Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
01-24-2008, 08:35 AM | #81 |
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
Alright, alright...
I'm not sure I really understand how this works exactly. I hope someone can help me. The rules for the werewolves to pick a kill appear a bit too complicated for my little brain... 1. Each werewolf sends a candidate to the evil sub-mod. 2. If a majority is already achieved, then that is the night's kill, if not, then the ESM sends each werewolf the list of candidates back. 3. The werewolves may change their pick, but only from one of the candidates. 4. If still no majority is achieved, then the Evil Wizard is handed the list of candidates and may choose. 5. If the werewolves happen to like to kill one of their own, or their wizard, then the EW may overrule their choice by a free choice of his own. Did I understand that correctly? And did that really work in the past game, even with all the different time zones (of sub mod, wizard, and many wolves)? From the outside, this game appears to be somewhat unbalanced in favour of the Evil Team. The EW can create a new werewolf every night (unless a gifted is picked), but can only lose more than one, and therefore have his team decrease in number, if both a wolf is lynched and the GW saves one from lycanthropy. At the same time, it takes the Good Wizard three nights to have his whole set of gifteds arranged, and he can never have more than that. |
01-24-2008, 07:44 PM | #82 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
You're sort of right. The EW, as well as the GW, can override the decisions of the wolves or gifted at any time. This is actually necessary, because you don't wanter a hunter hunting a seer, etc, or wolves killing another wolf. And sometimes the Wizards just know more.
The wolves can provide any ammount of reasoning they like to the EW, or none at all, with only a name. Depends on the wolf. Likewise the seer can reason who to dream, and the hunter whom to hunt, and the protector whom to protect. It's all ultimately the Wizard's decision how much autonomy they give their team. This allows for varying strategies and creative plays. As for the unbalance- keep in mind that if the EW picks someone who is gifted to turn, the gifted merely becomes innocent, and the EW gains almost nothing, not even information. If the GW tries to turn a wolf, the wolf becomes innocent and thus switches teams, and if the wolf knows anything, s/he can tell the entire village. There's also the logical hunter- only makes a kill if they target a wolf. I do agree that the good team should start with three gifted, rather than one, though. Also, multiple kills for four (perhaps five?) or more wolves just helps keep the game from dragging on too long.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
01-29-2008, 02:56 AM | #83 | |||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Just to refresh the memory and to introduce people who did not play the first DW-game here are the complete rules from the actual game-thread reprinted...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|||
01-29-2008, 05:46 AM | #84 | ||
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Wow, I must say it looks really very interesting (now that I finally read the rules as whole). Only let me raise some questions. First, what bothers me, is what Macalaure already said, yet it did not seem to be answered:
Quote:
Quote:
Concerning the possibility of GW picking the EW on Night 1, let's not forget that the EW can likewise pick the GW on Night One and we have the same problem. No, I think the possibility that one Wizard reveals another on Night One is not such a problem: after all, they can now decide whether to try to tacticise and wait or whether to bet on the village (resp. wolves) and choose to duel the other Wizard right on Day 1. But I think, after all, that the GW should be allowed to pick his one Gifted on Night 1. In the worst case, he saves a wolf and so the village will start with two wolves on Day 1. But I don't see this as a big problem and anyway, how often this happens?
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
||
01-29-2008, 11:03 AM | #85 |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
I have lots of work to do so I decided to avoid them by reading this thread through. And you bet I have some ideas and suggestions now...
