Dueling Wizards Werewolf Suggestion Thread

[littlemanpoet]

As requested (by Gurthang), I'm starting a thread for Dueling Wizards Werewolf suggestions.

Please post to this thread any ideas, questions, suggestions, criticisms, et cetera, you have regarding the game. I promise to post the rules in an orderly outline to this thread. They'll be edited into this first post at a later date (when I have time). Have fun!

[Diamond18]

Well, about the GW getting to scry on Night One. I see no reason why s/he should not, after all, the EW already has an easier time of it and not letting the GW scry would be unfair. I was a bit confused at first why you said that in the future it would be a better idea not to let the GW scry Night One. Is it because this creates the opportunity for the GW to discover the EW right off? I think that's remedied easily enough by changing the ruling that the GW/EW find out each others' identities by scrying/cursing the same person. Just maintain the annonymity, unless one of them choses the other one. There is the possibility still that one wizard (or both) will chose the other wizard and find out that way -- but if they are so smart and fortunate as to pick the other wizard out from the whole village on Night One, more power to them. *shrug*

So to sum that ramble up: I would say, keep it so that both the GW and EW get to make picks on Night One, but do not reveal their identities to them if they pick the same person.

[mormegil]

I would consider posing a posting limit on day one. Over 200 posts on the first day was absurd and I had no chance to read through it all. I felt very detached at the start of the game due to this. I would hate making a hard and fast rule about it but it was just too many post to read in the short time I had.

[Firefoot]

Morm, I don't really think there's much way around it. In a game that starts with 30 people thereabouts, 200 posts is actually less than 10 posts per person (about 6-7), which really is not unreasonable at all; it's probably closer to average. The problem is there are just so many people, and I admit I had difficulties with that as well. But I think that in a game so big you just have to accept that it's going to be like that.

[Loki]

I am of the opinion that the night one events should be done as thusly:

GW prepares a list of people to scry (Possibly three or four people, as these are common numbers...). Good mod randomly picks one of these as a given gifted.

Much like the GW, the EW prepares a list of wolves, and the evil mod randomly chooses wolves from this list.

This is done so that neither wizard finds out who the other is on night one. This is done under the premise that the wizards, gifted and wolves had existed prior to Night One, and they simply take action on this Night.

Alternate situation:

Good Wizard picks gifted, then EW prepares his(her) possible list of wolves, whom are randomly selected from said list.





The hunter, also, must choose their kill-- they do not automatically kill any wolves that attack them.

I am also of the opinion that the GW should automatically select a seer, but neither of them take any action on Night One. However, these are all my personal choices. The EW has too many other benefits.

Also, this game should almost exclusively be played with a large number of players. Else, the EW won't have a chance. Large being over 10.

[littlemanpoet]

GW Scry on Night One

My rationale for this is that the GW & EW should not find each other on the first night. Possible solutions have been provided for that:

Originally Posted by Diamond

I think that's remedied easily enough by changing the ruling that the GW/EW find out each others' identities by scrying/cursing the same person.

That ruling is in place because it seemed to be the nature of magical power such that the two wizards would sense, and be able to identify each other, in such a case. So it's about trying to be realistic instead of arbitrary and artificial. Not that I have anything against other mods' choices for arbitrary rulings; in and of themselves, arbitrary rulings (that is, mod-initiated & not worrying about 'realism') are not a bad thing; I just don't like to use them.

Originally Posted by Loki

GW prepares a list of people to scry (Possibly three or four people, as these are common numbers...). Good mod randomly picks one of these as a given gifted.

Much like the GW, the EW prepares a list of wolves, and the evil mod randomly chooses wolves from this list.

This is done so that neither wizard finds out who the other is on night one. This is done under the premise that the wizards, gifted and wolves had existed prior to Night One, and they simply take action on this Night.

This is feasible and not overly artificial or abitrary. Worth using, I think.

Also, I think that it is not right for the evil wizard to be down to 2 werewolves before Day One even begins. That's not fair either. Loki's plan could be used to prevent that too.

Number of Posts per Day

I built that problem into the game on purpose. It wasn't hard. Again, it's like real life. On single villager can be in more than one place in the village at a time, and can't possibly keep track of every conversation that's going on in the village, although listening to other villagers' reports can give any other villager a sense of what's been going on, but then they're necessarily depending on the other villagers' perceived veracity. I like that. And there were a number of villagers who provided helpful summaries under the guise of analyses. Very much like things would run in a real village. So I don't mind the huge number of posts in a day. I like it, and support it. It's part of the game. A new "difficulty level" challenge for you accomplished blokes.

Hunter's Powers

Originally Posted by Loki

The hunter, also, must choose their kill-- they do not automatically kill any wolves that attack them.

