I dont know about all that, i like simple...Like me.
Lies...all lies..
I dont know about all that, i like simple...Like me.
In.
[video=youtube;qt6iEGzLPjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6iEGzLPjg[/video]
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..
Good, this was the only thing I saw as potentially game breaking.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.
Fair enough, it's your game and these were more my preferences.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.
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.Hey, I got a complaint, this was advertized as simple WW, and then you go include a lover which breaks the game..
I like that!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?
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?
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?
Well different powers would be interesting, but I just had more sides in mind.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.
I was torn between Mal, Jayne and my personal favorite, Badger.
In as a Captive Indian