It's clear we need a big village in this kind of game. I'd say at least 20, hopefully a bit more (there were 30 in the original version but I'm afraid we'll not be able to get that many this time - but who knows?). That said it looks pretty straightforward to me that in the beginning of the game both the EW and the GW send the mod (and the sub-mods?) a list of 6 or something (depending on the number of gifteds we will give the GW in the beginning: I personally would be ready to give the GW more than one but more of that later) whom they wish to make wolves / gifteds. After that the mod checks the overlaps, makes a lottery if needed and deals the picks. After that he sends the names of the wolves to the EW and notifies the wolves about their status. To the GW the mod would send the names of those selected so that the GW could assign them their roles herself. After the allocation the GW then notifies the sub-mod (or the mod) of her choices and those would then be passed on to the players via the sub-mod (or the mod). If the Wizard wishes to give any instructions to her minions she would be free to do it before Day1 starts via the sub-mod (who'd actually need to rephrase them). On the other Nights than the initial Night1 we should have something like a clear system. Not too complicated but still one that would make playing a role other than a Wizard interesting enough. The Wizards should be the ones to make the final decisions though. That's the idea in "Dueling Wizards Werewolf" in the first place. But I'd like to see the people with roles being able to voice their minds as well and be able to make a difference. So how about something like the wolves and gifteds being able to make PMs where they argue their choice to their respective sub-mods in say 10-14 hours (or something) after the Day has ended and the sub-mod being required to pass that on to the Wizard immediately? Other discussion than that of the choices should be allowed to all people with a role at any time during the Night. It's only this choosing stuff where we'd need to have some deadlines during the Night. The wizard should also be able to pass information to her minions as much as she wishes. That's something the Wizard and the sub-mod should then work out together (as to when the sub-mod can be online) as the authentic PMs should not be quoted but the sub-mod should alway paraphrase it so that the minions would not quess the identity of their Wizard if she doesn't want them to know it. And in any case if I'm the one modding this one I'd be ready to help in this PM traffic as well if fex. a sub-mod lives in a timezone which limits the possibilities of channeling the posts in time. This all can be fixed when the game starts and we know the particular people involved. After the wolves and gifteds have given their points (within the 10-14 hour framework or whatever it will be) the wizard could then add her own suggestions and preferences. That would then be passed back to the "chosen" and they could have again a time limit to make further suggestions (like 4 hours before the deadline or something - all these exact hours should be decided when we have the actual people in). Then on the basis of that discussion the Wizard would announce the choices to the sub-mods & the mod - preferably one hour before the deadline so that everything could be counted and a narration could come in time. That's what I'd call the minimum requirements. Naturally people would be able to PM more and make comments when and as many times they wish. There should just be some clear timelines when certain decisions are made. And it's up to the Wizard whether she wishes to reveal herself to someone in her team which would then allow them to PM without going via the sub-mod. All this would require the mod and the sub-mods to be able to be online at certain times - the more often the better - but in the end they are all there voluntarily... The important thing in the "conversation" between the minions and the Wizard is that the minions' PMs can be just passed forwards as they are but the Wizard's PM's should be rephrased by the sub-mods (or the mod if needs be). I'll take a break now but will come back soon as I still have a few suggestions to make...
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
01-29-2008, 01:06 PM | #86 |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
A few more thoughts on the rules...
I kind of liked lmp's idea that in a case of a tie no one gets killed but at the same time I can see the arguments against that ruling. So how about we tried something along the lines of "Wizard's battle" over those people? One idea would be that both Wizards could nominate one they would like to keep around and one they would like to get rid of and submitting their choices to the mod. If they agreed the person dies if they don't the person lives. The downside in this would be that only innocents would be killed but it might also save people. Another chance is that the end-result would not be death but "conversion" (so from gifted or a wolf to ordinary or from ordinary to either one according to the result between the Wizards). This one needs to be thought of. The GW should probably be restricted to one seer at the time but otherwise I might be tempted to allow more than the three gifteds... the EW may appoint an unlimited number of wolves anyhow. But this also depends on the exact capabilities of the gifteds. I'm not wishing to turn the hunter into a 100% killing-pawn of the GW who could "assasinate" a wolf paying it with her life. Instead I would be persuaded to make it in the way that the hunter in the end - like other gifteds - are responsible of their actions themselves but that the GW could give them instructions on the basis of anything they have discussed or what she seems fit. It would then be the GW's task to make her minions to see why her plans are better than an individual gifted's feeling (and she'd need to decide how much to reveal her knowledge to gain her ends) although in a case of fex. the seer trying to dream of someone already known to the GW she should have a right to override the decision of the seer. We'd need to think about this one too as I'd like to make the gifteds / wolves to feel they are involved in what happens but still retaining the Wizard as the one who pulls the strings... About the hunter still. If the hunter gains the information from the GW she should be of the "classical" style eg. bringing down whoever she has targeted, a wolf or an innocent. It might also be possible to think that the GW first would like to keep her in shade about the other gifteds but if the hunter wishes to take another gifted down with her the GW could then override it (when it would be known to the hunter as well). That would indeed sound "realistic" If both Wizards choose the same people during the Night that one would be turned a werewolf but be known to EW. That sounds good to me.
