although please no one for the love of god start pm'ing players trying to get them to join, unless you know them really well personally or something. Leave that to me, I don't want anyone receiving shittons of invites.
-
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.
Oh and in case it wasn't clear. My scheme was to:
Claim App
Have Nick claim Seer and scan me
Become a Seer app permanently
When Nick's lie expired, I would become a permanent Seer.
Repeat the next day to make Nick a priest.
Claim App
Have Nick claim Seer and scan me
Become a Seer app permanently
When Nick's lie expired, I would become a permanent Seer.
Repeat the next day to make Nick a priest.
Dada pulled a Dada!
BTW this is the second time Dada failed to GM, could we ban him from Gming?
Why don't you go back to self outing?
Dada
Neither were failures, both were important experiments in multiple small packs and mass PLs respectively.
Cool let me call it as I see it. I will never play a game run by you again. You put little thought into running the game and were antagonistic to the players. This was a GM Fail.
Agreed. As I said before for, the unusual set up just distracted from unusually bad GMing. Which is too bad because the basic idea could have worked well.
No one will. I tried and I failed. All I wanted to do was to try something new and when the players just went up and tried to break the game it offended and saddened me. I acted unprofessionally and any chance of me GMing a game (even if some boring copy/paste formula) is dead.
Lock a bunch of different test subjects in a room, and give them sandwiches, promising them freedom if they eat them. Suddenly, one jumps up and eats all the sandwiches, which turn out to be poisoned. Only he dies, and only he loses.
Loophole is found, loophole exploited, everyone is disappointed.
You tried something, offered the village a different way to win the game, and the village went and found the easy way out, with minimal loss for all involved. They knew the point of Werewolf is to survive - that is the way to win. So, they used the rules you gave them to win. The only losers were those who were unlucky or did not play to their fullest ability.
The lesson? If you want something to go a certain way, cover as many variables as possible. If you have to, recruit outside help, have someone look over your idea to block unwanted outcomes. You didn't want the game to end quickly and with minimal bloodshed: the village found a way around it. I would've prevented the mass cultist creation on that one day, though, and instead forbid it, changing the rules, and possibly giving Falc protection (he'd need it).
Be ready to change the rules if someone begins exploiting them, and/or punish the offender.
You let this outcome happen, perhaps because you thought it might yet prove interesting, or because you felt committed to the rules. Regardless, it really shouldn't have happened. People would've complained, sure, but the game would continue, and who knows, someone might appreciate the game.
Dadarian, I would step back and learn from this. Figure out the players, and figure out how you want to manipulate them as GM. If you want the game to go a certain way, give incentives for people to go that way, and if you want people to avoid doing something, give them a reason to not do it. You offered a free get out of game/death free card in the form of allowing everyone to become a cultist.
This could work, and, perhaps not immediately, nor even in a year's time, it could be attempted again. There are lessons here, and only a fool would not attempt to learn them.
Learn from this Dadarian, and improve upon the failure here. One does not always succeed, but those who give up never succeed.
Loophole is found, loophole exploited, everyone is disappointed.
You tried something, offered the village a different way to win the game, and the village went and found the easy way out, with minimal loss for all involved. They knew the point of Werewolf is to survive - that is the way to win. So, they used the rules you gave them to win. The only losers were those who were unlucky or did not play to their fullest ability.
The lesson? If you want something to go a certain way, cover as many variables as possible. If you have to, recruit outside help, have someone look over your idea to block unwanted outcomes. You didn't want the game to end quickly and with minimal bloodshed: the village found a way around it. I would've prevented the mass cultist creation on that one day, though, and instead forbid it, changing the rules, and possibly giving Falc protection (he'd need it).
Be ready to change the rules if someone begins exploiting them, and/or punish the offender.
You let this outcome happen, perhaps because you thought it might yet prove interesting, or because you felt committed to the rules. Regardless, it really shouldn't have happened. People would've complained, sure, but the game would continue, and who knows, someone might appreciate the game.
Dadarian, I would step back and learn from this. Figure out the players, and figure out how you want to manipulate them as GM. If you want the game to go a certain way, give incentives for people to go that way, and if you want people to avoid doing something, give them a reason to not do it. You offered a free get out of game/death free card in the form of allowing everyone to become a cultist.
This could work, and, perhaps not immediately, nor even in a year's time, it could be attempted again. There are lessons here, and only a fool would not attempt to learn them.
