Admin thread for T-I-G LXVII: The Rangers of the North - The Fell Winter

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

but to be honest the rules are too complicated. (Too complicated for your own good, Nogrod. At least you should clarify them a bit because "nobody wants to read half a thread of flip-flopping before you make the final rule", says Legate, but I was merely thinking that the final rules should be understandable with less than an hour's studying.)

Well, I guess I said it in the beginning that the rules are "in progress" and that there will be clear final rules to be read before the game begins.

The first post actually has the first line: "Here be the final Rules & Regulations when they are decided on..."

I have appreciated Roa's comments a lot and if anyone else finds points that need clarification - or notice a problem - please let me know. You Lommy make a good example of what I would like you to do. Here's a few answers to the points you raised.

let's take the Captain for example. It's a good idea, yes, but quite unfair in practice: there are going to be some people who just won't be able to be around the DL to make the decisions the Captain should or would want to be able to make which makes it probable some (many) people will/can never be elected as Captains, which is rather unfair. (And yes, that's at least half of Americans, I guess, and at least me and Greenie if we have school and the DL is 1am.) If you want to keep the Captain role, I think it should not be dependant on the DL. Maybe the Captain should just PM the mod the list of everybody in the order of how much s/he wants them killed at any time before the DL when s/he leaves the thread for good? Or something else, but the current rules are difficult and unfair.

Good that you reminded me about that. I had thought I had figured out the DL-independency for the Captain but I had forgotten about that "ten minute -interval" I had thought of when I first sketched the rules...

First of all, when the Captain "leaves the thread for good" he should name his candidates for being his BG's publicly eg. in the thread. But he should also send me maybe a list of four or something if someone happens to die before the Day ends. I wouldn't like to see the Captains pick for BG meaning immunity from lynching in any way.

But that "canceling of lynching" or changing the lynched-one possibility. Well, I'd say that the Captain could work as he sees fit. He could send me a list of players he will not allow to be lynched whatever happens. Or he could send me a list of priorities - including everyone if he so wishes. Or he could send me a wish that if these two are neck by neck in the end then this one dies: or if these two are leading neck by neck the lynching will be cancelled (oftentimes you know already who are the probable candidates for lynching quite early in the Day - but not always and surprises do take place for sure)... I would give the Captain the power to decide what kind of orders he would give.

The only limitation would be that the Captain couldn't pick someone to be lynched from two votes down from the leading candidate.

And anyhow, how eager different Captains would be in meddling with the lynches on regular basis is another question...

I also think there's too much PMing allowed. It will make it utterly confusing and also put wolves at a disadvantage, because their strength is in being able to hold secret council, but now half of the village can do it so it is kind of pointless.

You're probably exaggerating a bit... I see you being my daughter in that.

But isn't confusion actually a weapon for and not against the werewolves? I mean in a PM discussion by Night two innocents can share views but they have no way of knowing whether their partner is an innocent in the end. Nice wolves could use those discussions in furthering their own ends as well... More people would have something to do during the Nights (and no, no one is forced to make ten PM's during the Night) and the wolves would still have their normal secret council. And when the wolves discuss themselves they know who the others are unlike those guards or random-talkers.

And I'd rather have five wolves and one kill per Night than four wolves and two kills per Night, but that's just a personal preference.

I don't have a strong opinion on that so I'd like to hear what you others think. Why I thought of the two kills per Night -rule was the fact that in this game there are more possibilities for villagers to deny the wolf-kills. But what do you others think?

(especially from someone who isn't even necessarily playing - I'd like to, but might be I won't have the time, especially for a complicated and Night-active game like this...)

Hey Lommy, we want you to play!

A mild disclaimer: you're thinking about these rules in a too complicated way my dear. It is quite a simple game: hunters, rangers, wolves, ordos and a few little things like a Captain and some Night-chatters in safety just to give people more to do (and you're not forced to chat all Night if you don't want to or do not have time for it).

What a player needs to do is to try to make his side win with fairly normal procedures: fool the villagers if you're a wolf or catch the villains if you're innocent.

Any one player only has one role and it is enough if the player understands his own role. The wolves need to think a bit more but there are hopefully four of them so they can help each other out... and anyway, in the end the wolves also just try to kill people and what turns out turns out as they can't know who has which role...