Werewolf FAQ, Strategy Tips, and Helpful Information

  • 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.
I suppose this means more for GMs, but I'll ask anyway out of curiosity.

What combinations of traits/roles are broken and should never be used? Put another way, is there any relatively common configuration that is heavily biased towards one side?
 
I suppose this means more for GMs, but I'll ask anyway out of curiosity.

What combinations of traits/roles are broken and should never be used? Put another way, is there any relatively common configuration that is heavily biased towards one side?
The general consensus is to never use these:

Knight in Shining Armour
Damsel in Distress
(personal) Innkeeper
Lovers
Rivals
Caliphate (Yeah Jerman!)
 
The general consensus is to never use these:

Knight in Shining Armour
Damsel in Distress
(personal) Innkeeper
Lovers
Rivals
Caliphate (Yeah Jerman!)
When did Rivals get lumped in with Lovers and the KiSA/DiD combo?
 
When did Rivals get lumped in with Lovers and the KiSA/DiD combo?
Marty's explanation hits it better than I could ever say it

I've talked long about this before and the long and short of it is, that this is why the Rival role should be discontinued and indeed I have not used it. The whole point of rivals is to turn people in their own side against each other. If people decide to ignore that and work together, that means you have two people who often can guess they're on the same side, and instead of balancing against one side it turns into a massive boon to their side. It also means that people are actually ignoring victory conditions and literally playing to lose. And then you get people saying that rivals who ''played really well'' (read; ignored rules, worked with rival and didn't try to kill them thus completely gaming the system) should be allowed to win even though both were still alive. Which can't happen because you can't just set down victory conditions and then ignore them precisely because players ignored those victory conditions to gain an advantage.
 
I don't see the problem with having Rivals; changing the rules to allow more people to win is a problem, though. You can, believe it or not, have Rivals and still enforce the rules.

In my first ever Werewolf game I was rivals with Teep. IIRC we were both vanillagers, and it was rather interesting. Then again, that game had some weird stuff like cursed wolves, so perhaps it's not the best example. :p
 
The Buddy role is also broken, because it allows players to pick what side they want to be on.
Only when it has the last surviving member switch sides. The Lite variant where it's just villagers who know each other are villagers isn't broken.
 
Only when it has the last surviving member switch sides. The Lite variant where it's just villagers who know each other are villagers isn't broken.
Yeah that's what I meant, but forgot to make clear.
 
Yes! I got a mention despite having basically not played for a year! Go me!

... yes i'll update the winlists this weekend and then disappear again.
 
Yes! I got a mention despite having basically not played for a year! Go me!

... yes i'll update the winlists this weekend and then disappear again.
But we miss your lovely spamming!
 
Do you think it's a good idea to include very specific player related terms like "ananas" or "floper", which are extremely rarely (ever?) used in the list of werewolf terminology?
 
Do you think it's a good idea to include very specific player related terms like "ananas" or "floper", which are extremely rarely (ever?) used in the list of werewolf terminology?
I agree. I've been playing Lites since last September, and here (and the previous version) is the only place I've ever seen it.
 
They are artifacts of werewolf games past and should remain there.
 
Ah, those terms brings some fond memories from a long time ago.
 
I'm not completely sure what the Innkeeper trait does.
 
I'm not completely sure what the Innkeeper trait does.

The Rules said:
Upon declaring his intention to the GM to use this trait, all votes on the holder will not count, and the holder's vote will not count either. After this trait is used, it is lost. An innkeeper using his trait will have his role revealed in the update.

So if A is an innkeeper, a votecount might go from:

A (5): B [101], C [102], D [103], E [104], F [105], G [106]

G (2): H [107], A [108]

J (1): K [109]
K (1): J [110]
B (1): L [111]

to

A (0): B [101], C [102], D [103], E [104], F [105], G [106]

G (1): H [107], A [108]
J (1): K [109]
K (1): J [110]
B (1): L [111]

and B, G, J and K are lynched in a tie.
 
Oh! I thought it was the same as the leader, thanks!