• 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.

Falc

Founder of the Resistance
82 Badges
Dec 16, 2009
707
566
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
The Resistance - Down with Werewolf!

For too long, Werewolf has rules these boards! Finding strength and unity in another forum game, a small but determined Resistance cell is determined to break Werewolf's hegemony.

However, unbeknownst to them, the powerful forces at work behind Werewolf's dominion have become aware of their actions and have sent some of their most skilled agents to infiltrate the Resistance.

Will the Resistance be able to strike a blow against Werewolf? Or will the Spies be their undoing? Join the game and help decide the future of the OT Forum Games board!

Players and Roles

This is a game for 5 to 10 players. Normally, the players handle the organisation of the game themselves, but for a number of reasons this is not possible on a forum. Therefore, the game will be held under the auspices of a GM.

The 10 players will be given a Role through PM, either Spy or Resistance. The Spies will be informed of the identities of the other Spies. Distribution of the Roles depends on the number of players:

Players5678910
Resistance344566
Spies223334


The GM will also determine the order in which players will become Leader and assign the first Leader in a public post.

Game Play

The game consists of between three and five Rounds; each Round is comprised of a Plot Card phase, a Team Building phase and a Mission phase.

Distribute Plot Cards

The GM randomly selects a number of Plot Cards, depending on the amount of players:

Players5678910
Plot Cards drawn112233


These Plot Cards are revealed publically. The Leader then publically handles the effects of the Cards as he sees fit.

Build the Team

The Team Building phase consists of the Leader picking the players that he would like on the Mission Team followed by all the players Voting to Approve or Reject the Mission Team.

For each Mission, the Leader chooses a predetermined amount of players, possibly including himself, according to the following table:

Players5678910
1st Mission Team222333
2nd Mission Team333444
3rd Mission Team243444
4th Mission Team334555
5th Mission Team344555


Once the Leader posts his proposal in public, all players must Vote to either APPROVE or REJECT the proposed Team in public.

The Mission Team is approved if the majority of Votes approved and fails if a majority rejected the assignments; a tied vote is also a rejection. If the Mission Team is approved, play continues in the Mission phase. If the Mission Team is rejected, the Leader passes to the next player in line and the Team Building phase is repeated.

The Spies win the game if five Mission Teams are rejected in a single Round.

Conduct the Mission

Each player on the Mission Team must Vote to either SUPPORT or SABOTAGE the Mission through PM to the GM. Resistance players must SUPPORT the Mission, Spies have the choice between SUPPORT and SABOTAGE.

The Mission is successful only if every player on the Team supports it; if one or more sabotages occur, the Mission fails. Note that, with more than 7 players, the 4th Mission requires at least two sabotages to fail.

The GM announces the result of the Mission in public without revealing who did what. The Leader passes to the next in line and the next Round starts.

Victory

The cycle of Team building and Mission continues until one side scores 3 missions: the Resistance must have 3 successful missions while the Spies want 3 failed missions. Remember that the Spies also win if they can have 5 Teams rejected in the same Round.

Plot Cards

The contents of the Plot Card deck depend on the number of players. The first numbers before the card name indicates how many of this card there are if there are 7 or less players, the second number indicates how many for 8 or more.

2/2 - Strong Leader – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to become the Leader. Use of this card must be declared before Plot Cards are drawn by the GM. When a "Strong Leader" is played, another "Strong Leader" may not be played until a Vote has been taken.
2/2 - Keeping a close eye on you – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to learn whether a player SUPPORTED or SABOTAGED a Mission. If this card is in play, the GM will ask the player whether he wishes to use it after the GM has received all the Mission PMs. If two players have this card, they may use it in the same Mission phase but they may not use it on the same player.
1/3 - No Confidence – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to reject an approved Mission team (successful Vote). Using this card counts as a failed Vote.
1/2 - Opinion Maker – Permanent Effect – The player to whom the Leader passes this card must publically Vote for Mission Team selection. This card remains in effect until the end of the game.
1/1 - Take Responsibility – Use immediately – The player to whom the Leader passes this card must take one Plot card from any other player.
0/2 - Overheard Conversation – Use immediately – The player to whom the Leader passes this card must publically choose one player adjacent to him on the player list. This player's role will be revealed to him through PM by the GM.
0/1 - Establish Confidence – Use immediately – The Leader must choose one other player publically. The GM will reveal the Leader's Role to that player in PM.
0/1 - Open Up – Use immediately – The player to whom the Leader passes this card must choose one other player publically. The player chosen by the Leader will have his Role revealed by the GM through PM to the player that he chose.
0/1 - In the Spotlight – One time use - The player to whom the Leader passes this card may use this card to force a player to play their Mission card face up. The player playing this card must declare its use and the target player immediately after Mission Team selection.

Voting and deadlines

Each player must Vote in public in the Team Building phase. Unless the player clearly and explicitly states otherwise, this also counts as agreeing to move the game forward;

Each player on the Mission must Vote in PM to the GM in the Mission phase. A separate post must be made in public to indicate your Vote has been cast, implying that you agree to move the game forward.

