Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I stated in the OP, the game will begin on Saturday. I'm now in Seattle. I don't know about Internet access for the rest of the week, so I might not be around. See y'all on the weekend when I'm back in California.
Do you know when the simple game is going to start? I think it's going to end today, they are just waiting for chrmjenkins to login and post the results.
I know but we can start signups for the next game right away, we don't need to discuss new rules or anything.
The majority is reached, so even if two of us change our votes, the game's already been called. I assume he'll start it next time he logs in.
Correct. Once the majority is reached, the game is over. You cant go back and change votes. So, youre dead, and now Chris just has to write the final story.
That's entirely true! The game is over once the majority is reached, regardless of whether parties wish to change votes later. In that game, I was a dead man walking.
we should use these few game-less days to consolidate the rules so we can start immediately as soon as ravenvii is back.
there are a few things outstanding, let's start with
1. hunters.
there are different interpretations on what they can and cannot do.
they have two sets of powers:
a. guarding duties.
who they protect against. the way they were played so far is that both protect against WW night attacks (and similarly against vamp attacks should they occur). i think it should stay that way: to have their guarding duties limited to their class would significantly reduce the villagers' streght and eliminate the hunters' ability to coordinate actions to protect one character. it would also make the vamp hunter almost meaningless until the vamps are activated.
what they protect against. in my view it should be all 'evil'. the protegee is guarded against any attack: regular attacks, infection, kamikaze attack, insta-kill.
how long the protection lasts. the consensus seems reached that it goes from when the mark is chosen to when the next mark is chosen. that is night and full next day.
b. personal powers
one shot insta-kill. effective on everyone except the 'other' creature, that is: WW-hunter cannot kill vamps, and vice versa. if one hunter happens to shoot someone under protection from the other hunter, what happens? I say, the guarding prevents the killing, and the hunter wasted his one shot.
immunity against attacks. each hunter has a single immunity against an attack by their designated nemesis. does the immunity extend to infection attack? I say yes, but that 'uses' the immunity, and now the hunter can be infected or killed if attacked again.
there is also the proposal of just having two identical hunter, without any distinction in they powers.
i would be ok with this two, but think the two separate hunters, as defined above, are more fun.
one more thing that i would like to be clarified on, is what the hunter is notified regarding the effects of his actions: does he know (via PM) that the protection was put to a test (and was effective)? i think he should. on that note, does the protegee knows? I think he shouldn't.
thoughts?
there are a few things outstanding, let's start with
1. hunters.
there are different interpretations on what they can and cannot do.
they have two sets of powers:
a. guarding duties.
who they protect against. the way they were played so far is that both protect against WW night attacks (and similarly against vamp attacks should they occur). i think it should stay that way: to have their guarding duties limited to their class would significantly reduce the villagers' streght and eliminate the hunters' ability to coordinate actions to protect one character. it would also make the vamp hunter almost meaningless until the vamps are activated.
what they protect against. in my view it should be all 'evil'. the protegee is guarded against any attack: regular attacks, infection, kamikaze attack, insta-kill.
how long the protection lasts. the consensus seems reached that it goes from when the mark is chosen to when the next mark is chosen. that is night and full next day.
b. personal powers
one shot insta-kill. effective on everyone except the 'other' creature, that is: WW-hunter cannot kill vamps, and vice versa. if one hunter happens to shoot someone under protection from the other hunter, what happens? I say, the guarding prevents the killing, and the hunter wasted his one shot.
immunity against attacks. each hunter has a single immunity against an attack by their designated nemesis. does the immunity extend to infection attack? I say yes, but that 'uses' the immunity, and now the hunter can be infected or killed if attacked again.
there is also the proposal of just having two identical hunter, without any distinction in they powers.
i would be ok with this two, but think the two separate hunters, as defined above, are more fun.
one more thing that i would like to be clarified on, is what the hunter is notified regarding the effects of his actions: does he know (via PM) that the protection was put to a test (and was effective)? i think he should. on that note, does the protegee knows? I think he shouldn't.
thoughts?
When I was successfully protected from WW attack by the hunters last game I had no knowledge of it until the game was over and ravenvii posted the daily/nightly activities.
To clarify, part of my reasoning for dropping the hunter designations is I don't like the idea of not being able to protect against both WW/Vamp attack or the idea of the insta-kill being restricted to their designated nemesis. If we keep these separate distinctions then the vampire hunter is useless unless the vamps are activated.
