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] The MRville Horror, Part 3 GAME OVER - Villagers Win!
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
It's not real time.
Night time starts after lynching and ends after specials submit their actions.
Daytime starts with the actions of the specials. It ends when a majority of votes are submitted
if there is still space i'd like to play (IN?).
gotta run now, will comment on the rulez tomorrow.
gotta run now, will comment on the rulez tomorrow.
That makes sense. In that case, bring on the game!
I don't like the idea of a judge, it would probably get a bit complicated. I do like Melrose's suggestion about the vamps though
I would also like in if there's room left!
I really like the idea of the freemasons and the vampires, which I think will work in this forum environment, however, I don't know if the Judge roll would really work? I think that due to the time-zone differences and the fact that you can't be on MR all the time, even during your day time, it may take way too long to get a vote done, and then passed. Also, as when this game is played in real life, everyone can be there and discuss openly and get to vote, but when the Judge can call votes when many are sleeping, and cannot vote or give discussions (and could not even vote before they went to sleep, as there was no vote called by the Judge then), well it seems a bit unfair and unworkable... But still open to discussion, if anyone has any other ideas to fix the issues.
Also if the Judge is away for a couple of days, or is just not on MR for a couple of days (it happens, I'm surprised too
) then there could be no vote and it would be quite annoying for the other villages, and basically freeze the game.
Sounds like fun anyway though!
I really like the idea of the freemasons and the vampires, which I think will work in this forum environment, however, I don't know if the Judge roll would really work? I think that due to the time-zone differences and the fact that you can't be on MR all the time, even during your day time, it may take way too long to get a vote done, and then passed. Also, as when this game is played in real life, everyone can be there and discuss openly and get to vote, but when the Judge can call votes when many are sleeping, and cannot vote or give discussions (and could not even vote before they went to sleep, as there was no vote called by the Judge then), well it seems a bit unfair and unworkable... But still open to discussion, if anyone has any other ideas to fix the issues.
Also if the Judge is away for a couple of days, or is just not on MR for a couple of days (it happens, I'm surprised too
) then there could be no vote and it would be quite annoying for the other villages, and basically freeze the game.Sounds like fun anyway though!
I would like IN again but this one sounds like it could get a little confusing and tedious. As King Mook Mook pointed out, I think for the Judge role to be more fair it would take almost 24 hours to wait on votes from players of varying time zones and schedules. I think it would slow things down too much. Interesting idea but not as easily workable on a forum.
I don't really understand the goth thing. Is this like a willing victim? I'm not sure about this idea really.
I quite like the idea of a vampire just working as the werewolves do but with the ability to turn people and create more blood suckers. If they can scan players, what happens if a vamp tries to turn a wolf? Do they go all superpower like in Underworld? Can they communicate with vamps and wolves both?
The Shaman idea is brilliant!
edit: Another idea to make this more difficult/interesting, everyone playing should put their profiles on "invisible mode". I'm saying this now before anything is decided so as not to make myself look all suspect. Thread interaction and voting would mean more than visible log-in times.
I don't really understand the goth thing. Is this like a willing victim? I'm not sure about this idea really.
I quite like the idea of a vampire just working as the werewolves do but with the ability to turn people and create more blood suckers. If they can scan players, what happens if a vamp tries to turn a wolf? Do they go all superpower like in Underworld? Can they communicate with vamps and wolves both?
The Shaman idea is brilliant!
edit: Another idea to make this more difficult/interesting, everyone playing should put their profiles on "invisible mode". I'm saying this now before anything is decided so as not to make myself look all suspect. Thread interaction and voting would mean more than visible log-in times.
Just a suggestion for when a vamp turns a werewolf: Maybe the werewolf blood could be toxic to the vampire and end up killing them both? And vice versa
. Having a goth has 2 people scan for each other so the Vamps can unite faster.
Exactly. Think of it as a twilight fan
. Having a goth has 2 people scan for each other so the Vamps can unite faster.How would one do this?
Exactly. Think of it as a twilight fan
How would one do this?
Say no to Twilight. It's bad, m'kay?
You can go invisible in your user CP > edit options > use invisible mode (and save at the bottom of the page).
If a vamp successfully turns a wolf, then that wolf could potentially "snitch", which would lead to a relatively quick finish, as the vamps target each werewolf in turn, with no easy way for the wolves to retaliate.
I think I like Mexbearpig's suggestion: An attempt by a vamp to kill a wolf kills both. Only the "prime" vampire and the "chosen" (in case the "prime" is eliminated) can communicate to the game host about the next vampire attack. If both get "poisoned" by inadvertently attacking wolves, the vampire attacks stop altogether. This would help level the playing field between vampires and werewolves.
Of course, the villagers are still screwed. Depending on the starting number of villagers, we may need two hunters, each operating individually--no communication; the hunters could unknowingly protect the same villager. Of course, if one hunter outs him/herself by instant kill, he/she could potentially be protected the next night by the other hunter.
I'm still going to sit on the sidelines, though, so take these suggestions with as many grains of salt as desired.
I think a werewolf attacking a vampire killing them both ( or vampire attacking werewolf) is a bad idea. It gives a big advantage to the villagers and completely changes the vamps/ww strategy. Please see post on previous page about my idea, which I think may work better.
I prefer your idea. I don't think they should be able to kill each other. Though your propensity for evil thinking is a little scary.
I re-read the original post and I understand the purpose of The Goth better. Didn't really think about it like the vamp and the goth looking for each other... or perhaps The Goth knowing but not wanting to be found. I like that better than the idea of The Chosen One not even knowing it. I didn't realize until the last game that the Undertaker and Coroner didn't even know that they were.
Updated the OP. Removed the Judge and Freemasonry, and merged the Freemasonry into the vampire role. Removed "chosen one" and cemented Goth role. Added Undead role.
Parts I still need some thoughts on are:
the interaction between vampires and werewolves (if the vampires chooses a werewolf to convert into the Undead, what happens? And what happens if the vampires and the werewolves pick the same victim to convert/eat?)
(My thoughts: Keep it simple - vamps pick a werewolf, head vampire gets ravaged (and if again, then the Goth gets ravaged, and that's the end of the vampires). If they pick the same victim, the werewolf win and that victim is dinner. In other words, the werewolves are still the most powerful and central characters.)
the schism of the Hunter into the Hunter and Guard roles.
(My thoughts: if the number of players permit, I like the idea of adding another Hunter to help the villagers (Vampire Hunter).)
Parts I still need some thoughts on are:
the interaction between vampires and werewolves (if the vampires chooses a werewolf to convert into the Undead, what happens? And what happens if the vampires and the werewolves pick the same victim to convert/eat?)
(My thoughts: Keep it simple - vamps pick a werewolf, head vampire gets ravaged (and if again, then the Goth gets ravaged, and that's the end of the vampires). If they pick the same victim, the werewolf win and that victim is dinner. In other words, the werewolves are still the most powerful and central characters.)
the schism of the Hunter into the Hunter and Guard roles.
(My thoughts: if the number of players permit, I like the idea of adding another Hunter to help the villagers (Vampire Hunter).)
So the werewolves always have precedence? For instance, if the infectious takes the goth/chosen one, then the head vampire is useless. Kind of mitigates the need for a vampire at all as both have an equal chance of happening (as a one-off. Of course, the vampire can continually scan, but on day one, they both have an equal shot). unless the goth somehow manages to advertise himself to the vampire without tipping off the werewolves. I don't think that would really work, but I like the undead rule to involve those even out of the game.
I still don't get the point of having vampires/goth/undead. It doesn't seem to mean anything to the underlying game of werewolves vs. villagers. *shrug*
Wow, I missed out because I called dibs in the old thread and missed this one.
Okay, if there's still room then count me in.
A few thoughts:
- I'm not sure about the idea of the hunter not being able to protect the same person twice in a row. Here's the thing, specials like the seer, undertaker, etc. are severely limited in that they can not risk revealing who they are unless they are prepared to die immediately for it. The only hope is that the hunter will protect them, however, if the hunter can't do this repeatedly then trying to effectively use your ability becomes a suicide mission. The only way I think this rule could work is if we do as dXTC suggests and have two hunters.
- Does the vampire's scan reveal the nature of who he scans or is it simply limited to him finding out if they are the chosen one?
- I can't fight the feeling that the villagers are just "screwed" in this game and by that I mean it kinda seems like dumb luck whether you make it or not. It might be fun to even the odds some. How about we put everyone's true identity at risk by spicing up the voting some. Here's what I'm thinking, we take two votes a day. One vote is for who you want to lynch, the second vote is for who you want to be "revealed". The reveal vote is just like the lynch vote, but the person chosen has their true nature revealed openly to everyone at the end of the hanging. I think this would really spice up discussion and encourage everyone to participate more. I don't think you change any of the specials or roles as you have laid them out, as this "reveal vote" simply adds to the game without taking away anything. The werewolves will obviously be trying to steer these reveal votes away from themselves. For the vampire it's a risk either way, the votes could reveal who the chosen is thereby allowing them to turn them. The seer, of course, wants to steer the votes away from people he/she has already scanned. I think you get the point of how all the various scenarios could play out, ooh, imagine the horror of outing a werewolf with the reveal vote knowing that night is coming and death comes with it! The idea may need some tweaking, but I'm just trying to think of a way to get more discussion going that gives the villagers a little more power as a voting group without the immediate consequence of a lynching.
- I kinda like the Shaman/Witch Doctor/Village Healer/Mad Scientist role as it again seems to offer a chance to even the playing field for the villagers. But, my question is, if he/she successfully heals a vamp or wolfie then are the game players told about it or is it up the Shaman or the person healed to disclose the information if and when they see fit? Heck, does the healer even know if the healing was successful or are they just blindly moving from person to person?
- I do like the idea that wolves and vamps can't kill each other because as mentioned, it does put them in the position of not knowing if the person was a fellow cursed being or protected by a hunter. It might be fun to add the hunter(s) to the list of not being able to be killed by the werewolves, but vulnerable to the vamps. This would further increase the intrigue and make the hunter an even more key role. It would be so cool to hear, "As day breaks the villagers are shocked and excited to see that no one has been killed. There are traces of blood and the town square shows signs of a devastating battle. The mystery of these strange circumstances are both joyous and unsettling as all in town know that only a select few truly know what it is that took place in the dark of night."
