Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Werewolf CXX - Shipwrecked

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.
Falc said:
There's only one 'item' on the frontpage and that's the Cloak of Invisibility...
Click to expand...

It could also be a bottle of rum (see: Distiller trait), or a pair of dice (making it possible to "appeal to lady luck"), or perhaps it's even something representing some of those Pick Points that one could use to buy things off the pick list people got send at the start of the game ..

@Johho - will you inform the public what the elected person won, or is it a secret, for the recipient of the prize to tell?

edit: And to drift completely and utterly off-topic: I've considered a game that utilised "items" as a tradeable thing separate from traits, like EL's game once did. Things like guns without ammo (and someone else has the ammo), or bombs without detonators, or .. well, you catch my drift.
 
Last edited:
randakar said:
And to drift completely and utterly off-topic: I've considered a game that utilised "items" as a tradeable thing separate from traits, like EL's game once did. Things like guns without ammo (and someone else has the ammo), or bombs without detonators, or .. well, you catch my drift.
Click to expand...

I thought that failed utterly because nobody thought to trade items?

Not that it's a reason not to try again, just saying.
 
Vainglory said:
I thought that failed utterly because nobody thought to trade items?

Not that it's a reason not to try again, just saying.
Click to expand...

There weren't a lot of items in that game, and keeping them was too beneficial for people to give them away due to the turn protection / auto win that those items gave.

I don't think the way those items were implemented caused that game to fail though - too many people simply not playing is what caused that game to fail.

In this case, most of the items would be useless if not combined with someone elses items. That's why I talked about guns without ammo and bombs without detonators.

Also, there would be a "merchant" trait, that would only win the game if he/she is the person with the most money at the end of the game - and that player would hold some items, but have no money - and possibly a few others would have victory conditions like "You have to hold the diamond ring so you can propose to your girlfriend at the end of the game", or "Pacifist: you must acquire at least 3 weapons and NOT use them before the end of the game".

There's a lot of things you can do with this type of concept - it'd add a lot of "games within the game" - but I wasn't going to implement anything of the sort until I had a fair idea that I could actually run such a thing properly and get players for it ;-)
 
randakar said:
There weren't a lot of items in that game, and keeping them was too beneficial for people to give them away due to the turn protection / auto win that those items gave.

I don't think the way those items were implemented caused that game to fail though - too many people simply not playing is what caused that game to fail.

In this case, most of the items would be useless if not combined with someone elses items. That's why I talked about guns without ammo and bombs without detonators.

Also, there would be a "merchant" trait, that would only win the game if he/she is the person with the most money at the end of the game - and that player would hold some items, but have no money - and possibly a few others would have victory conditions like "You have to hold the diamond ring so you can propose to your girlfriend at the end of the game", or "Pacifist: you must acquire at least 3 weapons and NOT use them before the end of the game".

There's a lot of things you can do with this type of concept - it'd add a lot of "games within the game" - but I wasn't going to implement anything of the sort until I had a fair idea that I could actually run such a thing properly and get players for it ;-)
Click to expand...

It sounds interesting. It gets my vote.
 
Vainglory said:
It sounds interesting. It gets my vote.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, I'm not going to run a game again any time soon. My life is too unpredictable for that right now.
So if anyone would run this kind of thing, it's not going to be me.

And there are a few genuine concerns with this concept. GM micromanagement hell, is one. Unbalancing the game, another. Scaring away players who just want a simple game, a third.
 
randakar said:
Well, the thing is, I'm not going to run a game again any time soon. My life is too unpredictable for that right now.
So if anyone would run this kind of thing, it's not going to be me.

And there are a few genuine concerns with this concept. GM micromanagement hell, is one. Unbalancing the game, another. Scaring away players who just want a simple game, a third.
Click to expand...

If there's a GM who wants to micro he'll do it... if not... well then we'll have to wait for Randy's life to get back to normal :p

As for balance - games are UB all the time, who cares? Ciryandor blew the last game terribly - at least he tried something new.

And players generally play no matter what the ruleset is, then bitch afterwards. I know I do.
 
EL's game, while interesting (the basic premise was that the wolves at start were few, but as each night passed, the wolves's numbers increased, because every villager had a number of days before turning, influenced by roles and items), had a lot of flaws, namely in the item system, which can lead to a lot of problems.
 
Ah, my dear Madonna, your beauty is matched only by your intelligence.

Truly we are blessed to have such a ravishing woman among us.

Vote Yakman
 
reis91 said:
EL's game, while interesting (the basic premise was that the wolves at start were few, but as each night passed, the wolves's numbers increased, because every villager had a number of days before turning, influenced by roles and items), had a lot of flaws, namely in the item system, which can lead to a lot of problems.
Click to expand...

As an experiment the game worked perfectly. The flaws were pretty obvious.

The two items that were in there protected people against turning by adding a day to the time-until-turned counter. Villagers had no reason to let go of them, especially in my case, with the protectors on my side. (Which added yet more days to my time-until-turned counter). Then the fact that whoever held the cross at the deadline could not be a wolf - because it'd kill them - and that this item got back into the game if whoever held it died - meant that the village had a freebie scan roaming around the village.

The biggest problem however was with the automatic-turn-over-time thing itself. If you as a villager are likely going to turn to evil at some random point during the game, why would you put effort into finding wolves and killing them? So the village basically died off due to everyone going "meh".

However, none of these flaws are inherent to the idea of giving people items and allowing them to trade them.

Vainglory said:
If there's a GM who wants to micro he'll do it... if not... well then we'll have to wait for Randy's life to get back to normal :p
Click to expand...

That's the thing. It *is* normal. I just can't point at any time in the day that I'll predictably be online for 20+ days in a row and able to do the work of getting the game to something resembling an in-time deadline update. And if I can't do that, I can't run it.


Vainglory said:
As for balance - games are UB all the time, who cares? Ciryandor blew the last game terribly - at least he tried something new.

And players generally play no matter what the ruleset is, then bitch afterwards. I know I do.
Click to expand...

True .. :p
 
randakar said:
That's the thing. It *is* normal. I just can't point at any time in the day that I'll predictably be online for 20+ days in a row and able to do the work of getting the game to something resembling an in-time deadline update. And if I can't do that, I can't run it.
Click to expand...

I understand that entirely. From NYD to the first day of my Lite I was able to be online for hours at a stretch and any given time, then the first day of the Lite I had an emergency to attend to. Then of course from March 5 at the latest, or February 27th, I'll be back at university when it's too busy to GM a game. This Big should wrap up in time for the next to only just run into my first semester, hence why I'd like to be GM then. I can't imagine when I'd next be free to GM.
 
randakar said:
@Johho - will you inform the public what the elected person won, or is it a secret, for the recipient of the prize to tell?
Click to expand...
No, I will not inform the public. Same as I don't tell people which traits you have right now, if any.

@Falc: The winner will get one or more traits listed in The Rules, not necessarily the Cloak of Invisibility.
 
There's the necessity for good rules regarding item trading. There's also the problem it can pose to analyzers on both sides, being one more unknown factor, which possibly screws with plans and rewards blind luck/bad play...

Mind you, I'm not opposed to the idea per se, just saying that it needs to be carefully conditioned and limited (ie, not making the whole game based on items, and assure that they cannot have a stupidly high impact on the game)
 
I could probably run an item game. I have a bigger PM box room and haven't GMed in a while.
 
reis91 said:
There's the necessity for good rules regarding item trading. There's also the problem it can pose to analyzers on both sides, being one more unknown factor, which possibly screws with plans and rewards blind luck/bad play...

Mind you, I'm not opposed to the idea per se, just saying that it needs to be carefully conditioned and limited (ie, not making the whole game based on items, and assure that they cannot have a stupidly high impact on the game)
Click to expand...

+1 to all that sentiment

@ j-L

Oh, goody. You'll have to join the queue for GMing though.

... well, unless you hit all the other contenders with the banhammer and are the last man standing :p
 
Well, it looks like I'll be waiting a while before I can GM my Big... Have a theme already, though, and I'm sure I can think up some interesting new roles and traits as well. Maybe when Diplomacy is finished.
 
reis91 said:
There's the necessity for good rules regarding item trading. There's also the problem it can pose to analyzers on both sides, being one more unknown factor, which possibly screws with plans and rewards blind luck/bad play...
Click to expand...

Yes. But it can also help analysis, due to the question of "who gave what item to whom, and when" and similar considerations.
As for blind luck - well, there's always a blind luck factor in every game :p

reis91 said:
Mind you, I'm not opposed to the idea per se, just saying that it needs to be carefully conditioned and limited (ie, not making the whole game based on items, and assure that they cannot have a stupidly high impact on the game)
Click to expand...

If you put in traders and things like that the impact could be fairly significant, so I'm not sure that that bit of your request is entirely possible.

But I agree that it needs some pretty careful consideration, and probably a bit more discussion in the General Werewolf thread to preëmpt the most significant problems before they occur.

jacob-Lundgren said:
I could probably run an item game. I have a bigger PM box room and haven't GMed in a while.
Click to expand...

That'd be nice. :)


Vainglory said:
Oh, goody. You'll have to join the queue for GMing though.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a queue for who gets to GM the next game :D
 
Vote the cute wee little doggy
 
Randy: I said something a wolf would say? Madness!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back