I agree - but it's still a strategy. And I don't see anything wrong with leaving the village to wonder. That would be the whole point of it. It's definitely something that has a time and a place, but I still think it should be allowed.
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 agree - but it's still a strategy. And I don't see anything wrong with leaving the village to wonder. That would be the whole point of it. It's definitely something that has a time and a place, but I still think it should be allowed.
i agree with moyank , especially since she finally admitted that letting the kamikaze live would have been a staggeringly brilliant move 
btw,it's a bit redundant to have the same discussion in two threads.
btw,it's a bit redundant to have the same discussion in two threads.
Agreed. I think all discussion should happen in this thread and only finalized rules and gameplay should happen in the game threads. That keeps things clean and prevents good stuff from being lost in the wasteland.
The game where me and moyank did the no-kill on purpose, we choose to kill the person moyank was protecting (since she was the hunter and I've infected her)
Okay, here's another big game idea that could be a fun change. Most storytellers always randomly assign the roles among the players. What if we change that up a bit. How about after sign ups close but before roles are given each person send a PM to the storyteller with their top two choices for role preference. Then we randomize based on the pools that are formed.
For example, if 10 out of 20 players would like to be the Seer then the randomization is only run with those 10 players names. This would allow for people to at least have some chance to play a character that they have an interest in playing. Obviously, there are no guarantees as the selection is still random, but it would improve odds. It wouldn't negatively affect game play or give away any clues because no one knows what anyone else's preferences were.
Thoughts?
For example, if 10 out of 20 players would like to be the Seer then the randomization is only run with those 10 players names. This would allow for people to at least have some chance to play a character that they have an interest in playing. Obviously, there are no guarantees as the selection is still random, but it would improve odds. It wouldn't negatively affect game play or give away any clues because no one knows what anyone else's preferences were.
Thoughts?
Now, that's a very interesting and thought-provoking idea. I can't see what harm it might do, either.
You'll get no opposition from me on this; in fact, I approve whole-heartedly.
again this is redundant with the other thread, but i think it is somehow unavoidable.
we have already discussed this mechanism a couple of times i think.
i think it looks great on paper but it will not translate in a good game experience.
here is my post from the other thread;
I'm sorry. I thought the fact that I posted here and only linked there (along with the explanation I put) was clear. We should have discussion here and leave the game thread alone so that we don't duplicate. If you understand that then why are you still posting over there about things? The redundancy won't happen if people will stop posting rules discussion in the game thread. Lead by example my friend.
Okay, either I haven't explained my position clearly or you have misunderstood my concerns. I don't think we can avoid people becoming familiar with each other and this being a factor in a social game. My biggest fear is that we make the game too random, not that people let previous games or other factors affect their judgment. The Carrier role, as written paired with the wolves being able to purposefully not kill, eliminates clues and greatly increases the random factor. Allowing players to simply give a preference and possibly have a better chance of landing a role they have an interest in does not invite randomness into the game structure.
I personally have no idea what roles any of our current players might have an interest in and if I put more stock in that than in the actual clues present in the game then I'm just being foolish. Even if I think a certain player might want to be a baddie, I have no idea how many other players also put that as a preference and the selection was still made randomly. The odds are infinite and thus even allowing that to affect your gameplay is irrational.
I agree with all of this. In fact I think that's pretty much what I said in introducing the idea. Players send in PM's after sign up is closed and before roles are assigned. Thus, everyone has the benefit of knowing what the finalized roles and rules are. Typically, assignment has been the last thing we do before the game is started.
Last edited:
it wasn't a criticism at you, I think we can't avoid it being discussed also in the other thread and actually that we shouldn't.
everyone interested in the game will read the other thread, while only a few will read this thread.
this thread can be used for discussion of rules, but not when a specific game is being discussed in its own thread. in that case that thread should take priority.
since this proposed change is a MAHOR change in game philosophy, and Chris has decided to implement it in the other game, i think it should at least be discussed and see what the actual majority of people think.
Again, this is a fine approach on paper, and it works for games like the mansion games where the roles are open (and in fact i think it is exactly what we used in at least one of those games.
However, it is NOT a good approach for games where you have to guess people's role, because not only it will part of the process, but it will be the MAIN PART OF THE PROCESS, for a lot of people and especially at the beginning.
In my opinion, the RANDOM assigment of every role is one of the really essential characteristic of these game, and it is what makes them interesting and fair.
If you think people (including yourself) will not plug what they think about what player would and would not select as their choice, i believe you are deluding yourself
everyone interested in the game will read the other thread, while only a few will read this thread.
this thread can be used for discussion of rules, but not when a specific game is being discussed in its own thread. in that case that thread should take priority.
since this proposed change is a MAHOR change in game philosophy, and Chris has decided to implement it in the other game, i think it should at least be discussed and see what the actual majority of people think.
Again, this is a fine approach on paper, and it works for games like the mansion games where the roles are open (and in fact i think it is exactly what we used in at least one of those games.
However, it is NOT a good approach for games where you have to guess people's role, because not only it will part of the process, but it will be the MAIN PART OF THE PROCESS, for a lot of people and especially at the beginning.
In my opinion, the RANDOM assigment of every role is one of the really essential characteristic of these game, and it is what makes them interesting and fair.
If you think people (including yourself) will not plug what they think about what player would and would not select as their choice, i believe you are deluding yourself
Okay, some things I mentioned before that I do think we need to discuss before the next game starts.
- How do you play the game without taking things personally?
- Is there any "playing style" that is out of bounds?
I think these two go together in that I'm seeing some appear to get upset or frustrated by how others play the game. In a social game I think this is just part of the dynamics (and as a therapist it's both entertaining and fascinating). As long as someone isn't breaking the game rules and not violating the spirit of the game (for example being a wolf and giving yourself up) then I think all playing styles are generally fair game. Some of our players get into character, some give blunt directions, some make wild accusations, some are long winded, some post very little, etc. etc.. I think we all need to understand that what happens in the game is a part of the game and not intended to be personal in any way. Some players push other players buttons on purpose because they are trying to test them, gauge their reaction, and see if any clues are discovered.
I'm not just thinking about our last game, but looking back over the many games that have taken place during the past year. I don't believe anyone is trying to intentionally be mean or rude. Let's all try to remember that it is a game and it is about fun. If you can't handle the dynamics and the game within the game then please recognize this about yourself and don't play.
- The No Vote debate.
If we were to play with majority lock voting only then i agree that everyone should be asked to put down a name. With a deadline based voting system then I think players should be able to abstain. Here's the thing, in deadline voting players often jump out to a lead and sometimes we are left in a position where those who tend to vote towards the end (me) are put in a position where our vote doesn't matter. If the next closest vote getter is 4 or 5 votes behind then my one vote is not going to change the outcome of the lynching. In those cases many times I prefer to abstain. If I'm working on a theory then why put it out there too early with a vote that is irrelevant. From a strategic stand point that only serves to put me on the baddie's radar.
I know I'm the player who "no votes" the most, but that's because of my playing style. I do tend to vote late in an effort to gather as much information as I can before voting. That information is important and could affect my view of how things are going. I can't speak for others, but when I abstain it's not because I don't know who to vote for (except in the first round) it's generally because I don't agree with who is in the lead, i don't want to join the mob, and I'm not ready yet to put my own theory out there.
I do recognize that if everyone played with my style that we wouldn't have any votes to work with, but hey, not everyone plays like me.
----------
Accusing a therapist of self delusion is one of the most insulting things you could ever say to them.
At present we can't prevent people from allowing outside or previous game information to influence them. So, I really think the point is moot. If a player is foolish enough to do what you are saying they will do then it is what it is. There is no way to verify that extraneous variable and thus it is ridiculous to even consider it.
- How do you play the game without taking things personally?
- Is there any "playing style" that is out of bounds?
I think these two go together in that I'm seeing some appear to get upset or frustrated by how others play the game. In a social game I think this is just part of the dynamics (and as a therapist it's both entertaining and fascinating). As long as someone isn't breaking the game rules and not violating the spirit of the game (for example being a wolf and giving yourself up) then I think all playing styles are generally fair game. Some of our players get into character, some give blunt directions, some make wild accusations, some are long winded, some post very little, etc. etc.. I think we all need to understand that what happens in the game is a part of the game and not intended to be personal in any way. Some players push other players buttons on purpose because they are trying to test them, gauge their reaction, and see if any clues are discovered.