Any moderator who wished to run a dueling wizards game is free to abide by this. I won't. I don't like a weak hunter. That's why I made the choice I did. If there's some way to find a middle ground between the weak hunter I don't like, and the strong hunter I used in the last game, I'm interested.

Number of Players

Originally Posted by Loki

Also, this game should almost exclusively be played with a large number of players. Else, the EW won't have a chance. Large being over 10.

I absolutely agree. I would say no less than 16 players, and 20 or more is preferrable.

Lynching Tie

And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?

[Diamond18]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That ruling is in place because it seemed to be the nature of magical power such that the two wizards would sense, and be able to identify each other, in such a case. So it's about trying to be realistic instead of arbitrary and artificial. Not that I have anything against other mods' choices for arbitrary rulings; in and of themselves, arbitrary rulings (that is, mod-initiated & not worrying about 'realism') are not a bad thing; I just don't like to use them.

If it's the RP aspect you're worried about, I think such an event is easily explained. When the two "powers" collide each can surely sense that the other wizard is after the same person, but I don't necessarily see a reason why they should be able to see beyond the veil of wizardy to the "regular villager" behind the power. Especially since they are, technically, not focusing their own powers on each other but on the villager in question. Etc. Frankly, I think all such ideas about the nature of the wizards' powers are arbitrary to the mod, just like an author has the creative say over the nature of magic and how it works in their story. It's all in how you rationalize it to fit the game.

Loki's idea is also feasible, of course. Either way, it could work, and his is better for ensuring that the wizards don't pick each other night one. I am not that against the idea of them finding each other out in such a way, though. Like I said, if one wizard is smart enough to pick the other right off the bat, more power to him! Having a large village is the best defense against this, anyway, since the more people mucking about the better for the wizards to hide. Which is why I think it goes without saying that the village should be large. Plus, has there ever even been a -10 player game on the 'Downs?

[Diamond18]

And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?

I'm a little puzzled as to why this is more Tolkien themed?

It's an interesting idea, though I fail to see why the villagers should let anything stop them from a little bloodshed. From an RP aspect. It would have to be explained rathr well to really make much sense in the narration. But, laying that aside and looking at it purely from the more strategic aspect of the game, it's very interesting and would make for some intriguing desicions on both sides.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

[Hunter's Powers
Any moderator who wished to run a dueling wizards game is free to abide by this. I won't. I don't like a weak hunter. That's why I made the choice I did. If there's some way to find a middle ground between the weak hunter I don't like, and the strong hunter I used in the last game, I'm interested.

We thought about the Hunter's role today with Lommy as we were figuring out our WWJ-game, and decided to try this kind of version of it.

The logical hunter works as follows:
- she can change her pick whenever she wants to
- if she has picked a wolf and is attacked at night she will take her pick with her
- if she has picked someone who has voted her she will take her pick with her when lynched
- so the logical hunter does not take innocents/gifteds with her when killed by the wolves nor take someone who hasn't voted her with her when lynched

The third point should make playing the Hunter - and the whole role - more interesting, if not openly stronger. As the hunter sees she is to be lynched, she will probably have time enough to change her target. That way she can either try to save innocent villagers voting for her or target her suspicion that has "bandwaggoned" her. At least this makes it more nerve-wrecking for the hunter...

In a game, where hunter and ranger are allowed to PM together, that kind of rule might make the Hunter a formidable player.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So it's about trying to be realistic instead of arbitrary and artificial.

Sorry, but I just thought it funny that you said 'realistic' when we're talking about Wizards and Werewolves.


Alright, since I was the GW, most of my suggestions will be concerning such.

1. Let the GW and gifteds PM at Night.

Night is when everything happens. It's when people become cursed/gifted and when they perform the related tasks. Not being able to PM new gifteds right away meant quite a few things against us. I could not bring them up to speed on what the Good Team has been doing up to that point. I could not direct them as to who, if anyone, I wanted to be protected/hunted/dreamed of. In fact, I would much rather PM at Night and not in the Day than have it the way it was. If you want to see an example, look in the WW XXI thread at my post #1046.

2. The new Hunter rules.

Okay, at first I wasn't so sure about these rules. After all, in effect they make the Hunter a Seer until they dream of a wolf. This is because if they hunt someone and they do not die, then the person is obviously innocent. Although, if you want to make it slightly less powerful, you could just limit it to that, and not allow the automatic wolf kill if the Hunter is killed by the wolves. Just say that the Hunter will not Hunt unless they choose a wolf, and then those two automatically die.

