Well, technically that would be the game after mine
So I put you down as "possibly"
More realistically I suspect some of the other people in Season 4/5 will want to join, too. Getting 2-3 more people shouldn't be hard.
-
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.
Well, technically that would be the game after mine
So I put you down as "possibly"
More realistically I suspect some of the other people in Season 4/5 will want to join, too. Getting 2-3 more people shouldn't be hard.
AOK and someone else mentioned in the current game thread how the hate the brutal and leader traits. I share their hatred towards these roles: no matter how well you play, you can die in way you can't affect. Especially I hate it if you're the JL spokesperson. You know that someone is going to brutalize you or then some leader is going to convince the village to lynch you instead of the outed wolf/cultists. Which makes no sense at all! I've got a couple of ideas to mend these traits:
Brutal: If hunted at night, has 50% chance of taking one of the attacking wolves/hunter with him. (Or then remove the whole trait, it's pretty useless.)
Leader: Can persuade the village to lynch the person with the second-most votes instead of the person with the most votes. Cannot save himself. In case of a tie, can choose to save one of the lynchees. If there is a tie between two or more second-placed persons, can choose which one is lynched.
Thoughts?
Brutal: If hunted at night, has 50% chance of taking one of the attacking wolves/hunter with him. (Or then remove the whole trait, it's pretty useless.)
Leader: Can persuade the village to lynch the person with the second-most votes instead of the person with the most votes. Cannot save himself. In case of a tie, can choose to save one of the lynchees. If there is a tie between two or more second-placed persons, can choose which one is lynched.
Thoughts?
The thing with brutal is that in theory people could use the existance of that trait as a club, threatening people with death if they get voted.
The real problem with it is that it tends to be given to wolves a lot, causing it to be an immediate sign of wolvishness if anyone actually says they are brutal in the thread. Meaning that saying that is almost a death sentence now, instead of a way to convince the village to vote someone else. That is not it's intended purpose, I reckon.
As for the Leader trait - I haven't made up my mind on it one way or another yet.
The real problem with it is that it tends to be given to wolves a lot, causing it to be an immediate sign of wolvishness if anyone actually says they are brutal in the thread. Meaning that saying that is almost a death sentence now, instead of a way to convince the village to vote someone else. That is not it's intended purpose, I reckon.
As for the Leader trait - I haven't made up my mind on it one way or another yet.
I like the idea of limiting the leader trait so the leader can't pick just anyone to lynch.
The idea with the brutal trait as I see it is to give the baddies a chance to get at a too strong JL with both protectors still alive and to make sure the Paendrag seer strategy wouldn't work. (In a game Paendrag the seer scanned a wolf on Night 0, outed the wolf himself on Day 1, called for GA protection and said to all goodies to contact him Day 2 when he had proven himself. Luckily for the game - albeit not so much so for the seer - the outed wolf was a brutal one...)
The idea with the brutal trait as I see it is to give the baddies a chance to get at a too strong JL with both protectors still alive and to make sure the Paendrag seer strategy wouldn't work. (In a game Paendrag the seer scanned a wolf on Night 0, outed the wolf himself on Day 1, called for GA protection and said to all goodies to contact him Day 2 when he had proven himself. Luckily for the game - albeit not so much so for the seer - the outed wolf was a brutal one...)
I like Jopi's suggestions, though you can make the Brutal trait less picky for the wolf and more centered on the ones responsible for the killing by having the brutal wolf make up a priority list of brutal victims. Then when he is hunted or lynched the GM takes the first one on his priority list that voted on him or was in the pack that hunted him and that person gets brutallized.
I like Jopi's idea more, but it has one little problem. Sometimes it happens that the packs start hunting each other right at the start, and adding such a trait to that mix ensures a quick village victory.
I critisised the trait because, in it's current conception, it rewards baddies for being found.
First, as it was already asked, why only baddies?
Second, why being able to pick anyone, including people that didn't even vote him? RP-wise it makes little sense, as it's kind of a revenge trait. This suggestion, however, encourages strategies like unvoting near the deadline to avoid brutalizing, and those same strategies could also backfire pretty badly.
Third, and my suggestion for Brutal is, on the next hunt night after the wolf was lynched/hunted, the pack from whom it belonged gets a double hunt night. This way, people can defend themselves against brutal attacks (blessed, GA, doctor, etc), while at the same time avoiding random Seer killing. This would work for Brutal only on baddies, as it is ATM. If brutal was given to villagers too, perhaps (and Lemeard will scream with joy if this comes to pass) doing the same for next's day voting (killing the top two people, even if they're not tied). I'd call it Vengeance trait (desc. "You will be avenged").
Leader trait is also kinda meh. I'd scrape it, but it's up to the GM to decide whether to include it or not, and to make it balancedcough: Russian village :cough. I'll only contribute to the debate with the idea to have a Triumvirate instead of one Leader, and decide things via secret PM vote.
I critisised the trait because, in it's current conception, it rewards baddies for being found.
