EUROO7 presents
Werewolf Lite CCLXXV
The G̶̷1̶̷8̶̷ G17
PART III: Putin's Revenge,
The Re-Putinning
The G̶̷1̶̷8̶̷ G17
PART III: Putin's Revenge,
The Re-Putinning
THE Group of
-
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.
THE Group of
I will join as well, if only to kill a person who quotes himself in his own signature.
It was at your behest to spread the message you wanted proclaimed. Such hypocrisy...
It was too obvious that he would be protected, so we didn't want to hunt him; by the way we never hunted people because of French names - it was just a funny coincidence.Capt. Kiwi said:
Your pack had me very paranoid at first that this was your strategy.
Well, this was a fun game. Shame I didn't become a super-robber, but still, it was fun being a sneaky PoS while trying to help the village.
I could have helped too, I managed to steal drxav's roleblocker trait Night 0 right before he was offed. Sadly, there was no way for me and the JL to have mutual trust given what had been going on in the thread. And then I died
Anyway, good game, thanks for hosting, Vainglory.
I could have helped too, I managed to steal drxav's roleblocker trait Night 0 right before he was offed. Sadly, there was no way for me and the JL to have mutual trust given what had been going on in the thread. And then I died
Anyway, good game, thanks for hosting, Vainglory.
Cliges, my deadline made you take up smoking again... I think that makes it objectively the worst deadline WW has ever had.
IRT the recap feedback: I look forward to seeing CLVI (since it appears CLV is going to be played under unrecognizable rules) in order to see how leader shakes out given the consensus of sorts on tinkering with it. More importantly I'd be eager to see the urchin tried again, especially since it may prove self-limiting; I can see the logic you had in not robbing again, Skob, and it's interesting to know that some players would make a reasoned decision against using the trait. Plus the bandit might well be worth continuing to experiment with, there might be some fun somewhere in that concept.
With regard to Self Defense, that the SD doesn't survive if attacked, they just kill one of their assailants. If the SD survived it would be very OP, especially if the SD was a mouthpiece. I definitely agree that SD lacks something; a good reason to split the defensive and offensive components of the hunter was so that players actually had to decide what to do with it. I don't know that I ever saw a hunter who didn't hold on to his trait until the JL gave him a target at the end of the game. It was quite logical: if you were hunted you had a 50% chance of taking out a wolf, whereas if you attacked without being given a name your odds were lower, so it made sense to hold fire, but usually as a game was ending the JL had a few unscanned players left so the remaining hunters let the lead fly, and more than one Big ended with a mass execution of the remaining unscanned players. If there's no advantage to keeping the trait players don't just loaf on the SD aspect and then maybe mop up for the JL at game's end, they form suspicions and the kill a target. That makes the offensive part interesting, but the SD involves no decisions at all. I cannot think of anything that isn't just a silly crapshoot, like if it's limited to 5 nights (and that'd be tedious for the GM to manage), or if it has to be switched on and off, but if it's on you kill any scanner... any inspired ideas to make SD more than just being a rotten egg would be great.
Oh and yeah, I did remember that Springtime of Nations cultist rules weren't a resounding success. I thought it polite not to mention it I liked what you were trying to do, it just didn't work out, although it produced a memorable game. I mentioned it because as far as I know it was the first Big that took the discussions about the boring evil villager and tried to make something fun to play. I think a scanning cultist is still a usable idea and I don't know why it wasn't tried again (to my knowledge), although it does necessitate drastically curtailed cultist numbers, since too many scanners is a bad idea (although when they're only scanning for cultists and sorcerers a la Springtime it's fairly weaksauce), but then again 1 cultist to 3 or 4 wolves is a common pack setup anyway, and if they were given the Bandit/Warlock GA/Confessor hunting powers, that might be a fun idea... But anyway, the cultist here was, I agree, very much like making a White Seer and Black Seer with White Wolves and Black Wolves where scans only work on the corresponding wolf, with mixed packs of black and white. Like I said, it was a simple stopgap (yet proved anathema to most players :mellow: ) rather than a proposal for a "definitive" cultist. I'd like to see if things revert to the acceptable but IMHO mediocre cultist that preceded this game, or if GMs try other things.
