Jiu Jiu Jiu had a terrible record as a goodie, IIRC. I didn't have to, but I was prepared and confident to argue that my vote on Wagonlitz made me an unlikely Red, which is more you could say for JJJ.
-
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.
Also, to be fair, 4 of the first 6 players who voted against Jiu jiujiu were baddies. And she already had three votes on her before she did the outing.
I tend to tunnel super hard, and I guess I misread it and by the time I was second guessing myself it was too far back for me to want to go back to look up. I did back off that a bit later, but it was too late at that point.
Yeah it was mainly the votes on her already that made me not believe it. I've seen too many last ditch outings to buy one at that point, and thats an easy enough thing to get away with saying as a wolf. Being about to call out reis at the same time (knowing he's not in my pack at least) makes it seem like a safe lynch too because we get a wolf either way.
Despite my relatively early death, I had a lot of fun following along with this one. Guessing it was Avernite's idea to Blood-Eagle me? 
I do feel stupid for not having been able to secure protection for myself the night I was hunted.
I like that all 3 of Euro, LK, and Hax the people Wagon was allegedly saving day 1 were all goodies, and that Wagon could've TIEd the Priest and the Doctor day 1 if he didn't do his vote-switch to Ike.
The ending was vaguely PTSD inducing of course -- as many others have mentioned, the baddies being able to mess with the voting enough to allow outed baddies to survive on multiple occasions is probably less than ideal set up wise-- but many thanks to the Noble and Great-Souled Panzer Commader for hosting. Hope you had fun playing football with the Californian girl.
Poor
酒
酒
酒.
Hopefully she will forgive us. So her username is literally Wine Wine-Wine?
Shout-outs to Reis (even if those PL role claims were weak) for playing very well, and Tamius for staying alive for as long as she did.
I do feel stupid for not having been able to secure protection for myself the night I was hunted.
I like that all 3 of Euro, LK, and Hax the people Wagon was allegedly saving day 1 were all goodies, and that Wagon could've TIEd the Priest and the Doctor day 1 if he didn't do his vote-switch to Ike.
The ending was vaguely PTSD inducing of course -- as many others have mentioned, the baddies being able to mess with the voting enough to allow outed baddies to survive on multiple occasions is probably less than ideal set up wise-- but many thanks to the Noble and Great-Souled Panzer Commader for hosting. Hope you had fun playing football with the Californian girl.
Poor
酒
酒
酒.
Hopefully she will forgive us. So her username is literally Wine Wine-Wine?
Shout-outs to Reis (even if those PL role claims were weak) for playing very well, and Tamius for staying alive for as long as she did.
Not much to comment on that others haven't already said - Panzer shouldn't have allowed reis's liar claim (and I'm the one who told him that there's generally some leeway; you don't have to say the exact words "I'm a ____", but you should be reasonably explicit).
In hindsight, I probably should have suggested to Panzer that he turn one cultist per pack into a wolf; I don't like the endgame situations where all the cultists can jump ship like that and essentially combine the packs. Might have given the goodies a way back into the game for the packs to have a reason to fight.
Other than that, I think the village squandered its powers horribly and the baddies all used theirs to good effect. Which seeing who the wolves were, doesn't really surprise me too much. Some strong veteran players in that group. Still think the setup overall should have favored the village, as I told Panzer at game start, but the game isn't played in a vacuum.
In hindsight, I probably should have suggested to Panzer that he turn one cultist per pack into a wolf; I don't like the endgame situations where all the cultists can jump ship like that and essentially combine the packs. Might have given the goodies a way back into the game for the packs to have a reason to fight.
Other than that, I think the village squandered its powers horribly and the baddies all used theirs to good effect. Which seeing who the wolves were, doesn't really surprise me too much. Some strong veteran players in that group. Still think the setup overall should have favored the village, as I told Panzer at game start, but the game isn't played in a vacuum.
I for one really like the idea of voluntary guilds. It removes the problem of symmetrical set up from the GM, and it doesn't create an annoying scenario where people become hunt priority targets through no fault of their own. Obviously this is easy to do in pick point games, but harder to do in regular games, since you don't want a pack forming a guild with themselves.
A guild formation should have the following aspects to it:
1. Forming a guild should be able to be done without revealing the members of a guild.
2. Guild formation should not be able to be formed entirely by a single pack, at least not without severe consequences.
3. Despite rule 2, guild formation should not be able to clear people of being baddies.
For example, the rule, "A wolf should not be able to form a pack composed primarily of their packmates" cannot work, otherwise a JL could tell everyone to form guilds with different combinations of people, and the players unable to form guilds would be proven baddies.
My proposal is that guild formation should work like this:
Guilds must have at least 2 members alive and at least 2 votes to activate their powers. Guild formation must be done by at least three people, all PMing the GM in one PM thread that they want to form a guild with each other. If two or more members of the guild are part of the same pack, they will face significant consequences, e.g losing traits and gaining negative traits. These consequences will likely outweigh any benefits from the guild powers, but it baddies may want to form guilds anyway to pseudo-clear themselves.
A guild formation should have the following aspects to it:
1. Forming a guild should be able to be done without revealing the members of a guild.
2. Guild formation should not be able to be formed entirely by a single pack, at least not without severe consequences.
3. Despite rule 2, guild formation should not be able to clear people of being baddies.
For example, the rule, "A wolf should not be able to form a pack composed primarily of their packmates" cannot work, otherwise a JL could tell everyone to form guilds with different combinations of people, and the players unable to form guilds would be proven baddies.
My proposal is that guild formation should work like this:
Guilds must have at least 2 members alive and at least 2 votes to activate their powers. Guild formation must be done by at least three people, all PMing the GM in one PM thread that they want to form a guild with each other. If two or more members of the guild are part of the same pack, they will face significant consequences, e.g losing traits and gaining negative traits. These consequences will likely outweigh any benefits from the guild powers, but it baddies may want to form guilds anyway to pseudo-clear themselves.
Would you guys be cool if I shared really embarrassing IRL pictures of Panzer Commader?
I had nothing ti do with it.
tried to broaden it with my conman but the cloak blocked that part.
I think the game was fairly balanced if somewhat heavy on the traits but it was a Panzer game so I expected as much. Usually I prefer a game with a little less information floating around. So thanks for hosting an interesting game, Panzer!
As many have said, it's not good if the voting means nothing. Having one of Cloak, Innkeeper or Leader is fine by me. Like Panzer said if this had been a pick point game it would have been nice if there was some diversity in what you could pick.
The Liar's worst problem for me is when a goodie in a JL has it and he states "I'm <list of all roles>" every day. I prefer to give it to a baddie since then it can't be that obvious (=boring). But there is a fine balance as to how obsure you can be and still get your claim approved by the GM. I've been thinking of ways to limit a Captain Obvious Liar, maybe having an exposed Liar lose the trait? But then you'd have to have some way for people to not just spam the GM with 'I spot X as a Liar'... *sigh* Maybe have a cap on how many goodies / baddie spottings of liars each team can make? or have 'Liar spotter' as a one-time trait? That might actually work.
I really don't think we should try to standardize the rule set. Let the GM have some fun picking the rule parts and variants he/she likes and try to create different types of games.
Regarding Guilds I'm pretty neutral. But I echo the concern that the GM needs to make them more unpredictable. (I had one game where I had a goodie only guild that froze in inactivity because they were so afraid all the baddies in the guild would abuse their powers... And while that was unpredictable, it did no good for the game balance.)
As many have said, it's not good if the voting means nothing. Having one of Cloak, Innkeeper or Leader is fine by me. Like Panzer said if this had been a pick point game it would have been nice if there was some diversity in what you could pick.
The Liar's worst problem for me is when a goodie in a JL has it and he states "I'm <list of all roles>" every day. I prefer to give it to a baddie since then it can't be that obvious (=boring). But there is a fine balance as to how obsure you can be and still get your claim approved by the GM. I've been thinking of ways to limit a Captain Obvious Liar, maybe having an exposed Liar lose the trait? But then you'd have to have some way for people to not just spam the GM with 'I spot X as a Liar'... *sigh* Maybe have a cap on how many goodies / baddie spottings of liars each team can make? or have 'Liar spotter' as a one-time trait? That might actually work.
I really don't think we should try to standardize the rule set. Let the GM have some fun picking the rule parts and variants he/she likes and try to create different types of games.
Regarding Guilds I'm pretty neutral. But I echo the concern that the GM needs to make them more unpredictable. (I had one game where I had a goodie only guild that froze in inactivity because they were so afraid all the baddies in the guild would abuse their powers... And while that was unpredictable, it did no good for the game balance.)
Maybe have the people have to cite the same text the liar posts, and predict what the liar is going to be claiming? That way, you can't hide a liar by forcing everyone to claim a specific trait in thread. The baddies can quote everyone's claimed trait, and say they're all liars, to prevent the obvious lie effect.
Either that, or have it where if the liar is correctly predicted on what trait they're using, they are then stuck with that trait instead of the PL trait?
Either that, or have it where if the liar is correctly predicted on what trait they're using, they are then stuck with that trait instead of the PL trait?
Maybe some kind of penalty for incorrect guesses? Stuff like losing traits, or getting negative traits.
That would allow a PL to coordinate with another player to convert himself into having any trait he wants to have. This could be abused, especially if you keep the current rule of being allowed to claim roles as wel: the PL could basically turn himself into a second seer by lying a seer claim in the thread and telling another player to turn him in to GM. Or he could even switch sides by turning into a cultist with this method. Even if we disallow claiming roles there's still a couple of traits with repeated uses that could be situationally more useful than the PL to have.
Maybe if you're a PL caught claiming you don't get a claim that night?
Baddies can call out a town PL to maybe save time (or if its a sus town PL) and town gets rewarded for catching sus/wolf PLs. More incentive to not claim too, since it would mean you likely don't get more claims even if you don't get killed.
If anyone didn't already notice, new game's up.
@LebaneseChildSoldier, we're all very disappointed in you being such a tease.
@LebaneseChildSoldier, we're all very disappointed in you being such a tease.