WW General rules discussion

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I like this. One small change, though: I'll be the Supreme ModGod.

So long as you agree to act as my puppet and allow me to rule from the shadows.

But seriously, I think these are the two most important rules. The Great Commandments of Werewolf, if you will-

1) Mods should clearly define all roles and rules in his or her game.

2) Players should read (not skim, but R-E-A-D) the moderator's rules.

I've seen many times where doing those two things responsibly and carefully would have made play more enjoyable or prevented some sort of fiasco. If you don't have enough time in your schedule to read the rules, you should not be playing. I mean, geez, reading the rules is so basic. Sorry if I sound extreme on this, but in my opinion a player should be booted from the game and banned from the next if he acts in such a way that demonstrates he clearly did not read the rules (e.g. votes and then asks, "Do we have retractables?" or asks if there is a Cobbler in the game, or something similarly simple).

As far as enforcing rule number one, I think that would fall to Morm as the mod of this sub-forum, but I imagine he could privately contract Downers to keep an eye out for lists of rules that are incomplete, or clearly won't work for some reason, and these Downers could PM him and point out the problems they believe they have spotted and then Morm can send a PM and tell the Mod what needs to be fixed.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, I don't think we need a rule about how people should play. That's up to them, isn't it?

I understand your point, but no. People cannot play any way they wish, and they are not free to choose any side they wish. Deciding to act in a way that is against affiliation throws off the balance of the game that the Mod crafted via role assignments, not to mention it is no more proper to strip away small wins than it is to strip away overall wins. What I mean by that- let's say in a game of dueling wizards the Evil Wizard converts a player that used to be the Good Ranger, and the former Ranger knows the identity of the Seer and Hunter. I'm sorry, but that player despite any lingering feelings of affiliation must act in such a way that is true to his new role as a Wolf, which means he must completely switch sides and spill his guts to the Evil Wizard and rat out his former team mates.

From the Evil Wizard's view- his successful and by-the-rules conversion of a former gifted is a victory. Not the overall game final victory, but a small victory that was gained fairly and justly, and no one should be allowed to rob him of this (in this specific example, the new Wolf cannot just up and decide that it wouldn't be proper and sporting to give away his former companions).

If all of the players are posting and making votes and picks in such a way that assumes certain rules and behaviors, these rules and behaviors must be preserved in order to make the game legitimate. Coming up with strategies and such becomes completely pointless when you have zero assumptions to work with. And honestly, what are we trying to create here with these games- complete and total random chaos? That is no fun whatsoever for most people. The people who do enjoy such things- sorry, but I guess this isn't your place to have fun. To quote from a recent private discussion I had-

Sorry, but I've never seen it as my duty to welcome and ensure everyone has fun playing. That goal is impossible, as the way some people wish to play ruins it for everyone else. Everyone shouldn't play.

[Rikae]

Phantom - good to see someone else sees why it doesn't work to have players switching allegiances. You explained it very well, I think.
The problem is that this is a rule which can't really be enforced and is open to interpretation (but then, so is the meta-reasoning rule). Both are sort of what I would consider matters of good form vs. bad form; I disapprove of meta reasoning and that sort of "switching sides", but I'm not sure whether or not it merits an actual rule.
Anyway, I don't want to dominate this process too much. Some veteran (more so than I) players have expressed concerns about having rules, and the last thing I want to do is participate in forcing rules on people who don't want them. I was thinking primarily of getting newbies up to speed, not cramping people's style... I think I'd better back off, since I have the uncomfortable feeling that I may have caused the problem in the first place by complaining about Paranoia's modding. If most here feel things were going fine and there is no need for rules, they shouldn't have to have them.

[Mithalwen]

I do think a Glossary is sensible. And I have to admit that among the reasons I don't play anymore is that the games have become too complex and divorced from the rest of the forum with games without a notional connection to Tolkien and played by people who do not participate elsewhere.

