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] General Game, Rules, and Strategy Discussion
- Thread starter mscriv
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't mean people missing hints or other points, I just mean people flat out not reading posts, thread titles, etc. Perhaps it's a bit more obvious from the GG perspective, but it's something you can tell when you play, too.
For example, there was actually discussion about what killed Melrose despite the fact that the title of the thread at the time contained the word "wolf", the players list says "eaten" and the day's narrative talked about the person who discovered the body seeing furry things and not wanting to draw the wolves back. I was likebut then I LOL'd.
well, i don't know about others, but i think i usually pay quite a bit of attention to what people write, but i still missed the part about the insta-kill that was clearly stated in the narration. I was just on autopilot and i was expecting the regular rules so that didn't register even if it was all capital and bold.
in other cases I am on the phone and in that situation for me it's easy to miss stuff until I re-read later on on the monitor.
Just wanted to update you guys and say I don't think I'll be hosting next game after all. I think I'm being over-ambitious with the amount of free time I'll have to dedicate to make it quality (as I'm finding myself short even on the time I should dedicate to playing the games). I'm sure someone competent will step up. Interest still seems high for playing.
edit: ignore.
edit: ignore.
Last edited:
There is an [EM] game being set up for those interested. It is going to be a long run game.
Future things to discuss in this thread:
- How do you play the game without taking things personally?
- Is there any "playing style" that is out of bounds?
- The No Vote debate.
- New roles, old roles, roles in general. What do you like or dislike, what would you change?
Feel free to add other topics you want to talk about.
- How do you play the game without taking things personally?
- Is there any "playing style" that is out of bounds?
- The No Vote debate.
- New roles, old roles, roles in general. What do you like or dislike, what would you change?
Feel free to add other topics you want to talk about.
Future things to discuss in this thread:
- How do you play the game without taking things personally?
- Is there any "playing style" that is out of bounds?
- The No Vote debate.
- New roles, old roles, roles in general. What do you like or dislike, what would you change?
Feel free to add other topics you want to talk about.
People take things personally?
I'm looking forward to it.
----------
People take things personally?
I do so watch out next game (you know who I'm talking about)
.
I'm looking forward to it.
----------
I do so watch out next game (you know who I'm talking about)
It was ONE time and I APOLOGIZED!! Stop making me feel guilty!!
Sincerely,
Your favorite Yankees fan.
For what its worth, people being able to talk after they are dead is a huge turnoff for me. I've only got limited time and I don't like having to filter out a decent percentage of posts from people who aren't actually playing, and which artificially make games seem like the they are more active towards the end.
It was ONE time and I APOLOGIZED!! Stop making me feel guilty!!
Sincerely,
Your favorite Yankees fan.
I don't think I have ever been mad at you in a game (but then again I have a short memory
). I really don't hold grudges from game to game although I will target people who seem to vote for me game after game (for defensive reasons). and if the Red Sox are going down in flames, I might as well support the Yankees (American league east) and my favorite Yankees fan
.----------
That's why dead people post in a different hard to read color. The players can easily ignore the post if they want to.
and if the Red Sox are going down in flames, I might as well support the Yankees (American league east) and my favorite Yankees fan
Say it ain't so, Plutonius. Say it ain't so.
It adds an interesting dynamic to the game. Kudos to abijnk, she came up with it on her own and we refined it together. I am anxious to hear feedback about it after the game.
I am not dead set on it being in the next game. Will depend on number of players and whether people want it or not.
Agree completely. Yes, it - the role of the carrier as interpreted at present - has lent a certain 'je ne sais quoi', or element that is hard to quantify - to the current game which makes it a lot less predictable, and a lot more interesting.
You are absolutely right as it gives the WWs a reason to seek out and kill the non-specials, and it gives an extra frisson of unknowability to the village.
Re the dead speaking post-murder/lynching (or gratuitously slaughtered by an erroneous and completely mistaken use of the insta-kill), most of the dead don't abuse it (and the one person who did is no longer with us); besides, they post in a different shade of ghostly grey (or other sickening hues) which is intended to be easily avoided by others if necessary.
To be honest, if the dead were not allowed to contribute occasionally, I doubt whether most of us would have much more than a passing interest in the game subsequent to our demise.
The other issues raised by mscriv (people taking things personally; 'no-votes', non-participation, and others), I'll comment on after this game ends.
For what it is worth, though, I am fascinated at the detailed posts and lengthy explanations demanded which are a part of the current game. Likewise, the interrogation of evidence such as voting patterns. In my experience, this is unusual, but seems to have become a feature of the longer games, those with a greater number of players.
Actually, I think it is an excellent development - in the current game, anyone who is a WW has had to defend themselves as everyone has come under some sort of scrutiny, and whoever wins will have done so through sheer cool, chutzpah and by being able to hold their nerve when it counts. These lengthy games are a lot more demanding of the players, in that explanations for actions are demanded, sought (and often given) and the old way - when WWs could coast easily on the back of lazy and unmotivated play by the village - seem to have passed, something, which, needless to say, I do not regret at all.
----------
Actually, abijnk has hosted a superb stormer of a game, and kudos - hats off, take a bow - indeed to her. My only gripe is that I wasn't around half long enough to fully enjoy it.
I've got other things I want to bring up as well, but think I should wait until the current game is over.
Okay, so, let me put this out there.
I'm wondering if it is a disruption to the spirit of the game for the baddies (wolves or vamps) to be able to elect not to make a kill during the night. I know this move has been used strategically in the past and the mere possibility of the move left us paralyzed in the last game. But, with all of the advantages that the bad guys already have, should this be allowed? In order for the village to have a chance they need to be able to count on at least a few consistent things in the game. It is based on these known rules and consistencies that those on the side of good are able to search for clues. By design and nature the baddies are killers and they kill one player a night. Is it fair to allow them to choose not to do what is in their character design and nature?
I'm wondering if it is a disruption to the spirit of the game for the baddies (wolves or vamps) to be able to elect not to make a kill during the night. I know this move has been used strategically in the past and the mere possibility of the move left us paralyzed in the last game. But, with all of the advantages that the bad guys already have, should this be allowed? In order for the village to have a chance they need to be able to count on at least a few consistent things in the game. It is based on these known rules and consistencies that those on the side of good are able to search for clues. By design and nature the baddies are killers and they kill one player a night. Is it fair to allow them to choose not to do what is in their character design and nature?
Hmmm.
I'm not so sure about it. I kind of like the strategic option - and to be fair, it's a huge risk. Every night kill is one day closer to a victory - and if you make the wrong move, it could lead to a loss just as easily as it could lead to victory.
It's no different, IMO, than strategically choosing to keep a Kamikaze wolf alive - AKA Don't Panic's favorite idea (ok, second favorite after using the instakill).
The point of the game is to throw the villagers off balance, whether you're doing by posting, by your kills, or by your lack of kill. I can't imagine it's going to come up very often - and in our game, we actually put a kill in and just blocked it - how would you be able to say that can't be done?
No, I don't think it is disruptive, or, rather, it may well be disruptive, but I don't think it is unfair. After all, it is a game of chance and strategy, bluff, mendacity, misdirection and trust, built or destroyed. So, it is a game where the choices you make (or don't make, as the case may be) could well have a positive or negative effect on the eventual outcome.
As with so much else, a kill that doesn't happen can be because of a few different factors, some which favour the village (such as a target being protected), some which may not, such as a strategic decision not to kill.
To be able to kill also implies - to my mind at least - to choose not to do so. The village may misconstrue that as a successful block; that is their choice, and, in that context, a misreading of an action.
Thus, my position is that WWs should be able to choose to kill or not - it is a game of strategy and tactics as much as anything else; I've had situations where protection protected an infection (thus, lost) or an intended target for homicide; so, let that have a positive and negative aspect for both sides, WWs and villagers both.
If a nightly kill is required, then any night there's no kill the villagers will know with certainty that either an attack was blocked, someone was infected, etc. If the nightly kill is optional, the villagers can be left to wonder.
I still think it's a high risk, low reward strategy.
I'm going to pull this from the other thread since we are having a concurrent discussion.