Taur-in-Gaurhoth Scenarios you'd Like to See

[littlemanpoet]

Let's start this off with these:

1. Name a Dead (BD'er that is) you want to see as a werewolf; and why?

2. Name a Dead you want to see as the Ranger; and why?

3. Name a Dead you want to see as the Seer; and why?

4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?

5. What two Downers would you like to have as fellow werewolves; and why?

6. (suggested by Kath)Name a Dead you would never like to see as a Werewolf; and why?

***************************
Off the top of my head:
1. Anguirel. After WW13, it should be obvious.
2. Eomer. I've seen his excellent use of the Hunter, I'd be interested to see what creative thing he might do with Ranger.
3. Well, me, doggone it! I've always wanted to be the Seer.
4. Mormegil. It'd be fun to see how he would blend his "list of suspects" technique with being the Hunter.
5. Oh, what fun this would be. Let's see..... Feanor & Firefoot. Feanor because she'd be such a whale of a werewolf to plot strategy with, and Firefoot because everybody would just about expect her to be innocent for a long, long time.

Waiting to hear from others.......

[Mithalwen]

1. Name a Dead (BD'er that is) you want to see as a werewolf;

SaucepanMan of course ...don't we all want to see that.....?

2. Name a Dead you want to see as the Ranger; Boromir88 - because of the avatar - setting a wolf to protect the henhouse.

3. Name a Dead you want to see as the Seer; Gil-Galad. Can't you imagine it? Every game he plays everyone is banjaxed deciding what constitutes acting suspiciously in the context of Gil-Galad being Gil-Galad..

4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?
If I were to play again. Me. My instincts for wolves were quite good in game one and as a wolf I picked the bear .... If not, Mormegil. He has been excellent in all the games I have followed (which is not alas all the games) and I don't think he has been one yet.

5. Lastly (for now), what two Downers would you like to have as fellow werewolves; and why?

Kuruharan and Fea. Lycanthropy was not my forte so I need people who are really good....... Fea was spellbinding in the game I modded .... and Kuru managed to be sufficiently far down the list of suspects for long enough to turn a near disaster into a very impressive victory in game 1

[Glirdan]

1. Name a Dead (BD'er that is) you want to see as a werewolf; and why?

Oooo!! Me!! Pick me!!! I've alway wanted to be the Wolf, just because i haven't been it yet.

2. Name a Dead you want to see as the Ranger; and why?

Wilwa, just because I think she'd make a good one.

3. Name a Dead you want to see as the Seer; and why?

I'll put Lmp. That way, when he's playing in a game with me, he can dream about me and get his suspicions over with.

4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?

Hiriel. He did so good in this role that I think he should do it again.

5. Lastly (for now), what two Downers would you like to have as fellow werewolves; and why?

Well. I'll say my dear friends Folwren and Morsul. I've become fairly good friends with both of them so I think we'd be able to come up with a good strategy and win the game.

[Lhunardawen]

1. Name a Dead (BD'er that is) you want to see as a werewolf; and why?
Not minding the egocentricism, that would be me, Lhuna. Then, I'll finally have an answer to my perennial question: Why are you suspecting me???

(It hurts not to find a valid reason behind that, y'know.)

2. Name a Dead you want to see as the Ranger; and why?
Firefoot - she usually manages to stay alive for a long time, and I think she can sniff out the innocents (and gifteds) from the cold-blooded villains.

3. Name a Dead you want to see as the Seer; and why?
dancing spawn of ungoliant - she's helpful enough not to be suspected, yet silent enough not to be killed right away.

4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?
Fordim Hedgethistle. The werewolves in any village will surely be intimidated by his presence and kill him as soon as they can. But before that time comes, he's already aware of at least one of them.

5. Lastly (for now), what two Downers would you like to have as fellow werewolves; and why?
Formendacil, for revenge. () And The Only Real Estel. Maybe then I'll finally stop picking on him for being such a traitor. ()

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?
Fordim Hedgethistle. The werewolves in any village will surely be intimidated by his presence and kill him as soon as they can. But before that time comes, he's already aware of at least one of them.

Much as I appreciate the vote of confidence Lhuna in the two games I've played so far, I was lynched on the first day (for being a loudmouth), and allowed by the wolves to live until the last day (because I was a loudmouth) -- so it would not appear as though I have been terribly intimidating to date!

Perhaps if I adopt a more quiet, solemn, even -- dare I attempt -- contemplative approach...?

[Kath]

1. Name a Dead (BD'er that is) you want to see as a werewolf; and why?
Nilp. One day he has to be suspected for a reason. But I suspect when that day comes no one will lynch him as they'll think it's just him being odd.

2. Name a Dead you want to see as the Ranger; and why?
Me! I want to see if I can make it past the first Day/Night as one.

3. Name a Dead you want to see as the Seer; and why?
Firefoot. She'd know how to make best use of the role I think, and would likely catch a couple of werewolves too.

4. Name a Dead you want to see as the Hunter; and why?
Hmm, difficult. I'll go for Cailin I think. Maybe she can get revenge on Eomer!

5. Lastly (for now), what two Downers would you like to have as fellow werewolves; and why?
Fea is great fun to be a wolf with, mostly because she does all the work and you just stay quiet in the background! As to the other, I think Shelob. Many people often find her suspicious but can't say why, so she might get by on benefit of the doubt!

I'd like to make an additional question though lmp if I may?
Name a Dead you would never like to see as a Werewolf; and why?
Under that I'll put Firefoot. In the last game I had a fear of a triad involving her, and the skill it would take to uncover a lie from her, that's just scary!

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Perhaps if I adopt a more quiet, solemn, even -- dare I attempt -- contemplative approach...?

You have Werewolf XIV to try that out...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Perhaps if I adopt a more quiet, solemn, even -- dare I attempt -- contemplative approach...?

You know, I tried that in WW13 but it didn't even last for a day. Bloody things called "ideas" and "plans" keep asserting themselves in my mind, and I can't stifle 'em, so out they come and I turn into a loudmouth again!

Originally Posted by Kath

Name a Dead you would never like to see as a Werewolf; and why?

the phantom. At least not in a game I'm an innocent villager in. I tend to respect his analytical ability too much, and therefore I'd tend to assume he's innocent. Bad bad bad.

And now for: Part B of Scenarious You'd Like to See....

Let this be the place where you share ideas for wrinkles on the werewolf game you'd like to see tried.

Here's one: see, the players are generally getting so good at finding werewolves (despite some villagers' retort to the contrary) that I think we could stand to have fewer gifteds per game.

I got this idea to replace the Ranger and Hunter with one gifted called Elven Warrior. This person is incognito.

Let's say Lhuna is our elven warrior. She uses her elven arts to appear no different than humans. She combines the roles of both Hunter and Ranger. Being far-seeing, she can look for the werewolf as the Hunter, while guarding the person of her choice. So she'd get two picks per night: one to guard, one to hunt. It would be oxymoronic to pick the same person with both picks, so I guess she can't do that. So anyway.

Any thoughts? How would it play out? What are the pros? cons? Let's have it.

[Holbytlass]

A couple of minor 'cons' for the elven-warrior

1) On a selfish note, I like as many special roles as fair as possible to the size of the village in the hopes that I get one.

2)because the villagers are getting so good at finding wolves, if the hunter/ranger were one person, there is less likely that the warrior chooses an innocent to kill and a wolf to protect, and we'd never see the scenario where the hunter takes out the ranger.

I'm willing to try anything once might be very interesting.

[tar-ancalime]

I'm not sure if this has been tried before (as I didn't really get involved with ww till recently), but I'd like to see this voting scenario:

Nonretractable votes, but multiple votes per player. You can vote as many times as you like, but each vote has to be for a different person--i.e. no flooding the game with 50 votes for your favorite candidate to force a lynching.

This could work with single or multiple lynchings. I see it as being especially useful in the case of multiple lynchings--if you want a double lynch, you go ahead and vote for both suspects. If you want to prevent a double lynch, you vote for only one.

As for roles, how about this wrinkle for the Cursed? When attacked, the Cursed becomes a wolf....AND one of the wolves loses his/her powers and becomes an innocent villager. Everyone would know that it happened, just like we now know when the Cursed has been attacked, but no one (except the wolves) would know who changed roles.

[littlemanpoet]

The multiple votes idea looks pretty scarey. It also looks like it might work . . . and create all kinds of wild posting toward the end of the day, which could be really wild. But I think it could get out of hand, with six different players getting ten votes each, or something.

The trade idea kind of takes the sting out of the Cursed role. That's the only con I can see, but it looks sort of like a big one. It would stop being a potential game changer, which is what I like most about it.

[Firefoot]

The trade idea also has one big problem... you'd have one villager who knew who all the old wolves were (as many as two!), which would be a huge blow to the wolves. You may as well not even have the Cursed.

The multiple votes per person is a cool idea - the only problem I see in it is that of timezones. In a close vote, it could give the end voters a lot of power. But it still might be fun to try.

[tar-ancalime]

The trade idea also has one big problem... you'd have one villager who knew who all the old wolves were (as many as two!), which would be a huge blow to the wolves. You may as well not even have the Cursed.

Oh yeah. Shoot.

I'm going to keep thinking on that, because the thing I like about the Cursed is the concept of people "switching teams" mid-game. There's got to be a way to get more of that into the game....

[Glirdan]

I'm going to keep thinking on that, because the thing I like about the Cursed is the concept of people "switching teams" mid-game. There's got to be a way to get more of that into the game....

Well, once Gil figure's out the rest of the kinks in his game (go to Tol-in-Gaurhoth Junior to see more information), that migt actually become possible. I have talked to him in awhile so I don't know how far he is into working those kinks out.

As for your mulitiple voting idea, I'm all for trying everything once. I think that would add a different twist to the game. A really interesting different twist. I just can't pinpoint anything else other than what's already been said.

Lmp, your Elven-Warrior idea sounds interesting, but I think it would take out some of the fun of the game. But I think it would be cool to try it out at least once to see how it works out. That would be a good idea for small games though.

[Anguirel]

Mith floated the idea of a Ranger/Hunter some time ago; we dubbed it a (think cringe-making Disney narration) "Hero"!

I believe the opium griller also toyed with the thought of a Ranger/Hunter/Seer at one point...

[Kuruharan]

I'm afraid the multiple votes for multiple people thing is a bad idea.

Want to know why it won't work? Well, I'll tell you.

Everybody would end up voting for everybody else. Really it is the only way it could work out. You would have to vote for all the other players in the game because you (being an innocent) don't know who the wolves are and if you spare anybody (for some strange reason given the fact you know nothing) then that is just going to cast suspicion on you that you are trying to protect your fellow wolves. Even the seer won't be able to spare a player they know to be innocent because that would just be exposing them and the known innocent to the wrath of the wolves and the wrath of the villagers at the same time.

[Glirdan]

Yes, I see that flaw to, but I have a way around that. You only vote for the ones you truly suspect. I'll take the last game as an example and use exactly who I suspected at a point in time.

I was really suspicious of Lalaith and Lmp at one point, so, if we had this multiple voting, I would only vote for those two people thus avoiding the problem that you brought up Kuru.

[Kuruharan]

But that is merely a personal choice and does not correct the inherent problem in the system.

My goal is to close exploitable holes that I assure you ruthless people like the phantom and (with all modesty) myself will use and abuse to the uttermost.

Would you be able to resist voting for everybody else at once when you saw a bunch of people starting to do it? (Especially if you did not know for sure the people you were protecting were innocent and it might come back to bite you good and hard.)

[Glirdan]

Your right in that. I was just poiting out that there was a way around the problem, yet I did realize while I was typing my previous post that there are people out there, myself included, who would abuse that kind of power. There always is a downside to everything.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by tar-ancalime

Oh yeah. Shoot.

I'm going to keep thinking on that, because the thing I like about the Cursed is the concept of people "switching teams" mid-game. There's got to be a way to get more of that into the game....

Perhaps it's time to bring out my idea for "Dueling Wizards", which does include "switching teams" in such a way that the werewolves who turn back into innocents can't be sure who the real werewolves are that are left....

*LMP waits for the curious crowd to get impatient enough to scream for him to come out with it....*

[mormegil]

*impatiently taps fingers*

How would they not know?

[littlemanpoet]

Well now, () there would be two wizards, and no other gifted at the beginning of the game, which would have to be a minimum of 16 players, and could go as high as 30; less than 16 and I don't think it would work.

The two wizards don't know who each other are. One is evil, one is good.

On Night One, the evil wizard picks a villager curse as a werewolf, and the werewolf is immediately informed of the fact, and the mod requests a kill choice, which is provided by the end of the 24 hours.

Also on Night One, the good wizard picks a villager to scry. If s/he

1. finds the evil wizard, the good wizard is informed of that, and can at any time thereafter, call out the evil wizard to battle, which instance results in one of two possibilities, I've not settled on which works best:

a) the death of both wizards;
b) the death of the evil wizard only.

A third option of the death of the good wizard is unworkable on account of the way the game works, because until the evil wizard's death, said entity curses a new werewolf per Night. The werewolves don't know each other's identity because they are werewolves at Night, and cannot detect the identities underlying their own curses.

2. If the good wizard finds a werewolf, the werewolf is turned back into an innocent by the good wizard's power.

3. If the good wizard finds an innocent, the good wizard has the option of turning that innocent into a gifted, the choices being seer, ranger, and hunter. Once the three primary gifted roles are filled, the remaining innocents become shirriffs, I suppose, so that they can play out the PMing and known innocent capabilities that this kind of game seems to call for, with a rather powerful evil enemy.

The question arises, how does the mod handle kill choices by multiple werewolves who don't get to PM and know who each other is? The mod takes the kill choices, and gives them to the evil wizard, who makes the final choice. Another way this could be handled is that the werewolves individually PM the mod their kill choices, and the mod refers back to each werewolf about the others' choices, and serves as a go-between until the werewolves have come to an agreement. I think I like that option better (if I were mod).

Oh, there is a lynching every Day.

