Werewolf CIV : When the saints go marching in

[AOK. 11]

We need to just stop doing anything other than two packs. I cannot remember a situation where more than two packs added anything to any game unless it was one of the really early games that had 45+ players. Just make two packs and stop with anything beyond that.Unless we get like 50 players or something, 2 packs should be the standard. Simple two pack setups with limited trait distribution with a few twists is what we need.

Of the big games of recent times, we have had two that were really good. And they were both simple two pack setups with trait distribution that was fairly limited. GMs should just stop with the bullshit. Leave Werewolf Alone.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

You forgot the picture.

 

[reis91]

If I should give some feedback on the setup I think telling apprentices that they were apprentices is a bad thing. We have had GMs try that before and it always ends up with too many goodie apprentices once the JL gets going. A starting seer's apprentice I think was a bit much here but since the seer died immediately that sort of took care of itself. Letting a dead scanner's scan return to the apprentice is something that is not usually done. Personally I don't like pack specific cultists because you have to kill (or promote) them once their pack dies.

AOK would get killed way before he could find himself an apprentice. Plus, I did restrict apprentice's that inherited from their claimant being able to claim more apprentices.
And lastly, there was a chance that baddies had traits that enabled them to get apprentices, so it's not insta-JL.

We need to just stop doing anything other than two packs. I cannot remember a situation where more than two packs added anything to any game unless it was one of the really early games that had 45+ players. Just make two packs and stop with anything beyond that.Unless we get like 50 players or something, 2 packs should be the standard.

It eliminates the "how many packs are there?" speculation that many players enjoy. It gives more information to the village at the start, possibly influencing lynching behavior, and overall makes for a more predictable WW experience, in my view. Yes, 2 pack setups, ceteris paribus, should be more balanced than 3+ pack ones. But the difference isn't huge, and imo doesn't justify enforcing 2 pack in every game.

Anyway, what's wrong with a pair 10/12 people packs in a 50+ player game?

 

[joebthegreat]

We need to just stop doing anything other than two packs. I cannot remember a situation where more than two packs added anything to any game unless it was one of the really early games that had 45+ players. Just make two packs and stop with anything beyond that.Unless we get like 50 players or something, 2 packs should be the standard. Simple two pack setups with limited trait distribution with a few twists is what we need.

Of the big games of recent times, we have had two that were really good. And they were both simple two pack setups with trait distribution that was fairly limited. GMs should just stop with the bullshit. Leave Werewolf Alone.

This.

The three pack setup isn't bad because it's unbalanced. You can make it balanced.

The three pack setup is bad because it gets very boring for any goodies that haven't been given the roles with traits that "balance" the game. Specifically, villagers late game have nothing to do but follow a JL that gets rolling. So unless you have such a large group that three packs isn't going to lead to a very large percentage of baddies, you should stick with two.

There is still plenty to speculate about in werewolf. Trying to find who the wolves are is always going to be difficult because the style wolves play with change all the time. Different wolf packs have different flavors. Also two packs among a group of 30 gives the villagers more time to analyze things later in the game, without needing to rely on a JL to constantly ping baddies. I'd argue there's less real speculation in a 3 pack game because you end up with your giant JL that gets built up to counter the large number of baddies.

---

Also I'd like to apologize for my inability to communicate during the last days. I had my finals for college, some military drills, and was operating on about 8 hours of sleep for the whole week. I kept saying things and then noticing different things I was wrong about, and misreading things. I couldn't keep anything straight. I'd like to think if I had been able to articulate what I was saying more clearly we might have actually won.

 

[johho888]

The three pack setup isn't bad because it's unbalanced. You can make it balanced.

The three pack setup is bad because it gets very boring for any goodies that haven't been given the roles with traits that "balance" the game. Specifically, villagers late game have nothing to do but follow a JL that gets rolling. So unless you have such a large group that three packs isn't going to lead to a very large percentage of baddies, you should stick with two.

Excatly. I don't mind the odd one or three pack setup every now and then (10-20% of the games maybe) just so you don't know for a fact it is a two pack setup at game start but two pack setups gives better games so the bulk of the games should be like that.

Like joeb says, a three pack setup needs a very strong JL to counter it and since the village needs to lynch baddies almost every day to win there is bound to be a lot of outings which makes for a dull game if you are not in the JL or one of the packs.

A one pack setup is atctually more fun to play because there is more uncertainty (on the village side) than a three pack setup but it very easily ends in a landslide for the team that gets off to the best start.

 

[Adamus]

I know its been said but I think the key is to allow the basic game to just do its thing. Too many changes just upsets the game and the people, and thats never a good thing.

 

[reis91]

since the village needs to lynch baddies almost every day to win there is bound to be a lot of outings which makes for a dull game if you are not in the JL or one of the packs.

Wrong. The village needs to play the wolves against each other. Look at the previous Big Game, where the Red pack tried to cooperate with the village in wiping the black pack out, but then got hunted by the JL which ended up losing the game. I think it adds a different, sort of "diplomatic" dimension to WW.

Yes, we know he is a baddie, but we want to keep him alive to weaken the other packs.

And villagers are certainly not condemned to play a dumb game, just because they didn't get any role.

 

[drxav]

Wrong. The village needs to play the wolves against each other. Look at the previous Big Game, where the Red pack tried to cooperate with the village in wiping the black pack out, but then got hunted by the JL which ended up losing the game. I think it adds a different, sort of "diplomatic" dimension to WW.

You're all about that again? You never offered to coordinate with the village to wipe the other pack. You never helped, you in fact threatened a JL person (me) and forced me to hunt you. That sort of diplomatic thing never happens, and it shouldn't because we aren't on the same side and only one side can win.

I think the 3 pack setup could be interesting if you get uneven packs. One pack with 4, one with 3, one with 2, or something like that. As for the rest I prefer a one pack setup, but well that's just my live WW experience.

 

[reis91]

You're all about that again? You never offered to coordinate with the village to wipe the other pack. You never helped, you in fact threatened a JL person (me) and forced me to hunt you. That sort of diplomatic thing never happens, and it shouldn't because we aren't on the same side and only one side can win.

I think the 3 pack setup could be interesting if you get uneven packs. One pack with 4, one with 3, one with 2, or something like that. As for the rest I prefer a one pack setup, but well that's just my live WW experience.

Threats are a means to an end. The moral discussion is not a particularly important point there... . Although I was playing more to destroy the anarchists than to actually win, though.

That can be done, but is extremely hard to balance and takes a lot of traits thrown around to compensate, which some frown upon. Kriszo did it with two packs some games ago, and it worked out alright, but with 3 it will be even harder.

For one pack games, we already have Lite. There may be a point to secretly making a game like that, keeping the pack setup secret somehow.

 

[randakar]

PS : randakar, I didn't have a criteria for such an event, and did what I judged best for game balance. Had you been successful, the Schismatic pack had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Plus, your scan wasn't a 100% one, it could very well have been "tilted" to fail (although I never resorted to anything but the Random Number Generator).

This is why I dislike random chances and "GM decides" things in game rules. It may have made the chances for the schismatics to win very low, but don't forget how they got there. The village was playing well up till that point, and that the schismatic's chances were so low was not due to how well -they- played up till that point.

I think the goodies lost their nerve on the final day. You had a seer and a doc left, you should have just lynched me and tomorrow you would have had one more scan result and possibly a doc save as well. On the other hand, I understand if you are nervous that you personally get hunted and lose the game on the last night... Patience is a virtue. And always assume that no-kill nights are turned wolves, unless you know that it isn't so!

It wouldn't have made a damn difference. Rysz was -still- an unlikely hunt. I really didn't count on that.
Anyway, would have, should have- whatever. I got what, 8 baddies lynched? 10? What are the odds of that? And still I lose.

Randakar: From my point of view, I "fooled" you, yes, because I was a wolf for the past few days (even when drxav PMed me and asked me to lynch j-L). But it was not a fooling which required much effort, nor did it take much effort.

.. because I wasn't actively looking for behavioural signs on your part.
Yes, I failed, but it's not really that I was fooled as much as it was simply too illogical for me to consider it. A failure which is mine and has nothing to do with you doing anything in particular.

So when you crowed that "you fooled me" I was like.. WTF? You did nothing. No offense. I even actively avoided talking to you about the game yesterday because I just had it with the game up to there. *points*
Also a reason why I failed, I guess.

It was not my best game, and you could have some debate on how I did not deserve to win. But that's the problem with cursed, you suddenly just switch sides, and everything changes. IMO, Jopi deserves this win 100%.

Jopi deserved to get lynched about 5 times over.

The three pack setup is bad because it gets very boring for any goodies that haven't been given the roles with traits that "balance" the game. Specifically, villagers late game have nothing to do but follow a JL that gets rolling. So unless you have such a large group that three packs isn't going to lead to a very large percentage of baddies, you should stick with two.

What really got me is that it just seemed endless. I kept lynching or attempting to lynch obvious baddies and it never truly ended. There were just too many of them. That is why I never really considered the two turns a possibility. It was just -too- -damn- -much-.
How many baddies did I get killed? What did I get for it?
I rest my case.

 

[reis91]

There is a choice. Either you prioritise playing to win, avoiding being a target for votes or hunts, or you just play to smite the opposition.

 

[EUROO7]

There is a choice. Either you prioritise playing to win, avoiding being a target for votes or hunts, or you just play to smite the opposition.

How simplistic.

 

[johho888]

This is why I dislike random chances and "GM decides" things in game rules. It may have made the chances for the schismatics to win very low, but don't forget how they got there. The village was playing well up till that point, and that the schismatic's chances were so low was not due to how well -they- played up till that point.

Says the GM that changed the whole setup of his game to "balance out" thing...

But you are right of course. If you have everything in the rules then the GM shouldn't even be tempted to attempt to balance the game. OTOH we don't want to scare away newbies by having rules that looks like software license agreements.

It wouldn't have made a damn difference. Rysz was -still- an unlikely hunt. I really didn't count on that.
Anyway, would have, should have- whatever. I got what, 8 baddies lynched? 10? What are the odds of that? And still I lose.

Yes, it would have mattered if you lynched Jopi because the seer scan order was for Rysz the last night. And didn't the seer have any part of getting those baddies lynched?

.. because I wasn't actively looking for behavioural signs on your part.
Yes, I failed, but it's not really that I was fooled as much as it was simply too illogical for me to consider it. A failure which is mine and has nothing to do with you doing anything in particular.

So when you crowed that "you fooled me" I was like.. WTF? You did nothing. No offense. I even actively avoided talking to you about the game yesterday because I just had it with the game up to there. *points*
Also a reason why I failed, I guess.

The fact that jacob doesn't think like you doesn't mean he is wrong, some people just have different strategies. For what it's worth your reasoning would have caught me, I usually hunt to maximize the number of unscanned. The Schismatic victory here was because of jacob, not Rysz. To some extent the the village loss was also because of Kehaar and how he managed to sabotage the JL desired TIEs.

Jopi deserved to get lynched about 5 times over.

And yet he wasn't. Being a cultist and not a wolf has at least some advantages.

What really got me is that it just seemed endless. I kept lynching or attempting to lynch obvious baddies and it never truly ended. There were just too many of them. That is why I never really considered the two turns a possibility. It was just -too- -damn- -much-.
How many baddies did I get killed? What did I get for it?
I rest my case.

Two turned are not all that unlikely. You knew there weren't a GA around. You knew one blessed was dead. So really two turned should have been the most likely cause of the no-kills since there usually are more cursed then blessed around and counting on forgotten hunts is often just wishful thinking.

 

[Ciryandor]

Says the GM that changed the whole setup of his game to "balance out" thing...

But you are right of course. If you have everything in the rules then the GM shouldn't even be tempted to attempt to balance the game. OTOH we don't want to scare away newbies by having rules that looks like software license agreements.

Having GMed a couple of Bigs already; maybe 3rd time's the charm; I would rather have a basic template that just told us that this is the base-line we're working from for a nicely balanced game one can play without being too dissatisfied; and it is up to the GM to tweak it for player count idiosyncrasies and/or other personal flavors to result in an interesting and fairly balanced game.

Yes, it would have mattered if you lynched Jopi because the seer scan order was for Rysz the last night. And didn't the seer have any part of getting those baddies lynched?

THIS, DAMN IT, THIS. Randy, not to bullshit you, but not voting for Slinky on that last day or even heeding joeb's words to bandwagon Jopi to death for acting like the cultist means that I'm the guy you should really be angry at for screwing it all up. Not yourself. I should have been much more forceful in arguing for going for one person and thinking through it. Joeb's "I give up" speech just made me want to give a damn about it anymore. I WOULD have died that night anyway, but you and Racz could have come out with Rysz and it would have been all over.

The fact that jacob doesn't think like you doesn't mean he is wrong, some people just have different strategies. For what it's worth your reasoning would have caught me, I usually hunt to maximize the number of unscanned. The Schismatic victory here was because of jacob, not Rysz. To some extent the the village loss was also because of Kehaar and how he managed to sabotage the JL desired TIEs.

True, he was playing for a baddie win overall and not for himself, being the last member of an essentially lame pack. Some other players would have actually played for sabotaging a baddie victory. It was his choice, and I commend his ability to actually pull it off by wasting 3 days.

And yet he wasn't. Being a cultist and not a wolf has at least some advantages.

The village overall ignored the fact that his vote is one vote too many under the baddies' control. I'll take note of that as a mental marker to not bother me again.

Two turned are not all that unlikely. You knew there weren't a GA around. You knew one blessed was dead. So really two turned should have been the most likely cause of the no-kills since there usually are more cursed then blessed around and counting on forgotten hunts is often just wishful thinking.

On my end, I was actually a bit too paranoid and considered Racz being a Cursed Apprentice or Randy being a Cursed Witness; stuff that has been in the game before by the likes of White Daimon. I discounted the fact that reis would not have been as avant-garde with his trait selection, and would have probably put it on regular villagers.

To randy: Dude, stop blaming yourself. You were doing your best, and we weren't arguing enough amongst ourselves for or against some of the decisions that we made. We as a core should have been talking more; and you as JL spokesman would have been at the receiving end of that, not the initiating end.

I HATE IT WHEN I WAKE UP AT 4AM; and there's no game. And I have to go to work. To file some resignation papers. Screw this job.

 

[Jopi]

It wouldn't have made a damn difference. Rysz was -still- an unlikely hunt. I really didn't count on that.
Anyway, would have, should have- whatever. I got what, 8 baddies lynched? 10? What are the odds of that? And still I lose.

...

What really got me is that it just seemed endless. I kept lynching or attempting to lynch obvious baddies and it never truly ended. There were just too many of them. That is why I never really considered the two turns a possibility. It was just -too- -damn- -much-.
How many baddies did I get killed? What did I get for it?
I rest my case.

in every game where luck is a factor, sometimes you play brilliantly and you lose, and sometimes you play horribly and you win. It happens to everyone, and losing like that always sucks. It's pointless to think about who deserved to win and who didn't; it just makes it worse. Werewolf is a damn cruel game: you can play near-perfectly for 99% of the game and then make one mistake and lose everything. It happens to baddies, it happens to goodies. Yes, you got a lot of baddies killed, but you had the help of a pretty extensive JL. In a three pack game, that number of baddie kills is pretty much the minimum for the good side. But you have to remember that in a three pack game the odds are in favour of a baddie victory: after all, there are three sides that are labelled "bad". It's (at least) just as difficult for any one of them to win. We could also argue that we killed the Seer and two Docs, and an assorted number of other people. Do we not deserve a win for that? All in all, you played really well until we got lucky and hit two cursed. After that, the game pretty much began anew and you (as in the good side) made some crucial mistakes.