Also I just realized I overlooked something in the recap. Villager brutals. I included them, and would do so again, even though they tend to be a mess. I think it's handy to compare them with the assassin trait: players hold off until they think they've definitely got a wolf, or even until the JL gives them a target, and then fire. If they haven't drawn a firm conclusion before they get lynched they don't get a chance to use it. The fact that brutality is triggered by a lynch is why it tends to create a mess: a player who is going to be lynched gets the chance to activate it, if assassinations could be ordered during the day I guarantee they'd get used pretty much every time, and do as much damage as brutal villagers. Because it's a day phase a player who suspects a wolf will use it while they still can, and if they're pissed off at someone they'll use it for revenge, and those two factors tend to merge so that a villager gets brutalized because the lynchee finds them slightly suspicious and they voted against the day's lynch. That's why it tends to cause much more fratricide than the assassin.
One reason I included it, even though it's a poor fit for villagers, is that every other trait open for robbery was usable by both good and evil players: paranoiac, assassin, vigilant, convivial nuisance, leader, rake, and spy (weak-willed and blessed are hidden traits and thus couldn't be stolen). So if an urchin found himself with a brutal trait, knowing the GM doesn't make goodie brutals... he knows he just stole from a wolf. And that he's dead as soon as the wolves can hunt again. He'd shout from the rooftops "I ROBBED A WOLF". It also seemed that it allows for cursed brutal villagers who don't immediately conclude "I have an evil trait, therefore I must be cursed" - and for some reason I think that has happened before. I could of course not make cursed brutals, and I could also leave the urchin-brutal issue in as a sort of operational hazard for brutal wolves, or just make it so brutality can't be stolen. I just chose to do otherwise. After all, villagers can always just not set a brutal unless they've got solid reasons to do so. The EULA for brutality says that by setting a brutal order on anyone, you agree to waive the GM's liability for what happens next.
Also Spiritually Attuned... it's been fun, SA, but I think it's time we moved on. I just think Werewolf has outgrown this utter lack of tactics that comes packaged with % chance, while still being a possible crapshoot game-changer. Or you know, whatever. I don't dislike SA but it's kinda... look I'd go to the funeral but I wouldn't shed any tears at the wake, okay?
Also I'll start doing the actual AAR shortly, before the new Big takes everyone's attention.
IRT the recap feedback: I look forward to seeing CLVI (since it appears CLV is going to be played under unrecognizable rules) in order to see how leader shakes out given the consensus of sorts on tinkering with it. More importantly I'd be eager to see the urchin tried again, especially since it may prove self-limiting; I can see the logic you had in not robbing again, Skob, and it's interesting to know that some players would make a reasoned decision against using the trait. Plus the bandit might well be worth continuing to experiment with, there might be some fun somewhere in that concept.
With regard to Self Defense, that the SD doesn't survive if attacked, they just kill one of their assailants. If the SD survived it would be very OP, especially if the SD was a mouthpiece. I definitely agree that SD lacks something; a good reason to split the defensive and offensive components of the hunter was so that players actually had to decide what to do with it. I don't know that I ever saw a hunter who didn't hold on to his trait until the JL gave him a target at the end of the game. It was quite logical: if you were hunted you had a 50% chance of taking out a wolf, whereas if you attacked without being given a name your odds were lower, so it made sense to hold fire, but usually as a game was ending the JL had a few unscanned players left so the remaining hunters let the lead fly, and more than one Big ended with a mass execution of the remaining unscanned players. If there's no advantage to keeping the trait players don't just loaf on the SD aspect and then maybe mop up for the JL at game's end, they form suspicions and the kill a target. That makes the offensive part interesting, but the SD involves no decisions at all. I cannot think of anything that isn't just a silly crapshoot, like if it's limited to 5 nights (and that'd be tedious for the GM to manage), or if it has to be switched on and off, but if it's on you kill any scanner... any inspired ideas to make SD more than just being a rotten egg would be great.