I don't have time to follown the games usually but given that the catalyst of this discussion only had a small number of posts exclusively in WW, I would have to concede that there should be some restriction on who may mod.

I just feel that rules and committees are a bit "heavy", we will end up having to get SpM back to adjudicate. Maybe call them guidelines/advice? I would be sorry for responsibility for a game to be devolved from the mod to some committee.

Have a glossary by all means, and maybe a check list of things to consider when planning and then let the mod take the consequences.

[Blind Guardian]

as A noobie this Is a great idea. You come on the downs see a game and start playing. Then you ask a million questions in that game thread

I don't mind there being a 5/6 game restriction on modding. (Maybe also take a test to see how well you know the game and the rules?). I agree that mods should list all of the rules in the game (or admin) thread.

Okay that's all I got. Already I have learnt something that I didn't know nor ever thought about

[mormegil]

A few things and it echos with what a few others have said. I should have named this General Guidelines instead of rules. There are a few 'rules' that should be covered and these rules are hard and fast but in general I had hoped this would help the new players understand a little bit better what WW is all about and dip them into the culture. I think we could condense this list into more general terms as I've stated such as the Mod is responsible for the definition of roles etc... if secret twists apply that should be announced, that is that there may be some in the game...really Fea said it well enough.

I cannot believe we all missed this. To vote you need to have a ++ before the name of the candidate you are voting for.

I think a glossary of terms would be helpful and could be the third post and would eliminate some of the 'rules' here. I would rather see this as a kinder and more welcoming guideline to newcomers.

I think we need to keep it Tolkien related. The requirement was never dropped but as I said the enforcement of it has been very lax on my part and if the admins ever looked in on this again it may rankle them enough that talk of shutting down WW would occur. (It has in the past)

I think I had other things but I have a meeting I need to run to.

[Mithalwen]

I suppose it is hypocritical of me to agree that there should be a tolkien connection since my first two mod games didn't - however they were in the early days when the players were all primarily Downers rather than werewolfers.

Given that anything off topic is given short shrift elsewhere in the forum it jars rather when you see a host of unfamiliar players and a non-Tolkien themed game... I could understand it if the Admins did feel like that since they are providing a free venue to people who don't contribut to what is a Tolkien site. Of course there are keen werewolfers who do make contributions to the site as a whole and I'm not anti newcomers but it seems that werewolf has moved from being the social side of a serious site to being an end in itself and that is perhaps detrimental to the forum.

[Morsul the Dark]

I disagree... WW can draw people in who then contribute elsewhere... I notice there are other Downers who spend a great deal of time in the RPGs but not elsewhere... I think to get the clutter out of Mirth we could try settng up a seperate section...

I mean we'd be limiting creativity to a point. Now granted my game in itself was nowhere in Tolkien land... so I'm biased but why not do non-Tolkien games? I'm not saying make Books now include Glen Cook and Kafka discussions we're talking about one Small aspect of the site.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I disagree... WW can draw people in who then contribute elsewhere... I notice there are other Downers who spend a great deal of time in the RPGs but not elsewhere... I think to get the clutter out of Mirth we could try settng up a seperate section...

I can tell you from the impression I've had from the admins from past conversations is that that won't happen.

[mormegil]

By the way, if there is profanity of insults etc... I would like to be apprised of the situation. The insult if they are out of hand and need me to step in. But with profanity please point it out to me and I will edit the post and speak to the member.

Thanks

[Blind Guardian]

Originally Posted by mormegil

.

I cannot believe we all missed this. To vote you need to have a ++ before the name of the candidate you are voting for.

++Mormegil

You just have to explain to the new-comers like this:
Click the # button (found next to the php and quote options)
Erase the word 'CODE' and enter 'HIGHLIGHT' in its place
Hit Submit Reply


I think it would be easer to say highlighted and bolded. It is much easer to find, thus making tallying easer.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

++Mormegil

You just have to explain to the new-comers like this:
Click the # button (found next to the php and quote options)
Erase the word 'CODE' and enter 'HIGHLIGHT' in its place
Hit Submit Reply


I think it would be easer to say highlighted and bolded. It is much easer to find, thus making tallying easer.

