Ten Year Anniversary Game: Living Thread

[Macalaure]

I had a crazy long post detailing why all those strategies above won't work, but then I realized it was really just an overblown series of quoting and arguing, so I scrapped it. Here's the key points, though.

We have a 25% chance to lynch a wolf toDay (6 in 24)
If we don't, each pack has a 15% chance to kill another wolf at night (3 in 20): P(A)+P(B)-P(A)*P(B)=27.75%.
Even by pure chance, we're actually quite likely to receive some help from the wolves at killing wolves. Not implying, of course, that this means we can be lazy, and definitely not implying that we should tie our votes and not lynch. (In a village of 24, with 6 baddies, and later with an unpredictable extra vote? Impossible to orchestrate. Seriously, people.)

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works. Unless a choice is obvious, you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed. Things get messed up, even without revealed or unrevealed baddies in both threads trying to mess with it intentionally.

The dead should give their extra vote to either A: someone they have reason to believe is innocent; or B: someone who has voted for someone they have reason to believe is guilty. This will give us a solid bit of information to go on, actually.

Fake reveals can be a problem. With no immediate knowledge of the role upon death, it's easier to pull off. Anyone remember how nobody believed Nogrod was the seer all game last time? And that was without a contestant (though with cobblers). Then again, would a wolf dare it, knowing that the real beneficiary is the other wolf pack?

Don't have too much faith in the roles that can return from the dead. It can only happen twice at most, and if the timing is off (as it was last time), it can end up much more unhelpful than hoped.

One question for the mod: Will the narrations state which unfortunate soul got killed by which wolf pack? Or was this stated somewhere and I overlooked it? If it is not clear to the village, then the wolves would have extra knowledge and be more adept at killing the other pack than we are. An uncomfortable thought.

Originally Posted by the phantom

I simply post "Tomorrow I will cast a throwaway vote. If So-And-So was the real Seer, give me a bonus vote tomorrow", the Dead check So-And-So's true identity and then either give or don't give me the bonus vote according to what they found.

This I don't get, or maybe I'm missing something. The dead can only find out roles among themselves, and do not see gifteds. They won't know who the real seer is, at least not for certain.


Sorry for being all negative, but all those Day1 strategies... Sweet summer children! No plan survives contact with werewolves.


These points I did like, though, so I'll quote them for truth:

Originally Posted by A Little Green

First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.

Originally Posted by Legate

Really, from my experience, whenever one is playing a Wolf, whatever the circumstances, there is a psychological difference.

This. Of course, when looking for this difference, the risk is always to accidentally kill a gifted, since they operate similarly, but the lovers and the ranger have less reason to be afraid in our setup here (especially after a few days), and the hunter generally does, too. So, while the risk is clearly still there, it is smaller than usual, especially considering the number of baddies.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by phantom

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.

O esteemed Mod, a clarification about the Dead Thread extra vote?

Originally Posted by Rules

After there are THREE residents of the Dead Thread, every DAY the dead get to vote on giving one of the living an extra vote. The dead are subject to the same deadline (heh heh) as the living. The living will not know who among them will get an extra vote until it is revealed in the closing narration of the DAY.

So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

And while we are on the subject of rules -

Originally Posted by phantom

All this Dead bonus vote stuff aside, I mainly just don't want the Seer or Ranger to die early. The double-dream and double-protect is amazing!

The Ranger only gets their double protect after they're returned from the dead, right? So it won't last long since the Ranger's identity becomes pretty obvious once they're resurrected. And I assume they can't resurrect twice?

...wow, I'm being positive today.


EDIT: x-ed with Nilp and Mac

[A Little Green]

Re: the voting schemes. Tying the vote on purpose might have merit later on if we have reason to believe the Dead can make a more informed decision than we can. As for today, however - I don't know. Accidentally hitting a Gifted is a risk, but a relatively small one (though after I've said this I'm sure that's exactly what I'll end up doing ). On the whole, I agree with Mac; while the wolf packs will undoubtedly attempt to eliminate each other, we can't really afford to leave all wolf hunting to the Night kills and not use our vote. At the same time, I have no idea where to start on forming an even half-informed opinion of anyone.

Sorry, coughing my head off atm and thus not as coherent as I'd like.

[Nerwen]

Firefoot (#37) and Boro (#39), you two are referring to phantom's suggestion at #20?
I had the impression it was off the menu, but if not- look, the problem is that, failing the Seer getting a wolf in that time, it requires not only all the gifteds but all the dreamed innocents not to get eaten until Day 3; meanwhile the wolves are getting 2 kills a Night and we have no chance of lynching a wolf. Plus, there's always the possibility of false reveals.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I like the idea of deliberately tying the vote today, if possible. A couple thoughts:

1) It seems likely enough that for some reason we don't pull it off (wolves screw it up, accidental cross-posting, someone doesn't vote) - so we should make a deliberate choice of our possible victims.

2) In order to prevent total chaos at the end, what if we orchestrated the vote (these players vote for this person, those players vote for that). Any deviance from this strategy could also be indicative of a non-cooperative WW (or a lover, I guess).

So you're not even necessarily expecting this to work, you're just seeing it as a way of possibly flushing a wolf ("or a lover")? Only what would either really have to gain by breaking the tie? The Lovers just want to stay alive, and the wolves have the Night-kill. Besides, my "accidentally-on-purpose" comment on phantom's other plan applies here also- how could you be sure it wasn't just an honest screw-up? (Also, we don't actually want to expose the Lovers...)

4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)?

Precisely. So why suggest it?

Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

Really doesn't seem the best option to me...

edit:x'd since Nilp at #40.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Green

The Ranger only gets their double protect after they're returned from the dead, right? So it won't last long since the Ranger's identity becomes pretty obvious once they're resurrected. And I assume they can't resurrect twice?

Ahhh, right you are. Never mind then- the Ranger isn't such a powerhouse then, at least not now. I suppose that means more than ever the Seer is the only viable target at this time.

Originally Posted by Green

So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

I see what you mean. Well, we could still pass info even if it's interpreted the other way, right? It would just require some tweaking. (I was interpreting it the one way because that's how it worked in the other village where we did this, wasn't it?)

Originally Posted by Mac

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works.

Well yeah, it definitely won't work if we assume it won't and don't try it.

Originally Posted by Mac

you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed

That's their problem. If people play poorly and screw up well-intentioned plans then we should lynch them (because they might be WWs messing up on purpose). If it turns out to be innocents that are messing things up for us, then at least they'll know it was their fault we lost.

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.

Originally Posted by Mac

This I don't get, or maybe I'm missing something. The dead can only find out roles among themselves, and do not see gifteds. They won't know who the real seer is, at least not for certain.

If the person doesn't appear as Predator then we trust the reveal, right?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, there is an obvious split in the camp. Not between heroes and villains (that split is hidden) but between those who love complicated rules and those who are already lost.

I'm sure everything will become easier after a few days; until then, I'm not sure we can challenge the chaos. But am especially keen to observe those who doubt the village's ability to communicate effectively with the Dead.

For anyone interested in omens, mind you, the song I heard today which reminded me to check out this thread - 'The Dead Hate The Living'

[Nogrod]

Werewolf is back! And in a headache-producing form...

I think I'm siding with Macalaure's points to begin with. Playing orchestrated draws with voting is more or less doomed to fail especially in the early stages (because people miss votes, they don't get the information etc.).

But I'd also say there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village - and to be able to execute that. What Mac already referred to: the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread.

I'd see the situation as follows: the Dead Thread plays somewhat a normal WW-game where they know the identities of some and not of some (so it will be a chaotic mess of points and counterpoints made), the Living Thread is playing a game where no-one knows anything about anything (so it will be a chaotic mess of points and counterpoints made with not even fleeting evidence to back anything).

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic with our chances as a village: there are so many factors involved, not the least the rivalry between the two competing Wolfgangs *sic*.

Like Lottie (I think) said: the death of the first wolf certainly is a priority (well trying to lynch the most probable wolf should be our first priority every Day - let's talk about possible intentional draws later in the game) and a game-changer.

It's like in a football (soccer) game where two sides can play 0-0 for a long time in an important match and both be very careful just trying to avoid mistakes - but when one side finally scores a goal the game changes dramatically because just avoiding mistakes won't do to the team that is trailing in numbers: the game opens up and that gives chaces to both sides to really make results.


Nice to have this game back in the menu!

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

Especially since we as a village have (as I believe Mac said) a 25% chance of catching a wolf, whereas the Night kills have a 15% chance. I'd also like to add that we as a village have a further 21% (5/24) chance of accidentally killing a Gifted, where the Night kills have a 25% (5/20 - assuming we do not ourselves lynch a Gifted toDay) chance of purposefully killing a Gifted. It's much much riskier to trust the wolf killing to the wolves, since they are far more likely to kill a Gifted than a wolf, whereas we are slightly more likely to kill a wolf than a Gifted.

[Nogrod]

Oh one question on what Greenie said and most people seemed to strongly agree on (maybe I'm just in rust for not playing WW for a long time):

Originally Posted by Greenie

First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.

I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion, or the POV of it, that is.

I mean my conclusion from the thoughts above would be that there probably wouldn't be that many fake-looking cases as the wolves don't have to pretend suspecting someone but are actually really suspecting someone for being a baddie - and the more important consequence of that would then be that the best wolf-lynchers shouldn't be regarded as "more probably goodies" just by their "good nose" on lynching baddies (actually it seems other wolves have a slight advance over normal villagers on sniffing the other wolves out).

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Nog

there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village

They'll know what the Living know plus more, so logically they should be able to help, particularly if the Living provide them with a structure in which to do so.

Originally Posted by Nog

the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread

Yeah they were. Mwu ha ha ha!

But that was totally different, because the Dead couldn't confirm roles. If they had been able to do so they would've tested Seer-Nog as soon as you went to the Dead thread and suddenly things would've been different.

There is concrete knowledge available to us in this game. We need to try and grab it.

[Firefoot]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Firefoot (#37) and Boro (#39), you two are referring to phantom's suggestion at #20?

Yes.

I had the impression it was off the menu

I didn't realize that? No one seemed to be talking about it much...

So you're not even necessarily expecting this to work, you're just seeing it as a way of possibly flushing a wolf ("or a lover")?

Not at all, what the heck? I thought it was an interesting idea and wanted to suggest some considerations, that's all. And I was more interested in it for toDay than future Days. I know it's been a long time since I've done this but I have a lot of memories of really poor day 1 lynches.

[Boromir88]

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works. Unless a choice is obvious, you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed. Things get messed up, even without revealed or unrevealed baddies in both threads trying to mess with it intentionally. - Mac

Bottom line: We need some way to get reliable information from the Dead. Now, my understanding is we will know who receives the extra vote from the Dead, and if I'm understanding the phantom correctly, he wants to use the extra vote as a means to relay the predator/prey info revealed to the Dead. Roles who can be resurrected will help, but it would also help to get information some other way. Otherwise, every lynch will just be random and with no idea what's going on and every lynch just becomes a stab in the dark.

It's not a life changing discovery to know the Dead wolves will be working to mess up the Dead thread to cause confusion for the living...but at the same time, with the rival packs they will do what they feel they must to protect their own pack. If that means getting rid of wolves from the rival pack, Dead wolves may be willing to work with the innocents to get rid of their rivals.

I agree with whoever said we can't be lazy and rely on the packs killing each other. Since we CAN'T rely on that, we have to rely on some method to find out about whether are lynches have hit wolves or not. And call me impatient, but I'm not going to wait for the death of a resurrected role to get information from the Dead thread.

Of course it would take the cooperation of the Dead and any method should have a clear and simple understanding. If I know how this works...during the NIGHT phase the Dead vote on who amongst them gets revealed as Predator/Prey. And during the DAY who amongst the living gets the bonus vote? It might be quite complicated, but this is involving some of the brightest and most intelligent minds in the world. I'm sure we can figure it out. (seriously I'm never going to under-estimate the resolve of the 'Downers in getting this place back up and everyone together again)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by the phantom

They'll know what the Living know plus more, so logically they should be able to help, particularly if the Living provide them with a structure in which to do so.

The Dead will know more - and they should help in the best way they can - but I'm a bit more realist on the issue of how successful they will be just sorting out things among themselves - or how happy they would be to follow strict guidelines given by people in the Living Thread they do not know the alignment of...

Originally Posted by tp

There is concrete knowledge available to us in this game. We need to try and grab it.

Certainly - and that will be the Dead Thread who has it (and hopefully at some stages also the Living Thread). Fully agreed.

[Loslote]

I have work today, but I'll be back before deadline. A couple last thoughts:

It doesn't make sense to tie before the Dead thread starts up, since we have a better chance at killing wolves and avoiding Gifteds if we lynch than if we leave it to the Night kills (see my above post).

I am also dubious about giving the Dead thread the power to choose who dies in the lynch - I agree that it would be good to set up a system wherein the Dead can let us know who they checked and what the result was, but I would prefer for that system to not give the Dead the ultimate choice. After all, if all we the voters can do is comply with the voting scheme already set out, we do not get nearly as much information on the voters. Even if we don't know the result of the vote, looking at people's votes with an eye to what they appear to be trying to do, who they want lynched, and who they don't gives us a lot of information that we wouldn't get if we gave that power to the Dead.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Of course it would take the cooperation of the Dead and any method should have a clear and simple understanding.
...
It might be quite complicated, but this is involving some of the brightest and most intelligent minds in the world. I'm sure we can figure it out.

I might see just that as a problem... even if I fully agree it would be nice we had a method of communication with the goodies of the Dead side with a lot of knowledge. The Dead will probably understand a lot things the Living will not, but the baddies on the Dead thread will wish to twist any "message" they give the living - and in the Living Thread some may understand things but others will not - and the baddies will do their best trying to make people not understanding things...

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).

Contrary to some people's opinion, I think D1 is a good day to hunt for wolves - and I think the stats might even prove me right in this (although I'm not sure of it). So let's see what we can do toDay - I'm coming back later to try and do something for it.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.

Day1 is always sketchy in terms of usefulness, but later on? We will do the usual and analyze, as well as we can in this setting, and poke around to see how people are acting. Just because it's not fancy doesn't make it not useful.

Originally Posted by the phantom

If the person doesn't appear as Predator then we trust the reveal, right?

Ah, ok.
I think.
Maybe.
I guess we'll see when we get there.

Originally Posted by Green

so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion

Actually, that's a good catch. Wouldn't the conclusion be: "so a good-looking case is not as strong a sign of innocence as it usually is"?

Originally Posted by the phantom

But that was totally different, because the Dead couldn't confirm roles. If they had been able to do so they would've tested Seer-Nog as soon as you went to the Dead thread and suddenly things would've been different.

Maybe it's my memory now, but I think they were. Didn't they just chose not to check Nogrod, because he was so obviously a cobbler.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

and I think the stats might even prove me right in this

A long time ago I actually compiled stats for it. It's somewhere in the grimoire thread. Day1 had the worst odds to catch a wolf. Not saying we shouldn't try, of course.

[mormegil]

For old times sake I must state emphatically that Firefoot did it and should be lynched. (Please reference the first game ever to understand the humor...though please don't read anything into this...I know some of you are already thinking way too much about that comment)

Next we should lynch the phantom...old tummy is making this thread obscenely long.

Finally, how does one get the votes red, that is a standard after my time.

I will post a bit more when I have caught all the way up on the thread. However I'm not sure I fully understand the logic on the intentionally tying the vote and having the dead break the tie. I don't think the dead will know the guilty or innocent, will they? It seems like a clever ploy to disguise your voting patterns by having everyone vote in a fairly prescribed way.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

O esteemed Mod, a clarification about the Dead Thread extra vote? So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

I suppose they could, but your version would mean that the Dead can participate in the lynch *directly*, which would seem to me to rather miss the point of the whole "death" thing. But I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But I'd also say there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village - and to be able to execute that. What Mac already referred to: the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread.

Did the Dead have any way of checking roles that game?
Edit:x'd since Nog at #47.

[Boromir88]

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).

I'm coming at it from thinking doing whatever it takes to ensure the Seer at least gets passed today. That way, the Seer has 4 dreams and even if one of the packs makes a lucky pick at night, the Seer is in the Dead thread with 4 known roles. Those 2-dreams a night while living is probably our biggest advantage we need to keep as long as possible. I think now more than any other game, we have to ensure the Seer survives DAY 1

Granted our chances of randomly lynching 1 wolf is far better than randomly lynching the Seer, but it wouldn't be the first time we accidentally lynch the Seer DAY 1, despite the smaller odds.

Either way (tying a vote for no-lynch or getting a lynch today) it's too early to tell whether one is option is better than the other. Let's see how the DAY shakes out with votes and suspicions and go from there.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Mac

Maybe it's my memory now, but I think they were. Didn't they just chose not to check Nogrod, because he was so obviously a cobbler.

Seriously?! Okay, if that's true, then that game was even funnier than I remember.

Originally Posted by morm

old tummy is making this thread obscenely long

Psh. I remember days with considerably more posting than this. Put on your big boy pants and play.

Originally Posted by morm

However I'm not sure I fully understand the logic on the intentionally tying the vote and having the dead break the tie. I don't think the dead will know the guilty or innocent, will they?

Yes, they will. Only the Dead will know evil/good for certain. They will always know more.

Basically we try and lynch the folks we feel are guilty, and toward the end of the day we make sure our top two or three candidates are tied so that the dead can swing the vote. Of course that would require us to be on the ball and try and finish up an hour before deadline.

And if the Dead go against what my gut tells me I'll probably decide the plan sucks, but logically it's not a bad idea.

Anyway, I'm not committed to that idea, but I think it's worth considering. The only thing I'm truly committed to is giving the Dead the option of passing info to the Living. It would be silly not to take advantage of our only consistent connection to real information.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Will the narrations state which unfortunate soul got killed by which wolf pack? Or was this stated somewhere and I overlooked it? If it is not clear to the village, then the wolves would have extra knowledge and be more adept at killing the other pack than we are. An uncomfortable thought.

No the killing pack will not be stated. From an RP standpoint the Party does not know that there are two wolf packs. The split of the baddies is completely obscure to the Party.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

The individual empowered by the Dead gets two votes. And has also been alluded to in subsequent conversation, this will be noted in the narration and the individual so empowered will be mentioned explicitly by name.

As has also been noted, but I will state again for clarity's sake, the Ranger has only one protection per NIGHT to use in their first life. Should this individual die and resurrect, then that individual has two protections. Right now as of this moment, the Ranger only has one.

For Morm (and anybody else who doesn't know), the way to highlight is to put the word "highlight" in the brackets, like so -> [highlight] and then do the usual closing of the tags to end it.

[the phantom]

Okay- if we're going to try and lynch someone today is there any intelligent guideline we can set forth? For instance, perhaps we should only be willing to lynch someone who will be around to shout "Ah! No!" just in case we hit worst case scenario (i.e. Gifted).

Granted a WW might fake reveal to save his hide, but then the other WW team will be gunning for him so he's toast eventually anyway.

[Mithalwen]

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan and I certainly don't want to play if it is a case of "Do what Phantom tells you or it is all your fault". So to be clear, I will vote as I see fit, not as I am told, dead or alive. It is a game, it is meant to be fun. I am not here to be a minion, bullied or bored to sobs.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Yes, they will. Only the Dead will know evil/good for certain. They will always know more.

I re-read the rules and once there is 3 in dead they will be able to vote to reveal if one of them is good or evil. They will know more than us so the plan has more merit than I originally thought, however my reservation still remains that a prescribed voting pattern takes away one of the clearest evidences we have.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Seriously?! Okay, if that's true, then that game was even funnier than I remember.

Wait, I remember. The dead could only distinguish wolf or not-wolf, so they couldn't gain any info on "cobbler"-Nogrod. Same rule as now, as far as I can see, but it had more consequence due to having cobblers.

Originally Posted by Kuru

No the killing pack will not be stated.

Well, that sucks now.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan

This.

[Aganzir]

Helloooo.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Well then, since I have permission, I do believe I'll work on a very non-fluffy post.

The opposite of fluffy is smutty, isn't it?

I was going to do the numbers thing but the phantom beat me to it. Hardly surprising considering that I missed the first half of day 1. (I didn't play from work though! Well technically I'm still at the office, only not working anymore but waiting for Lommy).

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I see a small hitch here. How can we believe anyone's claim if no roles are revealed upon death? There's no way of checking a claim, so basically we could have Seers revealing left, right and centre with no one able to verify which one is telling the truth - or, at least, no one but a resurrected dead person, and even that ony about whoever the dead happen to have checked.

And how can we know if the seer has died? We may think somebody was killed for "possibly looking like the seer", but even then we won't know for sure. I wouldn't presume to advise the seer (still never having been one), but if they happen to dream of another gifted, establishing a connection (if it can be done discreetly enough not to endanger either party) might not be a bad idea at all. That way at least there'd be somebody to steer the village (discreetly or not) in the right direction at the event of the seer's death.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Basically, we purposefully tie the vote every day and let the Dead decide who gets the bonus vote (and thus who dies). It's possible that it would be a good tactic (because the Dead will always know more than the living as they have access to the roles of the Dead). So basically we just debate which two to place on the chopping block and let the Dead call the shots. I mean, simple odds certainly say that we can trust the dead since 2/3 of them will be Wolf kills (thus unlikely to be Wolves). Plus we'll probably lynch a non-Wolf today.

Ooh I like this idea. It's obviously difficult though because no matter what we do, there will always be the end of day fuss, especially in a village this size, and we just can't prevent cross posting (except with fascistic in-game legislation and vote ordering).

I don't think false reveals are unlikely at all, and I'm willing to bet actual money that we'll see one or more during this game. It's just the kind of brilliant, tempting thing a lot of us are into (not me though, ever!). Ahem, anyway, if a wolf is desperate enough to reveal, she's desperate enough to face the ensuing chaos. Besides wolves like chaos.

I like phantom's idea of passing messages between the living and dead thread and want to think more about it later.

I also like phantom. I don't necessarily find him innocent but I like him. Hey phants I missed you.

I haven't read Legate's posts yet but I'm nominating him for the Nobel Prize for literature. Hah okay he's freaking out. Well for your information man, not all players. (I'm actually quite enjoying myself already.)

If it was possible (which it isn't), I'd like to eliminate one wolf pack at a time. That would get rid of the two night kills. But it won't be possible because wolves are too clever and know how to drive a bandwagon and prey on people's doubts. One can always wish.

Originally Posted by the phantom

We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

I see a couple of problems here.

1. If the dead mess it up once, for one reason or other, we'll misinterpret vital information.
2. Timezones. Let's say we only kill Europeans - we'll have to vote waaay earlier than you and may miss something important that only comes up later in the day.

I really like Firefoot's post #37. (Have we ever played together? If yes it must have been years and years ago - anyway hi!) I'm strongly in favour of tying the vote today. Normally I'd think it's a rubbish idea, but we learn very little from the lynches, way less than from the wolf kills. That would also save an extra slot for role-finding in the dead thread (it only starts on night 3 in any case, but we can decide whether there's 3 or 4 people to choose from).

Originally Posted by Firefoot

4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)? Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?

In any case, if we're doing this, I'll be happy to volunteer (oooh is she a selfless ordo? is she a bluffing gifted? is she a bluffing wolf? is she something else? we can never know) provided that it actually works and you don't lynch me by accident. I was one of the lovers in the last Mandos game and died early thanks to my beloved Lúthien getting killed on Night 2 (blows a kiss at Shasta), and while the Dead Thread is a fun place to be, I'm not going there alone. So TL;DR, vote for me all you like, but if you mess it up, it had better not be me or there will be actual consequences (such as every person who votes for you later having a double vote).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well, strategy-maker, I think tying our votes could be useful to attempt to coordinate and leave it in the hands of the Dead who should know more. But to do so today would mean we wouldn't get an active Dead thread until NIGHT 3. It takes 3 Dead to start it, and to have no lynch today would set the Dead thread back 1/2 day.

Well. They start talking as soon as they land there. But see what I just said - they won't start voting on identity reveals until the first night there's 3 of them, and if we lynch somebody today there'll be 4 not 3 people at the first opportunity.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Anyone remember how nobody believed Nogrod was the seer all game last time?

Makes me chuckle. He persistently kept dreaming in the Dead Thread though, only for us to vote to find out his target's "true role" later.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

I'd do it as a one-off thing. There's no sense in continuing it for longer, but today it's as good a plan as any and better than most.

Originally Posted by the phantom

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.

This. Thanks phants.

Originally Posted by Loslote

Especially since we as a village have (as I believe Mac said) a 25% chance of catching a wolf, whereas the Night kills have a 15% chance. I'd also like to add that we as a village have a further 21% (5/24) chance of accidentally killing a Gifted, where the Night kills have a 25% (5/20 - assuming we do not ourselves lynch a Gifted toDay) chance of purposefully killing a Gifted. It's much much riskier to trust the wolf killing to the wolves, since they are far more likely to kill a Gifted than a wolf, whereas we are slightly more likely to kill a wolf than a Gifted.

Well, if we lynch an innocent today, the wolves' chance of killing a gifted increases as well. In the end it comes down to whether we want slightly better odds for not killing gifteds, or deaths that give us more information (because what we learn from the unknown day 1 lynch doesn't amount to much in the end).

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Let's say we only kill Europeans

Agan, what are you suggesting here .

Actually and more seriously, now that I'm caught up I have noticed something off in somebody's posting. I want to hold on to that name for now to continue to watch her/him. It's just a gut feeling on it, something that feels off, but I've learned to trust those. I'll continue to monitor and let you know a bit later.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Mith

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan and I certainly don't want to play if it is a case of "Do what Phantom tells you or it is all your fault". So to be clear, I will vote as I see fit, not as I am told, dead or alive. It is a game, it is meant to be fun. I am not here to be a minion, bullied or bored to sobs.

I fully expect you to vote as you see fit. When we vote we simply cast the vote that is the most beneficial to our side. Thus if you can use your Dead vote to reveal an important clue to the Living why not do so?

Basically I don't think the whole passing information plan infringes on your voting rights. When we vote we are always considering outcomes. Sometimes we don't vote for our best candidate but rather our second best because we know our first choice won't get lynched that day, etc.

Or looking at it a different way- if someone tells me, "Phantom, try and vote for a Werewolf!" there is no need for me to object- "I don't have to vote for a Werewolf. I'm free to vote for anyone I want!" Obviously, yes, I can do anything I please with my vote, but in the end I will of course vote in such a way that benefits my cause. I expect people to vote logically and attempt to win. Nothing more.

(You'll note that I built options into my plan to allow the Dead maximum vote flexibility while simultaneously passing information. I did this specifically because I knew certain folks would complain if they were asked to participate in anything resembling a plan.)

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Agan, what are you suggesting here .

"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh!

Anyway I need to go, will be back later to vote but don't expect massive contributions from me tonight.

[Thinlómien]

I feel like my head is exploding already. I'll be around later to properly think about the rules and write something longer. For now

- I'm never in favour of intentionally abstaining from a lynch; do I really have to remind anyone we only win this game by killing six wolves with two night kills so we better start sooner than later or they'll butcher us in no time at all

(- ...don't I hate those games where the village has less than 50% chance of winning because there are extra baddie parties around... I'm trying to control my pessimism atm but it's hard!)

- whenever talking about communicating with the dead we should keep in mind that how are we going to know if the dead will follow our instructions? and whose instructions if we living have differing opinions? I see a lot of pitfalls here

I'll be back later.


edit: xed with Agan - ...WHAT???? I smell Freud... but whatever I'll look at it when I'm back

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic with our chances as a village: there are so many factors involved, not the least the rivalry between the two competing Wolfgangs *sic*.

Nog you're killing me!

Originally Posted by Nog

Oh one question on what Greenie said and most people seemed to strongly agree on (maybe I'm just in rust for not playing WW for a long time):

I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion, or the POV of it, that is.

Originally Posted by Mac

Actually, that's a good catch. Wouldn't the conclusion be: "so a good-looking case is not as strong a sign of innocence as it usually is"?

Either way. What I was getting at was trying to figure out how to spot wolves with these dynamics. One of my most common reasons for suspecting anyone is that a case they make seems fabricated, ie. they know the person they're accusing is not actually guilty. I was referring to not being able to base speculations about a player's wolfishness on this since the wolves, too, are essentially hunting wolves they don't know the identities of. Did that help?

Originally Posted by Lottie

It doesn't make sense to tie before the Dead thread starts up, since we have a better chance at killing wolves and avoiding Gifteds if we lynch than if we leave it to the Night kills (see my above post).

Word.

Originally Posted by Lottie

I am also dubious about giving the Dead thread the power to choose who dies in the lynch - I agree that it would be good to set up a system wherein the Dead can let us know who they checked and what the result was, but I would prefer for that system to not give the Dead the ultimate choice. After all, if all we the voters can do is comply with the voting scheme already set out, we do not get nearly as much information on the voters. Even if we don't know the result of the vote, looking at people's votes with an eye to what they appear to be trying to do, who they want lynched, and who they don't gives us a lot of information that we wouldn't get if we gave that power to the Dead.

This is also a very good point. I would suggest trying to leave the deciding vote for the Dead only if we have good reason to believe they have crucial information we don't.

Originally Posted by Nog

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).

Sidenote - don't worry, Nog, no double-lynches in this game! A tie will result in no lynch.

Also, thanks Kuru for the clarification! I was confused.


EDIT: x-ed with morm, phantom, Agan and Lommy. Also, can I just say how happy it makes me to type that? I mean, cross-posting with morm and phantom, for the first time in God knows how many years! <3

[Mithalwen]

It is dull, formulaic atd lacks room for inspiration, instinct and idiosyncrasy. It insults my soul. You might as well dispense with people and run it through a computer simulation. I am not a number.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Agan

I also like phantom. I don't necessarily find him innocent but I like him. Hey phants I missed you.

Right back at you, my lion.
And we both know you like me because you don't find me innocent.

Originally Posted by Agan

Normally I'd think it's a rubbish idea, but we learn very little from the lynches, way less than from the wolf kills.

Yeah. Innocents will be trying to lynch WWs. WWs will be trying to lynch WWs. I'm thinking the Day 1 vote might be very useless. But I doubt we can talk enough folks into forging a tie.

Originally Posted by morm

now that I'm caught up I have noticed something off in somebody's posting. I want to hold on to that name for now to continue to watch her/him

Ha ha, that's just the worst.

I'm in the same boat- I'm sure I see something here or there but what on earth does it mean? It could easily be Gifted vibes I'm getting. That's why (I've mentioned this in other games) that I often try and lynch an Ordo on Day 1 because the game hasn't been going long enough to begin differentiating Gifted/WW vibes.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by phantom

Basically I don't think the whole passing information plan infringes on your voting rights. When we vote we are always considering outcomes. Sometimes we don't vote for our best candidate but rather our second best because we know our first choice won't get lynched that day, etc.

For heaven's sake man, stop sounding like a politician!

Originally Posted by Lommy

edit: xed with Agan - ...WHAT???? I smell Freud... but whatever I'll look at it when I'm back

I assume you're referring to this:

Originally Posted by Agan

"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh!

I don't smell Freud as much as a trolling Agan. Admittedly, I took morm's "Agan, what are you suggesting here" as not a reference to her use of "we" but to her hypothesis of the Dead Thread only being populated by Europeans, and in that regard her reply doesn't really make sense. That doesn't equal Freud-odor, though.


EDIT: x-ed with phantom again!

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Villager #22

It is dull, formulaic atd lacks room for inspiration, instinct and idiosyncrasy. It insults my soul. You might as well dispense with people and run it through a computer simulation. I am not a number.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our collective.

Originally Posted by Green

Nog you're killing me!

He can't do that now, silly. It's day.

(And yes, isn't cross-posting exciting!)

[the phantom]

Remember Day 1 of The Republic? 12 pages.

We're slacking.

[Kath]

*waves*

My head is reeling from all the rules. Jumped in at the deep end on this one!

While all the discussion about how to organise a lynch on Day 1 is fascinating, the history of Day 1s suggests this is a rather futile strategy. With people forgetting (...who? me!? ...) plus very last minute votes I suspect toDay will be it's usual all-out madness. Also I agree with whoever it was that worked out that missing a lynch toDay means the Dead Thread is half a day behind, which would be a shame as it seems like a really fun addition to the game.

[McCaber]

My own opinion is that every day without a lynch is a day the wolves can build up an uncontested lead and a day that gives us no real information to build off of in the future. Early lynches, arguments, and voting patterns are how you build solid cases and catch inconsistencies. Delaying for three days just leaves us that far behind when it comes to detective work.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

You know what can really open up the game of football? Sepp Blatter resigning...

Also I enjoy plans I haven't thought up my self (especially if I can take some credit for them), long walks at the beach, and killing Europeans.

In short: I hate you all for being so active in this way to complicated game.

Have a good night.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Sidenote - don't worry, Nog, no double-lynches in this game! A tie will result in no lynch.

Sorry about my sloppy expression... That was indeed what I meant to say: double lynch = no lynch - and that is what we shouldn't do. Lynching baddies is how we win games, not by waiting for someone else to do it for us.

Also: what helps us lynching the baddies is having some clues as to who did what and when, but with an agreed upon consensus (even with only some people claiming to take part) for any style of voting we lose a lot (or all) the info voting could give us.

- "Why did you not vote for the guy who turned out a wolf and we all saw as one so clearly?"
- "Well I thought we were still hanging on to this deal we'd leave it to dead to decide!"

So let's not give anyone a "free passage" -card with "I can't explain my vote otherwise, I was only trying this scheme someone talked about".