3. Stick with the dry runs/simulations. (That is, if they seem fair.)

LMP, you said you made many dry runs and came out fairly even as far as wins and losses were concerned. With that in mind, I'd stick with those rules as best you could. The thing that sort of irked me in this game was when the rules changed. The Hunter role, I was surprised at, but, being a Good Teamer, wasn't opposed to. And it made sense to do it because that was how it had gone in your runs. But Night 4 was not something that had been in your pre-game simulations, so I was *ahem* not happy. In the end, it worked out very much in the Evil Teams favor. We were able to eliminate (counting wolf-Loki) 6 wolves in 7 Days, and still ended up losing with 3 wolves left.

4. The Evil Team still has a huge advantage.

Even barring Night 4, the Evil Team has it made. Virtually unlimited wolf-making potential, yesterDay's innocents might be wolves toDay, multiple nightly kills, etc. The Good Team is limited to 3 gifteds, only 1 Seer dream a Night, etc. I said so it was unbalanced before the game even started, but your dry runs more or less convinced me that it would be okay. Still, I think that the Good Team needs... I don't know what exactly, but something to counterbalance the Evil Team.

Originally Posted by Diamond18

Plus, has there ever even been a -10 player game on the 'Downs?

Actually, I've thought about it. You might see something about that in the Scenerios thread.

[Boromir88]

I can't even keep up with all the posts in a regulard 14-15 player game. Morm, if you had trouble keeping up (and I gave up by the end of Day 2) you should nominate a villager who would be so kind to give a summary at the end, or near the end of the day.

1. Let the GW and gifteds PM at Night.

That sounds reasonable.

4. The Evil Team still has a huge advantage.

I'm beginning to think it was the bumped up Hunter role that evened things out a bit. Because the hunter role was like another seer, and in our haste it seemed to be like we called "Foul" this is too strong. When in fact it could have evened things out for the Good side a little more.

Beside this let's also consider the play of the players as well. I felt like Roa played extremely well...and Gurthang, I don't think your gifteds played top notch (no offense to Nilp and them), but with the time zone issues it just didn't seem like you had a plan when going into the Day. And they didn't utilize their talents to their full ability. Perhaps this could be because of the inability to PM at night.

[JennyHallu]

I seem to be alone in not liking the new Hunter.

In my opinion a Seer should be a Seer and a Hunter should be a Hunter, and never the twain should meet. I am not averse to altering the Hunter rules, but the Hunter should not become just another Seer. Better that the GW be able to Gift multiple Seers than that any Gifted he makes is more or less a Seer, no matter the Gift.

Plus I was horrendously confused and still am as to what exactly the Hunter did/could do/etc. And an automatic wolf kill if attacked in the Night means there is no difference between a clever and foolish Hunter.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Beside this let's also consider the play of the players as well. I felt like Roa played extremely well...and Gurthang, I don't think your gifteds played top notch (no offense to Nilp and them), but with the time zone issues it just didn't seem like you had a plan when going into the Day. And they didn't utilize their talents to their full ability. Perhaps this could be because of the inability to PM at night.

Exactly. During the Day, not only did I have to worry about trying to keep up with the thread and post my own thoughts, but I had to try to get messages through to my gifteds. The result was not being able to really talk about much other than who I would prefer that they dream/hunt. We had a 'plan' going into the Night, but that didn't really help us a whole lot, as the evening kill changed things and I wasn't able to adjust accordingly.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'm beginning to think it was the bumped up Hunter role that evened things out a bit. Because the hunter role was like another seer, and in our haste it seemed to be like we called "Foul" this is too strong. When in fact it could have evened things out for the Good side a little more.

I've thought much the same thing. I thought the Evil side had a huge advantage, but I did not know about the heightened Hunter power.

[littlemanpoet]

Next time I mod Dueling Wizards, the Good Team and Evil Team will both be able to PM at Night but not in the Day.

I'm leaning toward something like what Nogrod suggested for the Hunter. Just so long as the Hunter isn't too weak.

I'm trying to decide between two different options in regard to the first Night:

1) a sub-mod directed first Night's choices, as suggested by Loki, in order to avoid both wizards picking the same player.

2) have the wizards discover each other by means of direct scrying/cursing OR being attacked by the other wizard's hunter/werewolves, and NOT by picking the same player to scry/curse. I admit that that was an additional wrinkle I threw into my dry run mix for the fun of it. And as far as "the fun of it" goes, I liked it.

[Naria]

I seem to be alone in not liking the new Hunter.

In my opinion a Seer should be a Seer and a Hunter should be a Hunter, and never the twain should meet. I am not averse to altering the Hunter rules, but the Hunter should not become just another Seer. Better that the GW be able to Gift multiple Seers than that any Gifted he makes is more or less a Seer, no matter the Gift.

Plus I was horrendously confused and still am as to what exactly the Hunter did/could do/etc. And an automatic wolf kill if attacked in the Night means there is no difference between a clever and foolish Hunter.

*Raises hand*
I am in total agreement with not liking the new Hunter in this game.


My two cents for what it's worth

I am also in agreement that sometimes roles have to be played with a little in order for things to not be so boring(regular gifted in a regular game),but I didn't like what happened in this game. I thought and still do think that it was an unfair and bad call for Lmp to make The Phantoms pick for him! I had no idea that The Phantom was able to have the luxury of not making a pick himself and let Lmp do it. I freaked when I turned up dead the next Day.

I still don't understand the need for the Hunter(or mod ) to have to kill the first wolf that votes for him/her. How does this make that role stronger?

[Kuruharan]

How does this make that role stronger?

Because the Hunter is an automatic termination of a wolf is why it makes the role stronger.

[littlemanpoet]

I feel bad, Naria, that you got nailed by a rule that was clear enough in my head but not communicated well.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The logical hunter works as follows:
#1 - she can change her pick whenever she wants to
#2 - if she has picked a wolf and is attacked at night she will take her pick with her
#3 - if she has picked someone who has voted her she will take her pick with her when lynched
- so the logical hunter does not take innocents/gifteds with her when killed by the wolves nor take someone who hasn't voted her with her when lynched

Thinking out loud here:

#1- The hunter can't change her pick absolutely whenever she wants to. There has to be a point at which the moderator can say, "okay, THAT'S toNight's pick." So how does that particular rule work, then, because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "whenever she wants to".

#2 - is the classic approach, which I'm fine with as long as it's augmented - - - which it needs to be in a Dueling Wizards game in order to balance it out against the ability of the evil wizard to create a new werewolf each Night.

#3 - I like this. And I don't like it. I like it because it gives the Hunter extra means to be effective, but I don't like it because this makes the Hunter's power a double edged sword that could cut against the good team instead of the evil team, and the good team doesn't need any more knocks against it than I've already put in the system.

I would call her the vengeful rather than logical hunter, however. To answer Naria's question in this regard, this gives the Hunter an extra way in which she can be effective.

After taking the time to thoroughly understand Nogrod's idea, I have to say 'no' for Dueling Wizards, because the good team needs strength, not unintentional double crossing. Ordinary innocents do that enough to the good wizard already.

So unless a better idea is offered for the Hunter, s/he will stay as is for the next game of Dueling Wizards that I mod.

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, let's put this to a vote ... including reasons as you like.

What would be better:

1) Both Good and Evil Teams being able to PM all the time.

2) Both Good and Evil Teams being able to PM only at Night.

3) For a really perverse scenario .... ..... Evil team only able to PM during the Day, and Good team only at Night. (only half serious ... could get really interesting)

[The Saucepan Man]

The Good Wizard must be able to scry the first night. Otherwise the innocents would be even worse off than they are already. If the GW and the EW pick the same person at night, I would suggest that the person in question simply remains an ordo and that they remain oblivious to the fact that they have been the subject of a wizardly power struggle. There is nor reason, as far as I acn see, why the wizards need be revealed to each other when they each pick the same villager.

As for the Hunter, I would not label the classic Hunter a weak Hunter. They are as strong or as weak as their skill and instincts enable them to be. There are a number of different ways to play the classic Hunter role, and therefore great scope for strategic play. If the Hunter always kills a Wolf, then there is much less flexibility to the role. Basically, the only way to play is to act in a way likely to get killed, since your only worth is in being killed, preferably as early as possible. For that reason, I don't really like it. That said, it probably suits the Wizard phase of a Duelling Wizard game where the Gifteds have less scope for using their own discretion anyway. When both Wizards are dead, the Hunter should revert to the classic Hunter role.

The logical Hunter is, as the name suggests, logical. But I think that it makes the role less interesting. Half the fun of the role is in the risk of killing an innocent, at Night as well as during the Day.

As for game balance, it seems to me that this game would have been far more balanced had the EW not been given the opportunity to make two additional Wolves. As a result of this, the EW had one more Wolf than she was strictly entitled to, and it also forced out the GW slightly earlier than he would probably have liked.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

After taking the time to thoroughly understand Nogrod's idea, I have to say 'no' for Dueling Wizards, because the good team needs strength, not unintentional double crossing.

I see your point. If the hunter role must first of all serve the balance of power, which is not corrected otherwise, then the hunter most surely must take a wolf with her. I remember being myself also of the opinion that the baddies seem to have the upper hand in this game before it started. A powerful hunter might balance that (or at least correct it somewhat).

But then again, this kind of automatic wolf-slaying ability kind of takes the sport out of the role, as the hunter can't herself make the difference with her own gaming... The good side PM'ing would be much more efficient way to balance the game - and it would even make it more fun to play to those who are the gifteds, I suppose.

PS. - this probably should be somewhere else, but as Saucepan commented here, I would like to answer...

= Spm
The logical Hunter is, as the name suggests, logical. But I think that it makes the role less interesting. Half the fun of the role is in the risk of killing an innocent, at Night as well as during the Day.

Partly yes. But when we combine the lynchingvote-rule (being lynched, hunter will only take with her someone who has actually voted for her) to the ruling that she can change her pick at any time - practically 1 minute before the deadline - it makes that evening something to remember for the hunter! Think of your chances: pick up an innocent voter of yours and make things worse, play it safe and change your pick to someone who has not voted for you not to kill anyone, or become the hero and pick the wolf bandwaggoning on you from the lot and take the beast with you! Some heart-pumping thinking for the last hours...

[Ainaserkewen]

Holy crumbly muffins. I just wanted to take this posting oppertunity to say "Wow, it's amazing that Werewolves is still so popular."

It's been a while.

[littlemanpoet]

For First Night:

If the evil wizard and good wizard pick the same player, the player becomes a werewolf but is known to the good wizard.

What do you think?

I'm willing to go with SPM's take on the Hunter. With the Good Wizard being a virtual #1 seer and the seer being #2, the Hunter doesn't need to be yet another Seer, I suppose. But I still wish there was some way to bolster the role, even with SPM's sensible explanation in mind. *LMP shrugs*

[Valier]

I was thinking of trying my hand at Modding one of these, but I would definitely need some help, so if others are interested please pm me and we can discuss it.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

For First Night:

If the evil wizard and good wizard pick the same player, the player becomes a werewolf but is known to the good wizard.

Sounds like a pretty good plan. Be sort of like a Seer dream in that case.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'm willing to go with SPM's take on the Hunter. With the Good Wizard being a virtual #1 seer and the seer being #2, the Hunter doesn't need to be yet another Seer, I suppose.

Actually, I think that's how it should be, with the Hunter basically like a Seer. The reason being is that it evens out the playing field a lot. The Evil Team at minimum has 2 chances at Night to find the GW(EW scry + at least 1 wolf kill). The Good Team, with a traditional Hunter, has at maximum 2 chances at Night to find the EW(GW scry + Seer dream, if there is a Seer). By making the Hunter basically like a Seer, it means the Good Team could have up to 3 chances each Night, just like the Evil Team would likely have 3 chances.

Think about this scenario. On Night 1 the Evil Wizard makes 3 wolves, the Good Wizard makes a Seer. Evil Team has four chances to find the GW, Good Team has 2 chances to find EW. On Night 2, the Evil Wizard makes 4 wolves (so 2 kills), the Good Wizard makes a Hunter. This would give both teams 3 chances that Night to find the opposing wizard. So you see it all works out very well, from the chances per Night look.

And if you doubt the value of chances each Night, then think about this: Roa found me on the Night she got 5 chances. And furthermore, at the moment I was found, the Evil Team had scried/killed 13 times and the Good Team had only scried/dreamed 6 times*. So Basically, she was searching the village about twice as fast as I was able to.


*This should have been 7, but actually should have been 6. Nilp should have dreamed Night 2 but didn't, so that should have been 7, but he should not have dreamed Night 4 and did, so it should be 6.

[littlemanpoet]

So what I'm beginning to conclude is Saucy's original suggestion, ratified by Gurthang, is that the Hunter needs to be stronger while the wizards live, then after the wizard battle the Hunter becomes the classic style hunter. I think I'm okay with that construction.

I'm also beginning to lean toward both Evil and Good Teams PMing ONLY at Night.

You know, I must confess that it totally escaped me that I had put in the rules that the Good Team could only PM in the Daytime; with Kuru handling all aspects, I just didn't think about it, and assumed (wrongly and stupidly) that the Good team were PMing at Night. It's something that deserves correction. I really wouldn't mind running another one of these Dueling Wizards games again some time, but you can bet I won't be writing quite the narratives.

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm both for and against the stronger hunter- I do think that the hunter role should be made stronger, but automatic wolf kills are in no way fair to the game. There's no sport in it, and it takes all challenge away from the role. Like giving the hunter a wolf if no kill is chosen- that's just rediculous. The seer doesn't automatically dream of a wolf if they don't pick someone, and the hunter shouldn't automatically kill a wolf if they don't pick someone. If that's allowed, then the hunter doesn't have to do anything except die, and that's far too close to cheating. Also, and I say this with Naria in mind, it is wholly unfair to the wolf who gets killed, especially if they've avoided suspicion up till that point.

So, sure, make the hunter stronger, but don't give automatic wolf killings. That's really unfair, and it takes out all the challenge in the role. While I'm sure the phantom would have been a great hunter (he was going to choose me, after all), he can take no credit for Naria's kill, because he didn't do anything at all. Doing nothing should never be rewarded in this game.

[Loki]

#1.
The Good side should be allowed to PM at any point during the game.
The Evil side shold only be allowed to PM at night.

===== This helps the Good side out, and they really ought to be able to PM at any time anyway. Game mechanics balance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2.
When GW and EW scry same person they discover each others' identities.
++Optional: Person may or may not be killed.

BEWARE, this may upset game balance in favor of EW. This is up to mod's discretion, as it is not a major flaw, but it can influence the swing of a close game.

===== This is another game mechanic balance. It gives the Good side a fighting chance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3.
Hunter is just a normal Hunter. Case closed.

===== Changing this factor destroys the actual role of a Hunter, de-valuing the player's actual gaming and making them naught but a pawn for the GW. Players should be able to influence the game. This detracts from the position, and makes it a strategic move on the GW's part, with nothing to be done from the Hunter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4.
The Hunter ought to be able to change their decision at any time.

===== This shouldn't be such a problem-- every PM contains a timestamp. The mods can sort time out as they wish. If someone could not handle this simple task, then they ought not to be mods. Plain and simple.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#5.
"And now for a new possibility to increase what I call the "Tolkien Theme" aspect: if the top vote getters are tied, no lynch for the Day. You can see the implications pretty quickly. What do you think?"

No. Bad idea.

===== If you implement this, this reduces the effectiveness of the voters/Ordos, allowing the wolves to make extra kills that night, etc. etc. This only gives the Evil side an extra advantage. Bad idea. If there's a tie, either multiple-lynch or take the first person to reach given #.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




It seems that, largely, the reason that you guys (LMP, Gurthang) do not like some these systems is because they put the Good side at a possible disadvantage. That's the point. The Evil side can fail naturally, through playing badly. The Good side can only fail through playing badly. Both sides depend largely on luck and how the game is played. Honestly, I've been saying that the Evil side has been at a huge advantage since before the game had started. Goodness knows, there's plenty of reasons why.

Bear in mind, however, that the Evil team is ALWAYS going to be at an advantage. Look at a normal WW game. The Good team could win-- with a little luck and skill. However, the Evil side is at the advantage. Let's face it, a rough tally of all of the WW game leaves the Evil side winning about 70% of the time. What makes this REALLY unbalanced is the incorporation of people picking their own wolves. This is pretty unfair, period. Just bear in mind that it's a game. There are going to be different variations, different styles, and different methods. Most of the flaws in design were instituted in trying to change things to make it more fair. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[Loki]

IMPORTANT:

Just had a good idea. Game Moderator automatically kills off silent people. Wolves or not. If you don't participate, you don't play. Silent players are the worst problem in these sorts of games. A moderator should be able to kill a player because they haven't met an active post count.

Be strict. Be serious. If someone can't make enough posts per day, then they should have sat it out. It may not be their fault, but they ought to behave reasonably and accept that **** happens. This probably won't be implemented (everyone is so nice nowadays... so afraid to step on anyone's toes), but I figured it's worth a shot, and if I run any games, it will be implemented in them.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Loki

Bear in mind, however, that the Evil team is ALWAYS going to be at an advantage. Look at a normal WW game. The Good team could win-- with a little luck and skill. However, the Evil side is at the advantage. Let's face it, a rough tally of all of the WW game leaves the Evil side winning about 70% of the time. What makes this REALLY unbalanced is the incorporation of people picking their own wolves. This is pretty unfair, period. Just bear in mind that it's a game. There are going to be different variations, different styles, and different methods. Most of the flaws in design were instituted in trying to change things to make it more fair. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Loki makes a good point here- the WW games are all slightly unbalanced towards the evil side, and they always have been. It's the nature of the game, and it's what makes it fun to play as an ordo. The wolves know each other and can act as a team, whereas the good side cannot. That advantage has all but been eliminated in this game.

#1. I'm perfectly fine with the good side being able to PM all of the time. I've been in other games where that was the case, and it helped even things out a bit.

#2. I see no reason why this should not be the case. If it's night one, in a village of 30, that could be unfair, and certainly the person should live, though perhaps be uninformed. If we use Loki's earlier idea of the wizards sending a list to the sub mods, and the sub mods picking at random from the list, we can eliminate that problem. I would say that if both sub mods randomly picked the same person from their respective lists, then that player should go to the wizard who sent in the list first, and the other mod would pick someone else, with niether wizard ebing made aware of it. This should be for night one only, though, as the picking of certain players for certain roles is strategy and gives roles of the wizards some actual purpose other than just wolf/gifted making factories.

#3. I'd disagree that the hunter should be completely normal. A super hunter, such as what LMP has, is really unfair, but a slightly stronger hunter is okay. Make it completely normal after the death of the wizards though, since that's only fair.

#4. The only thing I see against this is the time it takes for the mod to write up a narration. If the mod is willing to deal with it, then I see no reason against it.

#5. Really, I fully agree with Loki on that one. There should always be a lynch at the end of the day, otherwise it's just an advantage for the evil team, since, beyond the hunter, there's no other way to kill the wolves, and even Superhunter couldn't handle them all.

I'm all for evening the game out. After all, it's hardly gratifying to win when everyone attribute's your victory to a slant in the rules rather than your own skill.

EDIT: Cross-posted, actually, this is implemented in most werewolf games. Mods set up a limit such as, no vote for two straight days, or no posts for a full day with out prior warning, or whatever else the mod decides to set the limit at. LMP didn't because I think he was trying to keep things from swaying too far into the Evil side's advantage.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Loki

Just had a good idea. Game Moderator automatically kills off silent people. Wolves or not. If you don't participate, you don't play. Silent players are the worst problem in these sorts of games. A moderator should be able to kill a player because they haven't met an active post count.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. People should not sign up for games if they know beforehand that they are going to be unable to post (and vote) at least once per day. Obviously, situations can arise during the game and that cannot be avoided. That's primarily what the admin thread is for. But it is not difficult to anticipate beforehand that certain factors will limit your participation. I have missed a number of games for this reason.

It is all very well to have a rule stipulating that players who do not post at least once per day will be eminated, but that still has the potential to skew the game and can give (or be used to suggest) clues about their roles. Far better that such players simply restrain themselves from playing in that particular game if they know beforehand that they will be away for a day or more. There will always be another game to play in.

That is different from saying that people's whose style is to make only a brief post once each day (or similar) should be prevented from playing. That can either be a habitual approach or a deliberately adopted tactic. Either way, the player who plays in this way takes their chances in doing so, and it is up to the other players to judeg them based on it. More often than not, they end up being lynched fairly early on.

[Loki]

Quite frankly, there are a lot of should's and would's in your words, SPaM. Unfortunately, life is not quite so simple. I agree with you, but from what I've seen, it just doesn't work that way.

I was the 6th lowest poster in the game, and I was lynched on Day 1. I SHOULD have been the person with the least posts. Other people SHOULD have left the game. Eonwe SHOULD not have only had 5 posts within a Week's time, and still lasted until the game's end. Honestly.

Even if it's a game with 30 people, 6 people is one fifth of the population. So one fifth of the population did nothing. That destroys the gameplay. Let's be honest, with numbers like this (Bear in mind that plenty of people did play, but even that FIFTH of people is a serious problem.), there really needs to be some sort of strict adherence to the rules. It's not mean, it's not being a dick, it's necessary.

[Roa_Aoife]

Well, everyone knows where I stand on non-participants....

Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as, lynch non-participants, ie. people who don't post, or don't vote, with in a certain time frame, while the wizards live, but stop after the wizards die. Or vice-versa. No offense to Eonwe, but he didn't vote for 5 days straight, and he didn't even show on the last few days. That shouldn't be allowed, as it's not really fair to either side. Far too many innocents are lynched by villagers for not participating, when the village could be going after truly suspicious people.

However, this something that should be left up to the mod of each game. Which leads me to think- we have created a whole new werewolf game. Now we'll have three games running at a time! WW, WWJ, and DWW (Dueling Wizards Werewolf). We already have a mod list started! LMP, you've created a montster.

[littlemanpoet]

I've finally hit upon the major solutions to the biggest problems with Dueling Wizards. It's really quite simple, really.

So I'm going to mod another one as soon as I can find the time. I'll go step in line on the Admin thread. Valier, are you okay with sub-modding for me?


#1: For the Good team to be able to PM twice as much as the Evil team seems unnecessary to me. Both can PM all Night long, and that will be sufficient.

#2: When EW & GW scry the same person, the EW will get a werewolf and the GW will know the player is a werewolf. 'Nuff said.

#3: I'm going to go with a normal Hunter. Here's why: with Night-time PMs, the GW, Seer, and Hunter together make a virtual "smart-bomb" for catching werewolves. There are 2 chances each Night for the good team to spot a werewolf; all that has to happen is for the GW to tell the Hunter who to pick, and SMACK one werewolf dead. .. on, and the hunter too, but a powerful effective way to go. The GW can make a new hunter the very next Night unless s/he scries a werewolf or the EW, which is even better anyway. 'Nuff said.