But the way this seems to work out is that there can be three, four, even more werewolves, so the good wizard has to figure out the best way to be effective with his/her choices of gifting, and so forth.

When is the game over? The evil wizard and werewolves win when the werewolves equal or exceed the number of innocents. The villagers and good wizard win when there is no evil wizard left, and no werewolves left.

I suppose that the evil wizard could even create a werebear and cobbler. Can the evil wizard curse a gifted into a werewolf? No. I'm not sure what the best option would be in this case, for a most interesting game. Perhaps it would be that the evil wizard could curse a gifted back into normalcy, of which the good wizard would necessarily be aware (informed by mod). In this case, the evil wizard would obviously be aware that this particular individual is gifted in some way, and would choose that person to be killed by the werewolves.

So, do you see any wrinkles?

[mormegil]

So, do you see any wrinkles?

I haven't done the math but it seems that this game would heavily favor the baddies but I'm not sure. With one new wolf and one kill a night plus with lynching of innocents it seems that the innocents would dwindle too quickly. The evil wizard is somewhat a lynch pin to the whole game.

[Kath]

Also, if the good wizard can turn wolves back into innocents, they'll be able to tell the village who the wolves are. Or did you not actually mean that?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Kath

Also, if the good wizard can turn wolves back into innocents, they'll be able to tell the village who the wolves are. Or did you not actually mean that?

No, the werewolves don't know who each other are. Only the evil wizard knows who all the werewolves are.

The game has to have high numbers of villagers, the higher the better. The best chance for the innocents to win is very early, by the good wizard finding the evil wizard in the first three Nights/Days (very unlikely as far as I can tell). The werewolf number would increase drastically at first, but with each new werewolf, the good wizard's chance of scrying an actual werewolf increases out of sheer odds.

It would be interesting to see the nature of the discussions in such a game. I would, of course, be interested in modding such a game if there were enough people willing to try it out just for kicks.

I imagine that the sheer terror/excitement level would be an interesting phenomenon amongst the innocents, with such thinking as "we really, really have to do our best to try and make as sure as we can to lynch a werewolf. None of this "okay to lynch an ungifted innocent" stuff.

So the energy level would likely be pretty high. ... especially as there begins to be four, then five, then six werewolves. Which I kinda like.

[the phantom]

lmp, you said this-

Once the three primary gifted roles are filled, the remaining innocents become shirriffs, I suppose, so that they can play out the PMing and known innocent capabilities that this kind of game seems to call for, with a rather powerful evil enemy

The enemy may be powerful- but not nearly powerful enough to face a village of shirriffs. That would make for a lopsided good guy win.

Let's look at how the game would be set up after all three gifteds had been assigned (after the third night).

The village population (lets say it started at 20) would be down to 16- two wizards, three wolves, three gifteds, and eight shirriffs. The eight shirriffs would step forwards and say "I know that these seven people and myself aren't wolves". And then, the good wizard steps forward and says "I am the good wizard, and these three people are the ones I chose as gifteds", and suddenly the entire village has the candidates for evil wizard narrowed down to four people, and they know that the other three are wolves.

And so, the village will lynch them and then the game is over. I mean- there would be no way for the bad guys to win. Every time a new wolf is made, the whole village will know about it the next day because they are all shirriffs. An evil wizard and three wolves versus a seer who knows who to dream of, a ranger who knows who to protect, a hunter who knows who to target, and a good wizard who knows who to pick would be bad enough, but then when you add an entire village who knows who to lynch each day- that's too much.

For my other queries, I am going to assume that you won't be doing that shirriff thing.

1) What if the evil wizard picks the good wizard at night? You have to have a rule for it, because if the mod pms the evil wizard back and says "You'll have to choose someone else" the evil wizard will of course know who the good wizard is.

2) If the wolves don't know who the other wolves are, they might consider killing one of their own. But obviously, if the mod is passing messages back and forth, the wolf who the others are considering killing would be sending strong messages opposing that kill choice. But really, how could you strongly oppose your death without the other wolves realizing that you are probably defending yourself, and thus letting all the wolves know who another wolf is? The idea of letting the evil wizard decide which nominee to kill would solve that, unless, of course, all of the nominees happen to be wolves, in which case, what happens? Does a wolf die?

3) If you don't let the evil wizard decide who dies and instead let the wolves pass messages, the wolves might choose to kill the evil wizard. Is that a scenario that you want to see in your game, or would you have a rule against that? But how could you make a rule against that? I mean, if the wolves pick someone and then the mod says "sorry, you'll have to pick someone else" then the wolves will know who the wizard is, and when one of them is turned back by the good wizard they will tell the village who the evil wizard is.

4) Once the evil wizard degifts the seer/ranger/hunter, can the good wizard simply pick a new one, or is that role over? If a new one can be picked, then I guess there would be a seer at all times, which doesn't seem fair. I mean, eventually the seer would pick the evil wizard and out him.

5) Voting records would be useless for finding wolves because none of the wolves would know who to lynch and who not to lynch. There would be no teamwork employed in this game.

It seems to me that the game is mostly a one-versus-one duel with a bunch of pawns in the middle, and the outcome would be based primarily on which wizard had the most luck (or the least amount of bad luck) on who they pick and who gets lynched each day, because as I said there would be no way to employ teamwork to orchestrate lynchings.

Not that it wouldn't be a lot of fun.

Of course, I'm not thinking terribly hard about this. You should just try it to see what happens. Maybe there are a lot of factors that we are overlooking that will make the game the biggest hit since WW- or perhaps some unforeseen loopholes and gaps will cause it to be a disaster that will live forever in infamy, which would be fun in its own way I suppose.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by tp

The enemy may be powerful- but not nearly powerful enough to face a village of shirriffs. That would make for a lopsided good guy win.

Let's look at how the game would be set up after all three gifteds had been assigned (after the third night).

LMP didn't mean that the rest of the innocents instantly become Shirriffs after the other three roles are dished out. He meant that, once those three roles are given out, every villager the Good Wizard picks on the following nights becomes a Shirriff.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by the phantom

The enemy may be powerful- but not nearly powerful enough to face a village of shirriffs. That would make for a lopsided good guy win.

I considered the option of bunches of shirriffs, and I don't like it. I could see no shirriffs and the good wizard knowing a bunch of known innocents thereafter. I could see two shirriffs. Not more than two though.

What if the evil wizard picks the good wizard at night? You have to have a rule for it, because if the mod pms the evil wizard back and says "You'll have to choose someone else" the evil wizard will of course know who the good wizard is.

The evil wizard would be told that it is the good wizard, and has the same choice the good wizard has. I still am not sure what to do with the wizard battle results. That's the one wrinkle in this thing that's not easy to iron out. I'm strongly leaning toward a wizard battle necessarily ending in the death of both wizards.

If the wolves don't know who the other wolves are, they might consider killing one of their own. But obviously, if the mod is passing messages back and forth, the wolf who the others are considering killing would be sending strong messages opposing that kill choice. But really, how could you strongly oppose your death without the other wolves realizing that you are probably defending yourself, and thus letting all the wolves know who another wolf is? The idea of letting the evil wizard decide which nominee to kill would solve that, unless, of course, all of the nominees happen to be wolves, in which case, what happens? Does a wolf die?

The evil wizard would get the final say, and the werewolves would of course be informed of that. No werewolves die. I had not thought of the werewolves figuring out who each other is, but if one werewolf happens to get identified by this means to the rest, then as a here and there thing, I don't see it as a bad thing within the game. And if a werewolf gets uncursed and identifies another as being a werewolf, that uncursed werewolf still has to somehow prove it to the other innocents. Of course, the good wizard could come out with the authoritative word, but would thus reveal him/herself, and therefore get killed.

If you don't let the evil wizard decide who dies and instead let the wolves pass messages, the wolves might choose to kill the evil wizard. Is that a scenario that you want to see in your game, or would you have a rule against that? But how could you make a rule against that? I mean, if the wolves pick someone and then the mod says "sorry, you'll have to pick someone else" then the wolves will know who the wizard is, and when one of them is turned back by the good wizard they will tell the village who the evil wizard is.

Again, the evil wizard gets final say. As for the evil wizard blocking his own death, this is a very interesting scenario, and I think that I actually like that possibility being in the game. This is especially the case since the evil wizard has the advantage early, and the sooner he is gotten rid of, the sooner the innocent villagers have a prayer.

Once the evil wizard degifts the seer/ranger/hunter, can the good wizard simply pick a new one, or is that role over? If a new one can be picked, then I guess there would be a seer at all times, which doesn't seem fair. I mean, eventually the seer would pick the evil wizard and out him.

If a gifted is de-gifted, the gift may be handed out again by the good wizard. But if the gifted is killed, the gift may no longer be handed out. So it's somewhere in between the two possibilities you noticed.

Voting records would be useless for finding wolves because none of the wolves would know who to lynch and who not to lynch. There would be no teamwork employed in this game.

True. Any every villager for himself kind of game has its own attractions, but also its own foibles. However, I think that there would end up being some teamwork anyway, simply because people would feel that they have at least a reasonable chance of being right in trusting a given set of other people each given day. Not on sheer logic, but on the nature of each other's posts .... not that they couldn't be fooled, of course!

Maybe there are a lot of factors that we are overlooking that will make the game the biggest hit since WW- or perhaps some unforeseen loopholes and gaps will cause it to be a disaster that will live forever in infamy, which would be fun in its own way I suppose.

That's why I'm bringing it up here, hoping to get help ironing out the wrinkles.

[Cailín]

Wow, LMP, very thought out and interesting idea. Far more revolutionary than the idea I had in mind for my game. However, I do suppose a few problems might rise to the surface when testing this... The phantom has already pointed out most.

Essentially, your game is not really innocents against wolves anymore, but wizard against wizard. As soon as one of the wizards dies, whether this is because of the cleverness of their enemy, or the stubbornness of the innocent villagers - whom we all know enjoy to kill the gifted ones every now and then - the game is decided. The outcome of the game is entirely dependent on two people. This could be fun, I suppose, but a game is lost when one of the wizards suddenly misses a deadline or makes a minor slip up. Quite a responsibility, and I already lose my nerve when I’m a wolf or seer

Also, what happens when the evil wizard and good wizard both choose the same innocent to turn in one night? This is quite likely to happen - there are always people who catch everyone’s attention.

I suggest also that, should you wish to test this scenario, you make the night phases just a little bit longer than usual. The game looks like it is going to be even more intense and demanding than your average Tol-in-Gaurhoth game, and if one of the two wizards happens to live in a strange time zone, the game will already be decided before it has officially started. This could be prevented by making the night phase 36 or 48 hours even... If the game works out as it should, there would be too many gifted anyway to make this phase even remotely boring.

About the whole Shiriff thing, this could become especially confusing. Robbing a Shiriff of his gift is not so easily done, since there is always someone else involved.

Huhm, yeah, well, maybe you should just test this and see how it works out. ^^

Edit: I always cross post... bad habit.

[the guy who be short]

I'd like to add that the death of either Wizard would completely unbalance the game.

If the GW dies, especially early on, there's nobody to counter the continual spawning of new werewolves. The villagers are unable to win as, at best, they can lynch one wolf per day, with no consequence as the EW creates a new one each Night.

If the EW dies, the remaining werewolves have to work independently and thus their team falls apart completely.

I suggest that the lives of the Wizards be tied to one another - the death of one must result in the death of the other to keep the game balanced. This could happen in the following ways:

• Either wizard lynched.
• GW killed by wolves.

In addition, this would solve the problem of a Wizard finding out who the other Wizard is. If this were to happen, the consequence would be that one Wizard knows who the other is - and would most likely prolong his existence so as to preserve his own life. This could even develop into an interesting situation with both Wizards knowing each other's identities, but neither daring to strike. Conversely, once a Wizard knows who the other Wizard is, he could intentionally get one of them lynched if he thought the removal of both Wizards would favour his side.

If the wolves choose to kill the EW, he'd more or less have to tell them who he is, whether bluntly or not, to prevent his death. This could result in all the wolves knowing who the wizard is, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Then some of them could move over to the Good side and still know who the Evil Wizard is. We could see a situation where the identities of the two wizards are widely known, but to preserve equilibrium, nobody kills either of them.

If this were the case, I'd like to see the GW able to communicate with his side as well, in the same manner as the WWs with the EW - none of them knowing one another's identities, but able to communicate through the GW.

Anybody see any flaws?

EDIT: Ah, I see a flaw. If both wizards were to die, the gifteds on the Good Side could continue working independently. However, what of the wolves? Either the Mod takes over the EW duties, under the pretext that the wolves come together to decide who to kill, in wolf form, in the Night and are thus still oblivious concerning one another's identities; or they become a group, knowing one another's identities, under the pretext that the EW somehow did this magically...

[Firefoot]

I would say that in the event that the EW should die, the wolves would have to then know each others' identities.

It's starting to sound like a really interesting plan... I wouldn't mind giving it a shot. The worst that can happen is that it doesn't work for what ever reason - too lopsided, two players with too much power over the game, etc. That would be the biggest problem that I can see, as others have already said - two players moving around pawns. With a new wolf spawning every night, it seems fairly likely that the wolves would win though. I think the villagers would almost have to hope that after two or three nights (seer, ranger or seer, ranger, hunter) the wizards would die, leaving them with fewer wolves to deal with.

It would certainly add a whole new dimension to the question of who, individually, can say they won - the wizards died early, oops, neither of them win; at least half the villagers changed roles at least once during the game, therefore in some way helping both sides - oops, none of them really won; and most of the remaining villagers are probably already dead... Moderator wins!

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

With a new wolf spawning every night, it seems fairly likely that the wolves would win though. I think the villagers would almost have to hope that after two or three nights (seer, ranger or seer, ranger, hunter) the wizards would die, leaving them with fewer wolves to deal with.

If at any point a wolf switches sides, they'll be able to tell the villager side all about their various inputs, who the EW forbade them to kill, any identities the EW may have revealed... That could help the Good and Gifteds.

One additional wolf per night, plus one innocent death, could be overkill though. Perhaps the EW could only create a wolf every second Night?

For this to work, I think we'd need the following rules:

It is not forbidden for wizards to declare to team members who the other members of a team are, i.e. EW can tell the wolves who the rest of them are, but then if any one were to switch back to the villager side, they would be able to tell them who the rest of the wolves are. So it's unwise... but could occasionally be necessary. Additionally, Wizards can lie to team members... imagine.

I think the Good Team (so it shall be called...) should be able to commnicate amongst Evil Team lines, that is, they all know who the GW is, and the GW can communicate with all of them or convey information to all of them.

I think this will be very interesting for quite a few reasons. There'll be a lot of backstabbing a treachery, and there'll be a lot of manipulation of others by the Wizards. Additionally, we'd see two distinct teams - Good and Evil - with a sort of dull neutral in the middle, trying to help the Good Team but always remaining doubtable.

Suggestion: If EW and GW choose the same person, that person dies.

The main problem I see is that people may feel like pawns, with the two main players being the Wizards. Personally I think it'll be immense fun.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Cailín

Essentially, your game is not really innocents against wolves anymore, but wizard against wizard. As soon as one of the wizards dies, whether this is because of the cleverness of their enemy, or the stubbornness of the innocent villagers - whom we all know enjoy to kill the gifted ones every now and then - the game is decided. The outcome of the game is entirely dependent on two people. This could be fun, I suppose, but a game is lost when one of the wizards suddenly misses a deadline or makes a minor slip up.

Good points. The wizards would be hand picked from a few who volunteer for the role, and who promise that they can be available for the kind of intensity the role requires.

The wizards cannot be killed by anyone but each other. Thus, if the evil wizard or lycanthropes try to kill the good wizard, they will be told that their kill was unsuccessful, and they'll know why. A wizard can be lynched, but it won't work. (hee hee, that would be fun to write ).

Also, what happens when the evil wizard and good wizard both choose the same innocent to turn in one night? This is quite likely to happen - there are always people who catch everyone’s attention.

Wow! Excellent question. I hadn't thought of that. Inevitably, one wizard will PM the moderator before the other, and first dibs wins, I think. Unless someone can think of a better rule for that; then the wizard who came in second would have to pick over again.

I suggest also that, should you wish to test this scenario, you make the night phases just a little bit longer than usual. The game looks like it is going to be even more intense and demanding than your average Tol-in-Gaurhoth game, and if one of the two wizards happens to live in a strange time zone, the game will already be decided before it has officially started. This could be prevented by making the night phase 36 or 48 hours even... If the game works out as it should, there would be too many gifted anyway to make this phase even remotely boring.

Hee hee! I think I could work with that, although I think a lot of villagers would get really antsy, waiting for the new Day to begin.

Oh, I'm thinking also that the good wizard might not be allowed to scry until Night 3, just to make sure that there are three werewolves to start the game off.

About the whole Shiriff thing, this could become especially confusing. Robbing a Shiriff of his gift is not so easily done, since there is always someone else involved.

Yes, I don't think Shirriffs belong in a Dueling Wizards game.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I'd like to add that the death of either Wizard would completely unbalance the game.

Sorry I forgot to say this in the original idea post, but the wizards can only both die at the same time. Only a wizard can kill a wizard.

If the EW dies, the remaining werewolves have to work independently and thus their team falls apart completely.

Another good point I didn't see right away. If the EW dies, part of the curse is removed such that the werewolves know who each other are and can/must work amongst themselves. Darn, this is getting complex (but since when did that ever scare LMP away? )

I suggest that the lives of the Wizards be tied to one another - the death of one must result in the death of the other to keep the game balanced.

Precisely.

Either wizard lynched.

Nope. They can't be...successfully.

GW killed by wolves.

Nope again. Only a wizard can kill a wizard.

this would solve the problem of a Wizard finding out who the other Wizard is.

Actually, the way I see this working out is that the GW doesn't really mind revealing, because the EW won't want to take the GW out until EW has created enough werewolves to satisfy his/her strategy. Meanwhile, the GW will want to take out the EW as quickly as possible, so the EW will want to remain hidden for as long as possible.

If this were to happen, the consequence would be that one Wizard knows who the other is - and would most likely prolong his existence so as to preserve his own life. This could even develop into an interesting situation with both Wizards knowing each other's identities, but neither daring to strike. Conversely, once a Wizard knows who the other Wizard is, he could intentionally get one of them lynched if he thought the removal of both Wizards would favour his side.

Hmmm.... this is an interesting option, but I think it would tend to allow the game to become too unbalanced. The only way to maintain balance is for both wizards (so powerful) to be in, or out, of the game simultaneously.

If the wolves choose to kill the EW, he'd more or less have to tell them who he is, whether bluntly or not, to prevent his death. This could result in all the wolves knowing who the wizard is, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Then some of them could move over to the Good side and still know who the Evil Wizard is. We could see a situation where the identities of the two wizards are widely known, but to preserve equilibrium, nobody kills either of them.

Now, that is an interesting notion, too. But this is just as likely not to happen, rendering the equilibrium nil.

[littlemanpoet]

Ooh! Ooh! I get to triple post, just like on WW!

Originally Posted by Firefoot

Moderator wins!

But of course! Don't you know, that's the whole idea?

If at any point a wolf switches sides, they'll be able to tell the villager side all about their various inputs, who the EW forbade them to kill, any identities the EW may have revealed... That could help the Good and Gifteds.

The EW never speaks directly to the werewolves, it's always through the moderator (or an assistant moderator ). And the message to the werewolves, should they choose to kill the EW, would be something like "The EW has overruled your choice; _______ is to be killed toNight." The werewolves are none the wiser, which would be frustrating for them, but after all, the EW knows best.....

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

Good points. The wizards would be hand picked from a few who volunteer for the role, and who promise that they can be available for the kind of intensity the role requires.

Wouldn't this seriously limit the people who could be the wizards and therefore make the game way easier? Say five people signed up, two of them would have to be wizards, limiting the choices down to 2/5 and making it easier for the GW to choose. After the first couple of days there would be no doubt who the EW was.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by AbercrombieOfRohan

Wouldn't this seriously limit the people who could be the wizards and therefore make the game way easier? Say five people signed up, two of them would have to be wizards, limiting the choices down to 2/5 and making it easier for the GW to choose. After the first couple of days there would be no doubt who the EW was.

Good question! First you get your list of 16 to 30 players. Then you ask for those interested in the wizard roles to PM you. Then you PM them back telling them whether they're the wizards.

[Kuruharan]

The EW never speaks directly to the werewolves, it's always through the moderator (or an assistant moderator ). And the message to the werewolves, should they choose to kill the EW, would be something like "The EW has overruled your choice; _______ is to be killed toNight." The werewolves are none the wiser, which would be frustrating for them, but after all, the EW knows best

If the EW only does this once, well...I'm sure you can follow me here.

If the EW does this repeatedly, it utterly defeats the purpose of being werewolf.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

If the EW only does this once, well...I'm sure you can follow me here.

If the EW does this repeatedly, it utterly defeats the purpose of being werewolf.

Good point. It should only be allowed to happen in the case of the werewolves choosing to kill the EW. Of course, the EW is impervious to a lycanthropic attack, but the EW would not want the werewolves to waste a Night unsuccessfully attacking the EW.

[Cailín]

Since I have nothing better to do – oh jolly holidays - and am quite done decorating Christmas trees, I thought I might as well start further developing my own Werewolf Scenario. I got an idea some time ago, when I was still relatively new to the game, and have not yet been able to let it go.

I always found the role of the Shiriffs – as a team - rather interesting, though in the game I don’t believe they have really worked so far. When the Shiriffs were allowed to reveal themselves they were too strong, when they were not, they seemed rather useless. So after toying with these two soul mates for a while, adding a little Cobbler and a bit of Black Beorning, plus a little Shakespearean romance, I came up with something else:

The Lovers.

The game would be close to an ordinary game of Werewolves. The village should consist of about sixteen players, three wolves, a Hunter, a Seer and a Ranger. However, one of the wolves and one of the Ordinary Villagers are more than they appear. It is tragic, surely, but some twisted fate decided these two sworn enemies should fall in love. They shall form a separate, third team and can only win if they survive together. This might be rather interesting, for where in all previous games the wolves could blindly trust each other, they now have a traitor in their midst who not only wishes to feast on the villagers, but also his fellow wolves – blinded by love, naturally. The devoted ordinary villager in the meantime will have to betray all his or her ordinary friends to be able to live happily ever after with his/her furry lover.

At night, the werewolf in love would have to do anything to prevent his beloved from being eaten – without raising suspicion with the other wolves. During the day, there shall be two people who will really have to defend each other with their lives – because they cannot survive without the other – and still, without drawing attention too themselves. It might really damage the position of the wolves, but on the other hand, the lover-werewolf would have to keep his fellows alive to get rid of the other Villagers as quickly as possible.

I was thinking along the following lines:

- If one of the lovers gets lynched, eaten or shot by the Hunter, the other shall automatically die of grief.
- If the Seer dreams of one of the lovers, he or she shall only see their normal role, not the lover part.
- The Lovers win if they survive together or if the composition of the village is Lover – Lover – Wolf or Lover – Lover – Villager.

So – what do you all think? Did I overlook something? Could it work? Most importantly – would it add anything to the game or am I just seriously deluded?

(LMP, I hope you don't mind I'm using your thread for this.)