Oh and yeah, I did remember that Springtime of Nations cultist rules weren't a resounding success. I thought it polite not to mention it
I liked what you were trying to do, it just didn't work out, although it produced a memorable game. I mentioned it because as far as I know it was the first Big that took the discussions about the boring evil villager and tried to make something fun to play. I think a scanning cultist is still a usable idea and I don't know why it wasn't tried again (to my knowledge), although it does necessitate drastically curtailed cultist numbers, since too many scanners is a bad idea (although when they're only scanning for cultists and sorcerers a la Springtime it's fairly weaksauce), but then again 1 cultist to 3 or 4 wolves is a common pack setup anyway, and if they were given the Bandit/Warlock GA/Confessor hunting powers, that might be a fun idea... But anyway, the cultist here was, I agree, very much like making a White Seer and Black Seer with White Wolves and Black Wolves where scans only work on the corresponding wolf, with mixed packs of black and white. Like I said, it was a simple stopgap (yet proved anathema to most players :mellow: ) rather than a proposal for a "definitive" cultist. I'd like to see if things revert to the acceptable but IMHO mediocre cultist that preceded this game, or if GMs try other things.Also I just realized I overlooked something in the recap. Villager brutals. I included them, and would do so again, even though they tend to be a mess. I think it's handy to compare them with the assassin trait: players hold off until they think they've definitely got a wolf, or even until the JL gives them a target, and then fire. If they haven't drawn a firm conclusion before they get lynched they don't get a chance to use it. The fact that brutality is triggered by a lynch is why it tends to create a mess: a player who is going to be lynched gets the chance to activate it, if assassinations could be ordered during the day I guarantee they'd get used pretty much every time, and do as much damage as brutal villagers. Because it's a day phase a player who suspects a wolf will use it while they still can, and if they're pissed off at someone they'll use it for revenge, and those two factors tend to merge so that a villager gets brutalized because the lynchee finds them slightly suspicious and they voted against the day's lynch. That's why it tends to cause much more fratricide than the assassin.
One reason I included it, even though it's a poor fit for villagers, is that every other trait open for robbery was usable by both good and evil players: paranoiac, assassin, vigilant, convivial nuisance, leader, rake, and spy (weak-willed and blessed are hidden traits and thus couldn't be stolen). So if an urchin found himself with a brutal trait, knowing the GM doesn't make goodie brutals... he knows he just stole from a wolf. And that he's dead as soon as the wolves can hunt again. He'd shout from the rooftops "I ROBBED A WOLF". It also seemed that it allows for cursed brutal villagers who don't immediately conclude "I have an evil trait, therefore I must be cursed" - and for some reason I think that has happened before. I could of course not make cursed brutals, and I could also leave the urchin-brutal issue in as a sort of operational hazard for brutal wolves, or just make it so brutality can't be stolen. I just chose to do otherwise. After all, villagers can always just not set a brutal unless they've got solid reasons to do so. The EULA for brutality says that by setting a brutal order on anyone, you agree to waive the GM's liability for what happens next.
Also Spiritually Attuned... it's been fun, SA, but I think it's time we moved on. I just think Werewolf has outgrown this utter lack of tactics that comes packaged with % chance, while still being a possible crapshoot game-changer. Or you know, whatever. I don't dislike SA but it's kinda... look I'd go to the funeral but I wouldn't shed any tears at the wake, okay?
Also I'll start doing the actual AAR shortly, before the new Big takes everyone's attention.
I think that the splitting of the hunter's role into the two parts was quite interesting and could be quite a nice addition to many games. Perhaps you could have SD protect one person each night from the wolves (if they so wish) but die instead of the player protected? So if the seer is needed to survive one more night to scan a key player or something an SD player can do so? Just an idea at 11 at night so it may not be any good.
If you are interested in some games with interesting baddie roles whether cultists or sorcerors and have some time the games around LXXX are quite good with LXXXI probably being my favourite of those not only because I won but also because the cultist was a scanner role while the sorc was a roleblocker like your own though only evil aligned obviously.
I may post more in the morning, I may not but this is enough for tonight.
Those are the rules from a RL variant, which is for sale. Not really sure, if they fit the forum play.. Wonder, how many people will be confused with the sorcerer as the main goodie role?
GM AAR - Setup
Now the rivalry shenanigans are all revealed! I've been saving that for this bit of the AAR. Capt. Kiwi had traumatic flashbacks to CXXI where he was also a victim of the rival mindgames. Upon receiving his rival notice he PMd Ithvan (the Confessor), his rival, and outed himself as the GA, taking a gamble that I hadn't paired him with a wolf. My initial reaction was "Damn!" because the Canny Kiwi had undone my cunning plan to make the GA and Confessor try to off one another - but then I realized the Protectors' Justice League of Mutual Hatred was even cooler. Unfortunately the rest of the mindgames were a bust, much like CXXI. I put Teep the sorcerer with Hax the apprentice, which was the same scanner-apprentice pairing that I'd subjected Kiwi to. Oh Kiwi, we have such fun together! Teep didn't scan Hax, who got himself hunted Night 1. Narref and tonkatoy5 were paired together, the wolf and cursed player. But Ithvan had watched Hax, which put Narref's name out there, so Hax's death ended up destroying two rivalries. Cheers Hax. 'preciated... That left Nautilu the rake with the vigilant seamus2008, but presumably Nautilu knew something was up when he had the power to just shoot his rival, although possibly he was saving it for a rainy day in the hope seamus would die by someone else's hand. Nauts got lynched Day 3 and cooked the last rival pairing. At least the GA-Confessor pairing worked pretty well. This idea still amuses me and if I GM again there will be new chums who get even crueler matchups. I swear it's because I believe the players enjoy the challenge, not because I'm abusing my role as GM.
Role allocation was done on the same basis as CXXI: starting with the first role on the list, I generated a number between 1-34 and awarded the role to the corresponding signup number, removed that name from my list, thereby renumbering the list 1-33, then generated another random number. Thus I rolled Falc's signup number (14 based on the first page where he was the 14th "in") so he became the seer, and then I rolled Gliomarto's signup number so he became the priest. I've seen other methods for assigning roles, this is just a sufficiently random one.
The setup was fairly straightforward, as seen below, although it was trait-heavy; I stuck to some adjustments of traits and roles rather than push the envelope for setup. I had 34 sign ups, so I did consider a 3 pack arrangement, but I figured I should focus on doing running a solid 2 pack setup with some quirks rather than try anything too ambitious. I figured 30% baddies was about ideal for a 2 pack setup, it's the middle of the recommended range, and I had given them quite a bit of firepower. So that worked out to a convenient 11 baddies, 1 is the sorcerer, 10/2 = 5, so 3 wolves 2 cultists was an obvious design given that cultists were menthol-flavored wolves. I did consider whether balance favored the bad team given that the village had to kill all the baddies except the sorcerer in order to win, which makes it harder for the village, and the wolves had many traits, but the wolves were 5(+1 sorcerer counting for parity) against 23 good and 5 bad opponents, so it seemed about right. Retrospectively I'd say another 2 villagers would probably have been perfect balance so I think it worked out about right.
Then added the usual suspects: seer, priest, GA, padre, and sorcerer. I went heavy on apprentices with five, to boost the chances of creating a bandit - this would also balance the need to eliminate cultists a little, since it would likely result in more goodie scanners hopping about, as they're twice as likely to scan an apprentice compared to the baddies. Everyone else was a citizen. I put in two urchins in the hopes we'd see whether the idea would sink or swim. It kinda floated facedown instead. Intern - fetch me more human playthings! Most other traits came in pairs: two spies, two roleblockers, two SAs, those were one good one evil, then three curses because I figured with 3 one would almost surely be turned, possibly two, doubtfully three, that's a reasonable arrangement. Three leaders because of the nerfbat - easily could have had two more without wrecking the game, but I don't regret that it was never utilized. Only two vigilant because that's a very harsh trait to trigger. Five blessings, in part to balance the wolves, particularly by shielding two of the important goodies. Ultimately it was "candy for all!" - everyone got either a non-citizen role or a trait, even if it was hidden.
I then gave out quite a few brutals to the baddies, in part because I wanted them to be able to eliminate mouthpieces, which is one of the primary tactical uses for brutality. After pj had tusked the sorc and Wagon had brutalized an opposing wolf I was starting to think all I'd done was shown how brutals are pointless carnage. But reis left a bloody smear where the mouthpiece had been - textbook! - and then the Republicans jammed Cliges the WereSpanner into the works of the village. That move earned a golf clap from me. Loved it.
Six brutals was probably overkill, I'd probably swap one or two for rakes, of which there were four in this game. A possible ten additional kills seemed right to me - to quote Randakar "I think more death, murder and mayhem in these games is almost *always* an unilaterally good thing. Quicker games, more risks of death, higher adrenaline levels, all around good fun." This is one of those things that's wholly subjective, but this game ended on the conclusion of Night 11, which is a total of 12 days from role distribution, from 34 starting players. With 4 players left at parity, that's an average of 2.5 kills per cycle... exactly the same as Big CXXI somehow. We had 1 additional death in a tie, 5 brutalized, 3 shootings, and 1 "repulsion" for 10 additional deaths. Wow. Again, it's subjective, but I took Randy's verdict to heart, and in my humble opinion the quicker game is more enjoyable for everyone, although I think obviously this is about as extreme as it should be, beyond a certain point it would just be silly.
I think that's pretty thorough coverage of the setup. The actual day-by-day AAR should be much lighter and more entertaining.
