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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'll be honest, I think that this setup could work, though it would get fairly complicated fairly quickly. I think that along with adding curseds and taking out blesseds, councils/guilds as well as lover pairs (or even trios), especially with a wolf and villager, would work to make this game a lot trickier to understand, a lot more paranoia-intensive, and a lot more fun. Just my 2-cents.
I'll be honest, I think that this setup could work, though it would get fairly complicated fairly quickly. I think that along with adding curseds and taking out blesseds, councils/guilds as well as lover pairs (or even trios), especially with a wolf and villager, would work to make this game a lot trickier to understand, a lot more paranoia-intensive, and a lot more fun. Just my 2-cents.
Once again, I tried innovation, it didn't work. However I feel there are some very good lessons here for people who aren't just me, and I still maintain that this community is both hostile and toxic. Anyways here we go.
Firstly the winners are: Skobelev, alexu, aedan777, randakar, esemesas, Daffius and Sedracus. Congratulations or whatever.
Next is the setup: I had 27 players, so I decided that about 30% wolf would be a nice and round arbitrary number. So I created 8 packs of 1 wolf (entirely because it seems that it has never been done before), that hunted 2 by 2 every day. The pairings were as such:
johho (who did kill Sleepy)/Kai
Sleepy/Rovsea
Euro/Falc
sohaib/AOK
Unfortunantly, Kai and sohaib were afk on the hunts (I trusted Kai's word and thought it'd be nice to play off the couple), and Sleepy and AOK/Latinkaiser were dead before their hunts. This left only the Euro/Falc double hit intact. While it sowed confusion it showed the undesirability of less useful wolves.
There was 1 innkeeper (Daffius), 4 PL (madchemist, alexu, Falc, johho), 1 Brutal (Euro), and 2 blessed (Sedracus and Gorganslayer).
Mistakes made: because they did happen and you guys are douches. 1) I forgot to write down the Pack Names. 2) I told Sedracus and GS they were blessed (didn't read the rules I copy pasted from tamius). 3) Apparently telling of a blessed save is a bad idea. 4) Apparently GMing cause you're all crotchety.
Lessons learned: This for everyone, not just me. This kind of setup can work if there are tweaks to the setup. 1) less wolves, much more cursed. 2) no innkeepers and take it out of the rules. 3) No blessed (it's a pain in the butt and not worth the space it takes up on the front page).
This could work, and honestly could've worked into the longer game if: A) sohaib wasn't such an afk wolf. B) the wolves didn't hunt themselves so vigourously in the beginning. However both occurred and that's that.
I'd GM another game in the future but you guys have made it quite clear my kind is desired round these here parts.
I was a vanilla villager. What the hell was I meant to do all game if I hadn't been fortunate enough to get lynched day one. Literally the only point of a plain villager in your setup was to make up the numbers. That is the biggest mistake you made. Packs smaller than three people are completely, utterly pointless.
Your next biggest mistake was not telling the wolves the whole point of the setup, that despite being in separate packs they would win together. Critical error there, and it exacerbated the first one.
Only then can we get into the stuff you mentioned, which is really quite inconsequential.
Body language. You cannot mention the difference in mechanics between IRL Mafia and forum Werewolf without addressing the big, hairy mammoth in the room. Body language.
Body language. You cannot mention the difference in mechanics between IRL Mafia and forum Werewolf without addressing the big, hairy mammoth in the room. Body language.
This. I appreciate a role-light game, but that makes it even more vital that vanilla villagers can contribute to the game. Namely, analyse for pack behaviour. You can go for many small packs and go heavy on roles and traits, or you can go for fewer larger packs and go light on roles and traits. But few traits and small packs makes most of your players superfluous, and it should have been telling that you didn't know what the bulk of your players were meant to be doing.
The interesting question would be whether a single 8 person pack from the start would work, or whether it being so large would remove all incentive for the wolves to protect each other. That might be a productive experiment, and there could be ways to mitigate it - wolves being paired with each other as lovers, for example. Or maybe losing their hunt if a pack mate is lynched. The danger would be that those are destabilising rules, that exaggerate a shift in momentum rather than restore balance, but there's probably some idea that would work.
I mean, running the JL was just bureaucracy this game. "Everyone please fill out your witness forms. Good, now please wait X days for an answer"
In all seriousness though, a vanilla villager can either a) analyse or b) fish for info via PM. Both were nearly-impossible this game, given how there were single-wolf packs.
Look, Dadarian, one thing you NEED as GM is a feel for your audience. Remember, you'll be doing a lot of work for OUR enjoyment. If you don't know, and I mean really know, what we like, what we want, ... How is this ever going to be enjoyable for anyone involved?
Yeah I can see that, so I guess that idea isn't too good after all. Though that also means that the pack shouldn't be told if a mate is a lover, since that mate is a liability then.
Of course he shouldn't, but that's missing the point I was making, which is that such a role is a danger to the stability of your game.
If the game rules explicitly state that the lover pair has to win *alone* they would have incentive to not sell out but rather try to keep the two sides balanced. *then* it might work. Otherwise, no.
Once again, I tried innovation, it didn't work. However I feel there are some very good lessons here for people who aren't just me, and I still maintain that this community is both hostile and toxic.
We're a fairly critical bunch. Hostility towards your ideas is not necessarily hostility towards you. There are plenty of people here who aren't hostile towards you at all. I know I'm not.
Unfortunantly, Kai and sohaib were afk on the hunts (I trusted Kai's word and thought it'd be nice to play off the couple), and Sleepy and AOK/Latinkaiser were dead before their hunts. This left only the Euro/Falc double hit intact. While it sowed confusion it showed the undesirability of less useful wolves.
Some players just fail.
