-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Thursday, February 25th 2021 At approximately 4PM CST / Friday, February 26th 2021 Midnight UTC. This downtime is estimated to last up to 2 hours.
-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
This thread is more than 5 months old.
It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.
Thoughts on how the game went: It had a good amount of deception and investigation, but the day went by too quickly for everyone to react to the deception and investigation. Also, the 24 hour night phase was too long- there was only one night order by Panzer, and he submitted it almost as soon as the night begun. For a future game, I'd want to implement these changes: Have the night phase end once every player has commented in thread, and give the extra time to the Day Phase. I'd also extend the Day Phase by an additional 24 hours, and have two deadlines. The first is just you have to comment before the deadline, and the second is the true game-end deadline. This would be to ensure no player could pretend to be busy and not reveal their role, giving wolves an advantage.
So the game schedule might look like this: Roles are handed out and game starts at 00:00 Sunday. Everyone comments by 05:00 Sunday, day phase begins. Everyone must comment by 00:00 Tuesday, so they have most of Sunday and all of Monday to make their first comment. The game ends at 00:00 Wednesday, votes are counted and winners are determined.
Second: I think I'd like to reduce the number of villagers in the next game. Villager isn't a bad role, it's good for balance and having some players not know what's going on/having some players pretend to not know what's going on is good. But it's not as fun getting to do nothing. I would replace the three villagers with a Minion, an Insomniac, and an Hunter.
1 Minion: Allied with wolves. Knows the identity of wolves, but wolves do not know his. It is not a wolf/minion loss if minion is lynched. If there are no werewolves, then at least one non-minion player must be lynched for the minion to win.
1 Insomniac: On the village team. Is told if they role was changed and what is was changed to in the night.
1 Hunter: On the village team. If the hunter is lynched, whomever he voted for is lynched as well.
Are there any player thoughts? Is there interest in another game?
So the game schedule might look like this: Roles are handed out and game starts at 00:00 Sunday. Everyone comments by 05:00 Sunday, day phase begins. Everyone must comment by 00:00 Tuesday, so they have most of Sunday and all of Monday to make their first comment. The game ends at 00:00 Wednesday, votes are counted and winners are determined.
Second: I think I'd like to reduce the number of villagers in the next game. Villager isn't a bad role, it's good for balance and having some players not know what's going on/having some players pretend to not know what's going on is good. But it's not as fun getting to do nothing. I would replace the three villagers with a Minion, an Insomniac, and an Hunter.
1 Minion: Allied with wolves. Knows the identity of wolves, but wolves do not know his. It is not a wolf/minion loss if minion is lynched. If there are no werewolves, then at least one non-minion player must be lynched for the minion to win.
1 Insomniac: On the village team. Is told if they role was changed and what is was changed to in the night.
1 Hunter: On the village team. If the hunter is lynched, whomever he voted for is lynched as well.
Are there any player thoughts? Is there interest in another game?
Yeah I was surprised by the number of villagers in your setup. In my circle we play with one at most usually (although we hate villagers role with a passion in both regular and one-night werewolf so might not be objective ^^)
A popular role we use a lot are the Twins (they have an RP name but I don't remember it and anyway the French name might be different). Village side but know each other, and if only one can look up a discarded role. A villager WW (so makes for some messy claims). Might need more players and roles to be able to use it without breaking balance ?
A popular role we use a lot are the Twins (they have an RP name but I don't remember it and anyway the French name might be different). Village side but know each other, and if only one can look up a discarded role. A villager WW (so makes for some messy claims). Might need more players and roles to be able to use it without breaking balance ?
Sorry Panzer. 
Anyway, my take on roles and stuff:
1) Less Villagers - I'd agree to 1-2 less villagers at this size, as I'd rather there be more for each individual player to do. In this game, there were two players who got stuck with nothing, and the one goodie who could do something wasn't believed by the information-less. If there's more special roles, there's more chaos.
2) More Players - AFAIK, One Night Ultimate Werewolf has no player cap, beyond running out of roles to provide. We could probably up the number of players to 7-8 max, and have room for those extra special roles without discarding the villagers, even. It'd be up to the individual GM of each game (I could GM, since I own this irl) to decide how many they'd want to do this with.
3) Time - At the very least, the day phase should be two days, I agree. There's so much information that's needed to be passed around in such a short time that everyone needs to be able to be around to get it and process it.
Ultimately (hah), I had fun, and would want to do this again, I think. Certainly a much shorter time commitment per game, and could probably draw in a few players who normally don't have time for a full game, but could make room for a few days for a bit of werewolf intrigue.
Anyway, my take on roles and stuff:
1) Less Villagers - I'd agree to 1-2 less villagers at this size, as I'd rather there be more for each individual player to do. In this game, there were two players who got stuck with nothing, and the one goodie who could do something wasn't believed by the information-less. If there's more special roles, there's more chaos.
2) More Players - AFAIK, One Night Ultimate Werewolf has no player cap, beyond running out of roles to provide. We could probably up the number of players to 7-8 max, and have room for those extra special roles without discarding the villagers, even. It'd be up to the individual GM of each game (I could GM, since I own this irl) to decide how many they'd want to do this with.
3) Time - At the very least, the day phase should be two days, I agree. There's so much information that's needed to be passed around in such a short time that everyone needs to be able to be around to get it and process it.
