January 6, as I'll be busy spending some time with friends and family until then. After that, I'll be ready for all kinds of mischief.

[Loslote]

If we did have two games going at the same time, what if we staggered the games so that one would start about when the other ended? There's usually a good-sized chunk of time after a game for discussion and signing up for the next game. What if, during that time, the other game was running? That would eliminate the issue of trying to decide between two games and the issue of not playing in two games at once.

[Thinlómien]

I think we could have two "series" of ww games again - the normal games with the same rules as now (ie mod can make any kind of game s/he wishes) and then junior games with just 12 people and no extra twists (there could be 1-4 of the "basic" gifteds: seer, ranger, hunter and cobbler, according to the mod's preferences, or then we could just harshly take the original cast, whatever it was - just a seer?).

Whatever happens in the ww front, please sign me up for the next game, if it will start on the 9th or later.