#4: The Hunter will be able to change his/her decision right up until 2 hours before the new Day starts. In fact, ALL Night-time decisions need to be made by 2 hours before the new Day starts. After that, it's time for the narration. 'Nuff said.

#5: tie resulting in no lynch: you guys are only seeing this from one angle. The Good team may not lynch a werewolf, but they also don't shoot themselves in the foot by lynching an innocent. The only problem they have is, that without a lynch and the voting record, there's even less to go on for making decisions. But I'm not sold on this one anyway, and won't use it unless there's a hue and cry in favor of it.

Regarding non-participating participants: I allowed for it. I allowed for a big village for non-participants because I wanted the effects of both to be felt in the game. I almost gave in, but didn't in the end. I wanted it to reflect real life such that not everybody is always on task or as committed as others. Let the village deal with it using the methods available to it. On this one I stand with Saucy: I don't want to skew the game. 'Nuff said.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Loki

Quite frankly, there are a lot of should's and would's in your words ...

This applies to all Werewolf games, not just Duelling Wizards, and so the point really belongs in the main admin threads. I have raised it there before but, as you note, it continues to be a problem.

Yes, I am talking in terms of "shoulds" and "woulds", but what would you have me do instead? Stipulate that people shall not sign up for games if they know beforehand that they are going to be unable to post (and vote) at least once per day? Not only does that smack of an inappropriate dictatorialism (people ought to be able to take responsibility themselves for not signing up in those circumstances), but it is also highly impractical. There is nothing to stop anyone signing up for a game without diclosing that they will be away for part of it. And by the time this becomes apparent, it will already be too late. The game has become skewed through the limited participation of one of the players, whether or not they are removed.

My own view is that each mod should make clear when recruiting that they expect each player to commit to at least one post per day (possibly more, if they are so inclined) and that anyone who cannot meet this expectation should not sign up. If someone nevertheless signs up and is then absent (other than as a result of unforeseen circumstances), then they are reomved from the game immediately. Serial offenders could then be treated with caution in future games. It's up to the mod of each game, but that is how I would handle it were I to mod another game.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

#3: I'm going to go with a normal Hunter. Here's why: with Night-time PMs, the GW, Seer, and Hunter together make a virtual "smart-bomb" for catching werewolves. There are 2 chances each Night for the good team to spot a werewolf; all that has to happen is for the GW to tell the Hunter who to pick, and SMACK one werewolf dead. .. on, and the hunter too, but a powerful effective way to go. The GW can make a new hunter the very next Night unless s/he scries a werewolf or the EW, which is even better anyway. 'Nuff said.
....
#5: tie resulting in no lynch: you guys are only seeing this from one angle. The Good team may not lynch a werewolf, but they also don't shoot themselves in the foot by lynching an innocent. The only problem they have is, that without a lynch and the voting record, there's even less to go on for making decisions. But I'm not sold on this one anyway, and won't use it unless there's a hue and cry in favor of it.

I agree with both points- particularly the second. (The first I agree with more on the basic principle of "random is good" in this game.) Killing innocents (and silent innocents) is what lost the village this game, as much as rule slants. The difference is that the village has to take some of the credit for the killings.

[Diamond18]

My goodness, LMP, you are tireless. But, I would think that someone else should get the chance to mod a DW before you do it again. Maybe you could co-mod this next time around? However, since I'm not volunteering to take on head role, this is merely a cautious suggestion to hold up a bit. Others are, I'm sure, eager to have their turn at the concept.

As to what to do with non-participants, I think those who read WWJVIII know my stance... Mod Fire from Heaven, charred remains smoking on the ground, and all that. You can hardly prevent non-participants from signing up (unless you do your recruitment by invitation only) so the only way to deal with it in game is to zap them.

[Valier]

Well since I myself have offered to be a mod for the next game, since others want someone else to do it, LMP could be my co-mod. But I'm afraid my narrations would be fairly weak compared to LMP's so I would rather have someone else write them and I would do the roles and rules stuff. Unless someone else wants to Mod then LMP and I could be the co-mods...

[Roa_Aoife]

I'd be happy to be the evil team sub-mod... *evil grin*

[Loki]

"Perhaps a compromise could be made, such as, lynch non-participants"

Bad idea. Then you're taking away from the village's choice of who to lynch. Also, you'd be taking it away from the villagers' chances of finding a wolf. Wolves are rarely non-participants.

[Roa_Aoife]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant in conjuction with the daily lynch, not in place of it. Like Diamond's Mod-fire from heaven. SMITE BUTTONS!