WW Big GMing Discussion and Vote thread

[EUROO7]

Well that is the definition of a hack GM.

No, that is the definition of an advisor. This is not to say I'm not a hack GM. I am. Just I don't like improper use of our language, furrner.

 

[Rovsea]

Well that is the definition of a hack GM.

Why do you think Euro was pointing out all those times Marty was a Hack GM? He was taking notes.

 

[EUROO7]

Why do you think Euro was pointing out all those times Marty was a Hack GM? He was taking notes.

Taking notes from the eternal noob marty. Ok, Bhutan.

 

[Wagonlitz]

No, that is the definition of an advisor. This is not to say I'm not a hack GM. I am. Just I don't like improper use of our language, furrner.

I would say a Co--GM is more than an advisor; also you said you wanted to do nothing, so you wouldn't even be an advisor, since you wouldn't advice him.

 

[pjnlsn]

Think you misquoted me there bud.

Misquoted you? I must say, I find that to be deceptive and highly improper.

 

[Rovsea]

My God, pjnlsn's Sig!

 

[EUROO7]

I would say a Co--GM is more than an advisor; also you said you wanted to do nothing, so you wouldn't even be an advisor, since you wouldn't advice him.

Stop channeling Rysz! >:^(

 

[Wagonlitz]

Stop channeling Rysz! >:^(

He has said similar things?

 

[EUROO7]

He has said similar things?

He is always unfailingly polite. It bothers me.

 

[Lemeard]

He is always unfailingly polite. It bothers me.

Ah, much like Jonti

 

[Rovsea]

He is always unfailingly polite. It bothers me.

I suddenly get this image in my head that Euro is a short, balding man insecure about the world around him, bothered by so many things that are just, a little bit... off. He sticks around on the forums in all his free-time, hoping that he will be recognized for something, anything. It is what drives him to make bolder WW themes, more daring plays...














Nah, probably just an odd thought.

 

[J. Passepartout]

(continued from the Lite thread)

It's also not in the rules not to physically murder other players in real life to gain an advantage in this game. Yet, were someone to do that, I would consider penalising them for it.

Wouldn't you consider if the murder was advantageous for your side in the game? :ninja:

Then again, I seem to recall them mods saying that everything is in the rules. What isn't there can't be in the game and isn't a rule. And then they had a specific role in the game that the rules didn't cover (granted, it was variation from what rules said but still) and after that autolynched aedan777 for quoting his role PM (again, no mention against it in the rules).

I haven't gone and checked the rule setups for recent games, but it at least used to be that there was a rule which stated that the GM is always right. Therefore blah blah blah the GM should be able to ban actually murdering the other players and etc wave hands around, in cases where discretion is necessary to cover unexpected situations or make up for mistakes or have really cool awesome setups like when The Phoenix was the wolf or my Sherlock Holmes game where I had a role know a bunch of stuff by secret PM because I'm awesome (shameless self-promotion and my god was that game really that long ago?)

 

[J. Passepartout]

I suddenly get this image in my head that Euro is a short, balding man insecure about the world around him, bothered by so many things that are just, a little bit... off. He sticks around on the forums in all his free-time, hoping that he will be recognized for something, anything. It is what drives him to make bolder WW themes, more daring plays...












Nah, probably just an odd thought.

I've seen pictures of Euro in the OT forum members pictures thread and he has a full head of hair. Stop this villainous libel.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

I could give advice to a GM, make sure the set up encourages many ties and updates averaging at least 3.5 deaths minimum. Best advice!

 

[Lemeard]

Okay, fine. I can GM. Give me until the weekend to post it though.

In the meanwhile, could someone dig up some games they thought were well-balanced?

 

[Arkasas]

Okay, fine. I can GM. Give me until the weekend to post it though.

In the meanwhile, could someone dig up some games they thought were well-balanced?

Well, there's always Council of Trent...

 

[marty99]

Okay, fine. I can GM. Give me until the weekend to post it though.

In the meanwhile, could someone dig up some games they thought were well-balanced?