When the Leader is sufficiently satisfied that everyone has agreed to move forward (not just a majority), he may himself move the game to the Mission phase if the game was in Team Building, or he may call on the GM to reveal the Mission Votes.

If there are Votes missing after a 24-hour waiting period, the GM will take the necessary actions to move the game forward.

Formalities

All communication between players must occur in the public thread. PMs between players are NOT allowed, neither are phonecalls, talking in another thread, letting things slip while having a drink, etc. No private conversations about this game, period.

Each player is solely responsible for clearly communicating to the GM and the other players. This is especially crucial for the Leader. He has a number of statements to make in public, like who gets what Plot Card and his Mission Team proposals. Both of these may be discussed in public beforehand, however, at some point a clear and final statement must be made.
 
Last edited:
Leader Order:

1. esemesas
2. tamius23
3. Kingepyon
4. randakar
5. Xarkan
6. Cliges
7. Cymsdale
8. AVN

Event Log:

Round 1: esemesas gives No Confidence to Cliges
Round 1: esemesas gives Keeping a close eye on you to AVN
Round 1: esemesas proposes randakar, tamius and esemesas, this team is approved (vote count)
Round 1: Mission failed due to 1 Sabotage

Round 2: tamius23 gives No Confidence to Xarkan
Round 2: tamius23 gives Strong Leader to Kingepyon
Round 2: tamius23 proposes tamius23, esemesas, Cliges and Xarkan, this team is rejected 7 votes to 1
Round 2: Kingepyon proposes Kingepyon, Cymsdale, AVN and Xarcan, this team is rejected 5 votes to 3 (vote log)
Round 2: randakar proposes randakar, Cliges, Cymsdale, Kingepyon, this team is approved 6 votes to 2 (AVN and tamius rejected)
Round 2: AVN used Keeping a close eye on you on Kingepyon
Round 2: Mission failed due to 1 Sabotage

Round 3: Xarkan gives Strong Leader to Cymsdale
Round 3: Xarkan gives In The Spotlight to AVN
Round 3: Xarkan proposes Xarkan, AVN, Cymsdale and Kingepyon, this team is rejected 7 votes to 1
Round 3: Cliges proposes AVN, Xarkan, Cliges and Cymsdale, this team is rejected 5 votes to 3 (Cliges, kingepyon, esemesas)
Round 3: Cymsdale proposes randakar, Cliges, Xarkan and Cymsdale
 
Last edited:
Food for thought and discussion. One goal this time has been to move closer to the RL game.

1) This time, no private conversations whatsoever. Since I cannot enforce it myself, I have but one choice: anyone who rats out another player who has talked to them in private about the game will receive a glorious resistance flag for their sig.

2) Votes and deadlines. Basically, when I wrote the rules for the first test game, I made the mistake of giving power to the GM. See, the RL game doesn't even have a GM, so why on Earth should he have anything to say about the game in this version?

This is why I wrote the bit about the players deciding for themselves.

Now, do note that I don't say anything about how to do that... Again, that's up to the players, but it should be agreed upon beforehand. So I will make some suggestions.

A first suggestion is actually to have Mission Team votes in public. I know that that's actually moving away from the RL game, but I'm sort of at a loss to see the whole point of keeping those votes secret until they're all revealed. Yes, okay, a Spy could see what other people are voting and try to not stand out. But won't he be able to do that anyway, since people are talking about their votes? Anyway, it's a suggestion.

The one thing that will always be needed, though, is that everyone needs to know who has cast their vote and who hasn't. For private votes, this will require people to publically state they've voted... A bit of extra work for you lot, I'm afraid.

Anyhoo... Let's get the sign-ups and the discussion going, shall we?
 
In

I have followed the first game so I guess I understand the game a little bit now.

Regarding the votes however I have a question.
I suppose that the votes who will be in the mission team are made in public (including some discussion).
However the votes if the mission succeeds or is sabotaged are made by PM-ing the GM.
Am I correct ?
 
Actually, in the RL game, both votes are made in private.

In the first test game, this is also how we played it.

However, I don't really see a good reason to keep the Team Building vote private. I do see reasons, I just don't think they're really valid.

Discussion about this is more than welcome, but if no-one can come up with something decent, I would make it completely public.

(This would however mean changing the Opinion Maker plot card. Probably simply invert it, ie. the player may vote in PM)
 
In.

All the paranoia and arguing of WW without the fear of elimination.
 
Maybe some form of deadline might be an idea. Or, at least, we could try to abide by a loose one.

Say, for example, a leader should submit a team within 24 hours after GM declares his turn as leader has started, players should vote for or against the proposed team within 24 hours of the leader's team post, and team members should vote support or sabotage within 24 hours of their team being approved. Everyone is responsible for keeping up with the thread often to see if any of these things has happened so as to act accordingly.

Thoughts?
 
Maybe some form of deadline might be an idea. Or, at least, we could try to abide by a loose one.

Say, for example, a leader should submit a team within 24 hours after GM declares his turn as leader has started, players should vote for or against the proposed team within 24 hours of the leader's team post, and team members should vote support or sabotage within 24 hours of their team being approved. Everyone is responsible for keeping up with the thread often to see if any of these things has happened so as to act accordingly.