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
01-29-2008, 02:17 PM | #87 | ||
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Nog, it looks good but terribly exhausting to read and decipher. I thought I'm going to die before I finish reading that Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll make a good mod after seeing the effort you put to it.
Quote:
Quote:
To the rest: good, good, only don't overcombinate the rules. I think the game looked good enough as it was, don't overstretch it (I'm referring to introducing more gifteds etc...). I am sure there was another thing I wanted to mention, but I forgot it.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
||
01-29-2008, 04:09 PM | #88 | |||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Happily being able to play does not require one to know all the niceties of the game. In the end only the Wizards and the sub-mods need to have a clear conception of what to do and what is possible / allowed. And they should be volunteers as they were the last time. No one should just state their wish to be a Wizard here or anywhere else in the 'downs but they should PM the mod eventually declaring their willingness. Quote:
Quote:
I can see that all the talk I made above may look like nitpicking and too thorough... but in the end when the game is played one needs clear rules to every situation and deciding those rules requires every thing and chance to be thought patiently beforehand (so that we don't make a same kind of blunder the first game suffered from just because the mod had to make a decision about an un-thought-of situation in a hurry).
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|||
01-29-2008, 04:41 PM | #89 | ||||
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
||||
01-29-2008, 06:15 PM | #90 | |||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I suggest that no one who doesn’t think they have the time for it attempt being a wizard. I agreed to be a sub mod because by the time the game starts I’ll have plenty of time to waste on it. I wouldn’t have volunteered if I didn’t think I could put in the work.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
|||||||
01-30-2008, 12:03 AM | #91 | ||
Silver in My Silent Heart
|
Quote:
Are the Seers told the EW's role if the dream of her? In that case there shouldn't be 3 Seers. Rangers. They're easier to add, if you make sure that the same person can't be protected two Nights in a row. It might actually be fun to have a game with loads of Hunters some time, but not now. Quote:
|
||
01-30-2008, 08:30 AM | #92 | ||||
Fading Fëanorion
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: into the flood again
Posts: 2,911
|
random thoughts on the matter
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
About the messages via the sub-mod: They definitely need to be reformulated. You could narrow down the Wizard's identity by their style/amount of writing. The information flow should be encouraged to be very concise, I think, for the sake of the sub-mod. About more than three gifteds: I think the situation is already a bit balanced by the fact that the three can always be replaced, and the knowledge of the old ones is passed over to the new ones by the Wizard. Two seers I could agree to (esp. considering the size of the village and the inconstancy of the roles). Two rangers, as long as even together they can't protect one villagers twice in a row, don't have much more power than one alone. The hunter already has an advantage due to the information s/he obtains from the Wizard and the seer (if the seer is successful only once, the hunter cannot go wrong anymore). Furthermore, s/he can be replaced after death, so no more than one at any rate. Quote:
|
||||
01-30-2008, 04:09 PM | #93 | |||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Now lmp entertained the idea that in a tie neither of those gaining the highest number of votes would get killed. I'm afraid that might put the villagers' most important tool into jeopardy if that would be automatic. But I'd like to try something new with the lynching procedure this time. So my idea was to put the Wizards face to face during the Night and trying to see through each others bluff and risk-taking capabilities. One way to gain this would be that they have a chance to protect one of those reaching a tie and a chance to try to kill (or change) the other one (they could surely restrain from using both or eother of their capabilities if they so wished). I think you can imagine different possible scenarios there could be: a wolf and a seer reaching a tie, a wolf and an innocent, two gifteds, two wolves, two innocents... How would the Wizards play their cards here thinking of both the "objective" outcome of it and the bluff-factor? So the basic idea would just be that in a case of a tie in votes the Wizards would play it off. It might look to favour the EW but remember also that if there is a wolf there in the pair and the GW suspects her and tries to kill / change her only to learn that the EW protected her then what should the GW think about it? Or does the EW have the nerve to bluff here as she doesn't know which one the GW will pick? It might also be worth considering that this poker-game between the Wizards could be made to consist of two rounds where initially the Wizards are asked about their choices and those would be then channelled to the other one and then their second decision would be the one that counts... (that would be easily adapted in to the narrations as the Wizards try to sense the air around the two candidates and trying to see what the other one is trying to do) But as I said this is one of the things we should think about. It's just a suggestion and I'm not sure whether it would work in a balanced manner. Quote:
One way to try to balance this would surely be to make some clear but flexible limits to the number of gifteds / wolves. Like that there could at any time be three but as long as there are a lot of players the maximal amount would be something like a quarter of the village or something like that (So with 20 players left there could be at most five wolves etc. - surely any already nominated "chosen ones" would not be ripped of their status because of this rule but when the roster is full the Wizard would be banned to scry/curse more; and there probably needs to be some restrictions with the GW's scries as five Seers, or four rangers able to protect the seer(s) everyNight would be just unsporty). Or maybe we just limit the number of wolves to the quarter of the village or something and hold the gifteds in the three-max. all through the game? Okay that's just a thought as well. What do you people think? I do agree with you Roa that both Wizards should be able to override their minions' decisions in the end. You made me convinced about it. The issue with both Wizards trying to scry/curse the same villager during the Night. You are right Roa and Mac. That might be a bit too dangerous. Right now I kind of like the idea that that person gets under so strong influence of magical powers that she crushes dead with it. That would be simple, elegant and "realistic". Also that way both Wizards will know they were after the same person without learning each others identities (which I think they should not learn if they are after the same person). Quote:
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... Last edited by Nogrod; 01-30-2008 at 04:13 PM. |
|||
01-30-2008, 05:07 PM | #94 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
I understand now. I agree that no lynch on a tie isn't very good for the village. It would be too easy for the evil team to manipulate that. I'm intrigued by this Wizard's Battle idea, however, with everything that has to happen at Night, it may be overstretching the capabilities of the mods and wizards alike.
I like the idea that the number of wolves/gifted rely on the number of villagers, but I wouldn't like to limit the kind too much. After all, the GW needs to be able to strategize. If we have wolves= 1/4 village, then the number of gifted should also rely on the size of the village, though maybe not in equal numbers. (As you pointed out, when the gifted are cursed they don't change sides, but when the wolves are scryed, they do.) Perhaps 1/5? So 20 villagers would mean five wolves and four gifted, whereas 30 villagers means seven wolves (or eight depending on if you want to round up or down) and six gifted. This is total of course, and assuming that either team can manage to keep all their members alive (quite a feat, I assure you.) Then for the gifted, as long they stay withing the limits of each type (such as no more than two seers, etc.) they can be arranged however the GW wishes.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
01-30-2008, 06:17 PM | #95 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Nog, to that wizard battle over lynched people - if this rule was used, what will happen if a tie is reached and the Wizards are already dead?
Anyway, I must say I don't particularly like this rule, it seems still too much more of an advantage for the EW. Or: I can't see an advantage for the GW in it. And by the way, why can't we simply have a double-lynch or the lynch when the first person who reaches... etc? As to the Gifteds/Wolves: was the last game really that badly unbalanced or what? Remember that with the rising number of wolves, the possibility that the GW turns a WW into an innocent rises every night, so that maintains balance, sort of. And with three Gifted... As to the 36-or more hour days/nights: definitely not. Whatever transmission problems it may take, I'm strongly against changing the times.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories Last edited by Legate of Amon Lanc; 01-30-2008 at 06:22 PM. |
01-30-2008, 07:04 PM | #96 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
Perhaps 3 gifted total, but they can all start on night 1? Quote:
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
||
01-31-2008, 04:27 AM | #97 | ||
Silver in My Silent Heart
|
Quote:
This looks like an unnecessary rule at first sight. However my argument for it working is that the more days we are into the game, the better the chances to spot a Wolf. I say that it would be interesting to see this work in practice. Quote:
Putting a limit to the ammount of Wolves and Gifteds sounds good for the balance, but to me it diminishes both the Wizards quite a lot. What would happen if the when the border is reached? Will the Wizards still be able to curse/scry? What about the GW giving her targets "protection" from being cursed after the Gifted limit is reached? Being a Gifted is basically having a protecting from becoming a Wolf. So if there would be limit to Gifteds, but the Wizard could still protect? |
||
01-31-2008, 02:39 PM | #98 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
|
01-31-2008, 03:49 PM | #99 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Wait, wait. I am kinda confused. I thought that the GW can scry on people still, all the time, and if he already has three Gifteds, he still can scry, only he does not turn the innocents he scries into Gifteds, but if he scries upon a Wolf, he turns him back. So I don't see why Volo is suggesting what he is suggesting, as the GW is already doing this thing by which he can save people who already are wolves (and if he scries upon a person who becomes a wolf the very same night, he un-curses him, so in fact, it's the same as if he Protected him, technically). And I don't see why Roa is opposing it, as the GW already does this thing, as I just wrote. Or am I totally confused and misunderstood the rules, the posts, or everything?
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
01-31-2008, 04:09 PM | #100 |
Silver in My Silent Heart
|
Ok, if Legate is correct, then I was talking nonsense and everything was just as it should be.
|
01-31-2008, 05:14 PM | #101 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, either way, the protected person is a goner. If the EW chooses to curse someone, only to find out that s/he can't, then it'd be obvious that that person is gifted. If the GW tries to scry someone and can't, then it becomes obvious that that that person is a wolf. So really all it would do is maybe give either a gifted or a wolf one more day on that team.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
|||
02-01-2008, 06:15 AM | #102 | |
Silver in My Silent Heart
|
Stupid as it may sounds, I think I was a bit confused when I answered Legate.
Ok, this is what I meant in the very beginning: If the Wizards can't create more Minions (Wolves/Gifteds) because the limits are reached. If a Wizard targets a Minion, the Minion will be turned to an Ordo. If a Wizard targets an Ordo - What happens? My suggestin is that the Ordo is now protected from the other Wizard's powers for the next Night/the rest of the game as if it was the Wizard's own Minion. How my suggestin would work: Quote:
|
|
02-01-2008, 06:44 AM | #103 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Yes, it makes sense and that's (except for the limits, about which I was not thinking back then) the same way as I believed the game works. I would vote for this.
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
02-01-2008, 07:39 AM | #104 | |||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|||
02-01-2008, 07:43 AM | #105 |
Silver in My Silent Heart
|
I don't think they should be able to protect their own Minions, but it should come as a part of scrying/cursing Ordos if their Minion limit is already reached. The protection lasting one Night is probably too little, but the whole game too much. Maybe the next two or three Nights?
|
02-01-2008, 11:48 AM | #106 | |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
But I do like the idea that the Wizards could not "protect" their minions from a scry but only others. That might also bring forwards a possibility that the GW protects a wolf on one Night... but also that she could try to foresee EW's actions and try to override them with her anticipation. When there is no one to scry (roster full) it would give a Wizard some nice things to think about trying to figure whom the other one would like to target and to bar that conversion. Though the possibly academic question remains what if both Wizards have their rosters full? Maybe just one Night with one less problem to solve to both of them?
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|
02-01-2008, 01:09 PM | #107 |
A Voice That Gainsayeth
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In that far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 7,431
|
Surely not? Because under such circumstances the Wolf would be turned into an Innocent. Or should I shut up and wait till the rules are issued in some nice, summarized, easily-readable version? (which is an important and even necessary task which is in front of you, Nog )
__________________
"Should the story say 'he ate bread,' the dramatic producer can only show 'a piece of bread' according to his taste or fancy, but the hearer of the story will think of bread in general and picture it in some form of his own." -On Fairy-Stories |
02-01-2008, 02:06 PM | #108 |
Laconic Loreman
|
Alright, so just some observations from the first Dueling Wizards game that I remember.
I will first tell Legate, that yes the sub-mods had to be around a lot, but I knew that when I told lmp I'd do it. I assure you I got enough sleep, and I hope to all my evil companions I did an efficient job of sending the information to all the necessary people. As soon as I saw a message I forwarded it right back out. So, yes, the sub-mod needs to be someone who has a lot of available time, and is on often, but I didn't have any issues with getting the information to the right people in a reasonable time. (Well at least I didn't hear Roa complaining about me ) But, the sub-mod definitely has to be someone with the time and comittment to do the job...something I can't do this time around but I am hoping to be able to get into a DW game if one is started. As far as the game balance, lmp, had many many dry runs before starting his game and it had turned out pretty even. I think the Good team was disadvantaged with only being able to PM during the day, because on top of trying to do the ordinary day business of analyzing and voting, the GW had to try to communicate with his gifteds as far as what action should be done. And it didn't seem like Gurthang could plan as effectively as Roa, simply because of only being able to PM during the day. So, definitely letting both teams only PM at night should alleviate some of the "work load" the GW has to do, and they could plan more effectively. Also, before we do start, clear rules for everything definitely has to be established for a game as complex as this one. I remember an issue right off the bat, it was a while ago and don't remember the exact details (maybe someone else does?). I just remember lmp, Kuru, and myself awarding Roa an extra kill at one point because of something we all felt was unfair. At that time that was the decision we thought was appropriate, and I believe as Gurthang pointed out before the extra kill hurt the good team. However, that wasn't the only reason the evil team was able to win and win pretty decisively. I thought the biggest reason was Roa's play as the evil wizard. She definitely had a great plan, did a great job of executing her plan, and overall just being in control. I think the GW could have done a better job of planning had he been able to communicate at night, because only being able to communicate during the day was, when you also have to worry about posting and finding wolves, was just too much. You had that situation when tp was awaiting for directions from the GW and so on, so allowing both teams to only communicate at night I think would solve that.
__________________
Fenris Penguin
|
02-01-2008, 03:01 PM | #109 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Someday, I'll rule all of it.
Posts: 1,696
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like the idea of Wizardly protections, but not whole game. That would just get silly. The next Night should be good enough. I don't think it would be easy to keep track of who was protected and who wasn't, and when the protections were up if we did it for multiple Nights. Trust me, by the time each wizard has their roster full, IF they ever get their roster full, there won't be that many people left in the village. People drop like flies in this game.
__________________
We can't all be Roas when it comes to analysing... -Lommy I didn't say you're evil, Roa, I said you're exasperating. -Nerwen |
||||
02-01-2008, 03:10 PM | #110 |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,591
|
I would love to grace everyone with the sparkling brilliance of my input at being the good submod...alas, I don't really remember anything about it.
The only thing I really remember is having to step in when lmp couldn't be there to post about the wizards duel and everyone was just twiddling their thumbs. I'll try to re-read and see if I can remember anything.
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
02-01-2008, 06:17 PM | #111 | ||||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Quote:
And even if I myself think one should run a host of dry-runs before trying a new concept I'd also remind of the fact that dry-runs are only random results. If Lommy and A little Green will take the bait we might try the dry runs some weekend we'll be together and we could see how it works with some more specified gaming as well. * Quote:
Quote:
* I thought of trying this one out with Lommy & Greenie in a way that would also take notice of the different personalities of people possibly playing. I mean the any one seer looks differently to Legate and Shasta (or Spm and Valier) as they have very different profiles... The Wizards surely take these different profiles into account but I would just be intersted to try it out not purely random but with a few different scenarios where the Wizards would have different tactics (scrying the silent ones vs. scrying the opinion-shifters etc.). But we'll see about that...
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
||||
|
|