-
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.
If all wolves die the game ends; the cultists can't win, and it would just be arse if I let the game continue so that cultists could attempt a stalemate.
I suppose I could change it so that cultists can win if they eliminate all wolves and achieve parity, but that sounds like a recipe for disaster.
If I made it so that cultists don't count for parity for the other (or any) pack(s) then it makes it harder for baddies to reach parity. Let's say we get 30 players, and I made it 3 wolves + 1 cultist per pack and 1 sorcerer unaffiliated with anyone. If a pack lost 1 wolf, and its cultist, but eliminated the other pack, but the cultist and sorc were alive, parity is 4 instead of 2 or 3. It makes it easier to reach parity once you've smashed the other pack if baddies boost the count, and that I feel is helpful for balance.
And of course if cultists aren't stuck with one pack and can win with either then the pack just keeps them in the dark. As GM I could start the game by telling the cultists the names of everyone in their pack, which would make keeping them in the dark pointless, but then GMs doing that has motivated people to lynch their own cultists early in the game to get cred and eliminate the guy who might sell them all out. Cultists who can win with either pack is like having a guy in the justice league that everyone knows is cursed.
I for one think that the whole 'counting for parity' boost that you're giving won't help much if said cultist can just go in the thread .. "oh bummer, I'm all alone now.. fine. Seppuku time. I'm a baddie! Please hang me!"
Or simply stop playing altogether.
I think that once you've lost, you've lost. No sense making you count for one of the other teams, even if it may help balance a little.
In my personal ruleset cultists can send in hunt orders just like wolves, and can continue on their own without wolves if necessecary. In effect, they are wolves, but they scan differently.
And I still believe that that is the most elegant way to do this.
Either way, it's your game, and I don't mind trying something new.
I have considered that cultists as wolves that scan differently is an idea, although I had forgotten the details of your cultists. Ultimately I rejected it. I prefer cultists to be distinct from wolves.
Well I guess we'll see whether people hang themselves. In The Airport Kingepyon pulled out all the stops so that Onur Air could win, even though he was TuiFly, and in my experience that's not too uncommon. It depends on how the game has played out and the person involved. If the packs have been bloodletting one another it's less likely, but if not there's often cooperation.
That sounds like a former player...?
The Demon Lord was an "innovation" in one of the first games I played.
He couldn't be killed, not lynched, not ate, not brutalised - but he couldn't win unless we were all tainted by him and we couldn't win while he was alive :/
The game ended when we rebelled and declared victory.
He couldn't be killed, not lynched, not ate, not brutalised - but he couldn't win unless we were all tainted by him and we couldn't win while he was alive :/
The game ended when we rebelled and declared victory.
Err.
How was the village supposed to win against him?
You just all agreed the rules were stupid and decided to overthrow them or something?
Well he was supposed to taint us all - the only possible result was Demon Lord win - but we got fed up with waiting for that shiz and told the GM (Jinnai) to get stuffed. AOK wrote a victory update and that was that - even though the GM was not impressed.Err.
How was the village supposed to win against him?
You just all agreed the rules were stupid and decided to overthrow them or something?
Well he was supposed to taint us all - the only possible result was Demon Lord win - but we got fed up with waiting for that shiz and told the GM (Jinnai) to get stuffed. AOK wrote a victory update and that was that - even though the GM was not impressed.
Good for you.
Even better if the Demon Lord didn't actually win
Was the GM an idiot or an asshole? Did he not realize the only possible result was a demon lord win, or was he an asshole who intended that outcome?
It seems like back in the day WW had a lot of games that were less good roles vs evil roles, and more players vs bizarre mechanics.
It seems like back in the day WW had a lot of games that were less good roles vs evil roles, and more players vs bizarre mechanics.
He was both imo, and he had never GMed before IIRC.
We did have worse GMs though - Gonzo and someone with a long name. Oh and Mr Sticky Carthade
Jinnai was a very different GM. He often had some brilliant ideas mixed with some really stupid ideas but also he was terrible at executing his games. He hosted a couple of games and not everyone was a disaster. The Cursed Mist for example was pretty OK and still had some novel ideas IIRC. Some of the roles and traits we still used today were invented (or at least introduced at this forum) by him.
The Gonzo was much worse than Jinnai and Zuckergußgebäck (I think he is the one jonti is taking about) had one of the most stupid setup of all times with something like 49% baddies in one single pack against 51% goodies. That game ended very fast. Also he put up his game in parallel with some other game and almost got us banned from the OT subforum were we played at the time. The Gonzo's The Werenuts of Lupin Hill games were also very flawed, especially #2 IIRC.
He had some good ideas but like you say he cocked up the running and wouldn't take any advice at all.
Gonzo was just a merchant banker and yeah i did mean that Zucker guy.
Maybe we should try to get him back here (Z that is) so we can have a Swedish Werewolf Mafia.