I agree.
 
In

2) Votes and deadlines. Basically, when I wrote the rules for the first test game, I made the mistake of giving power to the GM. See, the RL game doesn't even have a GM, so why on Earth should he have anything to say about the game in this version?

This is why I wrote the bit about the players deciding for themselves.

That's stupid. If you do that every game will have different deadline rules.

Can we just settle this once and for all?
- Team votes and leader proposals are public, mission votes are not.
- 24 hours in which to vote.
- Not voting on a mission team means automatically approving the vote, unless you have other PUBLIC and BOLDED preloads. (eg. "always reject mission teams from player X" .. )
- Not voting on a mission means automatically SUPPORTING the mission, unless you are a spy AND have other preloads. (eg. "I wil always sabotage".)
- Not proposing a mission within the deadline as the leader means you are liable to being replaced by a sub.
- Once everyone voted update can come at any time ..
- .. unless someone either publically (and BOLDED) or privately asks for the deadline to be extended.

There. Anyone disagree?

Now, do note that I don't say anything about how to do that... Again, that's up to the players, but it should be agreed upon beforehand. So I will make some suggestions.

A first suggestion is actually to have Mission Team votes in public. I know that that's actually moving away from the RL game, but I'm sort of at a loss to see the whole point of keeping those votes secret until they're all revealed. Yes, okay, a Spy could see what other people are voting and try to not stand out. But won't he be able to do that anyway, since people are talking about their votes? Anyway, it's a suggestion.

I say YES to that one.


The one thing that will always be needed, though, is that everyone needs to know who has cast their vote and who hasn't. For private votes, this will require people to publically state they've voted... A bit of extra work for you lot, I'm afraid.

Anyhoo... Let's get the sign-ups and the discussion going, shall we?

Since nobody objects to public team votes I'd say we have a yes to that one.
One of the best features of werewolf is good old-fashioned sniping, let's keep that shall we? :)

Maybe some form of deadline might be an idea. Or, at least, we could try to abide by a loose one.

Say, for example, a leader should submit a team within 24 hours after GM declares his turn as leader has started, players should vote for or against the proposed team within 24 hours of the leader's team post, and team members should vote support or sabotage within 24 hours of their team being approved. Everyone is responsible for keeping up with the thread often to see if any of these things has happened so as to act accordingly.

Thoughts?

That's basically what I propose above. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm okay with public votes. Brings a little life into the game. Promotes discussion.

IN
 
I propose that once you vote for a mission team, it cannot be changed. Sniping isn't really appropriate for this game.

No.
If the objective is to stay true to the original game it should be allowed to change. The real life game has everyone reveal their votes simultaneously. You can't get anything like that if your vote cannot be changed after casting it AND has to be public.
A snipe is the forum version of revealing your allegiance to the spies by rejecting a critical team vote the moment the tally is revealed.

Besides, doing that means you have no chance of convincing someone to change their mind after they have cast their vote. It would be pointless to discuss it further, so you're quenching good discussion for no good reason at that point.

I would suggest vote changes have to be clearly labelled as such though, to prevent confusion.
 
Brief responses:

Of course the idea was NOT to have different rules for each game, I just wasn't going to write any down just yet.


You can't snipe with a vote change. If you change your vote and there's enough votes to end the cycle, then there were enough votes before your change anyway so your change will be ignored.
Furthermore, every last vote will be a 'snipe' due to the lack of deadline.
 
You can't snipe with a vote change. If you change your vote and there's enough votes to end the cycle, then there were enough votes before your change anyway so your change will be ignored.
Furthermore, every last vote will be a 'snipe' due to the lack of deadline.

Except that some people feel a 24-hour deadline is not a bad thing to have ;-)
 
My proposal is to make deadlines a semi-solid thing:

- Once all votes have been cast, the GM will post the word 'deadline' (or something to that effect) in the thread whenever he feels like doing an update. All votes and vote changes before then are valid, those after them are not.
- If the deadline passes with all votes cast, update proceeds as normal. (Snipes can happen here.)
- If the deadline is reached without enough votes - ditto, but see earlier post for handling absentees / missed votes.
- If someone requests an extension or enforced deadline, deadline will take place on whatever time the GM decrees is appropriate, and the first rule is temporarily ignored. In which case sniping is also an option.
- Once a deadline is enforced / extended, the request cannot be un-enforced / un-extended. This will have to be played by feel a bit, as players should be able to ask for small grace periods to discuss things without having to resort to a full 24 hour cycle either.

The result of this should be that the game can progress naturally, both allowing people to convince others to change their vote without forcing them to resort to not voting, and allowing the GM to use short vote cycles when people are active enough to not care about a full 24 hour cycle.

The disadvantage is that the GM more or less decrees what the deadline is in the not-enforced-deadline case, which could influence the game. A little.
Note however that if a GM wishes to effect the game there are already other ways for him to do so - as an example, what plot cards the leader gets can make a lot of difference.
 
Last edited: