WW General rules discussion

[mormegil]

This is a thread to begin discussion for a sticky thread that will be posted on some of the universal and general rules for WW. Those who participate in this discussion ideally will be considered veteran players. I don't want to set a minimum to participate, however if you are fairly new please realize there are players who have played dozens of games and know the rules, both written and unwritten very well. I think this discussion is to collect these rules. We should bold our actual suggestions.

For example, everybody knows that you turn your status on invisible so that people do not know when you are online when playing WW. That should be included on the list.

[Rikae]

Just some thoughts, as a starting point - I'd like to hear the others' thoughts on these:

Mods should know that unless they explicitly say otherwise, players can reasonably expect the usual rules remain true, such as (correct me if I'm wrong):
- Votes are counted up to DL 'downs time. Votes posted after this time do not count.
- No PMing or other outside communication about an ongoing game unless your role specifically allows it (both living and dead players).
- PMs should not be quoted during the game (I broke this one not long ago).
- Normal cobblers are ordos in the final count.
- Name-calling, swearing, and abbreviated/implied swearing are not allowed (they aren't elsewhere on the 'downs, why would they be here?)
- Posting in game threads should stop at DL (cross-posts excepted).
- Discussion of "meta" topics such as RL reasons for absences should be kept to the admin thread.
- Mods should specify how the lynch will go in case of a tie (first to reach total, last to reach total, double-lynch, random, etc.)
- Unless otherwise specified by the mod, abilities of seer, hunter and ranger are: (to be discussed. Logical hunters? Rangers can/can't protect self? Let me know what you think.)
- Post-game discussion including the dead should not begin until after the final narration or until the mod officially allows it.
- Unless otherwise specified, votes should be on a separate line, bolded (and highlighted?) or they won't be counted.
- Mod should specify whether there are retractable votes.
- Mods should abide by their own rules and make any changes known to the whole village. If there is a possibility of secret "twists", this should be mentioned in the admin thread before the game begins.

That's all I can think of for now.

[wilwarin538]

About secret roles:
- if secret roles exist the Mod should make the players aware that they exist, and to what side they are allied too
- [B]if it is a secret role that the possessor does not know they have then the Mod should make that clear in the rules [/B[(for example they could say "There is a secret role, the person who has it doesn't know they have it until they encounter the necessary situation")Feel free to disagree with me on that one, but I think this will prevent future mods from suddenly adding roles half way through a game on a whim, and saying that it was just a 'secret role'.

About Lovers:
- It should be clearly explained in the rules exactly what type of Lover pairing is involved, or if they are secret Lovers than at least clearly explained to those who have the role. For example whether or not their fates are intertwined (one dies, so does the other) and whether or not they are just like PM buddies on the village's side, or if they are actually playing for their own side and only want to survive to the end together. I know there was Lover confussion in the past because this was not clearly explained to those who had the role.

All I have for now, but I'm sure I'll think of more...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

About Lovers:
- It should be clearly explained in the rules exactly what type of Lover pairing is involved, or if they are secret Lovers than at least clearly explained to those who have the role. For example whether or not their fates are intertwined (one dies, so does the other) and whether or not they are just like PM buddies on the village's side, or if they are actually playing for their own side and only want to survive to the end together. I know there was Lover confussion in the past because this was not clearly explained to those who had the role.

That's what I was going to bring up. Hate to have that happen again, wouldn't we.

[wilwarin538]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

That's what I was going to bring up. Hate to have that happen again, wouldn't we.

Indeed.

The wolf team should submit their chosen kill by one hour before deadline or there will be a no-kill. (I don't know...maybe that should be a rule the mod makes. But it is annoying for a mod when they don't receive a kill until the final moments of the Night.)

WilwaMod says yes definitely it's annoying, but WilwaWolf says that's not fair, since villagers get a full 24 hours to choose a lynch, wolves should also get a full 24 hours. I think that's more a mod-to-mod thing.

Also: dead players should not be permitted to post on the admin thread or the game thread until the game is over.

[Macalaure]

Maybe two sets of rules would work best. 1) a list of conventions on "how we usually play here", and 2) a kind of guideline for mods on what rules etc. they have to cover in their admin/game threads.

- Among the first posts in the admin thread one post should contain all of the following (if a mod wishes to discuss some rules/roles before starting, the post should be edited according. Rule changes should not only be mentioned somewhere down the (next) page - that's so annoying if you have to look something up...)
- List of players
- List of roles (and number of each role, except maybe for ordos), each role should be defined as detailed as possible (basic roles can be described in detail very briefly - for special roles it's the more the better, I think)
- Any special rules or events have to be explained in as much detail as possible.
- Any secret twists have to be announced.
- Deadline time
- Deadline for submission of picks (if differing from general deadline)
- Rules in case of a voting tie
- Modfire rules

- The game thread should contain a list of players and dead players with time of death and role (unless the role is kept secret intentionally) at the end of every Night and Day.
(- At the end of every Night and Day the mod shall announce which roles get to do what during the coming phase.)


