Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Werewolf General Planning Thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
reis91 said:
I found the first one a bit overrrated. The latest one, still haven't tried it.
Click to expand...

I've heard it's a lot more linear and generally was received worse, though I don't know, might still be my kind of game.

You see what I care most about in a game is the story and atmosphere, more so than the actual gameplay itself... I love games that have a beautiful world and that can make you immerse yourself in it, feel like you're a part of that.

And I feel like Amnesia does have that... Best played at night of course, it loses a lot of its charm when it's played during the day and you can't really connect with its dark atmosphere...

Though I may be impressed by it simply because I haven't really played many horror games before(I've tried The Lost Crown, some half-horror stuff like Second Sight or Resident Evil, but that's it)
 
Last edited:
Hax said:
Strange; I certainly was told I was cursed.
Click to expand...

Motion to ban Hax from the next two games. (Lite & Big)

Reason: Breaking ghost rules.

All in favor say Aye

All opposed Nay
 
EUROO7 said:
Motion to ban Hax from the next two games. (Lite & Big)

Reason: Breaking ghost rules.

All in favor say Aye

All opposed Nay
Click to expand...

Meeeh, I think it was more of a quip, but yeah, he deserves punishment.

Maybe just one big game though?
 
EUROO7 said:
Motion to ban Hax from the next two games. (Lite & Big)

Reason: Breaking ghost rules.

All in favor say Aye

All opposed Nay
Click to expand...

Did i not say he was the bringer of destruction to this game. The Demon Spawn shows his hand!
 
Nah, there's been much more blatant violations without much of a wrist slapping. I read that as attempt to joke and with mild ghost rules violation (assuming, of course, that what he said isn't true and it was just an attempt of jape).
 
Nay -3- Esemesas, Panzer Commader, Gen. Skobelev,
Yay -1- Adamus,
 
Nay

none of what hax did was rule breaking and if it was then wagon broke the same rule.
 
Really Euro, I don't understand you.

When I vote Hax on the first day of a game right after he caused the seer's death by one of his stunts, you as the GM give me "official warnings" (in the thread, and not even here). And now Hax makes a minor transgression of the ghost rules, and you go in here and put a vote to ban him for two games.
 
The motion fails.
 
Rysz said:
Really Euro, I don't understand you.

When I vote Hax on the first day of a game right after he caused the seer's death by one of his stunts, you as the GM give me "official warnings" (in the thread, and not even here). And now Hax makes a minor transgression of the ghost rules, and you go in here and put a vote to ban him for two games.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about EURO's "official warnings". They would have as much influence on my life as the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

EDIT: Though after thinking about it for more than 2 seconds I do think that saying out loud in Game B that you are meta-voting someone for something they did in Game A should not happen and should be discouraged. It is easy enough to come up with a "random" reason to vote for anyone. I would still put EURO's "official warnings" on the same shelf as my unicorn tail hairbrush.
 
sbr said:
I wouldn't worry about EURO's "official warnings". They would have as much influence on my life as the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
Click to expand...

YOUR ERFISHALLY WORNED!

Let this be a lesson to you youngsters out there. Don't ask me what the lesson is, I don't know.

EDIT:

sbr said:
EDIT: Though after thinking about it for more than 2 seconds I do think that saying out loud in Game B that you are meta-voting someone for something they did in Game A should not happen and should be discouraged. It is easy enough to come up with a "random" reason to vote for anyone. I would still put EURO's "official warnings" on the same shelf as my unicorn tail hairbrush.
Click to expand...

That was the reason for the first warning. The reason for the second warning was, I believe I wrote it down somewhere... ah, here it is: "whining"
 
Last edited:
sbr said:
I edited my post.
Click to expand...

That makes two of us.

Also, I hate people who edit.

EDIT: Just so I can have the last word (temporally speaking)
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;SYCD0_apblE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYCD0_apblE&feature=kp[/video]

Just seemed appropriate
 
sbr said:
I wouldn't worry about EURO's "official warnings". They would have as much influence on my life as the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

EDIT: Though after thinking about it for more than 2 seconds I do think that saying out loud in Game B that you are meta-voting someone for something they did in Game A should not happen and should be discouraged. It is easy enough to come up with a "random" reason to vote for anyone. I would still put EURO's "official warnings" on the same shelf as my unicorn tail hairbrush.
Click to expand...

Usually I would agree with you. But voting Hax the next day just to vote for him with a "random" reason was something that didn't make much sense, as it would (to me at least) seem worse and more fake. The problem is that Hax did ask the question but never bothered to respond when I (and other players) told him that his behaviour was harmful to the village. I didn't feel like he actually learned and/or was willing to change his behaviour that keeps (as shown in the current Big Lite game) being a danger for the village.

Therefore I wanted to press the message home once more by that vote in the next game. Coming up with a "random" reason would not serve that purpose.

Also I really do believe Hax is, every game again, a danger to the village, and I will (just as many other do, I even saw someone posting a PM from a previous game to prove something) use that knowledge to vote him more often than other players, especially on tie breaking and such.

The "whining" was not whining. It was simply going against an odd show of force by a GM that (I felt) was out of place. Should not have done in the thread during the game. Either here or after the game. I do not simply "surrender" and lie dead because someone tries to force another players behaviour by misusing his apparent power. If Euro percieves that as whining, that's his choice. For me it is simply explaining and defending myself.
 
Rysz said:
Usually I would agree with you. But voting Hax the next day just to vote for him with a "random" reason was something that didn't make much sense, as it would (to me at least) seem worse and more fake. The problem is that Hax did ask the question but never bothered to respond when I (and other players) told him that his behaviour was harmful to the village. I didn't feel like he actually learned and/or was willing to change his behaviour that keeps (as shown in the current Big Lite game) being a danger for the village.

Therefore I wanted to press the message home once more by that vote in the next game. Coming up with a "random" reason would not serve that purpose.
Click to expand...

For what is worth, even if the game is new I wouldn't consider voting for metareasons because of last game too bad thing if it's done on the first day only. Very often it is also the next vote the aggrieved person can cast against the offender since in the game where it happened the wronged party has usually died because of the stupidity.
 
Metavoting is ok. It is a fine thing to do. Just don't fucken say that's what you're doing when it's explicitly against the rules of the game you've agreed to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back