The Unique Roles
Falc Inquisitor Blessed
Gliomarto National Guard
Capt. Kiwi Physician
Ithvan Confessor Blessed
Teep Agent-Provocateur Rival 1
The Apprentices
Hax Rival 1
EUROO7
THE_SPLIT
Snoopdogg Leader
Videonfan Vigilant
The Citizens
tonkatoy5 Weak Willed Rival 2
reis91 Brutal Weak Willed
sbr Leader Weak Willed
Esemesas Urchin
Gen. Skobelev Urchin
Daffius Rake
Nautilu Rake Rival 4
Walrus Rake Blessed
jcucc Blessed
The Super Pope Brutal
aedan777 Paranoiac
Drxav Convivial Nuisance
Steed Spy
seamus2008 Vigilant Rival 4
The Reactionary Pack
Wagonlitz Dissident Brutal
Chieron Dissident Paranoiac
pjnlsn Dissident Brutal Blessed
GreatUberGeek Émigré Spy
Arkasas Émigré Rake
The Republican Pack
Narref Dissident Rival 2
Cliges Dissident Brutal
J. Passepartout Dissident Brutal
Adamus Émigré Convivial Nuisance
Johho888 Émigré Leader
Some thoughts about the setup and roles:
Bandit - sure it's nice the apprentice gets to do something while he wait for the scanner to die but usually being an apprentice is kind of interesting since you normally get access to information normal players don't. I'm not sure claimed apprentices need anything more to spice up their game.
Information gathering abilities (seer, priest, sorcerer, bandit, spy, infiltrator, one-time scanners, spiritually attuned, spiritual witness, padre, witness). Here a GM really, really, really need to constrain himself. Too much information makes for dull games. At the end of this game all baddies knew practically all goodie roles and traits and all goodies knew all baddie roles and traits. OK for an endgame maybe but if this happens too early it can really sap all the fun out of a game. Uncertainty is fun! Information should be valuable and worth risking something to get hold of.
Spy - I dislike the fact that a spy can get any role/trait. I like the fact that, if done right, it can hint at things but also risk people to draw the wrong conclusion. I also think this is a trait that might make native English speakers have an advantage over the rest (this is bad). I have seen some horrible usage of Spy when the GM was so bad at hinting he practically told the spy every single role and trait of the one that got spied upon.
Hunter - Offensive/Defensive hunter trait split - I like hunter as one trait just because it involves a player decision. Do I keep it as a defensive protection or do I use it offensively because I (or the JL) strongly believe someone to be a baddie or to prove I'm a hunter?
Hunter - Self defense survival - If you have this then you would need to make the trait more unusual.
Leader - "not protecting himself" - OK, I guess but it gets kind of useless to be the leader unless as part of the JL or on the day of parity for baddies.
Leader - 50% vs 33% - I think I prefer 33% so the leader has at least more than one choice in most cases.
Leader - multiple simultaneous leaders vs 2nd/3rd in command - I can see pros and cons for both. I just want to add that 8th in command villager is not supposed to be all that "interesting", but here the alternative is plain villager. I think plain villager is one of the best roles but it's like to have a little leverage even if it's just 8th in command or a single priestly scan. And besides a 8th in command villager was what won the game for the goodies 2-3 games ago so maybe it's actually overpowered?
Cultists - "Evil villager" is great! No need to change it. But, as I said, I like plain villager too so I might be biased.
Rule 7B - Yeah, we probably need to enforce this more. I've seen sorcerers cc wolves their scan orders to the GM and vice versa. Spy report you actually have to quote but you could always use this type of quotes: "Steed is sneaking around Paris in a trenchcoat" rather than quoting the GM PM. I did this when conveying Steed's spy reports to jcuccu. Of course I did it so I could water them down so they would be unusable...
Spiritually Attuned - Boring - Every role/trait can be boring. Or great. I suggest you check out WW CXII Refugees to see a game dominated by a SA villager.
Percentage chance traits - I agree we would be better off without them. Padre is so much better than the old Witness for instance. The question is how to make SA, one-eye open/hunter and doctor without percentages without making them overpowered.
Villager brutals/role blockers - I agree, if you have spy, robber/urchin or infiltrator then you have to have goodie brutals/role blockers. Being one is pretty pointless though. I'd take SA villager any day.
Deadline - I have no problem with a deadline on a time like every now and then. Evening for me is of course better for me. I even went up early one morning just because I wanted to see what happened. I was less thrilled when the GM showed up several hours later... And even less so when I found out I had been dead for all those hours.
Bandit - sure it's nice the apprentice gets to do something while he wait for the scanner to die but usually being an apprentice is kind of interesting since you normally get access to information normal players don't. I'm not sure claimed apprentices need anything more to spice up their game.