Learn from this Dadarian, and improve upon the failure here. One does not always succeed, but those who give up never succeed.
Same thoughts as axleu.
When experimenting something new, you really need to think it through many times. People are basically lazy and always try to find the easy way to do things.
When experimenting something new, you really need to think it through many times. People are basically lazy and always try to find the easy way to do things.
I'm reminded of a story from the developers of Shadow Run, it went something like this. "We realized that if you give stats to something, the players will try to kill it. So, we didn't give Harlequin(a very important NPC) stats.
Disagree, look at "It had babies" for an example of game where the GM let PLs run amok and made it worse by changing things mid game. I give Dada credit for knowing when to pull the plug.
My ego gets attached very quickly, and I can turn quite nasty when I feel my creation being abused. It's stupid, but this game was my baby and I got very defensive very quickly. Learning to bite my tongue is a struggle with many things, both on the forum and in my life. I really do apologise to @2kNikk @k-59 @Tornadoli, I just get too involved sometimes.
However the setup bore merit, both of them. The setups were as such:
Setup 1: A) 2 wolf PL pack B) 3 wolf PL pack C) rest a PL village. Probably good that this failed since it was even more unbalanced then the later one. 25% baddies was a good number, with mix vet and new players
Setup 2: A) a 1 wolf pack B) a PL village C) 25% cursed in order to sow confusion. Excepting my rather bad manner, the only real improvements would be the removal of the apprentice, cultist, thief roles and remove 5-10% PLs to be some other type of villager to add confusion, maybe add a blessed or two. This would cause utter chaos as people may or may not be PL.
Also don't copy/paste too much, I've made a ton of mistakes by not writing my stuff out and just ripping it from tamius.
Eh, remember E_L had asked for a rules clarification. That was when Dadarian could've laid down the law with minimal disruption to the game, as the legality of the plan was still in question. Sure, Falc was as good as dead, but the game would've kept on going.
But I was establishing precedent for future games where thee are multiple thieveries of the same person.
Not that it may ever happen, but this game can (and should) be quoted when it comes up.
I was like an American judge, and had to do what was right, not what I liked.
I totally understand, and sometimes I feel very much the same way.
I think you did a good job of correctly applying the rules*, which leads to the problem that there were big loop holes in the rules.
*Except for allowing just saying the name of role/trait to count as claiming that, but no one really exploited that one.
Honestly the game wasn't that bad, and some of the loop-hole abuses players tried to use have been used before.
I did this in a game previously for instance, well the claim seer, scan apprentice, make new seer part. So some of the issues were inherent in the Pathological liar, not the set-up. In the end it did get a bit too gamey, but it also required the wolves to rather publicly out themselves. Had there been villagers who didn't want to play along with the cultist plot, they could've claimed werewolf and hunted the real wolves, which were made public fairly easily due to their limited numbers. As the only wolf and non-PL in the game, it was rather worrying for me as I realised the various ways PLs could be used, and the difficulty it would take to exploit it when I had no ability myself. It ended up falling my way, but had the seer plan been tried, it'd be very likely that I'd have been caught and game over there. Though that was also a sign of imbalance. The best way to have done a set-up like this would have been to keep traits secret upon death so players didn't realise everyone (minus 1) was a PL. The set-up in and of itself was not a disaster. However Dadarian responded poorly to the gamey tactics that emerged, and interacted too much with the players, leading to the games collapse. This is a set-up that would only work if the players were in the dark about it, and for a variety of reasons, that did not happen this game, and the game stopped being werewolf, though I got some good laughs out of outing myself as a wolf to gain an advantage in the end.
I said it in the thread before, I quite liked this game. Every now and then, a whacky experiment is good.
What I didn't like is the GM interventions. Yes, you might think that everyone knows that everyone was PL, but you can't just state it as GM. You also stated that there were 2 packs, etc. At that point, it was pointless to play on; but I think it could have continued without those interventions.
If you make a whacko setup, at least let the players play it, instead of trying to influence it.
What I didn't like is the GM interventions. Yes, you might think that everyone knows that everyone was PL, but you can't just state it as GM. You also stated that there were 2 packs, etc. At that point, it was pointless to play on; but I think it could have continued without those interventions.
If you make a whacko setup, at least let the players play it, instead of trying to influence it.
I think what I would have said from setup and GM interference has been already said. So, I guess I'll just thank Dadarian for making the effort.