Red is not a requirement but bolding is as well as the ++

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Red is not a requirement but bolding is as well as the ++

Personally I don't have a problem with the highlighting, as I can see how it would make it easier for a mod to quickly count votes. Perhaps that should just be an option reserved for the game mod to decide, with only the 2 plusses / bolding format being the general rule.

[Rikae]

One trouble with highlighting is that it makes it more difficult to vote quickly at deadline. Bolding takes one click, highlighting needs to be typed in, which can make a big difference in last-minute voting.
Definitely don't think it belongs in the general rules. We managed fine for how many years with just bolding? Highlighting is pretty new.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Rikae

One trouble with highlighting is that it makes it more difficult to vote quickly at deadline.

Everyone knows only wolves hold out their votes until DL.

As I said though, I don't think highlighting should be mandatory, but an available option to the individual mod.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Highlighting is pretty new.

I started it!

Because it made it so much vastly easier for me to tally votes in a game where days were double the length because of multiple voting processes that I decided the convenience to me as mod countered the length of time required by the players to do it.

But I believe it should be a mod decision, not a regulation. I require it in my games, but it's not like it's really all that important, is it?

[Blind Guardian]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I started it!

Because it made it so much vastly easier for me to tally votes in a game where days were double the length because of multiple voting processes that I decided the convenience to me as mod countered the length of time required by the players to do it.

But I believe it should be a mod decision, not a regulation. I require it in my games, but it's not like it's really all that important, is it?

Maybe it should be: if the game uses highlight they have to give a few extra minutes to do so. Instead of no more votes past deadline you get up until the mod says end. Since everyone post after deadline quickly anyways. Of course, unless mentioned by the mod otherwise.

[mormegil]

Highlighting is not a requirement in general but may be required by the individual mod. As such it is not needed to be included on our list here...now let's move on shall we?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tp

I understand your point, but no. People cannot play any way they wish, and they are not free to choose any side they wish. Deciding to act in a way that is against affiliation throws off the balance of the game that the Mod crafted via role assignments, not to mention it is no more proper to strip away small wins than it is to strip away overall wins. What I mean by that- let's say in a game of dueling wizards the Evil Wizard converts a player that used to be the Good Ranger, and the former Ranger knows the identity of the Seer and Hunter. I'm sorry, but that player despite any lingering feelings of affiliation must act in such a way that is true to his new role as a Wolf, which means he must completely switch sides and spill his guts to the Evil Wizard and rat out his former team mates.

Tp, playing against one's team carries an in-built penalty already: you're liable to lose. It's covered by the general "play-to-win" principle of any competitive game. I mean, if you really want, we can have a rule that says, "Don't try to lose on purpose" or something, but I think that's going into Captain Obvious territory.

[Nerwen]

Glossary (to be made a separate thread)

Bandwagon: A large number of votes for the same person.

Gifted: A player with special abilities. The term is usually only applied to good-aligned players. The standard gifted roles are Ranger, Seer and Hunter (q.v.) but others are possible.

Meta-reasoning: The practice of trying to deduce roles from factors outside the current game. This is frowned upon.

Reveal: To openly claim a special role, such as the Seer.

Throwaway: A vote which is highly unlikely to affect the outcome of the lynch.

Turning: The transformation of a Cursed Villager (q.v.) into a wolf.

Wolf-on-wolf: A tactic in which members of the wolf-pack accuse and even vote for one another, in order to make the survivor(s) look good.


Roles

Ordinary Villager ("ordo")
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: none.
Note: By default, all players are "supposed" to be ordinary villagers, though in reality some have other roles.

Werewolf
Alignment: Evil. Counts for the wolf-pack in the tally. Wins if the number of wolves becomes equal to that of innocent villagers. Special abilities: may pm other wolves at Night. May choose one player to kill each Night.

