Yes, but the other key point is that, if enough are zombies, they will get rid of the active ones, in an CFWZ (Coalition for Werewolf Zombieism). And then you would quit WW.
-
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.
Yes, but the other key point is that, if enough are zombies, they will get rid of the active ones, in an CFWZ (Coalition for Werewolf Zombieism). And then you would quit WW.
My "rigid rules" were a response to AOK's self-outing himself as a wolf, and when the village apathetically let him live, he crowed that he had fooled everyone into believing that he was a suicidal villager. I suspect that people were actually just rolling their eyes at the whole game and didn't particularly care what happened, but my rules aren't hard for anyone to follow -- don't act like an obvious wolf unless you are JL. If you act like an obvious wolf, such as by breaking rule #1 (No announcing yourself as a wolf), then you ought to be lynched. The rules aren't for the player; they are for the village who must react to that player. And, the JL can do anything. That is written into the "rules" as well.
AOK, if we were to jump into a time machine and go back to 2006 and introduce this game to an unsuspecting WW community, what would you change about the way we play now? Or have we utterly perfected this game? I ask this because I wonder what habits, good or bad, are so ingrained in this community that we cannot easily undo; and if had the chance, would we try to prevent them from ever appearing?
Some may disagree. Some may even dispute the definition of zombieism.
One other simple thing we can do is calling for GM's to enforce activity levels a bit more strictly. I liked it when you started subbing people because they weren't playing actively enough to your taste. That shows you cared, even though not everyone agreed with it.
It should have been done a little more carefully though - putting it in the game rules in a big font, for starters.
And perhaps make it a bit more predictable: Adding a simple rule like: "Every third day the least active person (as determined by the GM - may be based on post count, but may not be) gets subbed if we have subs available." would clarify things a lot
It should have been done a little more carefully though - putting it in the game rules in a big font, for starters.
And perhaps make it a bit more predictable: Adding a simple rule like: "Every third day the least active person (as determined by the GM - may be based on post count, but may not be) gets subbed if we have subs available." would clarify things a lot
For any set of rules, you must define, beyond doubt, the concepts in which you base your rules.
What is a JL (for the effects of your rules)? What constitutes "outing oneself as a wolf"?
And then, there are situations where there can't be a JL, or it cannot be trusted, and where villagers may have something to gain by playing and voting against your ruleset.
Daimon outed himself as a wolf when he was a lover in walrus's game. Village lost by following your rules and voting him. They could have voted on the likely wolves that were being analyzed until Daimon's confession. It screamed fake in my ears and most of the village had doubts. Still, Ironhead's rules must be followed, because AOK.
Rules are meant to be broken. And breaking them should not ensure an automatic and predictable response (in other words, mindless). Rules take your mind out of the equation to produce determined outcomes.
And lastly, to mention your JL-centrism. So, JL'ers are the only ones with right to think. Others must obey to a rule code in regards to their votes.
Yeah that did the village a world of good didn't it. :rofl:
Glad you got a win k-59. I didn't deserve a win anyways but at least I collected even more trophies
Didn't hardly have time/focus to play and shouldn't have signed up but you know I had to.That is exactly what I was pushing for. Had to play it cool and take a risk on the vote snipe later but I did a dry run about 10 minutes before and posted with 5 seconds to go according to my clock, post got in on time so I risked it at 12 seconds before the deadline hoping the forum wouldn't screw it up.
Good game aok.
Minor note to others. Obviously winning is what counts. BUT fun is critical and if winning is simply not an option...well...make sure you have fun. AND play a crucial role in making sure your buddies win by massacring the opposition as much as possible. I died...but 1/2 the village died with me in one update.
Yes... so many choices to bypass your brutal. Red wolf hunt, drxav's hunt, marty's hunt... and we end up going with a lynch. Still, I did not expect AOK, who hates brutal so much, to give it without mentioning in the rules. Sneaky b****** GM...
I still did not get a reply about the Adamus hunt. I'd like to know the reasoning, I'm curious, but if you want to keep it a secret...
EXACTLY! Everyone must decide for themselves if someone is JL; if the JL can be trusted; etc.
Everything else is just policy lynches then. We villagers have to try our best to figure out who is evil, and we must try to lynch them. Anyone who acts like a wolf ought to be considered a suspect. Thus, my "rules"... nothing more than a few behaviors that are so overwhelming wolfish that the village cannot afford to overlook them. If some idiot villager like Tornadoli chooses to act wolfishly, then his death was his own goddamn fault for looking like a wolf. If he had looked like a villager, we probably would have scrutinized the player who acted second most wolfishly -- EUROO7, who made a tie possible with his late vote that day.
