@marty: Those all seems like good objectives. But it's easier said than done to make all that or even most of that happen. Best of luck to you if you do give it a go.
Oh, I know it sounds ambitious. But the methods I'm thinking of employing aren't really complex at all, just thinking about role distribution in a slightly different angle than before. I'm trying to deconstruct the standard set-up bottom-up rather than top-down, look at every element and see what it really adds to a game, rather than simply think what would be cool to replace it with. So before I put any role in the set-up, I want to consider if it is likely to actually add anything exciting to the play of the game. No sacred cows. If I don't put that role in, it will still be on the front page, mind, purely to keep as wide a range of options open as possible.
I don't want to give any specific examples because I don't want the players to be able to meta-analyse the set-up. So it's rather difficult to actually explain the things I want to do. But I do have actual, uncomplicated ideas that, for example suffice it to say certain roles that have always been taken for granted may not be in the game in their current form, or at all.
It's been said a million times before. Do this, do that, maybe less of this and more of that. Then we'll have the perfect game. Everyone nods and tells you to go host such a game. So what? You can't pull it off, because you're not controlling the players. Having a spam-fest of analysis can be quite off-putting, especially when I come home from work late and I just have a little energy and want to maybe give 20 minutes to see what's been going on in the game, but I have to go through SPLIT spam and randys walls of text. And how many players have the time/energy/commitment to stay active like the two just mentioned? On the other hand, too little talk makes analysis that much more difficult and you don't really want to do it if you know nobody's going to respond with more than a sentence. And the GM doesn't have any tools to make players debate just the right amount to make the game interesting and fast-paced without turning it into a bore.
Traits are there to give small pieces of power to individual players. If you want more power you can try pulling crazy stunts like tonka did last game, but if you don't have the time/energy to do so then these traits can keep you playing the game, just eyeing a good opportunity to use them.
You do make some reasonable points, but you're speaking from experience of past games, where almost all have followed the same pattern. I want a game I make to be a completely different type in certain subtle ways. I can't control the players but I do think I can lay it out in such a way that it gives the average player much more to think about. I know that sounds radical and over-ambitious; but really the methods I want to use are only a different distribution of the standard roles than usual. Certain elements that are the same in every single werewolf game I think can be changed, and the only reason they haven't been is because it's traditional. But it would still be classic werewolf, the biggest differences would be ones that players wouldn't really notice.
You're right there is an issue where a handful, or maybe only one or two, players tend to do all the analysing. On one hand, those players often complain they have to carry the load. But on the other, as you say, it is difficult for other players to keep up with everything. Either way it's not a desirable scenario.
But I think one of the reasons this can happen in Big games is the lack of voting information. The less info you have, the more elaborate, complicated, theoretical any analysis becomes, and there are only a few players who can be bothered to come up with such hypotheses. The discussion becomes quite arcane, almost.
However, I believe that if we can limit the number of JL announcements, and focus a bit more on what people say in the thread, everyone will have an easier time contributing to the discussion. It will become less about complex analysis of set-up and hunt order and role interactions, and more about who is acting suspiciously and who has a bad voting record. These things require less time investment for players who don't have hours to devote to the game. At least that's what I'm hoping.
But there will still be traits in this game, personally I think Cliges and Kiwi for example make good arguments when they say traits aren't necessary. But on the other hand, for a lot of people they are. And for that reason there will be a healthy amount of traits in the game.
Another thing is, even in games with a lot of traits there still are a lot of players left with no traits, or else one-off powers. So, that's why, for any powers that do remain, I want to try and dilute them and spread them more among other players. We have a situation where most players have not enough to do, yet the seer/priest often have
too much. So I'm *
considering* watering down the main scanner roles and compensating by giving some other villagers a little more power. There will still be behind-the-scenes action, but it will hopefully a) involve more people b) not lead to Ironman JLs because there can't be a small circle of cleared people, it will involve more negotiation, and several of the people who appear to have useful traits may be baddies. c) the more fragmented nature of the information instead of "here is the seer's scan list, the following aren't wolves" will allow for more interesting discussion both privately and publicly.
For instance, it was suggested in Lite discussion recently to only have the seer scan every second night. I don't see why this can't be done in Big either. I've never kept it secret that I'm not a huge fan of the seer.
I generally want there to be less concrete information, but plenty of scraps which players have to try and use to build a picture with. Actually doing that is the hard thing, but this is why I'm asking for feedback.
There was one or two exotic ideas I was thinking of implementing, but they're not actually crucial to the game and I may not put them in purely because people will think I'm trying to achieve everything with those roles, whereas in fact they would only be there for extra flavour. But if I do put any seemingly strange roles in, I don't want anyone to jump to conclusions that I'm trying to make a different game, because generally any new roles will be there to add a bit of flavour, paranoia and confusion. They won't give the goodies or baddies any new big weapons. The underlying dynamics of the game will remain the same as classic werewolf.
I made a post a while back in I think the general thread asking for people to name their favourite games and what was so special about it, so that we can try and distil all the most successful components and remove the less successful ones. I'll try and find that post now, but if anyone wants to share anything about what they liked in particular about a certain past game that would be appreciated. Not just for my potential game but all later ones.
If I'm honest, most of it is less down to GM rules than to player interaction, but that doesn't mean the set-up can't help encourage it, and create the optimum circumstances in which exciting events are most likely to occur.