 

[Rysz]

Randakar: From the moment I got turned, I was afraid I would be discovered. When the game was over, and I was in the winning team, I was just happy that I succeeded in keeping under the radar. Since you were a big part of that radar, at the moment I read the update, I was simply happy to have survived. My choice of words at that time was not perfect, but you might also have noticed just before that my english speaking skills were a bit low while GMing the fireplace-WW. (in my defence: I had 3 beers, which for me is quite much). It was not so much as having purposefully and completely fooled you, but more a relief that I was not discovered and outed before the game was over. Sorry for the poor choice of words.

EDIT: Also 100% agree with Jopi's post.

 

[randakar]

Says the GM that changed the whole setup of his game to "balance out" thing...

That was a mistake I've learned from.
*shrug*
I don't quite care, I've had a bad run of late. Too many losses due to bloody stupidity, and it's taking it's toll.

But you are right of course. If you have everything in the rules then the GM shouldn't even be tempted to attempt to balance the game. OTOH we don't want to scare away newbies by having rules that looks like software license agreements.

True. Getting the corner cases clearly written down can get elaborate. I've tried in my game to get rid of a lot them but it's hard to do that without getting the problem you describe here.

Yes, it would have mattered if you lynched Jopi because the seer scan order was for Rysz the last night. And didn't the seer have any part of getting those baddies lynched?

I wasn't talking about lynching Jopi at all there. Not sure what I was talking about, but it wasn't about lynching Jopi.

Speaking of which - in hindsight, yeah, lynching him made sense. Yet, it would have meant ciryandor dying to the hunt, then us lynching rysz, then either me or racz getting eaten, then having a last day with one of us two, Joeb and Slinky. Guess what the odds were there?
I gambled on what seemed logical to me and lost. It's stupid but it's how it is. However, look at the scenario I described above. Guess what my survival chances are in such a case? 1 in 3, if I'm lucky.

The fact that jacob doesn't think like you doesn't mean he is wrong, some people just have different strategies. For what it's worth your reasoning would have caught me, I usually hunt to maximize the number of unscanned. The Schismatic victory here was because of jacob, not Rysz. To some extent the the village loss was also because of Kehaar and how he managed to sabotage the JL desired TIEs.

I had two chances to get Jacob killed before the no hunts. One day when OY died, another when the snipes happened - I knew that was coming. I saw it happen, and I failed to act decisively to get people to vote Jacob, as my instinct was screaming at me.
That is my failure this game. That, and nothing else. I do not regret doing what I did on the last day.

And yet he wasn't. Being a cultist and not a wolf has at least some advantages.

Two turned are not all that unlikely. You knew there weren't a GA around. You knew one blessed was dead. So really two turned should have been the most likely cause of the no-kills since there usually are more cursed then blessed around and counting on forgotten hunts is often just wishful thinking.

Are there usually more cursed than blessed around? What rule says that?
Frankly: Screw that. You weren't in my position and you had perfect knowledge.

My point is: I had to play absolutely perfect to win this, and I did not, therefore I lost.
Now read that again.
I -still- rest my case.

in every game where luck is a factor, sometimes you play brilliantly and you lose, and sometimes you play horribly and you win. It happens to everyone, and losing like that always sucks. It's pointless to think about who deserved to win and who didn't; it just makes it worse.

Oh, I'm not exactly thinking about who deserved to win or not.
It's more that I am trying to drive the point home that for a villager in game with this many baddies you -really- are up against the odds. And some people (reis) seem to not understand that.

Werewolf is a damn cruel game: you can play near-perfectly for 99% of the game and then make one mistake and lose everything. It happens to baddies, it happens to goodies. Yes, you got a lot of baddies killed, but you had the help of a pretty extensive JL. In a three pack game, that number of baddie kills is pretty much the minimum for the good side. But you have to remember that in a three pack game the odds are in favour of a baddie victory: after all, there are three sides that are labelled "bad". It's (at least) just as difficult for any one of them to win. We could also argue that we killed the Seer and two Docs, and an assorted number of other people. Do we not deserve a win for that? All in all, you played really well until we got lucky and hit two cursed. After that, the game pretty much began anew and you (as in the good side) made some crucial mistakes.