Seer
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to "Dream" each Night– this player's role is revealed to the Seer (with some exceptions).

Ranger
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to protect each Night– this player cannot be killed by the wolves. Note: typically, the Ranger may not protect the same person two Nights in a row.

Hunter
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to hunt each Night. If the Hunter is killed or lynched, this player will die also. Note: there are many versions of this role, however, the two standard ones are the Logical Hunter (kills target only if a wolf) and the Non-Logical Hunter (kills target regardless of role).

Cobbler
Alignment: Evil. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if number of wolves becomes equal to that of villagers. Special abilities: appears as ordo to the Seer. Note: typically, cobblers do not know the identity of the wolves.

Werebear
Alignment: Evil. Counts for neither team in the tally. Wins when everyone else is dead. Special abilities: May choose one player to kill each Night. Often has one or more extra special abilities.
Note: typically, though not always, gifted abilities work on the werebear just as on the wolves. The presence of a werebear changes the victory conditions for the other players, as they now have also to kill the bear in order to win.

Lovers
Alignment: Neutral/Good (usually). Count for the village in the tally (usually– see note). Win if both survive the game. Special abilities: may pm each other. Often the death of one will kill the other, or the survivor may be allowed a "revenge-kill". Note: there are many possible variants of Lovers; sometimes one or both has another role, which may be evil. Otherwise Lovers are generally assumed to play for the village, but this is not always the case.

Cursed Villager
Alignment: Variable. The Cursed is an ordinary villager who becomes a wolf if "turned" (attacked by Night).

Suggestions?

[Macalaure]

Just what came to mind, feel free to disagree and discard.


Glossary:

Analysis: The systematic investigation of a player, kill, or voting. Differs from a summary by being rich in observations, opinions, and conclusions.

Bolding of names: The practice of bolding all player names occurring in your post. Not a rule, but very common, since it improves a post's readability (and "skimability").

Day One: First Day of the game. Lacking the information provided by previous kills and lynches, Day One is regarded by many as random and not very useful. This is debated, however.

Known innocent/wolf/etc.: A player whose role has been revealed, usually by a known seer. Players with known roles frequently have quite a limited life expectancy.

Modfire: Ejection of a player from a game, usually due to prolonged absence.

Multiple Lynching: Happens when the mod rules that a voting tie is not broken. All players (sometimes limited to two) that received the maximum number of votes die.

Submarine: Quiet player who is overlooked by the majority.

Summary: Synopsis of information available about a certain player, kill, or voting. Differs from an analysis by missing the poster's individual opinions.

Under the radar: Player(s) that has/have largely escaped another player's attention.

Vote Count: A list of votes cast on a Day up to the point of posting.


Roles:

Assassin
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if number of wolves becomes equal to that of villagers. Special abilities: can kill another player, typically either once a Night/Day or once during the game at a time of the assassin's choosing.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Assassin
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if number of wolves becomes equal to that of villagers.

???

[Macalaure]

Oops.. copypasted without thinking.

Assassin
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: can kill another player, typically either once a Night/Day or once during the game at a time of the assassin's choosing.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mac

Under the radar: Player(s) that has/have largely escaped another player's attention.

Should we define "under the reindeer" as well, do you think?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I disagree... WW can draw people in who then contribute elsewhere... I notice there are other Downers who spend a great deal of time in the RPGs but not elsewhere... I think to get the clutter out of Mirth we could try settng up a seperate section...

.

You are entitled to disagree, and yes it could - but it doesn't seem to. I don't think anyone is spending a great deal of time in the RPGs Scarburg excepted (of which the mainstays are also fairly serious Werewolfers) ..I have finally given up trying to resurrect the Golden Perch. . I don't want to name names but I didn't make that statement without some checking. Of course it could be argued that we should make more effort with encouraging newcomers to post in Books or N&N or even Movies but the fact remains that many people come only to play werewolf. It is not a small part of the site by posts. Hey ho...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Something which has always peeved me is the ubiquity of so-called 'admin threads'. These are just a waste of forum space. There's nothing useful in an admin thread that can't be in the game thread or in the general Tol-in-Gaurhoth thread; the rest of the posts are people explaining that they can't play that afternoon because they are going to the dentist. Newsflash: no-one cares! This isn't your blog. If you'll be away and not back before deadline, just mention that in the game thread.