The only other twist I could offer if you want to keep the designations separate is to allow the vampire hunter the ability to scan like the vampire/goth have. Then if and when he finds one of them he can use his insta-kill to prevent the vamps from becoming active.
This is just an early idea, but I prefer the other option of just having two identical hunters.
Thanks for posting this, I've been wanting to clarify some things too..
I think it should stay that way. Keeps everyone guessing.
As the rules were written before, it made more sense that the hunters can protect only against their respective attacks. I would be fine to changing it back if the consensus is that the hunters are underpowered... but the writing of the rules should reflect this clearly.
Insta-kill isn't inherently evil though... it could just be a mistake in judgment (re: Rodimus Prime last game). I don't think hunter protection should extend to protecting against another hunter's instant-kill. I think you lose some key strategery here if you change the protection to extend to hunter's instant-kill... leave it the way it is IMO.
Thank you Ravenvii for making this more clear in the rules post.
Read above.
One change to what you posted... if the infection has been attempted and fails, the infection ability is now gone. Therefore there would not be another opportunity to infect the Hunter on the second attack because there is no infection ability left. I agree though that attempting to infect the Hunter should strip the Hunter's one-time attack immunity away.
I would be fine with returning the Hunter's ability to protect from either of the two attacks, but just would like whatever the rule is to be clearly stated.
Everyone in the game is informed to the same degree... but the perspectives are different. Ravenvii usually posts something about "The villagers awake to the scene of a horrific battle that must have been waged through the night, yet no bodies can be found. No villager has died during the night."
I think it should stay that way. Keeps everyone guessing.
i also don't like the complete division of vamp/WW hunter, but the clarification above (which corresponds to the way we have been playing) is a compromise: the guarding duties are 'universal', while the special personal powers are dedicated.
the scanning by the hunter would be fine by me, the only problem would be that it would increase the chances of the vamp of never being activated. it would certainly be a good fit in term of storytelling, as it makes sense that a vampire hunter is good at tracking vampires.
in that case, I would also give the WW hunter the same power (for ww obviously).
it maight make the hunters too powerful, though.
Saw mscriv's post just after I posted...
I wouldn't be opposed to having two identical Hunter's as long as their roles and abilities are clearly defined.
As is, chances are the Villagers will have only one Hunter able to protect them for the first few rounds maybe, until the Vampire/Goth are activated. Although I am glad that their roles were written more clearly, I do think the Hunter's collectively (but the Vampire Hunter especially) are underpowered unless the Vamp/Goth actually get activated.
What about this idea?
We start with two identical Hunters. Once the Vampire/Goth are activated (Ravenvii has usually posted the start of this), he could also post something along the lines of "To combat this new Evil, the Hunters have decided to divide their responsibilities in order to conquer the two fronts on the Villagers lives." He would then randomly assign the Hunters their roles as either the Vamp or WW Hunter. If for some reason one of the Hunters has been killed by this point, Ravenvii could give the remaining Hunter the option of which role he/she would like.
That would allow two full Hunters in the beginning, and then later two specialized Hunters that function as is written now in the rules post. Could be a compromise.
EDIT: I don't like the idea of giving the Hunters a scan ability... that's too many Seers in the game IMO.
I wouldn't be opposed to having two identical Hunter's as long as their roles and abilities are clearly defined.
As is, chances are the Villagers will have only one Hunter able to protect them for the first few rounds maybe, until the Vampire/Goth are activated. Although I am glad that their roles were written more clearly, I do think the Hunter's collectively (but the Vampire Hunter especially) are underpowered unless the Vamp/Goth actually get activated.
What about this idea?
We start with two identical Hunters. Once the Vampire/Goth are activated (Ravenvii has usually posted the start of this), he could also post something along the lines of "To combat this new Evil, the Hunters have decided to divide their responsibilities in order to conquer the two fronts on the Villagers lives." He would then randomly assign the Hunters their roles as either the Vamp or WW Hunter. If for some reason one of the Hunters has been killed by this point, Ravenvii could give the remaining Hunter the option of which role he/she would like.
That would allow two full Hunters in the beginning, and then later two specialized Hunters that function as is written now in the rules post. Could be a compromise.
EDIT: I don't like the idea of giving the Hunters a scan ability... that's too many Seers in the game IMO.
stonyc,
i completely agree that the most important part is that the rules are clearly stated, so that there aren't any gray area and everyone is on the same page.
in term of what the specific powers are, those where my inclinations, but i'm fine with any way we decide to go, as long as it is clear.
as far as the hunter 'scanning' ability, you should see as tracking, not as a seer-like power.
i think it is only acceptable if the hunters are completely divided in their roles, including guarding, as a compensation in their loss of power there.
or it could be part of the guarding power: as the hunter follows his protegee all day, he will also find out if he gives hints of his nemesis behaviour. add a strategic aspect to the hunter's decision of who to protect.
i am not a big fun of too much 'divine' intervention during the game. i think the roles and the rules should be well defined at the beginning and work on 'automatic', so to speak
i completely agree that the most important part is that the rules are clearly stated, so that there aren't any gray area and everyone is on the same page.
in term of what the specific powers are, those where my inclinations, but i'm fine with any way we decide to go, as long as it is clear.
as far as the hunter 'scanning' ability, you should see as tracking, not as a seer-like power.
i think it is only acceptable if the hunters are completely divided in their roles, including guarding, as a compensation in their loss of power there.
or it could be part of the guarding power: as the hunter follows his protegee all day, he will also find out if he gives hints of his nemesis behaviour. add a strategic aspect to the hunter's decision of who to protect.
i am not a big fun of too much 'divine' intervention during the game. i think the roles and the rules should be well defined at the beginning and work on 'automatic', so to speak
Alternatively, we could go with mscriv's idea and have two generalized hunters, but have 1 inactive hunter at the start. If the vamps become active, he/she is activated as well.
another possibility would be to SPLIT the hunter in two characters: a guard and a hunter.
guard: protects one character from all sorts of attacks (ww AND vamps, possibly insta-kill)
hunter: one insta-kill, one immunity to attacks,and possibly tracking ability, all powers strictly specific to their 'training' (ww OR vamps)
you could have one guard and two hunters or two guards (identical) and two hunters (specialized). the overall total of powers available would not be changed much, but more people would be special, and loss of one character would only mean loss of half of the hunter's previous powers, with a slight advantage to the villagers.
guard: protects one character from all sorts of attacks (ww AND vamps, possibly insta-kill)
hunter: one insta-kill, one immunity to attacks,and possibly tracking ability, all powers strictly specific to their 'training' (ww OR vamps)
you could have one guard and two hunters or two guards (identical) and two hunters (specialized). the overall total of powers available would not be changed much, but more people would be special, and loss of one character would only mean loss of half of the hunter's previous powers, with a slight advantage to the villagers.
Sheesh. No wonder people get confused playing. We keep amending rules between each match. Just because it didn't work 100% last time doesn't mean it was bad. Random guessing is random guessing... maybe one of these times we could just let the rules persist for a few games?
From what I've read prior people don't like things like that kind of thing because it's random... pssst the whole game is pretty random so I'm not sure why they don't like it
a role like this (healer) had been proposed in previous game threads, and it also might be something that ravenvii has thought for the 'new priest' role, since resurrection is now performed by the sorcerer.
but he also stated that he didn't want any brand new role for this game, just tweaking/soldify/balancing of the previous powers.
the major problem with the healer, is that the cured WW now knows all the WWs and they would be outed immediately.
They would become a double agent!
but the best strategy would be to out all the other WW, as this would almost certainly ensure their demise. The cured WW would likely be killed by the WW at some point, but he would still bring his new side (the villagers) to victory
To balance it, you could change how the players are or are not notified of the switch. You could also change when and how the convert is allowed to vote (if at all).
Exactly, the way the game is set up it's easy to transition from being ignorant to being in the know, but it doesn't work in the opposite. You can't forget insider informtion you already know and honestly continue to play the game.
I do think there could be potential for something like this in an ultra-complex game where all the players are blind. The baddies do not know who each other are and make decisions based on nominations/votes via PM to the storyteller. I think it would be interesting to play in a game like this because it would force every person in the game to interact in order to figure out what is going on and who does what.
Another cool alternate version of the game would be to start with both vamps and wolves active and knowing who each other are. Vamps know wolves and wolves know vamps. By the rules they can not kill each other or reveal each other's identity. This would be a major political game where everyone is posting to sway opinion and direct the lynchings in a specific direction. Due to their being two killings per night we might need to up the number of participants and lower the overall number of baddies.
Sorry, ravenvii, just brainstorming about cool ideas for down the road.
As ravenvii stated, were not changing the rules for this next game, which I think is a good idea, since many dont even understand the rules from the last game.
Dont make me play the n00b card.
Dont make me play the n00b card.