[WW] Comeagain...Again? | Day 5!

[macbook pro i5]

Im IN Thank god I made it in time this time

[Don't panic]

this is basically the same set up as the last game. as such, it is in my opinion too tilted in favor of the wolves.
furthermore, the hunter was further weakened by making his/her protection not effective against infection.
the NW at 2 is not very effective, except to clear each other.

also, the roles should be tied to the number of players, i had compiled a sort of guide table some time ago, i'll see if I can fish it out.

the baker adds a role but i am not sure how it is useful to the village. if the baker is killed and the game ends, do the WW win or nobody does? in any case, what does it add to the game? and how does the baker being informed of the kill, stop a kill fit with the role? maybe split this functions into a different role?

daffodil/sceptical, can you write a concise description of your current version of the baker?
this seems completely different from t comeagain baker in scope and functions, so why not use a separate name?
for example, a bartender can get someone drunk and they have to nurse their hangover. their role is void at night. if the targets a wolf, there is no kill that night. target has to change every night and cannot be self.
this role can be good for the village, but it can also do some serious damage., so i'd consider it overall neutral.

to make the game more balanced, I would make
- get back the guard to full protective powers (e.g.: also blocks infection)
- introduce the simple hunter with insta-kill. it can also have a single use tracking special ability (basically seer like)
- 3 NW
- infection is a night activity (separate from killing), this transforms the infection from an automatic desperation move to be used at the end into a highly strategic move

[Scepticalscribe]

Agree that both Hunter and Seer need to be immune from infection - as they cannot protect themselves from lynching and murder other than by revealing their role. Comeagain? has confirmed that.

I am not at all in favour of a three day do or die role for the Baker - that makes the whole thing far too apocalyptic, so I suggest that this version of the role be scrapped.

Instead, if we have to have a Baker, I'd suggest a sort of balance, or a Good and Inept version - a Master/Mistress Baker whose baked goods can enhance a player - ordinary villager to ask a question at night on the lines of a priest, - or an enhanced Special role, such as two questions, or two protections, once or twice during the game. For the WWs, devouring such a cake might allow the alpha a second chance at infection.

Against that, the Inept Apprentice Baker, whose speciality is burnt offerings, might lead to upset stomachs, - a missed turn by a special - or an ill villager, or individual wolf, who can do nothing for that day and/or night.

The Bartender - and consequent hangover seems to be a variant on that - if drunk, a person - irrespective of role - who cannot act that particular night; indeed, maybe a further refinement. Given that we all know that certain alcoholic beverages can make one rather loquacious - perhaps a drunk might blurt out a slurred, barely incoherent indiscretion......who knows?

Re the NW, perhaps the NW can have three members. They can be open to infection; their main advantage is that they are able to PM each other.

If the Hunter/Guard has immunity from infection that might make them too strong; perhaps modify that - immunity for two days nights? Insta-kill is a good idea. But to balance that, allow the WWs a second chance at an infection, perhaps by eating or drinking something.....or, certainly, if infection is to be separate from killing, allow the WWs to do both at night.

One of the drawbacks of appleguys recent game is that we were not at all clear whether we could infect, and then, if so, whether we could infect and kill on the same night - if I had known that earlier, I'd have brought the infection into play much sooner.

Just some thoughts......

[Tomorrow]

Some of these roles sound very interesting, but I agree with SS that the Baker, as currently written, seems to tip the scales of power way too hard in the wolves' favor.

I might suggest altering the Baker's role so that, three days after his/her death, one player "starves" to death, per day. This person could be randomly chosen.

[Don't panic]

i don't think the seer should be immune from infection.
and the hunter at most once.
you don not want a role that is 'certainly' good. the uncertainty and whether or not to trust people's word is what drives the game.

2 infections would be waay too much. one is already extremely powerful.
the instakill and the other minor modifications i proposed are to balance the current version, that is significantly favouring the WW. no need to add even more power to the WW side.

i still don't see how the 'baker' role enhances or makes the game more interesting (in the original apocalyptic version, to use SS words). and I am still confused about SS version of it.

the way i see it it should be (for ~15/16 players)
alpha WW, standard but infection at night only
kamikaze WW, standard.
normal WW (post infection), standard

guard, provides full protection, night and following day (including from infection). no immunity.
hunter: one insta-kill. Maybe one-time tracking and/or one time immunity
seer: standard, no immunities
undertaker: standard, no immunities (this can also be scrapped for a more interesting role)
bartender/baker: neutralizes one villager every night and the next day. if the target is one of the WW, there is no kill, plus either the kamikaze action or the infection may also blocked for the duration of the hangover/stomach ache, depending on who was the target.
NW: 3, no special powers other than PM. the third NW is a double-edged sword, it gives them a usable voting block power, but also makes them easier to infiltrate
peasants: 5-6, just regular villagers


other roles used in the past, but they are all good village role and usually have been used with additional bad guys in play (e.g. vampires):
executioner: swap lynched with someone else
sorcerer: resurrect one player
priest: ask a question
detective/spy: one shot at identify the role of a player, can be used at any time

[Scepticalscribe]

My version of The Baker is really pretty similar to what you envisage; I wished to hammer the apocalyptic version on the head completely, - as I think it is counter-productive - and was really just thinking aloud possible variations on the role.

Thinking through the idea of Baker/Bartender role, do we want it purely 'negative' in that anyone who suffers to eat or drink this stuff is poleaxed, (whether WW or special or anyone) for a day/night and so unable to do their damnedest or fulfill their destiny or carry out their role. I'd certainly suggest this, and tweak a means of achieving it - please feel free to chip in with ideas.

The other side of this is perhaps an enhancement for a night act - basically a sort of pie with magic mushrooms, or enhanced flour, or whatever. This might allow an extra question to be asked or extra protection to be bestowed; WWs might get a chance to ask a question, too if they devour this - it could be a one-off, for a villager/special or wolf.....

What would you have in mind for the Undertaker as a 'more interesting role'?

I'm with you on the Hunter and Guard; how about a limited immunity for the Seer and/or Undertaker, of, say two nights?

[Comeagain?]

I guess, to add some of the interesting roles, do we want Vampires too? Create more Baddies, to add more goodies?

[Scepticalscribe]

To a certain extent, that would depend on the numbers signing up; my understanding is that you would need around 15 or so to make a vampiric addition viable. But I'm completely open on the matter.......

[Comeagain?]

Now, thinking "aloud" what if our baker was inept, but didn't always fail? They choose a player, and then random.org decides whether it was good or bad.

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

My version of The Baker is really pretty similar to what you envisage; I wished to hammer the apocalyptic version on the head completely, - as I think it is counter-productive - and was really just thinking aloud possible variations on the role.

agree.

Thinking through the idea of Baker/Bartender role, do we want it purely 'negative' in that anyone who suffers to eat or drink this stuff is poleaxed, (whether WW or special or anyone) for a day/night and so unable to do their damnedest or fulfill their destiny or carry out their role. I'd certainly suggest this, and tweak a means of achieving it - please feel free to chip in with ideas

i think this works well as a one-off. also consider that having a role 'per se' to claim is significant, even if it does nothing (kind of like the undertaker), because it allows to be cleared.
the role sounds interesting because it can help or doom the village, depending on how it is played

The other side of this is perhaps an enhancement for a night act - basically a sort of pie with magic mushrooms, or enhanced flour, or whatever. This might allow an extra question to be asked or extra protection to be bestowed; WWs might get a chance to ask a question, too if they devour this - it could be a one-off, for a villager/special or wolf.....

this could be also done as a separate role: the baker serves the magic-mushroom pie to someone else, and they have a vision/question. it's mostly positive but it can backfire.

What would you have in mind for the Undertaker as a 'more interesting role'?

i meant to substitute the undertaker with a completely different role, not to tweak the undertaker. if anything, seer and undertaker could be merged

I'm with you on the Hunter and Guard; how about a limited immunity for the Seer and/or Undertaker, of, say two nights?

i disagree on this one. i think the seer and undertaker work well as they are. the interesting part of playing the seer is when to come out. if it's safe it's too easy to play and it becomes kind of automatic.

----------

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

Now, thinking "aloud" what if our baker was inept, but didn't always fail? They choose a player, and then random.org decides whether it was good or bad.

i am not feeling this.
i think the randomness should be limited to assigning the roles.

you can combine the positive/negative in the same role:
the bartender can either get you totally drunk and inactivate you for day, or give you a glass of absinth and you get a night-vision (or whatever fits the theme of the story). the character gets both actions, but both only once.

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

you can combine the positive/negative in the same role:
the bartender can either get you totally drunk and inactivate you for day, or give you a glass of absinth and you get a night-vision (or whatever fits the theme of the story). the character gets both actions, but both only once.

Do you mean, like the bartender gets DP drunk, and he can't scan anyone tonight, but DP does learn the role of someone dead?

Or do you mean, the bartender gets DP drunk and he can't scan, and Scepticalscribe gets an extra kill?

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

Now, thinking "aloud" what if our baker was inept, but didn't always fail? They choose a player, and then random.org decides whether it was good or bad.

Agree with DP on this; have the baker choose, rather than random org, who should suffer from the joy of consuming the magic mushroom pie and the atrocious indigestion of an experiment in pastry which went awry....

I'd feel that the 'randomness' should be confined to assigning the roles...but not with how the roles are actually carried out.

Originally Posted by Don't panic

agree.

i think this works well as a one-off. also consider that having a role 'per se' to claim is significant, even if it does nothing (kind of like the undertaker), because it allows to be cleared.
the role sounds interesting because it can help or doom the village, depending on how it is played


this could be also done as a separate role: the baker serves the magic-mushroom pie to someone else, and they have a vision/question. it's mostly positive but it can backfire.


i meant to substitute the undertaker with a completely different role, not to tweak the undertaker. if anything, seer and undertaker could be merged


i disagree on this one. i think the seer and undertaker work well as they are. the interesting part of playing the seer is when to come out. if it's safe it's too easy to play and it becomes kind of automatic.

----------



i am not feeling this.
i think the randomness should be limited to assigning the roles.

you can combine the positive/negative in the same role:
the bartender can either get you totally drunk and inactivate you for day, or give you a glass of absinth and you get a night-vision (or whatever fits the theme of the story). the character gets both actions, but both only once.

Absinth.........ah, now that is a drink.......not one I want to meet on a regular or even occasional basis, but gosh, what an evil force of nature.....yes, I can imagine unexpected outcomes if our Baker/Bartender offered some of this to an unsuspecting villager/special/WW........

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

Do you mean, like the bartender gets DP drunk, and he can't scan anyone tonight, but DP does learn the role of someone dead?

Or do you mean, the bartender gets DP drunk and he can't scan, and Scepticalscribe gets an extra kill?

it would be two actions to be used on two different nights:
Bartender gets DP drunk. DP gets a message saying he should know his limits and to get his **** together. he passed out for the night and will have to nurse a hangover the next day. Unfortunately for the village, DP is the hunter so no one got protected that night or the following day. uops.
the following night, the Bartender gives Scepticascribe his 'special brew'. ScepticalScribe has a vision that allows her to find out that Daffodil is a wolf. yeah!

the 'positive' needs to be decided beforehand, for example it could be a regular scan, or a yes/no question

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Agree with DP on this; have the baker choose, rather than random org, who should suffer from the joy of consuming the magic mushroom pie and the atrocious indigestion of an experiment in pastry which went awry....

I'd feel that the 'randomness' should be confined to assigning the roles...but not with how the roles are actually carried out.




Absinth.........ah, now that is a drink.......not one I want to meet on a regular or even occasional basis, but gosh, what an evil force of nature.....yes, I can imagine unexpected outcomes if our Baker/Bartender offered some of this to an unsuspecting villager/special/WW........

Ok. I'll do this. And add it to the OP.

Remember, I'm a minor, so while the bartender can tell me the name of the drink (and I'll add that to the narrative), the actual affect will need to be stated as well. The most I know is that Angelico has a bottle shaped like a person, and Goldschlager has gold in it.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

it would be two actions to be used on two different nights:
Bartender gets DP drunk. DP gets a message saying he should know his limits and to get his **** together. he passed out for the night and will have to nurse a hangover the next day. Unfortunately for the village, DP is the hunter so no one got protected that night or the following day. uops.
the following night, the Bartender gives Scepticascribe his 'special brew'. ScepticalScribe has a vision that allows her to find out that Daffodil is a wolf. yeah!

the 'positive' needs to be decided beforehand, for example it could be a regular scan, or a yes/no question

Exactly. That is sort of the way I thought that the positive/negative role might be interpreted - two separate actions, each a one-off, one potentially positive, and the other potentially negative. But each should also be applicable to everyone - so that WWs/specials/villagers can each suffer or not, and village can suffer or not, as it may be.......

[macbook pro i5]

Just a little heads up if I don't post much in this game it is because I have exams coming up and i am revising for them

[Scepticalscribe]

Just a gentle reminder Comeagain? - inexplicably, my splendid moniker has yet been added to the list of MRville denizens.......i.e. you have forgotten to add me to your list....

Edit: and you seem to have excluded DP as well......

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Exactly. That is sort of the way I thought that the positive/negative role might be interpreted - two separate actions, each a one-off, one potentially positive, and the other potentially negative. But each should also be applicable to everyone - so that WWs/specials/villagers can each suffer or not, and village can suffer or not, as it may be.......

i think it would be a fun role to play

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Just a gentle reminder Comeagain? - inexplicably, my splendid moniker has yet been added to the list of MRville denizens.......i.e. you have forgotten to add me to your list....

I know. I have added it, but have yet to submit the edit.

----------

Originally Posted by Don't panic

i think it would be a fun role to play

Well now you can't have it.

Will the bartender choose positive/negative and the player every night, or only have two to use for the duration of the game? Also, shouldn't they be immune from infection? What if the bartender was infected, and then started using the ability "only for evil"

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

i think it would be a fun role to play

Yes, it would, because if - after a few bites of magic mushroom pie, say, - a villager asked whether someone was a wolf/ or what their true role was, and received a suitably informative answer, this could count as another (single) piece of info/intel to the village's arsenal of information, almost like an extra, one-off turn for the Seer. But - as the Baker/Bartender does not know true roles, this glass of (snigger) absinth in the paws of a WW, could yield equally valuable information for them - it could go either way.

Same with the awful stomach upset/or deadly hangover; a kill might be prevented or averted, but so, too, could a protection or a Scan....

Certainly, I think the role as envisaged has potential.......

Edit: Yes, agree with our GG. This is one role that needs immunity - the whole point is that the Baker/Bartender feeds anyone, not knowing who they are until the actions have taken place and their effect is felt. Every one goes to the baker's or the pub - that is the whole point, and so the Bartender/Baker is open to all. In fact, given that everyone goes there - it might make sense to have that as a sort of public role, like the Priest - everyone knows who the Bartender is, but he/she does not know the private life of his or her clientele until the game unfolds......

Further edit: I think we were groping our way towards two for the whole game.....one hangover/stomach upset, one vision of blinding insight......

And yet further edit: While the bartender knows who he/she gave absinth or artisan brews to, he or she does not know how it exactly plays out - i.e. does not know whether the ill creature falling off a barstool is villager, WW or special.....

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

I know. I have added it, but have yet to submit the edit.

----------



Well now you can't have it.

Will the bartender choose positive/negative and the player every night, or only have two to use for the duration of the game? Also, shouldn't they be immune from infection? What if the bartender was infected, and then started using the ability "only for evil"

just two actions (one positive, one negative) for the entire game. not on the same night.
and in my opinion no player should be immune from infection, except possibly the hunter as a one-off

[rick snagwell]

when is this party starting?

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Yes, it would, because if - after a few bites of magic mushroom pie, say, - a villager asked whether someone was a wolf/ or what their true role was, and received a suitably informative answer, this could count as another (single) piece of info/intel to the village's arsenal of information, almost like an extra, one-off turn for the Seer. But - as the Baker/Bartender does not know true roles, this glass of (snigger) absinth in the paws of a WW, could yield equally valuable information for them - it could go either way.

Same with the awful stomach upset/or deadly hangover; a kill might be prevented or averted, but so, too, could a protection or a Scan....

Certainly, I think the role as envisaged has potential.......

Edit: Yes, agree with our GG. This is one role that needs immunity - the whole point is that the Baker/Bartender feeds anyone, not knowing who they are until the actions have taken place and their effect is felt. Every one goes to the baker's or the pub - that is the whole point, and so the Bartender/Baker is open to all. In fact, given that everyone goes there - it might make sense to have that as a sort of public role, like the Priest - everyone knows who the Bartender is, but he/she does not know the private life of his or her clientele until the game unfolds......

Further edit: I think we were groping our way towards two for the whole game.....one hangover/stomach upset, one vision of blinding insight......

And yet further edit: While the bartender knows who he/she gave absinth or artisan brews to, he or she does not know how it exactly plays out - i.e. does not know whether the ill creature falling off a barstool is villager, WW or special.....

Should the Bartender be a public figure (I don't think so), or a secret. On one hand, the villagers wouldn't want the bartender gone, because it could help them, but then again, the villagers could decide, kill them on day one, because of the damage they could inflict. I'm leaning towards private.

----------

Originally Posted by rick snagwell

when is this party starting?

When we have more people.

[Don't panic]

strongly disagree on the public figure as well, sorry SS

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Comeagain?

Should the Bartender be a public figure (I don't think so), or a secret. On one hand, the villagers wouldn't want the bartender gone, because it could help them, but then again, the villagers could decide, kill them on day one, because of the damage they could inflict. I'm leaning towards private.

----------



When we have more people.

Fair enough, I can see both sides of this issue of whether the Bartender/Baker is a public or private role, and am happy with whatever is decided.

However, while DP is not in favour of immunity for this character, if the Baker/Bartender is infected - well, it makes, for an interesting outcome. Again, I'm not pushed either way, but let's discuss the pros and cons to having immunity for the Bartender/Baker.

The Hunter having a once off immunity, and maybe the Seer having a once off immunity as well are things I would consider including, also.

Okay, bed beckons......

Cheers