My suggestion is: to Mordor with admin threads!

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Meta-reasoning: The practice of trying to deduce roles from factors outside the current game. This is frowned upon.

[
Ranger
Alignment: Good. Counts for the village in the tally. Wins if wolves are eliminated. Special abilities: chooses a player to protect each Night– this player cannot be killed by the wolves. Note: typically, the Ranger may not protect the same person two Nights in a row.

I'm not sure we want to be so definitive on 'Meta-reasoning' and say it's universally frowned upon...I'm not sure it is.

We may want to clarify on the Ranger role that it is the 'protected player cannot die' not this player. When I first read it, it sounded like the Ranger cannot die. Just a clarification would help on that.

[Rikae]

I think the definition on meta-reasoning might be a bit too general, at least when it comes to the type that's frowned upon. Most of the time comparisons to a player's usual style in previous games is acceptable (at least, I was under the impression it was). I think it's more things that come from outside the world of werewolf game-play in general - references to real life, or to the supposed preferences of the mod, for instance - that are frowned upon. I'm not sure how to word this concisely enough for the glossary, though.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

My suggestion is: to Mordor with admin threads!

Ah well you can blame me for those. I had one because I didn't want the game thread cluttered with the trivia. However I admit that their usefulness was diminished when instead of say x, y and z signing up it turned into a chat thread about how X and y felt about z signing up and maybe a and b would if the game started before thursday whereas c and d could only play after friday and discussions of deadlines etc.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by morm

I'm not sure we want to be so definitive on 'Meta-reasoning' and say it's universally frowned upon...I'm not sure it is.

Something like that should be in there, though. Otherwise a newbie might read it and regard meta as a common and encouraged way of reasoning. "This is often frowned upon." instead?

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Something like that should be in there, though. Otherwise a newbie might read it and regard meta as a common and encouraged way of reasoning. "This is often frowned upon." instead?

Mac I tend to agree with what Rikae said about Meta Reasoning that there are times when it is perfectly reasonable to use. Perhaps a clarification as to not using outside events as suspicions etc...but in general when I've played with somebody a lot I will use those experiences to my benefit.

[satansaloser2005]

Quick goody two-shoes note. Morm, can I play language police? I've PM'd players (no names, of course) about their language in the past, but sometimes the request for respect can be met with....well, hostility to say the least, although most Downers are very gracious and admit their mistakes. I just feel so bad bothering you every time I see an inappropriate word, because you've got enough on your plate already.

Anyway....to Werewolf itself....

I think the Day we have to include "and don't sabotage your own side" in the tips for newbies section is the Day we've got to get rid of those newbies. It's common sense, or at least it should be. If you're going to Benedict Arnold your team that's your decision, and you'll have to live with the way those players treat you. It doesn't need to be in the rule book, however. I'm just sayin'.

Also, a lot of this should be left up to individual mods. Highlight, for instance, which I'll mention no more because Mormiekins said not to, are up to the person running each game. However, BG's suggestion of extra time for highlighted votes is rather absurd, to be honest. Put in your vote then highlight it; if your vote is IN before DL and I know you intended to highlight it and/or are in the process of doing so, I'll let it slide. Besides, allowing extra time creates too many problems.