It was right there in the roster.
And above your avatar, Mr. Obvious...
But in the end it's the general conception of what and who is JL that decides the lynch. This game illustrated it perfectly. I said marty wasn't confirmed JL, he said he was, I presented arguments against, he counter-argued. And marty's lynch-list ended up influencing a good part of the lynches in this game. And the chance for him to be a cultist was present.
So, this rule actually creates a sort of paradox. You say that baddie-deeds ought to be followed with a lynch, and yet you allow people to do what they want to catch a baddie, as long as they can claim the JL mantle. This is a sure recipe for disaster. It's like Berlusconi, and presidential immunity...
In other words, you propose tunnel vision. Someone does something bad, and we focus on him and ignore the 6 other would-be wolves. Tell you what, humans make mistakes. Some are crovaxes, some are Tornadolis... but in the end, it's the result that matters. And your rules cannot calculate the result.
Last edited:
Hey once in a while the title is actually right in a game.And above your avatar, Mr. Obvious...
Except for the Berlusconi comparison, you got it right. If someone does something wolfish, and claims JL, each voter has to decide whether he believes that the claimant really is in the JL. Would you have believed Tornadoli on Day 2 if he said he was in the JL? Of course not. But when I "outed" you later in the game, I could credibly claim JL... or maybe not. I suppose a good case could have been made against me and then I would have to be lynched.
So either: everyone acts as villagerish as possible, and we have ceterus paribus perfect information to decide who to lynch; or, someone acts outrageously wolfish and we must lynch that person; or, several people act outrageously wolfish and/or we have a very strong case to lynch someone else, and so the village has to decide among the few.
So you propose, AOK admitting he is a wolf after getting caught on one day, and then convincing the village that he was a "suicidal villager" the next day. Is this a good game dynamic?
I really wish I could show you Young Turks what WW used to be like. Until you've played in a Whodunnit or Hogwarts game, you really haven't experienced WW at its best. Even the late 2008 games that EUROO7 mentioned do not hold a candle to the games we played when we are all too inexperienced to outwit ourselves in this game.
Brutal was in the rules from the beginning. Every trait and role was listed. It is not my fault you cannot seem to read. As to why I gave it to Jacob and not to a Red wolf, I will cover that tomorrow when I discuss my setup.
I read it several times looking for it, both in the beginning of the game, and when J-L was lynched, and could not find it.
Hope that was not a cheap edit (because I don't see many other reasons to edit that particular post at the end of the game). And I had my eyes checked quite recently.
and while I got your attention, please explain how this...
gives information about lots of things other than the role of that player. And useless information implies it still conforms to "revealing clues to the role of that player".
Don't get me wrong, I think you did a fine job with the Spy (although giving baddies a spy too could be an interesting twist).
Hope that was not a cheap edit (because I don't see many other reasons to edit that particular post at the end of the game)
. And I had my eyes checked quite recently.and while I got your attention, please explain how this...
gives information about lots of things other than the role of that player. And useless information implies it still conforms to "revealing clues to the role of that player".
Don't get me wrong, I think you did a fine job with the Spy (although giving baddies a spy too could be an interesting twist).
Last edited:
This is AOK. 11 we're talking about here.Hope that was not a cheap edit (because I don't see many other reasons to edit that particular post at the end of the game)
Ah this finale with the villager suiciding and giving victory to the black pack is incredibly frustrating...
I read it several times looking for it, both in the beginning of the game, and when J-L was lynched, and could not find it.
Hope that was not a cheap edit (because I don't see many other reasons to edit that particular post at the end of the game)
White Daimon was right. You are a moron. It was there the entire time. I edited the page today (something like 6 hours ago) to include the part explaining the GM could kill survivors, hoping people would actually give a damn to avoid the comet and certain death.
It is not my fault you are illiterate. Suggesting that I would edit that in simply to win an argument insults my intelligence. It was there from the opening of the thread. Now kindly inflict your idiocy on someone else.
I agree wholeheartedly here. AOK got the spy role right -- I just wish we had more of them!
Before the game began AOK and I discussed some variations and I had recommended that the cultist role be given spy powers -- but when he spies on the seer, he always gets a 100% accurate return of "seer" just as if he had scanned.
Good thing the game has already terminated, and I'm safely out of your arm's reach
. Still, you insult your own intelligence by replying that I implied that you had edited it in to win an argument, when the date of your edit was from yesterday, and I only prompted the question around an hour ago. So, I guess I'm not the only one failing at reading .Peace? Or will I be hunted night 0 the next time you roll a wolf? Anyway, I'm off to sleep, to be haunted by images of an irate Chancellor... :rofl: