Werewolf CXXVI - Werewolf Wagon Train

[Paendrag]

I dont know about all that, i like simple...Like me.

Lies...all lies..

[Paendrag]

In.

On a side note... Did I miss something. Have we scared away Kaetje and Rysz???

[Rendap]

What if one or both of the parties is faking it. Will you as the GM confirm/deny anything? Potentially if you respond to their PMs either to confirm or deny there is a chance this can be misused to verify certain claims.


In that case a baddie hunter is like an extra kill for the baddies without them having to work for it. I find it better to have the identity revealed. That way a baddie hunter would have to have some reasonable explanaition to why he killed someone. It can still be an extra kill but can't be used against really obvious goodies, like a self-outed seer etc.


Personally I find this role to be OK to have in the rules but not good to actually give to someone since it usually only makes one of the lynches a waste for the goodies. But then again I never really liked neutral roles.


Some people have issues with those lover rules. I don't.

Other than my head hurting from trying to understand them and a general feeling that everyone will have at least two roles or traits? No, I don't see any problems

I dont know about all that, i like simple...Like me.

If the hunter is sneaking around at night to shoot somebody, then it should be a 50/50 dice roll as to if he is seen..

I'll cover all 3 posts here.

With regards to confirming or denying - I will not affect the game. Therefore, I will only confirm receipt of the instruction, not whether a change have actually taken place.

The Hunter I am still in doubt about. It can be argued either way. If the hunter is revealed, it is indeed a valid information that can be used for both sides - But it can also be a cause for additional paranoia not to have it revealed. Take J-L's interpretation of this in The Revolting Revolution as example. I will keep this in mind, but probably not decide one way or the other before signup's close. My thoughts at the moment is that if we have few players I will reveal - If we have many, I'll keep hidden.

And as a general rule, I'll try to avoid too many percentile chances in the setup. I might have some, but in the Hunter case it will either be revealed or not. Not a 50/50 chance. The Hunter deserve to know before using the trait whether it will be revealed or not.

Personally, I like the Rival trait as it adds a bit more to the game.

The Lover is listed as it is, but that is the second area where I am in doubt of the exact wording. I have so far copied Kiwi's from the Murder Mystery, but whether I will change it or not before signups close, I still haven't decided.

And I can see that a rather valid information is missing, so I'll add it here as well: There will be Werewolves. There will be Villagers - All other roles and traits MAY be in the game.

Therefore Telesien, it is not certain that all have any traits or specific roles (except villager of course).

[reis91]

Hey, I got a complaint, this was advertized as simple WW, and then you go include a lover which breaks the game..

No lover please. Put roleblocker in if you want, but lover sucks (cue jonti).

As for hunter, I have a slight preference for revealed, but accessible to both baddies and goodies.

[snoopdogg]

Lover's a trait not a role, so they can't really become the JL spokesman right from the start. That said I actually kinda agree with Rice about it. Some small tweaking of it may be needed in games, like their power being every other night or something?

[johho888]

With regards to confirming or denying - I will not affect the game. Therefore, I will only confirm receipt of the instruction, not whether a change have actually taken place.

Good, this was the only thing I saw as potentially game breaking.

The Hunter I am still in doubt about. It can be argued either way. If the hunter is revealed, it is indeed a valid information that can be used for both sides - But it can also be a cause for additional paranoia not to have it revealed. Take J-L's interpretation of this in The Revolting Revolution as example. I will keep this in mind, but probably not decide one way or the other before signup's close. My thoughts at the moment is that if we have few players I will reveal - If we have many, I'll keep hidden.

Personally, I like the Rival trait as it adds a bit more to the game.

The Lover is listed as it is, but that is the second area where I am in doubt of the exact wording. I have so far copied Kiwi's from the Murder Mystery, but whether I will change it or not before signups close, I still haven't decided.

Fair enough, it's your game and these were more my preferences.

Hey, I got a complaint, this was advertized as simple WW, and then you go include a lover which breaks the game..

It's a pretty standard rule set though. Nothing we haven't tried before. It's not the simplest we've used but it's not all that complex either.

Those lover rules have been used many times and the only thing that broke it when you had it was the GM starting to mess with his own rules and thus confirming you were a goodie lover. Brutals can still take out an outed lover and if you think that is not enough then add the poison from last game. Since that worked in the day phase a lover can't hide from it.

Lover's a trait not a role, so they can't really become the JL spokesman right from the start. That said I actually kinda agree with Rice about it. Some small tweaking of it may be needed in games, like their power being every other night or something?

I like that!

[Paendrag]

I often wonder what happened to the masons.. That was fun having a confidant wich to speak to from the start.. Sometimes I wonder if the lovers should be masons that need both to survive to win..

[telesien]

Just out of curiousity: did you ever try a game with three sides that only one side can win? Something like villagers v. werewolves v. vampires?

[Paendrag]

Just out of curiousity: did you ever try a game with three sides that only one side can win? Something like villagers v. werewolves v. vampires?

I think we've even had four sides at one time.. But then we were 60+ players.. Ohh the spam..and spamiards..

[snoopdogg]

I don't think we've ever had significantly different 'types' of baddies though, if you mean in terms of what they could do. Not sure if I understand the question though. If you just mean different groups, most big games have had more than one wolf pack.

[Najs]

Just out of curiousity: did you ever try a game with three sides that only one side can win? Something like villagers v. werewolves v. vampires?

I think reis ran a game with a cultist faction in it that had to be created, after which the founding cultists could no longer win with wolves. I betrayed the cultist faction in glorious bloodshed...

[telesien]

I don't think we've ever had significantly different 'types' of baddies though, if you mean in terms of what they could do. Not sure if I understand the question though. If you just mean different groups, most big games have had more than one wolf pack.

Well different powers would be interesting, but I just had more sides in mind.

[reis91]

Johho, it doesn't change that it is still broken. If the only way you can kill someone, apart from the lynch, is by brutal/leader-lynch, which require special conditions, then it is still game-breaking.

Hunts are meant to kill people. They might not kill people sometimes, but that should be the exception, rather than the rule, as it happens with the lover trait.

[THE_SPLIT]

in

[Deaghaidh]

In direct contradiction to what I told Rendap just a moment ago, I'm in.

Specifically, I'm in as



The Hero of Canton, the man they call Jayne!

[Cakravarti]

I was actually thinking of being Mal Reynolds before I decided to play the lame ranger...

[Deaghaidh]

I was torn between Mal, Jayne and my personal favorite, Badger.

[Steed]

I was torn between Mal, Jayne and my personal favorite, Badger.

Im glad you chose Jayne, makes it sound better when im drunk and wake up with a Jayne instead of a Badger.

[Taiisatai64]

In as a Captive Indian

[Paendrag]

In as a Captive Indian

AHHHHH... Look look.. A baby eater...

*Wiggles away on his baby legs.. Real cute I might add.*