Ultimately (hah), I had fun, and would want to do this again, I think. Certainly a much shorter time commitment per game, and could probably draw in a few players who normally don't have time for a full game, but could make room for a few days for a bit of werewolf intrigue.
Masons are what they are here, states-side, which is confusing because in the regular game, a mason dies if they reveal their role, which is not the case in ONUW.
Also, maybe we could add the Tanner? Their goal is to die, in which case they win, and everyone else loses. It'd be nice to see how one would balance suspicious people with overly suspicious people.
Finally, returning to the game, had Panzer revealed what he did a bit earlier, I probably would've lost. Him being a packmate with Cymsdale was impossible, according to my previous statements. I had said there was only one wolf in the game, and had there been more time to let that play out, it would've become obvious Panzer couldn't have been defending Cymsdale, and was telling the truth.
.png){kind=avatar}
At the very least, it is equally fun and playable with any number of players. I double-checked my app for the game, and there are 16 role cards, so up to 13 can play with the base game rules and roles.
It wasn't so much of a problem of me not believing Panzer, it's just that his claim + game end both came while I was pulled away with work stuff. I do think villagers can do things and contribute, but not when important information is held back.
Good point. My knee-jerk reaction was that his was a panic move and so he couldn't have been a real seer, but obviously if someone had worked out what you just posted, I'd have concluded he was odd rather than bad.
I was just going off the default suggested roles and player numbers for first games for this first try. For future games, given that this is all online and not limited to cards, there are no upper limits really- hypothetically we could run a massive big with 60 players
There seems to be proponents for every role besides Doppleganger, Drunk, and Villager, so I'll probably just run multiple games with different set ups in the future.
Any comments on whether game threads should be reused? I wouldn't want to spam the forum with tons of 4 page short threads. Maybe have short tournaments where there are three game with the same set up and players for three game, then at the end of the tournament the people who won the most individual games are the true winners and a new thread will be started with new potential players and a new set up.
Although this forum is somewhat dead, there wouldn't be much crowded out by short 4 page threads.
Although this forum is somewhat dead, there wouldn't be much crowded out by short 4 page threads.
Sorry Panzer.
Anyway, my take on roles and stuff:
1) Less Villagers - I'd agree to 1-2 less villagers at this size, as I'd rather there be more for each individual player to do. In this game, there were two players who got stuck with nothing, and the one goodie who could do something wasn't believed by the information-less. If there's more special roles, there's more chaos.
2) More Players - AFAIK, One Night Ultimate Werewolf has no player cap, beyond running out of roles to provide. We could probably up the number of players to 7-8 max, and have room for those extra special roles without discarding the villagers, even. It'd be up to the individual GM of each game (I could GM, since I own this irl) to decide how many they'd want to do this with.
3) Time - At the very least, the day phase should be two days, I agree. There's so much information that's needed to be passed around in such a short time that everyone needs to be able to be around to get it and process it.
Ultimately (hah), I had fun, and would want to do this again, I think. Certainly a much shorter time commitment per game, and could probably draw in a few players who normally don't have time for a full game, but could make room for a few days for a bit of werewolf intrigue.
I'm pretty sure the first thing most people do is remove the villagers or only leave 1. Part of the fun is having something to do. From play at our college's board game club, going much above 10 gets weird. Also for time, instead of having a set deadline, perhaps discussion continues until at least half of all players have either made a vote or declined to vote and then a 24 hour deadline is started? That would mirror the RL game better where usually discussion continues until players are ready to vote. Also @jeray2000 if you want to expand beyond base, you can find most of the expansion rules online for free.
I was just going off the default suggested roles and player numbers for first games for this first try. For future games, given that this is all online and not limited to cards, there are no upper limits really- hypothetically we could run a massive big with 60 players
There seems to be proponents for every role besides Doppleganger, Drunk, and Villager, so I'll probably just run multiple games with different set ups in the future.
Doppleganger and Drunk are fun, I just like the other roles more and feel they are more balanced with a smaller group of players. If we go with more players, I'd like to see them added.
Alright so, thoughts! I liked this a lot actually. It feels exactly like it should: Like a condensed game of werewolf, with all of the excitement left in and all the boring parts cut out.
I do feel like I messed up quite a bit here. Well, the idea to pretend to have switched Alxeu's role was a good one, I still think so. Had I succeeded in finding someone who isn't his packmate instead of picking Alynkio, we might well have won I think. Even still, it allowed me to figure out who the wolves were. But I announced it too late and didn't follow up on it enough. For example I should have found and made the argument that Cymsdale and I can't be packmates. It's just that, remember the best friend/crush I asked out a few games back? We were kinda out together and she suggested watching a movie and I wasn't gonna say no and explain to her that it's because there's this forum game I'm playing and deadline falls in the middle of the movie So I was posting from inside and couldn't type a lot
I do feel like I messed up quite a bit here. Well, the idea to pretend to have switched Alxeu's role was a good one, I still think so. Had I succeeded in finding someone who isn't his packmate instead of picking Alynkio, we might well have won I think. Even still, it allowed me to figure out who the wolves were. But I announced it too late and didn't follow up on it enough. For example I should have found and made the argument that Cymsdale and I can't be packmates. It's just that, remember the best friend/crush I asked out a few games back? We were kinda out together and she suggested watching a movie and I wasn't gonna say no and explain to her that it's because there's this forum game I'm playing and deadline falls in the middle of the movie
So I was posting from inside and couldn't type a lot
STOP! COOKIE TIME