• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I had one with 4 Witnesses instead of a Seer, and I believe one where the Seer only had a 50% chance of getting a result.

Both stemmed from a feeling in the community at that time that the Seer weighed too much on the game: if he dies early, the wolves win, if he lasts, the village wins.


Neither was a disaster but sign-ups were slow and neither really stoked the community's enthusiasm, so they weren't repeated.

Well, in this case, I don't see those lites as reflecting poorly on your prospects for a big game. Lite are very formulaic, and that's great, but big games call for a certain level of creativity which I don't think we discourage, so long as it comes from a competent player instead of a noob who just wants to throw everything into the mix. I would consider you a seasoned player whose experience would lend itself well to creating an innovative game, and I'd be the first to sign up for your game.
 
I think the problem was we didn't trust anyone to be competent with hidden rules. The last GM who did it, as I recall, was Ironhead 5, and even that caused some controversy.
It went further than that. That was part of it, but there was also a definite idealogical opposition to the principle of it.
 
I had one with 4 Witnesses instead of a Seer, and I believe one where the Seer only had a 50% chance of getting a result.

Both stemmed from a feeling in the community at that time that the Seer weighed too much on the game: if he dies early, the wolves win, if he lasts, the village wins.


Neither was a disaster but sign-ups were slow and neither really stoked the community's enthusiasm, so they weren't repeated.

Signups have been very slow for standard Lites too sometimes. It could have also been bad time for hosting a Lite instead of opposition to the rules.
 
It went further than that. That was part of it, but there was also a definite idealogical opposition to the principle of it.

Yes, I recall the debate. I think what exacerbated the opposition to hidden rules was the climate at the time. As I remember it, we had a string of games where GM's kept some part of the roles or rules hidden, at times without informing the players that any hidden rules or roles existed.

Enough time has passed that I don't think a game where the existence of hidden roles/rules is revealed at the start would cause the upheaval it would have caused all those years ago.
 
Snip

So, what do people think? If you're dead set against this, feel free to say so. I'm sort of aiming for 25 players, I don't need that many, but there's no point in putting more effort into it if it looks like I might not even get half that. If you have any other remarks, do share them.

Yep, this forum is conservative enough. I'm quite the opposite. So if you do anything that breaks the current convention, then you certainly have a player in me willing to play.
 
Thanks for taking the time to clear things up and defuse the situation, EUROO7
 
Thanks for taking the time to clear things up and defuse the situation, EUROO7
This.

Hopefully Nautilu/SPLIT will agree if/when they return.
 
I think it was clear who caused the stir-up, but meh.
Thanks EURO for explaining everything.
 
So, I've had an idea in my head for a while now and if I don't actually speak up, it's never going to get anywhere.


I've had this idea for a game. It started off as just a Big game with a very special setup, but for various gameplay reasons I've had to move just a little bit beyond that. What I have now still looks a lot like Werewolf, but there are some differences in some areas, which you may or may not feel are crucial.

In short, some people would still call it Werewolf, others wouldn't. It all depends on how you define Werewolf.


You're probably wondering now just what those differences are.

Here we run into a little problem. I have come to believe that the experience of the game would be better if players went in without knowing all the rules. I believe that the uncertainty would add to the fun, in a way similar to the uncertainty of a Big game where you never know exactly what the setup is and how far or near you are to victory.

This doesn't mean you'll go in blind, of course. The basic rule of Werewolf remains: you need to vote someone every Day and you should really try to vote a baddie. Basic villagers will remain basic villagers and anyone who needs to know more will be told what he or she needs to know.

Because of this, I would prefer to keep at least part of the rules secret.


Now, I've been here long enough to know that this community is very, very wary of such unknown setups. My rules are actually quite simple and because of that, I do believe they are balanced and fair: every player will have pretty much the same chance of victory at the start of the game.

But I also know that my own Lites have been more on the experimental side and not always well received, so I will not expect you to trust me blindly. Instead, I know that there are long-time players around who, for various reasons, only play occasionally. I would therefore like to call on one or two of those veterans, to read over my rules and give me feedback. This would of course mean that, if they agree the rules are better kept secret, that they would not be allowed to play.


So, what do people think? If you're dead set against this, feel free to say so. I'm sort of aiming for 25 players, I don't need that many, but there's no point in putting more effort into it if it looks like I might not even get half that. If you have any other remarks, do share them.

So....Mafia?
 
So....Mafia?
I'll admit that this was my initial reaction as well, but with the shorter integrated day/night period, as well as non-majority vote.
 
So....Mafia?

No.

If you still want someone to give a quick second look over the rules, Falc, I'll do it, as I plan on sitting out on werewolf for at least a while. My comments will probably be on the concise side, though.

That is very appreciated. I'll do my best to actually get the ruleset written down as clearly as I can before the weekend.
 
Hm. Hadn't noticed that.
 
I have counted Murder as the Masquerade as a goodie win, since it appears like it was heading that way; on the other hand we never got a conclusion and now the thread is locked so should it count as abandoned since it never was completed?
 
I have counted Murder as the Masquerade as a goodie win, since it appears like it was heading that way; on the other hand we never got a conclusion and now the thread is locked so should it count as abandoned since it never was completed?

Relax and wait a bit. I rather doubt that the locking is permanent.

(Also, I want my win. :D)
 
Oh wow, that Lite escalated and badly, good call on asking Blade! to intervene immediately. Yeah, village win, congrats on the win since al-Aziz surrendered and I was scanned as I expected. And apologies for killing Euro, that was one thing I didn't want to do as I specifically told people. Ah well, I guess I shouldn't sign to games where I can't be around deadline as that cuts activity and all on my part.
 
A permaban from Lite games is a bit harsh though. I'm pretty sure we've seen worse offenses from people who never even got reprimanded, let alone banned like that.
That being said, perhaps times are changing..
 
Well, yeah, permaban from Lite is harsh. Then again, everybody should realise that if GM says something it's better to calm down and do as told. If GM needs to invoke moderator, it's a good bet the reprimand will be severe. Self-control and all that is much better alternative than being forced to bring in the authorities.

Anyways, what was said was way over the top. Sword-raping and all isn't nice thing to say. And it isn't the first time he has blown a fuse though it was by far the worst.