Information gathering abilities (seer, priest, sorcerer, bandit, spy, infiltrator, one-time scanners, spiritually attuned, spiritual witness, padre, witness). Here a GM really, really, really need to constrain himself. Too much information makes for dull games. At the end of this game all baddies knew practically all goodie roles and traits and all goodies knew all baddie roles and traits. OK for an endgame maybe but if this happens too early it can really sap all the fun out of a game. Uncertainty is fun! Information should be valuable and worth risking something to get hold of.
Spy - I dislike the fact that a spy can get any role/trait. I like the fact that, if done right, it can hint at things but also risk people to draw the wrong conclusion. I also think this is a trait that might make native English speakers have an advantage over the rest (this is bad). I have seen some horrible usage of Spy when the GM was so bad at hinting he practically told the spy every single role and trait of the one that got spied upon.
Hunter - Offensive/Defensive hunter trait split - I like hunter as one trait just because it involves a player decision. Do I keep it as a defensive protection or do I use it offensively because I (or the JL) strongly believe someone to be a baddie or to prove I'm a hunter?
Hunter - Self defense survival - If you have this then you would need to make the trait more unusual.
Leader - "not protecting himself" - OK, I guess but it gets kind of useless to be the leader unless as part of the JL or on the day of parity for baddies.
Leader - 50% vs 33% - I think I prefer 33% so the leader has at least more than one choice in most cases.
Leader - multiple simultaneous leaders vs 2nd/3rd in command - I can see pros and cons for both. I just want to add that 8th in command villager is not supposed to be all that "interesting", but here the alternative is plain villager. I think plain villager is one of the best roles but it's like to have a little leverage even if it's just 8th in command or a single priestly scan. And besides a 8th in command villager was what won the game for the goodies 2-3 games ago so maybe it's actually overpowered?
Cultists - "Evil villager" is great! No need to change it. But, as I said, I like plain villager too so I might be biased.
Rule 7B - Yeah, we probably need to enforce this more. I've seen sorcerers cc wolves their scan orders to the GM and vice versa. Spy report you actually have to quote but you could always use this type of quotes: "Steed is sneaking around Paris in a trenchcoat" rather than quoting the GM PM. I did this when conveying Steed's spy reports to jcuccu. Of course I did it so I could water them down so they would be unusable...
Spiritually Attuned - Boring - Every role/trait can be boring. Or great. I suggest you check out WW CXII Refugees to see a game dominated by a SA villager.
Percentage chance traits - I agree we would be better off without them. Padre is so much better than the old Witness for instance. The question is how to make SA, one-eye open/hunter and doctor without percentages without making them overpowered.
Villager brutals/role blockers - I agree, if you have spy, robber/urchin or infiltrator then you have to have goodie brutals/role blockers. Being one is pretty pointless though. I'd take SA villager any day.
Deadline - I have no problem with a deadline on a time like every now and then. Evening for me is of course better for me. I even went up early one morning just because I wanted to see what happened. I was less thrilled when the GM showed up several hours later... And even less so when I found out I had been dead for all those hours.
Tanks for Gming vain.
We had multiple leaders? How did that work?
This game reminded me should really bury rival. Not sure why this hasn't already happened tbh.
We had multiple leaders? How did that work?
This game reminded me should really bury rival. Not sure why this hasn't already happened tbh.
I don't know. When it's done meaningfully (not the correct word by a long shot, but still), like with Kiwi and me, it can be interesting.
The thing with SA is that you need some way of preventing a goodie from going out in public and asking for seer and priest scans to start up an ironman JL. I agree that SA could use some improvement, though.
No Leader did anything so it worked as usual...
I think both sbr and me at some point had leader orders sent in but they didn't kick in.
It was buried for years but has resurfaced recently. Some GMs like Vainglory like it.
In the event that multiple leaders issued contradictory orders, I'd have gone to a dice roll for tiebreaker. It appears to be an unlikely situation, though, since I never received two leader orders on the same day, let alone two valid and contradictory orders, and I used the same configuration for CXXI where IIRC it didn't crop up either. If this configuration was used frequently the problem would eventually appear, but a better tiebreaker than diceroll could be devised. Say least-resistance so if Falc has 7 votes and Esmeseas has 6 and EUROO7 has 5, I issue an order to leaderlynch Euro, while Drxav says to leaderlynch Ese, drxav would prevail as it's the "easier" path. Although that would need a backup in case it was Ese and Euro 6 apiece and with one leader wanting Ese's blood and the other Euro's. The other easy answer is to assign leaders priority, so if the guy who's 3rd issues a valid contradictory order and the guy who's 2nd orders one too, the guy with 2nd priority succeeds. I avoided this because inevitably somebody wouldn't read the rules properly, no matter how big the flashing warning saying "THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS X-IN-COMMAND" was, and then act hard done by when they realized they could have leaderlynched but didn't read the rules.