I'm not just thinking about our last game, but looking back over the many games that have taken place during the past year. I don't believe anyone is trying to intentionally be mean or rude. Let's all try to remember that it is a game and it is about fun. If you can't handle the dynamics and the game within the game then please recognize this about yourself and don't play.
- The No Vote debate.
If we were to play with majority lock voting only then i agree that everyone should be asked to put down a name. With a deadline based voting system then I think players should be able to abstain. Here's the thing, in deadline voting players often jump out to a lead and sometimes we are left in a position where those who tend to vote towards the end (me) are put in a position where our vote doesn't matter. If the next closest vote getter is 4 or 5 votes behind then my one vote is not going to change the outcome of the lynching. In those cases many times I prefer to abstain. If I'm working on a theory then why put it out there too early with a vote that is irrelevant. From a strategic stand point that only serves to put me on the baddie's radar.
I know I'm the player who "no votes" the most, but that's because of my playing style. I do tend to vote late in an effort to gather as much information as I can before voting. That information is important and could affect my view of how things are going. I can't speak for others, but when I abstain it's not because I don't know who to vote for (except in the first round) it's generally because I don't agree with who is in the lead, i don't want to join the mob, and I'm not ready yet to put my own theory out there.
I do recognize that if everyone played with my style that we wouldn't have any votes to work with, but hey, not everyone plays like me.
----------
Accusing a therapist of self delusion is one of the most insulting things you could ever say to them.
At present we can't prevent people from allowing outside or previous game information to influence them. So, I really think the point is moot. If a player is foolish enough to do what you are saying they will do then it is what it is. There is no way to verify that extraneous variable and thus it is ridiculous to even consider it.
Comments: (Ignore them at your own peril)
1) Voting: Everyone has to vote for another player on the first turn.
2) Voting: On turns after the first, votes for no-hanging (to hang no-one) or Abstain (to not vote) are acceptable. Note - Not to get political but some of the suggestions sound like government legislation where they are trying to control behavior (i.e. no large sodas, popcorn, or shakes sold in NY city). Rather then try to regulate behavior (i.e. voting), why don't we let the behavior (i.e. voting) be directed by the game itself. if you don't like someone abstaining from voting, get everyone to vote the person out. It's perfectly fair for people to announce at the start of the game that they are voting for whomever abstains.
3) Grudges / bad behavior: Grudges (or people just liking to vote for you) are a part of the game and you can't change anything about it. I always expect QoS or Koodauw to go after me in a game and it doesn't bother me.
Bad behavior can be fixed but it has to be fixed by the players exhibiting the bad behavior. A very easy fix (which also works in real life with email or texting) is to not post a reply for 15 min to 1/2 hour after reading something that bothers you. After you cool down, you are less likely to post a reply that will get you in trouble. Many people, in the game, also lack in empathy (it's just who they are) which can be perceived as bad behavior. When writing a post, consider how the other people might perceive it before you post it. Just like proof reading the post for mistakes, you should consider proof reading the post for content before posting (good advice for real life in general).
4) Lost in Woods: I don't think we should have a rule on this. It should be decided by the GM on a case by case basis. The GM should state at the start of the game what his/her expectations are on voting / posting. If some players believe that another player is not meeting the expectations, the players can request that the GM rule on the lost in woods status for the player in question.
5) Posting after death: Everyone but killed specials whose roll is known, should be able to post non-game related comments after they die (WWs or Vampires in particular should definitely not post anything after they die because of the large chance of effecting the game). The GM should have the final word on who can post, how much they can post, and if they are banned from posting for the rest of the game.
6) Non-game related posting: I'm 100% in favor of non-game related posting. Many people don't have the analytical ability of "Don't Panic" or mscriv. If they can't post analysis on the game, I still would like them to post anything even if not game related. This is a social game and it's not who wins / loses or even the story in the game. What makes the game enjoyable to most is the interaction between the different people. One suggestion is that the players post non-game related chatter in red so people can easily skip over it if they want to.
7) When does a person die: To get around this problem, I propose that there are no game related post allowed after the voting time limit expires until the GM post the identity of who died. I also propose eliminating the majority lock since it favors the people who have continuous access to the internet and penalizes the people who don't (i.e. no internet access at work).
8) Starting roles: People can give the GM two roles they want (can't be WW or Vampire) and two roles the don't want (likewise can't be WW or Vampire). The GM decides if he wants to use the request or even how he going to use the request. The players will not know if / how the request are handled so it will not affect the game ("Don't Panic"s concern). In any case, the GM should determine the WW / Vampire roles before any other specials.
1) Voting: Everyone has to vote for another player on the first turn.
2) Voting: On turns after the first, votes for no-hanging (to hang no-one) or Abstain (to not vote) are acceptable. Note - Not to get political but some of the suggestions sound like government legislation where they are trying to control behavior (i.e. no large sodas, popcorn, or shakes sold in NY city). Rather then try to regulate behavior (i.e. voting), why don't we let the behavior (i.e. voting) be directed by the game itself. if you don't like someone abstaining from voting, get everyone to vote the person out. It's perfectly fair for people to announce at the start of the game that they are voting for whomever abstains.
3) Grudges / bad behavior: Grudges (or people just liking to vote for you) are a part of the game and you can't change anything about it. I always expect QoS or Koodauw to go after me in a game and it doesn't bother me
.Bad behavior can be fixed but it has to be fixed by the players exhibiting the bad behavior. A very easy fix (which also works in real life with email or texting) is to not post a reply for 15 min to 1/2 hour after reading something that bothers you. After you cool down, you are less likely to post a reply that will get you in trouble. Many people, in the game, also lack in empathy (it's just who they are) which can be perceived as bad behavior. When writing a post, consider how the other people might perceive it before you post it. Just like proof reading the post for mistakes, you should consider proof reading the post for content before posting (good advice for real life in general).
4) Lost in Woods: I don't think we should have a rule on this. It should be decided by the GM on a case by case basis. The GM should state at the start of the game what his/her expectations are on voting / posting. If some players believe that another player is not meeting the expectations, the players can request that the GM rule on the lost in woods status for the player in question.
5) Posting after death: Everyone but killed specials whose roll is known, should be able to post non-game related comments after they die (WWs or Vampires in particular should definitely not post anything after they die because of the large chance of effecting the game). The GM should have the final word on who can post, how much they can post, and if they are banned from posting for the rest of the game.
6) Non-game related posting: I'm 100% in favor of non-game related posting. Many people don't have the analytical ability of "Don't Panic" or mscriv. If they can't post analysis on the game, I still would like them to post anything even if not game related. This is a social game and it's not who wins / loses or even the story in the game. What makes the game enjoyable to most is the interaction between the different people. One suggestion is that the players post non-game related chatter in red so people can easily skip over it if they want to.
7) When does a person die: To get around this problem, I propose that there are no game related post allowed after the voting time limit expires until the GM post the identity of who died. I also propose eliminating the majority lock since it favors the people who have continuous access to the internet and penalizes the people who don't (i.e. no internet access at work).
8) Starting roles: People can give the GM two roles they want (can't be WW or Vampire) and two roles the don't want (likewise can't be WW or Vampire). The GM decides if he wants to use the request or even how he going to use the request. The players will not know if / how the request are handled so it will not affect the game ("Don't Panic"s concern). In any case, the GM should determine the WW / Vampire roles before any other specials.
Last edited:
this game was so simple back when i started...now it takes a week just flatten out the rules of each one. cmon man.
You call it analytical, I call it made up nonsense...
I think you're just as bad.
Do I really? I hadn't even really noticed. I don't know why that would be, I dont have any sort of grudge against you.I always expect QoS or Koodauw to go after me in a game and it doesn't bother me
Blah blah blah....
I do really dislike the Red Sox though. Perhaps that's it.
Do I really? I hadn't even really noticed. I don't know why that would be, I dont have any sort of grudge against you.
I do really dislike the Red Sox though. Perhaps that's it.
I never thought you or QoS had a grudge against me (and she is a Red Sox fan)
.Some people I have a good read on. Others I'm consistently wrong on. I'm sure it's the same for everyone else.
Chrmjenkins game - WW: The Colony is currently in progress as it officially started yesterday. Please feel free to discuss rules and strategy here, but nothing specific to the current game. This is for general discussion only.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, do we like the current tiebreaker rule? Should we allow for more meaning to a tie or more drama when one occurs? Here's a few thoughts:
- A round cannot ends in a tie. If it does then the round is extended with all players casting a single vote for one of the tied players. (this could force people to vote and participate)
- If a round ends in a tie then no one is lynched. (this could really be interesting as it would encourage people to pay attention and it could be used strategically by either side)
- If a round ends in a tie then the round is extended with the current votes for the tied participants being locked. Those who did not vote for one of the tied players must vote to break the tie. (this would force those who didn't vote for one of the tied players to get involved and could prevent throw away votes)
I'm sure you folks might have some other ideas. It could be that you like the current rule and don't think anything needs to be changed. So, what do you think?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, do we like the current tiebreaker rule? Should we allow for more meaning to a tie or more drama when one occurs? Here's a few thoughts:
- A round cannot ends in a tie. If it does then the round is extended with all players casting a single vote for one of the tied players. (this could force people to vote and participate)
- If a round ends in a tie then no one is lynched. (this could really be interesting as it would encourage people to pay attention and it could be used strategically by either side)
- If a round ends in a tie then the round is extended with the current votes for the tied participants being locked. Those who did not vote for one of the tied players must vote to break the tie. (this would force those who didn't vote for one of the tied players to get involved and could prevent throw away votes)
I'm sure you folks might have some other ideas. It could be that you like the current rule and don't think anything needs to be changed. So, what do you think?
I don't have an opinion on that. But as I'm new to this game, just an observation:
It's a very complex rule, as it tends to get very hectic at the end about the who reached first, some players try to confuse or are confused..so it's not easy, I suppose, to follow and maybe participate adequately while on the phone or during work..etc.
I don't say this is positive or negative. It's quite funny actually, at least today it was. I personally have the language + fast typing + different continent thing that makes it somehow difficult to participate.
It's a very complex rule, as it tends to get very hectic at the end about the who reached first, some players try to confuse or are confused..so it's not easy, I suppose, to follow and maybe participate adequately while on the phone or during work..etc.
I don't say this is positive or negative. It's quite funny actually, at least today it was. I personally have the language + fast typing + different continent thing that makes it somehow difficult to participate.
Chris's game just finished up and there is some debate about how infected specials should be handled with regards to revealing the results of their special abilities.
It's just my opinion, but I would agree with how Chris handled the Seer infection. If a special is infected then his/her special ability is now used in the pursuit of being one of the baddies. It was always my understanding that turn order was established to avoid confusion regarding things like protections and other special abilities that could get confusing. For example, does protection take effect before someone can be killed or does the Seer get the results if he and the wolves target the same player during the night?
Specials not being able to reveal the results of their evening activities to the village at large during the night was established to prevent players from giving away information even though they were technically dead (that night's kill). An infected special is not in danger of being killed by the wolfpack and thus there is no reason he/she shouldn't be able to share the findings with the other baddies. That's one of the biggest advantages of infecting a special player.
It's just my opinion, but I would agree with how Chris handled the Seer infection. If a special is infected then his/her special ability is now used in the pursuit of being one of the baddies. It was always my understanding that turn order was established to avoid confusion regarding things like protections and other special abilities that could get confusing. For example, does protection take effect before someone can be killed or does the Seer get the results if he and the wolves target the same player during the night?
Specials not being able to reveal the results of their evening activities to the village at large during the night was established to prevent players from giving away information even though they were technically dead (that night's kill). An infected special is not in danger of being killed by the wolfpack and thus there is no reason he/she shouldn't be able to share the findings with the other baddies. That's one of the biggest advantages of infecting a special player.