First, as it was already asked, why only baddies?
Second, why being able to pick anyone, including people that didn't even vote him? RP-wise it makes little sense, as it's kind of a revenge trait. This suggestion, however, encourages strategies like unvoting near the deadline to avoid brutalizing, and those same strategies could also backfire pretty badly.
Third, and my suggestion for Brutal is, on the next hunt night after the wolf was lynched/hunted, the pack from whom it belonged gets a double hunt night. This way, people can defend themselves against brutal attacks (blessed, GA, doctor, etc), while at the same time avoiding random Seer killing. This would work for Brutal only on baddies, as it is ATM. If brutal was given to villagers too, perhaps (and Lemeard will scream with joy if this comes to pass) doing the same for next's day voting (killing the top two people, even if they're not tied). I'd call it Vengeance trait (desc. "You will be avenged").
Leader trait is also kinda meh. I'd scrape it, but it's up to the GM to decide whether to include it or not, and to make it balanced
cough: Russian village :cough. I'll only contribute to the debate with the idea to have a Triumvirate instead of one Leader, and decide things via secret PM vote.
Last edited:
Being JL spokesman is supposed to be dangerous and difficult. Having an invicible JL give lynch targets day in day out is not only frustrating for wolves (been there) but also makes for a dull game. Occasional brutal is nice counter to that and I don't see why we should suddenly be changing/removing traits that were in game practically from the beginning.
Brutal is fine as it is and makes sense. It doesn't reward someone for being found, that is crazy talk as they DIE themselves. It is also a very good weapon the wolves have and the only way to bring people down sometimes as well as a little chaos element to the game. Spreading it around more players so it isn't so associated with the baddies makes more sense as opposed weakened or killing the trait. And the using it as a club...we have had HOW many games and that is not a problem? Some handful of players complaining about a role/trait that is this old is not cause to change it. Not everyone goes willingly to be hanged you know if they can help it...
They will if it means saving someone more important. If I was a brutal cultist, and a Wolf was about to be lynched by the village (without having been scanned), I would draw attention to me and get me lynched, while brutalizing who I'd suspect to be the Seer, giving the Wolf one more night of hunt. And sometimes baddies do sacrifice themselves for tying lot of villagers.
Imagine a 3/4-way TIE with one wolf/cultist and 2/3 possible goodie roles. Brutal makes it 1 wolf/cultist and 3/4 possible goodie roles. If one of those hits a seer or a priest, it's already a decent exchange. If two of them hit... village is in trouble.
Also, being old is not a plausible argument, Jacob. Death sentence was an old tradition, and we should be glad it's been abolished in most civilized areas (and I hesitate to call the others civilized).
Also, Raczinsky, if you had read my idea, it would still make the game unpredictable, it just gives wolves a little more trouble. And wolves shouldn't be able to kill anyone without restriction without first having worked for it (getting rid of GA/Medic's, destroying the JL, etc...).
Brutal trait currently does that. There isn't anything that can be done to counter Brutal (in some situations though, you can goodie-hunt a wolf, but it's a one-time thing, same with full once-per-game scans which reveal traits), especially since you're going to have to kill him to win. That's the real problem, to make it not a free bonus for being outed, we would have to give others the ability to counter Brutal-killing.
Imagine a 3/4-way TIE with one wolf/cultist and 2/3 possible goodie roles. Brutal makes it 1 wolf/cultist and 3/4 possible goodie roles. If one of those hits a seer or a priest, it's already a decent exchange. If two of them hit... village is in trouble.
Also, being old is not a plausible argument, Jacob. Death sentence was an old tradition, and we should be glad it's been abolished in most civilized areas (and I hesitate to call the others civilized).
Also, Raczinsky, if you had read my idea, it would still make the game unpredictable, it just gives wolves a little more trouble. And wolves shouldn't be able to kill anyone without restriction without first having worked for it (getting rid of GA/Medic's, destroying the JL, etc...).
Brutal trait currently does that. There isn't anything that can be done to counter Brutal (in some situations though, you can goodie-hunt a wolf, but it's a one-time thing, same with full once-per-game scans which reveal traits), especially since you're going to have to kill him to win. That's the real problem, to make it not a free bonus for being outed, we would have to give others the ability to counter Brutal-killing.
I have an idea....lets wussify the game further by taking out cursed, village has no counter to it...oh and lets eliminate the cultist so the seer doesn't accidentally scan a cultist and give themselves away in a need to out someone. While we are at it, knock off traits, unfair to those without them and unbalance some games. And seers...why should wolves by scannable and hanged by random dumb luck and not having been caught by a clever person. Oh and last one, wolves...how unfair. Villagers can't kill someone at night and the only proper solution is to take wolves out.
You're still not arguing properly , but I will.
Cursed is important, to assure the JL can't be really open without any risk. By including Cursed, you're forcing the JL to rely on proxies and compartmentalizing info.
Cultists are important, to diversify scan types and making coordination between goodies necessary, and giving baddies ways to screw with JL.
I don't think I have to go on, seriously, but the main point here is "How do we want to set conditions for the JL."
Now, Brutal and Leader are counterparts, so removing both won't drastically change that balance. You might argue it takes diversity and unpredictability off the game, but my idea for Brutal still keeps that unpredictability, and also adds to the diversity, by not having two so similar traits. I can't guarantee it to be balanced without field tests, but in theory, I don't see why it shouldn't work.
, but I will. Cursed is important, to assure the JL can't be really open without any risk. By including Cursed, you're forcing the JL to rely on proxies and compartmentalizing info.
Cultists are important, to diversify scan types and making coordination between goodies necessary, and giving baddies ways to screw with JL.
I don't think I have to go on, seriously, but the main point here is "How do we want to set conditions for the JL."
Now, Brutal and Leader are counterparts, so removing both won't drastically change that balance. You might argue it takes diversity and unpredictability off the game, but my idea for Brutal still keeps that unpredictability, and also adds to the diversity, by not having two so similar traits. I can't guarantee it to be balanced without field tests, but in theory, I don't see why it shouldn't work.
"brutal" is needed or else what is to stop a JL if it forms when both doc and GA is alive? You could even get a seer as JL spokesperson and a JL forming around him on day 2.
Insta-JL is a game killer. The game is no fun for villagers how only get to follow a JL spokesperson or for the baddies who must blindly try to hit the GA/doc before they can even attempt to get at the JL spokesperson or the seer (in the lucky event the sorcerer has found him and hooked up with the wolves).
How about a counter idea then. We learn what a person is on their death, so people can be certain that Seer is telling the truth. What if this was hidden? So people don't know what role the person had when they where killed. Only the wolfs know for certain when a wolf dies, and a wolf can pull a fake seer gambit that way, making it so that if a seer tries to do an invincable J-L on day 2, it does not work as the wolfs could call him out.
Personally, I would shelve both the brutal trait and the GA role. I hate the GA role too.
That solves the problem of insta-unkillable JL, and makes the game more about the players and not about roles and traits.
But then again, I guess thats why I spent most of my career in Lite.
That solves the problem of insta-unkillable JL, and makes the game more about the players and not about roles and traits.
But then again, I guess thats why I spent most of my career in Lite.
That could work but you would also kill off a lot of the vote analysis so the game could be pretty dull from a villager point of view.
I think we had a game where some (not all) players had a trait that made their roles not appear when they were killed (either we never got to know or there was some delay involved). Don't recall how well that worked but since we don't use it anymore maybe there was some flaw to the idea?
That would work.
Personally I like the diversity of roles and trais in the Big game so I would rather keep them.
I was matching the quality of my argument to yours.You're still not arguing properly
Cursed is important, to assure the JL can't be really open without any risk. By including Cursed, you're forcing the JL to rely on proxies and compartmentalizing info.
Cultists are important, to diversify scan types and making coordination between goodies necessary, and giving baddies ways to screw with JL.
I don't think I have to go on, seriously, but the main point here is "How do we want to set conditions for the JL."
Now, Brutal and Leader are counterparts, so removing both won't drastically change that balance. You might argue it takes diversity and unpredictability off the game, but my idea for Brutal still keeps that unpredictability, and also adds to the diversity, by not having two so similar traits. I can't guarantee it to be balanced without field tests, but in theory, I don't see why it shouldn't work.
You would still have priests, culties, turned wolves, sorcs, lovers, ect. Plenty of excitment. I would also make the Spy trait a permanent addition. I found that trait fascinating and a worthwhile addition when it is done right. There was one version of the Spy that was absolutely brilliant. From I5's Chaos on Monster Island:
Of all of I5 machinations, that was the one we should keep. It was lovely. Having goodie and baddie spies (its a trait, not a role. Give one cultist this trait. And a villager or two.) would add tons of paranoia and excitement, but without the insta-kill childishness of the brutal/leader traits.
Last edited:
I liked the spy trait too. But it requires a GM that can handle it.
The spy is worth maybe 50-75% of a scanner so to not get a game where everyone is a scanner and the baddies have no chance you'd have to have maybe 3 goodie spys but no priest/seer, 1 seer and 1 goodie spy or 1 priest and 2 goodie spies. Similarily having a baddie spy in each pack would replace the sorcerer.
Also the clues must be difficult but not impossible and the GM needs to be able to vary them so "he has a hidden agenda" doesn't necessarily mean "cultist" because the last spy result that said so was on a cultist.
The spy is worth maybe 50-75% of a scanner so to not get a game where everyone is a scanner and the baddies have no chance you'd have to have maybe 3 goodie spys but no priest/seer, 1 seer and 1 goodie spy or 1 priest and 2 goodie spies. Similarily having a baddie spy in each pack would replace the sorcerer.
Also the clues must be difficult but not impossible and the GM needs to be able to vary them so "he has a hidden agenda" doesn't necessarily mean "cultist" because the last spy result that said so was on a cultist.