Not sure if it's even going to end up going ahead, since even though the poster has been online, he hasn't posted since he put it up.
A sort of suicide-guardian angel (bodyguard?) is better than "sit here and hope you don't get hunted, but if you do, take solace in the fact that someone goes with you" although I don't know about balance implications. If it's anti-assassin then it does at least work as a check on immediately shooting a target... but that itself may not be good since you can't know if someone's SD or even ascertain it.
A WereYak game! Interesting setup, I had a hazy idea scanner-cultists had been done before my time. That game ought to be inspiration for future GMs on some level.
Given the respect I have for you as a GM, even constructive criticism from you might be very dispiriting.
Fair point, well made, although I would say that a sorcerer's apprentice does have the disadvantage that he's usually in a faction of 2 players and at risk of being killed by his ostensible allies, unless he or his master gets into contact, so it has its downsides. But again, you're right, it's not a boring role and doesn't need a buff.
The Bandit came out more out of a desire for something new rather than as a sorcerer's apprentice buff. The reason I'm lukewarm on it compared with other things I tried here is because I think it might be fun or it might prove dumb. I thought it would be interesting to add something unusual, and a non-Day 0 role fits the bill - but that can also be a terrible idea. Balance wise, it adds a new scan power to the baddies on the same day they gain a backup sorcerer, which is buff to Team Evil somewhat. Given there are only so many concepts I can shepherd at once before people start ignoring me, I'd rather goose along say, urchins and assassin/defensive dichotomy, than the bandit idea. Also let me be clear that I don't claim I came up with ideas, like the split offensive/defensive hunter I believe was an idea Randy used to push.
While that's a reasonable point, I have to say that I don't think it applied here. On the setup there were three scanners, plus one later, two spies, and two SA. That's not light for information gathering but I'd not say it's overdone either: compared with the norm it's 4 scanners instead of 3, 1 of whom starts late if at all, and then 2 spies that are of limited utility, and 2 SAs - a typical game has that many SAs if not more, plus witnesses, spies, infiltrators, x-ly powers, et cetera. I don't think on paper it was excessive, and it's something I was aware of during balancing.
In practice it was lighter than this anyway: snoopdogg never performed a scan. GuG spied once then became a zombie. The SAs went off once, and only got the "you were scanned" outcome. The reason there was so much information is that players put it out there: Falc and Kiwi outed themselves publicly, Steed formed a People's Justice League with you which fed your pack spy scans, then later went public with them all, Cliges let slip that he was brutal. Your point is a valid principle for setup, but I do not think this setup breached it, and the plethora of information was due to the players, not the GM.
That is the risk with the spy. It's a trait that I was tentative about using it in CXXI because I could blow it totally by handing out too much information, but the CXXI experience was that properly constructed clues aren't that revealing, so I had no qualms using it in CLIV because it hadn't become a GM's folly in CXXI. I wouldn't recommend it to every GM by any means because it's easy to make a hash of it. If you give away too much it's awful: the spy is a trait, not a substitute seer-cum-priest with a dash of trait checker. But if you give away too little, such that players cannot draw any useful conclusions from it, it isn't worth including in the first place.
In this game I feared I'd gone with the too little information side: nobody got that sbr was a cursed leader, people were still arguing bandit or cultist, even after the correlation between the tonka weak-willed clue and sbr's weak-willed clue. I don't think the aedan777 clue for SA villager was worked out until aedan explained that he was an SA villager. The dud clue Steed got on you set up a contaminated PJL. It took two scans to nail down Gen. Skobelev as an urchin, and then the village lynched him based on misreading the clues anyway. The Wagonlitz clue was roulette: it could be taken as a red herring referring to RP or a genuine clue that he was a dangerous baddie - it was both. The clue for Falc was similar, and Steed duly concluded that Falc was a baddie. Falc outed himself, and Steed scanned again to confirm it wasn't a ruse, but got the roleblocker clue instead, so he'd have had to expend a third night to confirm Falc as the seer. So like I said, if anything I worried that post-mortem I'd hear that spy was a waste of time.
As I said though, it's my belief that players virtually always chose the SD aspect, except when put the JL set up a firing squad for the checkmate. The flip side to there being no penalty (well, unless you're walrus) for using the hunter trait is that players actually go ahead with it, as Daffius did to Chieron.
The defensive aspect (and again, SDs don't survive) needs something to make it more interesting, agreed entirely. It involves no action on the player's part, and I don't like traits of that nature.