Krisoz's games were excellently balanced. Coruscant Nights and World in Conflict are the ones I can think of immediately, and they were perfectly balanced, but IIRC the rest were all good too. His games had pretty simple set-ups that led to very fun and exciting games. Also Johho's games are generally very well balanced, and he's just about the most experienced GM there is. I can't think offhand which ones - having done so many, inevitably not all of them will have ended up close, although they could still have been well-balanced at game start - but Refugees is supposed to be one of the best games ever, although I didn't play in it.

White Daimon's guide to GM'ing. A lot of stuff here, but the part on balancing games is post #5.

Here's Johho's take, on page 2 of the thread.

Well, it depends on how many packs you have. You have to have more wolves (and baddies) with more packs since they not only have to fight the village but also the other packs. This is from a post I made in the Social group when someone was asking for GM advice:
Johho's post on page two of that thread

Some GM hints:
Rule of thumbs for setup: 1 pack - 25% baddies, 2 packs - 33% baddies, 3 packs - 50% baddies.
The 2 pack setup is more robust (less likely to end in a landslide victory) than the 1 or 3 pack setup.
Don't get to carried away with all nice roles and traits - at least 33% should be villagers (possibly with a minor trait).
There should be more cursed than blessed at game start (I normally use 3:1 or 4:1 cursed:blessed).
Don't introduce too many new roles/traits in one game. If this is your first maybe none or one?
Never ever have parallell scanners (2 seers at the same time etc).
Since villagers (and cultists) don't have much else to do it is important that most votings are not no-brainers (outed baddies) or otherwise controlled by some important player.
It's important to keep the game pace up (aim for two deaths a day) so if you for instance have lots of GAs, you need to up the number of brutals, hunters etc. (For example my current game is running a bit too slow I think).
Until the game starts listen to what people say about The Rules and if they talk sense modify them. Once the game starts you shouldn't meddle with the rules.
Once the game is up and running, try to answer questions as quickly as possible. If you don't know, check with some veteran/previous GM that is out of the game and let the one asking the question know you are working on it.

 

[randakar]

He is always unfailingly polite. It bothers me.

Yeah, he's a good guy.

Ah, much like Jonti

Jonti and Rysz do seem to like each other.

I've seen pictures of Euro in the OT forum members pictures thread and he has a full head of hair. Stop this villainous libel.

There is such a thing as a forum member pictures thread?
I just have his google chat image. Which is, indeed, fairly hairy.

Krisoz's games were excellently balanced. Coruscant Nights and World in Conflict are the ones I can think of immediately, and they were perfectly balanced, but IIRC the rest were all good too. His games had pretty simple set-ups that led to very fun and exciting games. Also Johho's games are generally very well balanced, and he's just about the most experienced GM there is. I can't think offhand which ones - having done so many, inevitably not all of them will have ended up close, although they could still have been well-balanced at game start - but Refugees is supposed to be one of the best games ever, although I didn't play in it.

White Daimon's guide to GM'ing. A lot of stuff here, but the part on balancing games is post #5.

Here's Johho's take, on page 2 of the thread.

Both me and Ironhead5 disagree on the 50% baddies rule for 3 packs though. Once you get above a certain percentage of evildoers the village is forced to kill more than one baddie every day in order to win, and if the packs don't helpfully hunt each other then even perfect villager play won't be able to dig you out of the hole you get into when more than half the village is evil. Which happens quickly in a game like that.

 

[marty99]

Yeah, he's a good guy.



Jonti and Rysz do seem to like each other.



There is such a thing as a forum member pictures thread?
I just have his google chat image. Which is, indeed, fairly hairy.



Both me and Ironhead5 disagree on the 50% baddies rule for 3 packs though. Once you get above a certain percentage of evildoers the village is forced to kill more than one baddie every day in order to win, and if the packs don't helpfully hunt each other then even perfect villager play won't be able to dig you out of the hole you get into when more than half the village is evil. Which happens quickly in a game like that.

I said the same thing in the big. For me, there should never be more than 40% baddies. But its still a useful guideline, telling you that if you want three packs and less than 50% baddies, you'll need to nerf the need the village more than is usual.

Regardless, I wouldn't recommend having three packs in one's first game.

 

[jonti-h]

Okay, fine. I can GM. Give me until the weekend to post it though.

In the meanwhile, could someone dig up some games they thought were well-balanced?

Demon Spawn