Some random comments:

Personally, I think bolding votes is enough. I find highlighting a bit annoying, to be honest, but maybe that's just me.

I think votes should be regarded as non-retractable unless otherwise specified.

About meta reasoning: It's sometimes really hard to avoid it. If, for example, a player has not posted one day and then there's a missed kill the next night, how do you not suspect him/her? Just being silent about it or making up other reasons for suspicion doesn't make much sense. I think the rule should be to keep meta reasons to the absolute minimum.

Can we introduce an automatic modfire rule for (repeated) inappropriate conduct (language, insulting etc.)?

Mods must not mention the identities of players to other players outside of what is covered in the rules. (this should be obvious...)

The mod should reveal the role of a lynched player within reasonable time of the deadline (30m?). If the narration takes a while (as it usually does...), the mod should either edit the deadline post or make another post before the narration that reveals the role.

The mod has to pm the roles to all his players, including ordos. It's a bit tedious to do so, I admit, but "if you didn't receive a pm, you're an ordo" makes me feel even more like an expendable extra than the ordo role does by itself. Motivated ordos are more fun.
This one's just a suggestion.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

- It should be clearly explained in the rules exactly what type of Lover pairing is involved, or if they are secret Lovers than at least clearly explained to those who have the role. .

Does this rule out things like cobbler-lovers with ordo partners? That would be a shame.

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Some people have sometimes requested to mod on a particular month, which I think should be okay since that person usually very busy and may not be able to mod at all otherwise. But maybe add some limits to that, like they cannot reserve a month any sooner than 3 months from the current month. Only those who have a very tight schedule can reserve. And if they do not show or pass their turn on the month they reserved, that person is automatically taken off the list.

I think a rule like this is potentially problematic. I'd rather not see the main WW thread degenerate into an argument over who is busy enough to reserve a month, for instance. Let's not make it overly complex, but say that:
Mods who miss their turn twice or miss a reserved month once are removed from the list.

Similarly, I'd say players that fail to show up for two games they've signed up for should be barred from playing for six months (or a year?)
(And maybe we should also have a similar suspension of players for repeated cheating or abusive language during games?)

Originally Posted by Morm

I'm noticing some fairly specific guidelines or rules being mentioned for specific roles. I would advise against this.

For me at least, that's not what I was suggesting. I meant that there should be default descriptions for the really basic roles for times when a mod doesn't explain them fully enough. Mods can still define these rules differently if they wish, but they should do so explicitly in the admin thread. I've seen games where a mod didn't completely explain what a basic role did, and a player assumed something different than the mod had in mind. I'd like the players to have the peace of mind of knowing that "unless the mod says otherwise, role x works this way".

Originally Posted by Mac

I think the rule should be to keep meta reasons to the absolute minimum.

and

Originally Posted by Mac

Personally, I think bolding votes is enough. I find highlighting a bit annoying, to be honest, but maybe that's just me.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Mac

The mod has to pm the roles to all his players, including ordos.

I don't know. It's a nice thing for a mod to do, I agree, but should it be a requirement?

And regarding having Tolkien-related games:
I really think they all ought to be. It's possible to stretch that requirement quite a bit, and back in the days when it was upheld, I saw quite a few wonderful, imaginative game concepts that took it in unexpected directions. As far as I know, it still is the rule, it's just being ignored, and I never was really very happy about that - nothing against the mods who have done other sorts of games; some have been quite good, and the rule was essentially dropped, after all, but I would like to see it reinstituted.
So I'll propose:
All games should be in some way Tolkien-related.

EDIT: Cross posted with Morm and Inzil.(Yes, I know I don't have to do this here, but it makes things nice and clear.)

[Rikae]

I thought of one more:
Unless otherwise noted by the mod, players cannot change sides and should play for the side assigned to them throughout the game.

I've seen suggestions that werebears who could no longer win alone "join" the village, and cursed villagers play cobbler from the start; if ordos are not allowed to dub themselves cobblers or form impromptu wolf packs, this sort of thing should be out, too (unless the mod explicitly allows a role to choose sides). You can't police motivations, but at least you won't have players announcing "I decided to change sides!"

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I thought of one more:
Unless otherwise noted by the mod, players cannot change sides and should play for the side assigned to them throughout the game.

I've seen suggestions that werebears who could no longer win alone "join" the village, and cursed villagers play cobbler from the start; if ordos are not allowed to dub themselves cobblers or form impromptu wolf packs, this sort of thing should be out, too (unless the mod explicitly allows a role to choose sides). You can't police motivations, but at least you won't have players announcing "I decided to change sides!"

The bit about the Cursed villager could easily be avoided just by not telling the Cursed of their role until the game situation demands it.
That goes back to what Wilwa said about the Secret roles in general. Perhaps players having those roles should always be kept in the dark about it until the last minute, while all players should know that the roles themselves might exist, even if their nature isn't fully explained at the start.