Modding itself, then. I am strongly against anyone who has played less than a dozen games of Barrow-Downs Werewolf modding a game. Repeat, a dozen, if not more. Players may catch on to the game (dang it!) itself pretty quickly, but as someone else said, with the variety of games and rules and just plain atmosphere what with many different people playing, it's hard to get used to the feel of a game. In five or six games you'll get a basic understanding, but you're still a newbie at heart. (I say this because I've given a newbie pass to a couple of players past their fifth game just because I knew they didn't yet fit the BD WW culture and didn't want to hurt their feelings.) Thus, again, my proposition. Anyone who wishes to moderate a Werewolf game must have played in at least twelve games of Werewolf, specifically on the Barrow-Downs, and they must have a co-mod for their first game to prevent any unforeseen complications in general game play.

In fact, I think EVERYONE should have a co-mod, whether they're a newbie or a veteran. I'm not complaining, really, I'm not, because I love magic-modding games, but I've stepped in post-mortem at least twice this year to help run things because of complications or just plain understaffing. Everyone should have someone who's able to call DL in the event of their absence, be it the first Day lynch or someone who is officially designated as a co-mod. (That being said, it's a well-known fact that I don't mind being a co-mod after death and I'll be happy to do so for anyone who needs it.)

I've got to go eat supper now, but I'll be back later with more thoughts. For now, tell me what you think on what I've said so far.


P.S. I know there's a typo in here somewhere, so I'll fix it later and probably fiddle with formatting. But for now, at least I have chicken. ^_^

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by satansaloser2005

In fact, I think EVERYONE should have a co-mod, whether they're a newbie or a veteran.

Are you serious? This has almost never been necessary.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Are you serious? This has almost never been necessary.

I don't think it should be a requirement, no. I'm just saying it would be smart.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by satansaloser2005

I don't think it should be a requirement, no. I'm just saying it would be smart.

I think having an idea of a back up isn't a bad idea but there is certainly no need to make it a requirement.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I think the definition on meta-reasoning might be a bit too general, at least when it comes to the type that's frowned upon. Most of the time comparisons to a player's usual style in previous games is acceptable (at least, I was under the impression it was). I think it's more things that come from outside the world of werewolf game-play in general - references to real life, or to the supposed preferences of the mod, for instance - that are frowned upon. I'm not sure how to word this concisely enough for the glossary, though.

I was worried about that. Maybe I should give examples, and also say that it's ok to refer to a player's usual style?

[Morsul the Dark]

Really Sally "A Dozen" (If not more) minimum?

come on now. 3 or 4 would be fine.

It's absolutely insulting to think someone can't handle modding a game withou double digit games.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Really Sally "A Dozen" (If not more) minimum?

come on now. 3 or 4 would be fine.

It's absolutely insulting to think someone can't handle modding a game withou double digit games.

I stand by what I say. Game styles vary, so a player may not know how a "standard" game works, or they may misunderstand certain rules.

Possibly not a dozen, but certainly more than three or four. You can apply for modship whenever you like, but in order to mod a game you need to have experience. Experience to me is not the time at which people stop giving you a newbie pass. It's the point at which you properly understand the game. I don't think new people are incapable, just new. We were all new at one point, and I wouldn't have been able to mod after just a few games either.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by mormegil

I think having an idea of a back up isn't a bad idea but there is certainly no need to make it a requirement.

Certainly not. I just figured it'd be nice to put the suggestion out there, because having a co-mod makes everything that little bit easier. I'd have been lost without mine. *group hugs*

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by satansaloser2005

I stand by what I say. Game styles vary, so a player may not know how a "standard" game works, or they may misunderstand certain rules.

Possibly not a dozen, but certainly more than three or four. You can apply for modship whenever you like, but in order to mod a game you need to have experience. Experience to me is not the time at which people stop giving you a newbie pass. It's the point at which you properly understand the game. I don't think new people are incapable, just new. We were all new at one point, and I wouldn't have been able to mod after just a few games either.

To add to this, twelve games isn't really all that bad. Returning mods have to wait six months minimum between modding, so a first time mod need only wait the same amount of time as a veteran (assuming about two games a month).

[Morsul the Dark]

Actually don't first time mods get bumped up the list?