• 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.
EURO and you - not you on your own. ;)
EURO could sell snow to Inuits.

Anyway, everyone on that thread says it was good wolf play, you don't.
Fair enough.

That was me attempting some form of modesty. EURO died early, and provided me with a useful smokescreen to take advantage of.

Thank you enk. I learned alot of things this game.

Among those things, that Kiwi is fucking dangerous and that you are a clueless idiot. Good things to know.

Which only served to reinforce my position as an early hunt/scan. Thankfully, I don't give a damn about my win %.
 
That was me attempting some form of modesty. EURO died early, and provided me with a useful smokescreen to take advantage of.
Why the fark are you being modest?
thThis-Is-werewolf-Smile.gif
 
Would you ban:
"I am the seer. I scanned Olaus Petrus as a wolf. Tell that to the village! Tonight I will scan Ironhead 5."
but allow
"I really, really think Olaus Petrus is a wolf. But I can't tell that to the village myself. Could you do it for me, please? Tonight I will think really hard about Ironhead 5."

And how are you as a GM supposed to enforce what people say in PMs?

Its trust. I have to rely on you to police yourselves/each other.

First option is outright breaking of the rules and would result in an immediate WoG if I learnt of it.

Second option, depending on contents, would result in a warning, both privately and in thread, or a WoG.

You can't that's why it's a bad idea.

This is true, to a point, you can't enforce it. Hence you break the effectiveness of doing so. You guys are still having the calls for a JL made in your games. Those can't happen in mine, not only due to the no PM reveals, but also due to the roles, the balance and the play style required.

One thing you guys need to realise about the games that I am used to, is that they are a lot harder for the wolves. I see lites here with 2-3 wolves and a wolf-aligned player. I'm used to it being 2 wolves. In a large (~30) you have 6-8 wolf aligned, I would have 2-3.

The same way you enforce dead people not passing on information, or people not subbing if they know secret info. As for the exact arrangement, work was needed over the precise details in Taiisatai's game, but that doesn't make it impossible. I don't know the wording on pevergreen's rule set, but I'd want to see it before making conclusions.

I generally don't do subs, especially not from players that have already participated. It causes too much confusion. Add in the fact that you are still playing for your team victory after death, it can get messy. Plus, depending on the setup, alignment may not be revealed on death.
 
One thing you guys need to realise about the games that I am used to, is that they are a lot harder for the wolves. I see lites here with 2-3 wolves and a wolf-aligned player. I'm used to it being 2 wolves. In a large (~30) you have 6-8 wolf aligned, I would have 2-3.
I do not agree, less wolves make it harder for the village, since it will be harder to spot voting patterns.
 
Only possible if you claimed to be seer. That's been tried, and hasn't worked. More often than not it leads to dead wolves.

I know someone who was leaderlynched by someone that was convinced by a baddie claiming to be a scanner... and that baddie only died later due to a stupid wolf hunt.
 
One thing you guys need to realise about the games that I am used to, is that they are a lot harder for the wolves. I see lites here with 2-3 wolves and a wolf-aligned player. I'm used to it being 2 wolves. In a large (~30) you have 6-8 wolf aligned, I would have 2-3.

2 or 3 wolves in a 30-player game? Where, exactly, does skill come in in such a setup? There's hardly enough wolves for any sort of voting pattern to be made, let alone if they play with half a brain shared between themselves. This in turn leaves the village with little else to do but to make 99% random lynches.

This is a lottery, not a game of skill.
 
I was thinking of making it so that the thief could steal during the day, before the lynch took place. As it stands I've never seen a Thief work, and I'd find being one rather irksome: how are you meant to know who to steal from, and why bother? Okay, if the wolves seem to have the upper hand you could try to defect to their side, or if you're a wolf and losing pick anyone else to thieve from. But how do you pick a wolf? Granted analysis/intuition, but still. By allowing them to steal during the day they could steal from mouthpieces and outed wolves, which would greatly aid their ability to defect. A graverobber would be a more interesting role, allowing a person to steal the role of a dead player. But too much innovation is a bad thing. I've already put enough changes in with the leader, hunter, and padre I think.
Somewhere after this someone suggested thief only stole traits, not roles, and that I think is a great idea. I don't like things that makes the players able to pick which side they want to be on and if you can only steal the trait then you can't change side. Actually the thief should maybe swap whatever trait he has with what he finds? That way he could continue until he finds a set of traits he likes or until he gets caught and get whatever punishment that inflicts.

Graverobber I think is a really bad idea unless you play with pevergreen rules and dead players' roles aren't revealed at death.

Splitting the hunter into two different traits (hunter and one-eye open) seems like a harmless enough change.

Leader is just going back to an older set of leader we used before. There were some pros and cons as compared to the later versions but again I see no problem with this.

I can't find a "padre" in the rules. Did you remove that or did I just not look hard enough? (rule sets are made for skimming, not reading, yes?)
 
Somewhere after this someone suggested thief only stole traits, not roles, and that I think is a great idea. I don't like things that makes the players able to pick which side they want to be on and if you can only steal the trait then you can't change side. Actually the thief should maybe swap whatever trait he has with what he finds? That way he could continue until he finds a set of traits he likes or until he gets caught and get whatever punishment that inflicts.

I didn't end up implementing trait thief since I figured I had enough innovation already. I will throw one in (the balance sheet is 90% done but there's room for a tweak) if people are interested as it seems harmless.

Graverobber I think is a really bad idea unless you play with pevergreen rules and dead players' roles aren't revealed at death.

Fair enough. If graverobbers were locked to their original alignment they might be worth trying. Thus a villager graverobber could steal a seer role, or GA, or priest, et cetera. If this was just added on top of apprentices it would be bad for balance, but if apprentice numbers were limited to reflect the inclusion of a graverobber then it would become something akin to an apprentice to all goodie roles - with significant differences obviously. This role/trait has not and will not be implemented in any form in this game though.

Splitting the hunter into two different traits (hunter and one-eye open) seems like a harmless enough change.

It's been done before. I am avoiding % chance traits and roles. Plus it changes the equation on being a hunter: there's no longer an incentive to keep it.

Leader is just going back to an older set of leader we used before. There were some pros and cons as compared to the later versions but again I see no problem with this.

Interesting, the reaction I got in the Discussion thread was "Blasphemy!"

I can't find a "padre" in the rules. Did you remove that or did I just not look hard enough? (rule sets are made for skimming, not reading, yes?)

It's listed with the roles, under "Confessor". Padre was the name I originally coined in the Discussion thread - Confessor may be a better name. It replaces the Doctor. Instead of providing a % chance to save a victim, and then have their name revealed on the following night if the Doctor isn't killed in the interim, the padre is closer to a witness: the killer's name is revealed to the Padre on the night the attack takes place, but the victim is not saved. Obviously the Padre has to pick someone to target and only receive a name if the target is killed, unlike a witness. I cordially dislike % chances, so for this game I've removed all of them bar for Spiritually Attuned. This should mitigate "Ironman JL" since the Doctor cannot actually save someone, and that can be game changing. Doctor is a fine role, but this might reduce the strength of the JL, while providing more certainty. In Kiwi's Big the Doc got 2 names, IIRC, and that's just crippling for the wolves. Two no-hunts and 2 names changes parity immensely. The padre could be just as effective at destroying packs, but can't prevent deaths.
 
I didn't end up implementing trait thief since I figured I had enough innovation already. I will throw one in (the balance sheet is 90% done but there's room for a tweak) if people are interested as it seems harmless.
I didn't say it was harmless, I said I liked the twist to the old thief (which I didn't like at all).

Fair enough. If graverobbers were locked to their original alignment they might be worth trying. Thus a villager graverobber could steal a seer role, or GA, or priest, et cetera. If this was just added on top of apprentices it would be bad for balance, but if apprentice numbers were limited to reflect the inclusion of a graverobber then it would become something akin to an apprentice to all goodie roles - with significant differences obviously. This role/trait has not and will not be implemented in any form in this game though.
Not sure even removing apprentices would balance this.

It's been done before. I am avoiding % chance traits and roles. Plus it changes the equation on being a hunter: there's no longer an incentive to keep it.
The Arch Mede would be proud of you. Seems like a noble objective to me as well.

Interesting, the reaction I got in the Discussion thread was "Blasphemy!"
Really? Maybe I should reread the rules.

It's listed with the roles, under "Confessor". Padre was the name I originally coined in the Discussion thread - Confessor may be a better name. It replaces the Doctor. Instead of providing a % chance to save a victim, and then have their name revealed on the following night if the Doctor isn't killed in the interim, the padre is closer to a witness: the killer's name is revealed to the Padre on the night the attack takes place, but the victim is not saved. Obviously the Padre has to pick someone to target and only receive a name if the target is killed, unlike a witness. I cordially dislike % chances, so for this game I've removed all of them bar for Spiritually Attuned. This should mitigate "Ironman JL" since the Doctor cannot actually save someone, and that can be game changing. Doctor is a fine role, but this might reduce the strength of the JL, while providing more certainty. In Kiwi's Big the Doc got 2 names, IIRC, and that's just crippling for the wolves. Two no-hunts and 2 names changes parity immensely. The padre could be just as effective at destroying packs, but can't prevent deaths.
Ah, will be interesting to see how this plays out. Sounds like it could work.
 
Have we started yet? Because I got a PM from the GM the other day saying that I am the seer.