Good to see you understand, at least.

To be honest, I just hate losing, and the past few games have been bad for me in more ways than one. I get upset and I should not feel like that for something what is essentially some people on an internet forum throwing letters at each other. I just wish I could have a game for once where I just hang back, do essentially nothing, and still win. Like some people

Randakar: From the moment I got turned, I was afraid I would be discovered. When the game was over, and I was in the winning team, I was just happy that I succeeded in keeping under the radar. Since you were a big part of that radar, at the moment I read the update, I was simply happy to have survived. My choice of words at that time was not perfect, but you might also have noticed just before that my english speaking skills were a bit low while GMing the fireplace-WW. (in my defence: I had 3 beers, which for me is quite much). It was not so much as having purposefully and completely fooled you, but more a relief that I was not discovered and outed before the game was over. Sorry for the poor choice of words.

EDIT: Also 100% agree with Jopi's post.

Apology accepted.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be over in the Lite game doing my damnest best to get lynched.
(Don't ask me why. I may actually answer.)

 

[Boris ze Spider]

Why?

 

[reis91]

Oh, I'm not exactly thinking about who deserved to win or not.
It's more that I am trying to drive the point home that for a villager in game with this many baddies you -really- are up against the odds. And some people (reis) seem to not understand that.

I understand, but you (understandably) exaggerate the issue. Baddies are bound to turn on each other, selling other likely wolves or hunting them, especially because no-one expected a Seer with apprentice at start.

IMO, the village ought to manage the wolf-killing on a cleverer way than "destroy as we find them". Some players do exactly that, for instance, in your game, if I recall correctly, EURO scanned someone and let him live to try to figure the rest of his pack. Here, you would look to know that, and to figure if you risk wiping a pack and reaching parity, knowing that the remaining, stronger one, would get to hunt every night, and will target all their might upon the villagers. Thus making for far more interesting debate and analysis, and giving several shades of grey to werewolf, instead of white (goodie) and black (baddie).

 

[johho888]

Speaking of which - in hindsight, yeah, lynching him made sense. Yet, it would have meant ciryandor dying to the hunt, then us lynching rysz, then either me or racz getting eaten, then having a last day with one of us two, Joeb and Slinky. Guess what the odds were there?
I gambled on what seemed logical to me and lost. It's stupid but it's how it is. However, look at the scenario I described above. Guess what my survival chances are in such a case? 1 in 3, if I'm lucky.

I'm not saying you should have lynched Jopi. Going for one of two possible wolves makes perfect sense only then the JL really shouldn't have split their votes.

Are there usually more cursed than blessed around? What rule says that?
Frankly: Screw that. You weren't in my position and you had perfect knowledge.

I've never seen a game with more blessed than cursed and I've seen a lot of games.

But there is no rule for that, it could well be the other way around so it's one of the twists a GM could make if he wanted a twist to a seemingly normal rules game.

My point is: I had to play absolutely perfect to win this, and I did not, therefore I lost.
Now read that again.
I -still- rest my case.

Oh, I'm not exactly thinking about who deserved to win or not.
It's more that I am trying to drive the point home that for a villager in game with this many baddies you -really- are up against the odds. And some people (reis) seem to not understand that.

It's not all about you personnaly, you know. Other people played for your side too. They made mistakes, you made mistakes. The baddies made mistakes, the GMs made mistakes. You goodies had a bit of luck at times and so did the baddies. You thought things through and made "correct" decision but then again sometimes the baddies did that too. It's not just your skill that determines who wins, other people matters too and so does Lady Luck.

To be honest, I just hate losing, and the past few games have been bad for me in more ways than one. I get upset and I should not feel like that for something what is essentially some people on an internet forum throwing letters at each other. I just wish I could have a game for once where I just hang back, do essentially nothing, and still win. Like some people

Really, you'd rather be a zoombie and win than do your damndest for your side and lose? I'd take "go out in a blaze of glory" any day. But if winning is that important to you I can understand it hurts to loose games when you played well like you did this game.