Tol-in-Gaurhoth (Isle of Werewolves)

[Blind Guardian]

I don't like the idea of a post volume per Day because what if someone reveals and everyone but the Wolves have used up their posts? Maybe a post volume per hour would be better. That way you can prohibit the walls of texts while still allowing posts through the day.

I do have a question: does anyone know what makes the page flip? Is it the amount of posts on a page (ie every page has 20 posts) or the size of the physical pages (ie there can be 10 super long posts on one page and thirty tiny posts on another)? That would probably factor into deciding how many pages to allow in a Day (EVERYONE GET RID OF YOUR SIGNATURES!!!). If everyone is doing the minimum then there will be most posts on a page in one Day than if there are walls of text.

Problem: on my computer this post takes up half of the text box and on my phone it it's double the size of the text box.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

I don't like the idea of a post volume per Day because what if someone reveals and everyone but the Wolves have used up their posts? Maybe a post volume per hour would be better. That way you can prohibit the walls of texts while still allowing posts through the day.

I do have a question: does anyone know what makes the page flip? Is it the amount of posts on a page (ie every page has 20 posts) or the size of the physical pages (ie there can be 10 super long posts on one page and thirty tiny posts on another)? That would probably factor into deciding how many pages to allow in a Day (EVERYONE GET RID OF YOUR SIGNATURES!!!). If everyone is doing the minimum then there will be most posts on a page in one Day than if there are walls of text.

Problem: on my computer this post takes up half of the text box and on my phone it it's double the size of the text box.

The pages flips are consistent: every page is 40 posts long. That's always been true across 15 years of computers and cellphones for me. As far as the text box goes, I don't know.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

I don't like the idea of a post volume per Day because what if someone reveals and everyone but the Wolves have used up their posts? Maybe a post volume per hour would be better. That way you can prohibit the walls of texts while still allowing posts through the day.

Good point about unforeseen events and people being unable to react. As for posts per hour, I think enforcing that would be more of a hassle than it's all worth.


Since we're talking, BG, would you be interested in co-modding this with me? You said you'd like to mod, it could be a good way of getting your feet wet.

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

Problem: on my computer this post takes up half of the text box and on my phone it it's double the size of the text box.

Hmm, not good. I just played around with different resolutions on my laptop and the box scales accordingly (it also scales when you change the font size), so I guess it's a PC/phone problem.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The pages flips are consistent: every page is 40 posts long. That's always been true across 15 years of computers and cellphones for me. As far as the text box goes, I don't know.

Thanks for the info!

[Kath]

In the game we just played, for my own personal interest, I tried to keep to G55's idea of no more than the box size for posts. I can't say it was a success.

However, I do think it would be a really interesting way to play. BG is right that the box sizes are really different on phone vs PC but perhaps a rule of something like if on PC then the box size and if on phone then two times the box size.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Good point about unforeseen events and people being unable to react. As for posts per hour, I think enforcing that would be more of a hassle than it's all worth.

Surely the reaction thing is part of the idea? "Ooh, I really want to reply to that accusation, but what if another one comes up that I need to respond to more...?" Plus of course, "You didn't think that was worth one of your posts, but you thought this was--?"
--This line is the bottom and width of my phone's text box--------

I think you'd need to say votes can be posted separately, to avoid 'oops I misccounted' issues. Possibly the vote post can ONLY contain a vote?

(I think the only objective standard for post lengths is character limits. EvenWordLimitsCanBeWorkedAround.)

hS

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

(I think the only objective standard for post lengths is character limits. EvenWordLimitsCanBeWorkedAround.)hS

While I agree in principle, that would mean every post would have to written in another format (e.g. Word) first and then transferred to the Downs for posting. Especially for people playing on their phone that would be a major hassle.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I think you'd need to say votes can be posted separately, to avoid 'oops I misccounted' issues. Possibly the vote post can ONLY contain a vote?

Cue 'X voted Y but didn't give a reason!'

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

(I think the only objective standard for post lengths is character limits. EvenWordLimitsCanBeWorkedAround.)

True, but this is not Twitter and nobody can be expected to count the characters on their every post.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

True, but this is not Twitter and nobody can be expected to count the characters on their every post.

True! Which just means accepting that it won't be objective.

hS

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

Problem: on my computer this post takes up half of the text box and on my phone it it's double the size of the text box.

Oh that's weird! Maybe I was lucky, because they look about the same on mine phone, and my comouter doesn't change the resolution with size. Perhaps like Kath said, it could be a soft rule rather than a hard rule, and double the box on phones?

Personally I don't think I'm a fan of capping the post count, because I would much rather read 2 pages of banter to a mere few Walls of Text. However, it does throw an interesting twist to the game with post rationing. But I think combining both the post count and the post length cut off would be too much for one game, no? Unless the post count cut off is reasonably high.

[Loslote]

I think we could have everyone figure out what the equivalent to one computer text box is on their phones in the Admin thread before the game starts. I would almost suggest having post volume limits per, say, six hours, otherwise we'll have everyone saving their posts for the end of the Day and no one talking until like two hours before the deadline. But I think I'd agree with G55 and say that capping the post length would be enough for one game. I'm biased, though, I'm one of the people who tends to post a lot.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

This is all fine and dandy - I suggest (even after we come up with some starting rule about it) we try a "dry run posting" first somehow. Simulated dialogue. I'm sure practical issues will manifest themselves. For instance: quoting. People do it in normal games all the time. How would that relate to the length-limit rule? Is it excluded? Or should it be a game "don't quote anything, just point" (that might have its own funny consequences, but not sure if it is desirable. I can already see Wolves spinning "oh as XY said... y'know... over there...").

But overall I really like the idea. The text post window-sized length, as a guideline but not 100% exact rule, sounds good enough to me, accompanied by some post limit because yes, often the problem isn't so much the length of posts, but the amount. The post limit could be quite generous, but just as a fence against people who would post billion posts per Day if left unchecked.

But like BG said, I am not sure what we would do if somebody brought up accusations against someone who used up all their posts... but perhaps the idea would be that you aren't expected to reach the quota, so most people would use up like 75% of their quota and keep the rest until DL in case something came up.

[Blind Guardian]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Since we're talking, BG, would you be interested in co-modding this with me? You said you'd like to mod, it could be a good way of getting your feet wet

Yes on co mod!!!

Also would we count quoting people as part of our text box? or just link to the post al la

In Lotties post [url link]#22[/url link]...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Loslote

I'm biased, though, I'm one of the people who tends to post a lot.

Same here, I suppose. I revel is silly one liners, amd I kinda enjoy the nonesense banter from others too. I am happy to limit the content posts by size and number and frequency and whatever else, but too strict a rule makes you cut out the fun in case you need those posts for real stuff.

For quotes, I vote that they don't count in your post limit. Linking is an option but it's annoying to do on a computer and super annoying on a phone. Listing post number is also possible, but let's be honest, who is gonna go back and find the post every time to read it? Quoting is so much simpler. However, I agree that some experimentation should take place, quotes included.
---------------------------------
^ The one box boundary on my phone, including Lottie's quote. Happens to fit perfectly with what I was gonna say.

[Nogrod]

I'm quite against any strict restrictions - I'm not against some people going for a super experimental game if they want to - but in general it sounds like a very bad idea.

Like some people have already noticed: situations may change drastically (reveals, sudden bandwagons, someone finds a crucial point...) which requires possibility to react freely. Also the whole feel of the game has lot to do with spontainety, including little banter here and there.

Quoting is also quite crucial to the game-mechanics. If people are forced to quote less to save their post-lengths it will immediately favor the wolves (who are, according to Kuru's latest statistics in the Grimoire, clearly having the upper hand already of late). Add to that a post-count restriction, and the wolves can co-ordinate things nicely especially late in the Day.

Or think about the last minute frenzy when everyone is holding their precious one last post to the very end, looking to see if someone is trying to use the situation to their advantage...

Also, who wants to count the characters in one's posts? So a Word or LibreOffice is required to play so that you can check the number of characters you use?


That said, I do think the walls of text in the first game this summer were quite overwhelming and we all could think twice, when it is truly important to make such huge posts (or quote all the stuff people quote) and when not.

[Inziladun]

RL is not WW-friendly for me just now, but at any rate I don't think I'd be on for a game with strict posting restrictions.

One of the fun aspects of the game for me is the way everyone's free to construct posts however they like, to fit their particular motive. Also, having to pay close attention to the structure of the post itself will just give me something else to worry about, and I find that already sometimes the stress of the game can overwhelm the entertainment.

[Huinesoron]

I actually wonder if this idea would be more fun if it was super-strictly limited. "The size of the box" just feels like it's trying to keep post sizes down, and would therefore favour players like Shasta who tend to post short posts anyway. Something ultra-strict, like "ten words" (or "one word"...), would be part of the gameplay, not a separate restriction.

I've just thought of another possible way to limit post numbers, and keep people from just breaking their posts up: you can post as often as you like, but there have to be at least five (two, ten...) posts between yours. That way everyone can contribute, and fast-paced sections stay fast-paced, but nobody can spam the thread.

(I'd say vote-posts would even more have to be separate in that game, to keep someone locking themselves out of voting because the thread went quiet all of a sudden.)

hS

[Boromir88]

I'm quite against any strict restrictions - I'm not against some people going for a super experimental game if they want to - but in general it sounds like a very bad idea. -Nog

One of the fun aspects of the game for me is the way everyone's free to construct posts however they like, to fit their particular motive. Also, having to pay close attention to the structure of the post itself will just give me something else to worry about, and I find that already sometimes the stress of the game can overwhelm the entertainment. - Inzil

Same. I'd be intrigued by Rune's twitter-inspired idea that he brought up. At least sometimes the thought is appealing when you see blocks and blocks of texts and feel like you've come back to have to read 2 pages of it. I'm not sure how this could be achieved without a character limit though. Then as Inzil mentions, that game with post limits and character limits just wouldn't appeal to me. That's not to say someone couldn't go on and create such a game.
__________________________________________________ ____
(Where the comment box cuts off on my laptop)

It just seems like it could be very easily help the wolves (who already have a slight advantage to start) than the village, which would add a wrinkle of unbalance I would not find appealing. I think it was Legate who said when he thinks of new roles or experiments the question is "is this phantom-proof" is a good general guide to follow.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it was Legate who said when he thinks of new roles or experiments the question is "is this phantom-proof" is a good general guide to follow.

Indeed. But actually, I like Hui's suggestion. There is a distinct chance the WWs could exploit it, but only to a degree.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I've just thought of another possible way to limit post numbers, and keep people from just breaking their posts up: you can post as often as you like, but there have to be at least five (two, ten...) posts between yours. That way everyone can contribute, and fast-paced sections stay fast-paced, but nobody can spam the thread.

That sounds actually pretty good to me!!! And we've had different games like this here in the past when this was used: the "Hurt and Heal" game had similar rule. And that worked pretty nicely. (And yes, posts with votes should be exempt from this rule. But the vote post should maybe have some rule like that it can't contain anything else, or perhaps at most two lines or something. Roughly. Or not. Whichever.)

The only problem could be with people who are posting at other time than others, or are in a completely different timezone. I mean, there's no problem with them to write all their thoughts down and post them all at once, if it's just about that. But imagine a situation where, say, there are ten European players and then Nilp and Lhuna. When it's "European normal time", people keep alternating, posting... then Europeans go to sleep, Nilp post once, Lhuna posts once, and that's the end for the two of them because they don't have other players present to fill the gap between their posts.

Of course, one could make some exceptional rule for some visibly disadvantaged players, but still. Again: should be tested beforehand.

[Galadriel55]

I am not sure if it's really necessary to limit post volume in that way. No one ever spams the thread singlehandedly to such degree (though I admit I have tried ). However, how about a simple rule that you can have no more than 3 (2? 4?) posts in a row? And an understanding that the post size limit is not there to break up the Wall of Text into 10 small chunks but so that what you say has to be more concise and to the point.

[Loslote]

Maybe the posts have to be separated by x number of other posts OR x length of time OR make a substantially different point than the preceding one?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I am not sure if it's really necessary to limit post volume in that way. No one ever spams the thread singlehandedly to such degree (though I admit I have tried ). However, how about a simple rule that you can have no more than 3 (2? 4?) posts in a row? And an understanding that the post size limit is not there to break up the Wall of Text into 10 small chunks but so that what you say has to be more concise and to the point.

Going to attempt a reply from my cell phone to see where the comment box cuts off...

My reason against this is that it starts restricting strategy and like Inzil, gets me to have to think about more than I already do when I post. My personal title of “laconic” is actually making fun of my style, because I’m not a very concise person. Sometimes I use it to be intentionally confusing, but it’s just my nature when writing any post, not just playing werewolf.

(Cuts off here on my phone)

Anyway, my intention is to say I personally wouldn’t find restricting length and post construction a game idea I’d like to participate in. That’s not to say someone can’t try it for their game and that others won’t be intrigued by it.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I am not sure if it's really necessary to limit post volume in that way. No one ever spams the thread singlehandedly to such degree (though I admit I have tried ). However, how about a simple rule that you can have no more than 3 (2? 4?) posts in a row? And an understanding that the post size limit is not there to break up the Wall of Text into 10 small chunks but so that what you say has to be more concise and to the point.

This actually does not make much sense. For many people (like myself), limit to "at most two posts in a row" would mean no change whatsoever. The only time I post two in a row is either if I vote, or if I write a long analysis of something and while I'm writing, other posts appear, and I want to react to them as "postscript" to my previous post. Limit to "at most three posts in a row" would basically make me post freely like normally.

So such a rule would only disadvantage people who do what Shasta was doing in the last game and post five short posts in a row instead of one huge chunk as analysis.

Originally Posted by Loslote

Maybe the posts have to be separated by x number of other posts OR x length of time OR make a substantially different point than the preceding one?

That would be fair, but starts to already be horribly complicated. The time thing may be a problem if, say, I'm in a rush and writing on my work break, and I have time NOW but won't have in five minutes. (Granted, the same problem can technically happen with the "number of posts in between"-rule: you'd like to post something and you know you won't be able to within the next 5 hours afterwards, but not enough people have posted yet in-between your posts.)

The "substantially different point than the preceding one" - well, that's awfully vague. Who's to judge? I mean, we are grown-up people, I assume we would trust everyone to police themselves, but I can still theoretically envision a situation where some would feel that post X seems too similar to previous one, despite the author claiming otherwise. Again, we are grown-up people and should be able to deal with it, but I can imagine.

One systematic problem we are running into is this, in my opinion: the rules that are too strict may be really limiting and cause some problems. But rules that work as mere guidelines (like the "substantially different point" one) and are open to more interpretation sort of take away the point of the whole thing that it is a rule and restriction that is meant to make you play differently.

In other words - the notion that posts you make should ideally have "substantially different content" or that you "should not spam too often" is something people should strive for ideally in every game, sort of by the rules of common decorum. So if you enforce them not very strictly, that essentially changes nothing, only adds an extra aspect to bicker about or some people to feel offended because while they took great pains to post different content, they feel like my two posts were too similar and that was unfair.

If the idea is to make a different game, where the point is to make short posts, then yea, let's enforce a rule - generous enough that it does not disadvantage anyone too much, but that if it inconveniences people here and there, as it inevitably will, then simply tough luck, that's part of the format.

But if it's meant to be rules, they should be fairly simple and clear and at the same time strongly enforced.

So I'd say something like "there must be two posts after your last post" and "length of the text box at most, on the phone double the size" would do. (And the second rule is already bordering on not-clear-and-strict-enough, but would work. Making a "every post must have at most thirty words" rule would be better and probably funnier, for a really experimental "twitter" game.)

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

This actually does not make much sense. For many people (like myself), limit to "at most two posts in a row" would mean no change whatsoever. The only time I post two in a row is either if I vote, or if I write a long analysis of something and while I'm writing, other posts appear, and I want to react to them as "postscript" to my previous post. Limit to "at most three posts in a row" would basically make me post freely like normally.

Sorry, I was thinking along the lines of "if we restrict both post length and post count". Say you write a Wall of Text 10 paragraphs long. You can't post that in one post. The point is for you to get to the point and shorten your analysis, but you really wanna post it. So you split it into 10 separate posts and post them all in a row, to get your Wall of Text in without breaking the twitter limit. That kinda defeats the point.

But again, I think that it's a matter of conscience for each player not to do that, and we shouldn't have to restrict post count for that purpose.


The one thing that brings me stronger in favour of trying a shorter posts game at least once is that in both previous games pretty much every time a Wall of Text appeared I did not read it and skipped straight to its conclusion, if it had one. There is no way on Earth I can keep up with a game full of Walls. If someone posts a Wall, my solution is basically to skip over it, because it gets too much. And that's no way to play properly either. I would love a game without crazy long posts. Making it a Twitter game with more restrictions than just "please no Walls" is an extra twist that has to be gone around. And unlike a limitation on the total post quota or the frequency of posts, this is not a particularly Phantom-exploitable idea.

[Rikae]

Well, I offered to mod the next game, and was thinking late July/early August for the start, but I have to say, I was never really wild about the short posts idea, and even less so if it's just a way to eliminate the long analyses which, to me, are a big part of Barrowdowns WW, even if I'm usually not the worst culprit. For that matter, "double post" restrictions would really cramp my style (I can't seem to help myself!)

The "twitter" game idea might be an interesting experiment if it were played ON twitter, but trying to recreate those conditions here sounds like an un-fun hassle.

An experiment I was really looking forward to trying was the one the dead thread developed in the last game of a Tolkien-quoting "ghost" sent back to represent the dead. That has a lot of potential and helps tie the game back into the forum more, too.

[Loslote]

I agree with Rikae, I think the twitter idea might need more development and maybe an extra gameplay component to make it more fun, rather than being first and foremost a restriction. The Ghost Game sounds like it's closer to being ready to go in July, and it also sounds like a super fun concept for the Downs.

[Kath]

Ooh a ghost game sounds really interesting! What's the idea?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm quite against any strict restrictions - I'm not against some people going for a super experimental game if they want to - but in general it sounds like a very bad idea.

Like some people have already noticed: situations may change drastically (reveals, sudden bandwagons, someone finds a crucial point...) which requires possibility to react freely. Also the whole feel of the game has lot to do with spontainety, including little banter here and there.

Quoting is also quite crucial to the game-mechanics. If people are forced to quote less to save their post-lengths it will immediately favor the wolves (who are, according to Kuru's latest statistics in the Grimoire, clearly having the upper hand already of late). Add to that a post-count restriction, and the wolves can co-ordinate things nicely especially late in the Day.

Or think about the last minute frenzy when everyone is holding their precious one last post to the very end, looking to see if someone is trying to use the situation to their advantage...

Also, who wants to count the characters in one's posts? So a Word or LibreOffice is required to play so that you can check the number of characters you use?


That said, I do think the walls of text in the first game this summer were quite overwhelming and we all could think twice, when it is truly important to make such huge posts (or quote all the stuff people quote) and when not.

What Nogrod is saying here is that the game will be different than normal, and change is bad.

Anyways I haven't tried to develop the idea since the end of the game, but I think we are overthinking certain aspects here.

There would definitely need to be a maximum length to the post, but one should not have to diligently count characters. I have sufficient faith in you guys to trust that you would play in the spirit of the game (and the new rules), and if a post or two is a bit over the limit, so what. Of course if there are obvious and repeatedly infractions, then the mods would need to take action.

If we were to put a cap on the number of posts, it could be in place until x hours prior to deadline from whence the cap would be out of effect. Again we could trust each other to stick to the spirit of the game, or we could add some different restrictions such as "no consecutive posts" etc.

In the words of the great Billy Joel "It's always been a matter of trust"

[Blind Guardian]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ooh a ghost game sounds really interesting! What's the idea?

In the Dead thread last game we talked about how the Dead can come back to life to quote.

If you noticed Boro said:

I am of the House of Felagund. Though my pride has fallen, I will not allow myself to be taken by the likes of you for your pleasure. May my spirit find peace and rest! ++Nilp

Which is a quote from the Silmarillion I believe.

The idea was that the Dead get one quote from any JRRT book per night to say. One Dead comes back to life just to say the quote.

There was talk of limiting the quote to the first sentence of a chapter. The specifics would need to be worked out.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Blind Guardian

The idea was that the Dead get one quote from any JRRT book per night to say. One Dead comes back to life just to say the quote.

My question/concern for this is: how do you integrate it into the game? Because the Dead don't know anything, so the Living have absolutely no reason to listen to what they say. It's fun for the Dead, but if it's the only thing different about the game, it's a bit weak.

Of course, once the Seer dies the Dead might know something, but that just devolves into attempts to dictate to the Dead precisely what they should say in any given scenario. ("If the Seer has dreamed Huinesoron innocent, and BG as a wolf, quote the first line of chapter 6 of The Hobbit...")

One possibility would be only revealing the deceased's roles in the Dead Thread, but people weren't too keen on that (and it gives the wolves a huge advantage). Another would be to give the first two/three Dead players new powers - perhaps a one-shot Seer, a (one-shot?) 'Nightmare Wolf', and a one-shot vote (ie, that player gets to cast a vote from the DT one Day). That way they would have something to say, but with one-shot powers it wouldn't be clear if they'd used them right away. Also, they might get given to a Wolf, if the village gets lucky Day One or Two.

hS

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Kath

In the game we just played, for my own personal interest, I tried to keep to G55's idea of no more than the box size for posts. I can't say it was a success.

And here I was wondering whether the change in your posting style was perhaps indicative of a special role.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think it was Legate who said when he thinks of new roles or experiments the question is "is this phantom-proof" is a good general guide to follow.

Definitely.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Well, I offered to mod the next game, and was thinking late July/early August for the start, but I have to say, I was never really wild about the short posts idea, and even less so if it's just a way to eliminate the long analyses which, to me, are a big part of Barrowdowns WW, even if I'm usually not the worst culprit. For that matter, "double post" restrictions would really cramp my style (I can't seem to help myself!)

I get your points, and I'd definitely be against double post restrictions myself (what do you do when you're online at a time when nobody else is around?). To be sure, counting characters and policing people's posting styles isn't my idea of fun either, and I'd rather have more spontaneity than less -- but you can be spontaneous in a brief post as well as in a long one. Maybe more so sometimes. Think punk rock vs prog rock.
As for the long analyses, yes they're kind of a style element of BD WW, and though I rarely find the time to post them myself I often find them useful (as long as they're not half a page and include the analysed player's shopping and laundry lists with commentaries and footnotes). It's the combination of long posts & lots of posts which I found daunting at times in the last two games -- like, when I finally get to play at about 3 hours to DL after a long day of work, dinner and a modicum of interaction with wife & pets and find 5 pages of thread since Daybreak, and by the time I've digested these there's 2 more, etc. - the Achilles and the turtle phenomenon. Back in the early days of BD WW whole games were played out in the number of pages we nowadays often take for a single Day. But that's more common in larger villages - maybe I should just stick to smaller ones.

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

There would definitely need to be a maximum length to the post, but one should not have to diligently count characters. I have sufficient faith in you guys to trust that you would play in the spirit of the game (and the new rules), and if a post or two is a bit over the limit, so what. Of course if there are obvious and repeatedly infractions, then the mods would need to take action.

I'Ve been thinking of castigating offenders with links to Ramones songs, as a reminder that everything worthwile can be said in 2 minutes.

Anyway, the ghost game idea sounds fun. Limiting it to first sentences might be a bit harsh, but I suppose we'd like to prevent someone just quoting e.g. Kath's signature to indicate she's the last living wolf, or some such. (People with Tolkien signatures watch out!)

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Anyway, the ghost game idea sounds fun. Limiting it to first sentences might be a bit harsh, but I suppose we'd like to prevent someone just quoting e.g. Kath's signature to indicate she's the last living wolf, or some such. (People with Tolkien signatures watch out!)

If we want to make it really phantom-proof, we could even make the Ghost run all their Ghost quotes through the mod to make sure they're not too revealing. But then again, the Dead don't actually know anything. By the end of the second-to-last Day last game, I (a Dead person) would have been chomping at the bit to tell the Living that the wolves were OBVIOUSLY Lommy, Mac, and Kath, and I was totally wrong about 2/3 of those. So even if the Dead are able to very clearly convey their thoughts, there's no guarantee that their thoughts are helpful.

[Kath]

So is the quoting in place of a vote or empowerment of some kind? All they do is quote a Tolkien line and then the Living spend the whole Day wondering what on earth the Dead are on about?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Kath

So is the quoting in place of a vote or empowerment of some kind? All they do is quote a Tolkien line and then the Living spend the whole Day wondering what on earth the Dead are on about?

Well there hasn't been any finalised version of what exactly it would mean. We spent a couple of posts discussing it in the Dead Thread, Form being the one who worked on it the most. The original idea was that one of the Dead would always come back as a ghost, but could only speak using lines from the books - then we started thinking about how to make sure they can't just pick up any lines and actually make too clear statements. The idea of first lines of chapters or somesuch came up.

A different derivation of the same is simply sending a "dream message" from the Dead to the Living, but yeah, I think there should be more to the powers the Dead have than just that for it to be relevant.

And at the same time I am also very much against what Hui warned about, that is, doing it so that the Living can't just make the Dead their info-service and do the "if X is a Wolf, post a quote from the first chapter of The Hobbit".

[Galadriel55]

I let my fantasy run away a little bit and envisioned this. Every Night, theDead choose a ghost to return to the living. The next Day the ghost may post Tolkien quotes (to be defined, eg full paragraphs, first sentences, etc) on the Living thread. The ghost is not restricted in how much he posts, but may only post Tolkien. Once the ghost gets to the land of the Living, until he returns to his grave at Night he cannot communicate with the Dead (ie once on the Living thread he cannot look at the Dead Thread, and has to act independently). However, the question is what info the DT would be trying to convey. Maybe indeed the Dead have special powers, like one extra dream per game, or a dream every Night but 25% chance it's incorrect, or some other information the ghost would need to convey. The ghost idea is awesome but needs that extra bit to balance it out, it's the bit that's difficult to figure out.

[Formendacil]

Yeah, the idea that the Ghost could only speak the line of a chapter-opening was an attempt to corral what the Ghost can say into something more cryptic. To sum up the idea of what *I* was thinking about the Ghost:

1. In a Dead Thread game, the Ghost can be the means of the Dead Thread's involvement.

2. Each Day, the Dead Thread votes for one of their own to return and haunt the village.

(3. Perhaps the Ghost has a vote? If so, does the Ghost cast their OWN vote or is it casting a vote the Dead Thread has already chosen?)

4. To keep the Ghost from being too much a straight-up data-channel between the Dead and Living, the idea was to make it that Ghost can only speak cryptically (other than voting, obviously). Some thoughts thrown around included the idea that the Ghost could only post quotes from their Living days--no bolding, no italicising, and I wanted to add "full paragraphs only" so that it wouldn't be immediately apparent why the Ghost had chosen that paragraph (i.e. if there was a nugget of emphasis buried in a paragraph, they wouldn't be able to post just the relevant clause, which would be hardly better than just being able to type what they wanted). The "first line from a Tolkien chapter" was a variant on this theme. I like that it makes things "more Tolkien" than this game sometimes devolves to... but it might be TOO limiting. Some sort of happy medium that ISN'T too much of a burden on the Mod is the idea.

(5. If the Ghost can vote, then perhaps that should be the SOLE purpose of the Ghost: the Dead Thread votes during the NIGHT and whoever the Ghost is makes a single Haunting during the DAY. In this case, maybe a single, cryptic clue would be permitted by the Mod.)

6. I think, if there is to be a Ghost, there should also be a Cobbler, and that the Cobbler's role should NOT be revealed to the Living Village upon Death--or to the Seer. Perhaps it should be revealed to the Dead? Or not?

[Blind Guardian]

The other option would be to allow the rules of the last game to stand while also allowing the Dead to select to say per night. Like Boro did on the last Night. So ++empower and ++quoteVote.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

6. I think, if there is to be a Ghost, there should also be a Cobbler, and that the Cobbler's role should NOT be revealed to the Living Village upon Death--or to the Seer. Perhaps it should be revealed to the Dead? Or not?

This is something that should absolutely hold. And I think it exactly should be that it would NOT be revealed even to the Dead, in order to allow the possibility to send back a Ghost, but lo, it was a Cobbler and made a mess of everything in its final returning grand act.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

This is something that should absolutely hold. And I think it exactly should be that it would NOT be revealed even to the Dead, in order to allow the possibility to send back a Ghost, but lo, it was a Cobbler and made a mess of everything in its final returning grand act.

That. ++Reveal the cobbler as an ordo to both Seer and Dead.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

That. ++Reveal the cobbler as an ordo to both Seer and Dead.

Not that the probability of it is very high (Cobbler needs to die, not be recognised by the innocent Dead, then needs to be selected by them to return), but already the possibility of the Cobbler being there forces the players to think about it and play around it.

But yes, the more pressing concern is to figure out all the powers of the ghost(s?) and the Dead in the first place.

[Rikae]

Regarding the problem of the living giving the dead a code to use (and yes, I was one of the worst culprits of this in the last game, but I was the cobbler ):

Could it be as simple as banning the living from giving instructions to the dead on what to post? We've had modfire-enforced bans on posting mod messages or on certain roles revealing in the past. Do folks think it would be possible to do the same with this?