[wilwarin538]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Does this rule out things like cobbler-lovers with ordo partners? That would be a shame.

No. I meant more regarding whether they are just 2 people who are allowed to chat, or if they are the traditional Lovers who are on their own side and die together. There was a game (I forget who the Mod was) where everyone was paired up and it was called 'Lovers', so Inzil (a wolf) and I (an ordo) told each other our roles and were under the assumption we had to survive to the end together and that that was our goal above which of our teams won, as long as both of us were alive; when that actually wasn't the case at all, it was just a PM Pal type thing. The game had to be restarted. So avoiding that confusion in the future would be good.

Originally Posted by Mac

The mod has to pm the roles to all his players, including ordos.

I think that's a good idea. Everyone deserves a PM, no matter how tedious it might be, and it just makes it clearer that way.

[wilwarin538]

Oh, and about the Tolkien relatedness. I have modded a few games completely non-Tolkien related, that I really enjoyed doing, and I've played in many games like that as well that I thought were fantastic. But this is a Tolkien forum, and more Tolkien related games would probably be a good idea. I do know of some people who are currently planning a non-Tolkien game, and I would hate to tell them they have to start their plans over completely, that seems unfair to me since people have been able to do practically any theme they want up to this point. But I think strongly encouraging Tolkien games would be a good idea, and maybe anyone who is starting their plans can aim for a Tolkien theme for the future.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

If it is a secret role that the possessor does not know they have then the Mod should make that clear in the rules [/B[(for example they could say "There is a secret role, the person who has it doesn't know they have it until they encounter the necessary situation")Feel free to disagree with me on that one, but I think this will prevent future mods from suddenly adding roles half way through a game on a whim, and saying that it was just a 'secret role'.

No one's actually done that, have they?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Sally, I concur with your comments. They make me think of the Thursday Next series, or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I frankly think it would be funny to combine a game of hobbits and Mario characters, where all the special powers stemmed from eating wonky mushrooms.

And Foley, no, bad guys don't have to be werewolves. They just often are.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Sally, I concur with your comments. They make me think of the Thursday Next series, or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I frankly think it would be funny to combine a game of hobbits and Mario characters, where all the special powers stemmed from eating wonky mushrooms.

I am in awe.



Oh, and Foley, ditto what Fea said. I've had were-ducks and Fea's had politicians, which are clearly always evil, even in the daylight.

[Brinniel]

I think Rikae covered a pretty good chunk of the rules. Here's a few more I thought of:

-Members who have already moderated a game cannot mod again until at least 6 months after their last game. (I would consider even pulling that up to a year)

-After signing up for a game, the player is expected to participate (vote and post) throughout the entire game or until death. If a player cannot participate for a Day, it should be stated and explained on the Admin thread. Modfire rules are up to the mod and the mod should specify these rules. (I do think there should be a penalty for players who sign up and don't/barely participate more than two or three times. I don't think it's been a problem recently, but I'm still remembering the likes of xyzzy.)

-Extending the meta-rule, no player should suspect or make accusations at another player due to meta-reasoning.

-(?) The wolf team should submit their chosen kill by one hour before deadline or there will be a no-kill. (I don't know...maybe that should be a rule the mod makes. But it is annoying for a mod when they don't receive a kill until the final moments of the Night.)

-Editing a post for reasons other than grammar or x-posting is strictly prohibited. Once a post is submitted, the content within it cannot be changed.

That's all I can think of for the time being.

Originally Posted by morm from the other thread

If people are signing up and continue to hold or pass on their turn this creates problems. Glirdan it seems that this is happening currently but rest assured you are not targeted as I've seen it before. The problems arise because those who are behind them are not planning on modding for a few weeks at the soonest and suddenly their turn is thrust upon them. Would something like if you are unable to make your turn you are off the list be reasonable?

Since people do get busy with RL and it's hard to estimate how much time it'll take to go through the mod list, I think there should be some slight leniency. Perhaps future mods are allowed to pass off their turn only once before being taken off the list and if the next mod is a no-show, they are automatically removed from the list.

Some people have sometimes requested to mod on a particular month, which I think should be okay since that person usually very busy and may not be able to mod at all otherwise. But maybe add some limits to that, like they cannot reserve a month any sooner than 3 months from the current month. Only those who have a very tight schedule can reserve. And if they do not show or pass their turn on the month they reserved, that person is automatically taken off the list.

Just throwing out some ideas here. Opinions?

[mormegil]

I'm noticing some fairly specific guidelines or rules being mentioned for specific roles. I would advise against this. The reason is each moderator has the liberty to define the roles as she/he sees fit. I think a rule such as:

Moderators must clearly define role, unless that is part of the game, in the admin thread and those roles will be followed. Specificity is a good thing here.