Also, one thing you did not do but could have (is normally done) was to move packs up in the order if a wolfpack is dead. eg, if pack B gets killed before it gets to hunt, move C into the B spot.
I get why in Mafia (where roles are not revealed upon death) things are done this way but it's not necessary to do it like this if you reveal people's roles upon death.
Mistakes made: because they did happen and you guys are douches. 1) I forgot to write down the Pack Names. 2) I told Sedracus and GS they were blessed (didn't read the rules I copy pasted from tamius). 3) Apparently telling of a blessed save is a bad idea. 4) Apparently GMing cause you're all crotchety.
The GM'ing was fine. 1, 2, and 3 were all fairly minor failings that could simply be written down to GM quirks. None of this was a terribly big deal.
Not telling the wolves that they could coöperate to collectively count as a mega-pack is a much bigger deal than any of these.
Lessons learned: This for everyone, not just me. This kind of setup can work if there are tweaks to the setup. 1) less wolves, much more cursed. 2) no innkeepers and take it out of the rules. 3) No blessed (it's a pain in the butt and not worth the space it takes up on the front page).
It's a pretty fragile setup. If the wolves contact each other early in the game they can simply dominate the votes and win that way before anyone understands what the heck is going on. More cursed is something that has been tried, and how that ends up affecting the game can be pretty unpredictable. So yes, it *can* work, but it can also blow up in your face. That is not really good engineering.
I agree with the 'no innkeepers' thing, but blessed does have it's place as a way to make curse hits less obvious and as a way to balance the game a bit - that's how Johho has used it in the past.
This could work, and honestly could've worked into the longer game if: A) sohaib wasn't such an afk wolf. B) the wolves didn't hunt themselves so vigourously in the beginning. However both occurred and that's that.
So you're basically saying that this was all down to luck. Well, excuse me if I disagree - sure, luck played a factor, but this setup was *fragile*, and therefore very vulnerable to a bad roll of the dice.
As an example: A) is a possibility you have to account for. Packs with more than 1 wolf have less chance to end up behaving like that, but you chose to have packs with just one wolf and never asked anyone to send in a standing order huntlist in case they forgot to send in an order, either.
The same goes for B) Yes, that happens, it's sad, but if you simply move packs up in the hunt order that would have had less of an effect on the game.
Alright.
I'm going to say something that may be hard to hear and even harder to accept. Please understand upfront that I mean no disrespect, and that I truly appreciate the effort you put into setting up and running this game in the first place. It takes a lot of effort and dedication to do so and that really is appreciated.
However:
You do realize that what you're saying here is, and I will paraphrase now, is that you think "it's all our fault we're being so mean, and you will now pack up your marbles and go home", right?
I don't mean to insult you or anything, but you're not displaying a terrible amount of maturity here.
Please take a look at this picture:
Which of these goats apply to you, do you think? Because I am pretty certain I can point at a few that apply to your behaviour here. No offense.
Edit: Ok, having read the rest of Dadarian's posts after that I will retract that statement (and put it in the spoiler). We all have our moments, I suppose.
As for the fun for everyone part I think you read too much into the complaining and "feedback" we players provide. You can never please everyone so some complaining from players you have to be able to handle as a GM without getting too defensive.
So thanks for hosting and congratulations to the winners.
I'm definitely the "scorns indolence" goat. I be scorning indolence 24/7.
Something I will say is that you should never have a set-up which can be seriously unbalanced by the failure or early death of any one player. This is why I often have starting apprentices instead of just sprinkling unclaimed ones around because that adds such an element of luck and if the seer and priest get apprentices and don't die early themselves then the game is massively in favour of the goodies. When you have a set-up you should try and look at all the most important roles in the game, according to your judgement, and ask "if this role dies immediately or is played poorly/inactively, will it hugely affect the game on its own" and try to minimise that.
That only works if you allow packs to link up and count for parity together, like you did this game. Otherwise packs smaller than 3 aren't worth it imho.
Not really. Everyone knows what a curse/bless hit is, it's not likely to confuse anyone.
Also, please try to "err on the side of carnage" with this sort of thing. Less blesseds and cursed people is never a bad thing.
And much to my chagrin, I agree with Arkasas that new Big GMs should allow a more experienced Big GM to have an advisory glance at the setup. I know I shall do it if my spirit animal EURO is not playing my next game.
That is not a terrible idea. However, even better would be to simply try to stick to a known and proven format and only start experimenting with rule changes *after* you've developed a bit of a feel for how this works.
A few of my friends who play werewolf are actually actively opposed to people analysing votes and doing things like asking people what they are going to vote IRL games. Because "it gives too much information"..
Somehow I find this amusing.
The interesting question would be whether a single 8 person pack from the start would work, or whether it being so large would remove all incentive for the wolves to protect each other.
Think the other way: So large that they can dominate the vote cycle and simply win by sheer voting/debating power. If you're that big there's always a way to save your packmates without being too obvious about it..
That might be a productive experiment, and there could be ways to mitigate it - wolves being paired with each other as lovers, for example. Or maybe losing their hunt if a pack mate is lynched. The danger would be that those are destabilising rules, that exaggerate a shift in momentum rather than restore balance, but there's probably some idea that would work.
In all seriousness though, a vanilla villager can either a) analyse or b) fish for info via PM. Both were nearly-impossible this game, given how there were single-wolf packs.
Something I will say is that you should never have a set-up which can be seriously unbalanced by the failure or early death of any one player. This is why I often have starting apprentices instead of just sprinkling unclaimed ones around because that adds such an element of luck and if the seer and priest get apprentices and don't die early themselves then the game is massively in favour of the goodies. When you have a set-up you should try and look at all the most important roles in the game, according to your judgement, and ask "if this role dies immediately or is played poorly/inactively, will it hugely affect the game on its own" and try to minimise that.
.png){kind=avatar}