Eh, that's true, but given how hated the self-rescuing events are it's not a big concern for me. I'm not a huge fan of the leaderlynch, it can be great, as with Day 11 here where it was within 1 vote of sending this game to another knife-edge day, or in CLIII where it effectively overturned an evil victory. But so often it's just someone avoiding their death for one day - when a villager leaderlynches a villager to save themselves they usually get wagoned the next day just like a wolf. And when it is an outed wolf like aedan in CLIII people are disgusted. I too find it irksome even though I see how game changing it is: another day spent wagoning the wolf, so another hunt on top of the leaderlynched villager, and it's also a situation where the wolves have to evaluate the risk of sticking their neck out to facilitate the leaderlynch. It's a good trait when viewed that way - except it's a pain in the dick.
My issue with x-in-command isn't that it's weak, it's that it's roulette. Past 3rd in command the odds of having the trait fall into your hands when it could help are quite low - but then when it does it's a total game changer. It's a personal proclivity toward traits that are less likely to be a wet squib 24/25 times, then suddenly rattle the windows a mile away when the conditions are just right.
I'd use the principle that the clue - not the PM just the clue - can be cut and pasted but not quoted or forwarded, and put that note in the trait description. A GM might feel that only a spy should be allowed to see his clues, and that's fine, but if the GM doesn't think that then by necessity the clue itself needs to be reproduced verbatim. It was an oversight on my part not to cover this base.
I don't actively dislike SA and my criticism may have come across too strongly. I went into this game with vaguely approving memories, then came to reconsider it. While passive traits can be good, after all blessed and cursed are fixtures for a good reason, and obviously I like rivals, I think the best traits usually allow some measure of control and decision making, whether that's about who you scan, shoot, brutalize, secretly vote for, sleep with, or block, or when you choose to do so, or how many times. I'd not object if I saw SA in a traits list for a game, it's just that SA can be very powerful or it can be a flop. You have to sit there hoping to be scanned (albeit you can try provoke a scan) then hope that when you're scanned you pass the check for the scanner's role and name. SA can be useful even if you just get the role, or the name without a role, but generally you'd want both. And if you get the result that the Priest is Vainglory and there's a JL already on a roll and you're a mere villager (not cursed) then really, SA did nothing. Whereas it has the power to totally derail things.
Again, I prefer less power but more predictability. I take it you prefer more chance of spectacular changes of fortune. This is a subjective thing, I think, either is an acceptable philosophy, and I might find I develop a taste for more unpredictable traits that can be thoroughly decisive.
Well, that's the trick - if we cannot devise traits not dependent on % chance we roll with what we've got, as I did with SA for CXXI and CLIV.
It occurs to me now that certain traits could mutate if the urchin steals them - say he steals a brutal, it turns into an assassin for him, so he doesn't realize he got a baddie's calling card. Spies could be "blind" to brutality and just take a check against the role (or however else the GM wants to handle spies) so if they pass they pass, if they fail they fail, the brutal isn't an indirect role clue. But infiltrators definitely stuff it up.
I am increasingly thinking goodie brutals just aren't worth it (which was my initial reaction as a noob who saw brutal villagers) because the backfiring aside, the advantages are evil-geared anyway (just as sbr said): it circumvents protection and any kill not within your pack is good for a wolf. Well unless you're pj and you manage to hit the one or two guys not in your pack who are helping you :laugh: Any deaths not among a specific minority of players hurts the village, hence why it's better not to brutal, and then whereas wolves often want to circumvent protection as on a mouthpiece, the village circumvents protection by using lynches. It can be useful as a poor-man's assassination if you're eliminating a very good target for the village, either a baddie or a distraction who has to die anyway, but it just doesn't work out that way very often.
But I think goodie roleblockers have a place, since they can jam a sorcerer, evil spy, evil assassin, evil roleblocker, evil infiltrator, et cetera - albeit again, there are more crucial goodies like the seer that they might block, whom unless they're JL they won't know not to block, whereas wolves usually know all their allies bar the sorcerer - although Adamus managed to roleblock a packmate in this game. Twice.
Ultimately it worked out worse for me than a time like 12:00GMT, and it would have been better for the players too. At the time I expected to be out or asleep at 12:00GMT and instead I was always awake and always (bar one night) at home. I was lucky not to get more "outs" with 06:00GMT. It's probably ideal for people nearer Hawaii.
Is it any consolation to know I that I was tormented by the massively delayed update, and doggedly updated at 1AM from someone else's wireless network while totally exhausted, just for you guys?
P.S.
Holy crap when did I write a novel?