Well, that's all I can think of for now.
A few thoughts:
- I'm not sure about the idea of the hunter not being able to protect the same person twice in a row. Here's the thing, specials like the seer, undertaker, etc. are severely limited in that they can not risk revealing who they are unless they are prepared to die immediately for it. The only hope is that the hunter will protect them, however, if the hunter can't do this repeatedly then trying to effectively use your ability becomes a suicide mission. The only way I think this rule could work is if we do as dXTC suggests and have two hunters.
- Does the vampire's scan reveal the nature of who he scans or is it simply limited to him finding out if they are the chosen one?
- I can't fight the feeling that the villagers are just "screwed" in this game and by that I mean it kinda seems like dumb luck whether you make it or not. It might be fun to even the odds some. How about we put everyone's true identity at risk by spicing up the voting some. Here's what I'm thinking, we take two votes a day. One vote is for who you want to lynch, the second vote is for who you want to be "revealed". The reveal vote is just like the lynch vote, but the person chosen has their true nature revealed openly to everyone at the end of the hanging. I think this would really spice up discussion and encourage everyone to participate more. I don't think you change any of the specials or roles as you have laid them out, as this "reveal vote" simply adds to the game without taking away anything. The werewolves will obviously be trying to steer these reveal votes away from themselves. For the vampire it's a risk either way, the votes could reveal who the chosen is thereby allowing them to turn them. The seer, of course, wants to steer the votes away from people he/she has already scanned. I think you get the point of how all the various scenarios could play out, ooh, imagine the horror of outing a werewolf with the reveal vote knowing that night is coming and death comes with it!
The idea may need some tweaking, but I'm just trying to think of a way to get more discussion going that gives the villagers a little more power as a voting group without the immediate consequence of a lynching. - I kinda like the Shaman/Witch Doctor/Village Healer/Mad Scientist role as it again seems to offer a chance to even the playing field for the villagers. But, my question is, if he/she successfully heals a vamp or wolfie then are the game players told about it or is it up the Shaman or the person healed to disclose the information if and when they see fit? Heck, does the healer even know if the healing was successful or are they just blindly moving from person to person?
- I do like the idea that wolves and vamps can't kill each other because as mentioned, it does put them in the position of not knowing if the person was a fellow cursed being or protected by a hunter. It might be fun to add the hunter(s) to the list of not being able to be killed by the werewolves, but vulnerable to the vamps. This would further increase the intrigue and make the hunter an even more key role. It would be so cool to hear, "As day breaks the villagers are shocked and excited to see that no one has been killed. There are traces of blood and the town square shows signs of a devastating battle. The mystery of these strange circumstances are both joyous and unsettling as all in town know that only a select few truly know what it is that took place in the dark of night."
Well, that's all I can think of for now.
What about instead of designating a Vampire from the start, one of the first victims of the Werewolves could be randomly and 'miraculously' saved. Noone except the Hunter(s) would know that there is now a Vampire now among the villagers.
From this point the Vampire would pick another player to turn into a fellow Vampire, and they now proceed similarly to the Werewolves as previously discussed... with the Undead, etc.
As far as how Vampire vs. Werewolf could work... I think one has to be able to kill each other. I think the fairest way is this: 1) Vampire picks a Werewolf, Werewolf dies and joins the Undead, 2) Werewolf kills a Vampire, Vampire dies and joins the Undead, and 3) if they both pick each other in the same round, both die but only the Vampire joins the Undead.
The remaining Vampire (if there is one left) can then pick another player to turn. But in that round, they are unable to pick a target to turn undead (since the Vampires require two). The remaining Werewolf can continue his/her killing spree.
I think the Vampires and Werewolves need to be equally dangerous to each other without one 'trumping' the other.
From this point the Vampire would pick another player to turn into a fellow Vampire, and they now proceed similarly to the Werewolves as previously discussed... with the Undead, etc.
As far as how Vampire vs. Werewolf could work... I think one has to be able to kill each other. I think the fairest way is this: 1) Vampire picks a Werewolf, Werewolf dies and joins the Undead, 2) Werewolf kills a Vampire, Vampire dies and joins the Undead, and 3) if they both pick each other in the same round, both die but only the Vampire joins the Undead.
The remaining Vampire (if there is one left) can then pick another player to turn. But in that round, they are unable to pick a target to turn undead (since the Vampires require two). The remaining Werewolf can continue his/her killing spree.
I think the Vampires and Werewolves need to be equally dangerous to each other without one 'trumping' the other.
Will the Goth know of his role? Kinda of crucial he does if he is to find the Vampire.
Also, I say if a Vampire targets a Werewolf to convert into undead, then the werewolf is immune and eats the vampire (or just isn't affected). This can be a serious issue since once either action happens, both Special bands will have an idea who the werewolf *(and vice-versa the vampire) actually is. Villagers don't need to find out what happened, all they need to know, all of a sudden x & z (where z is the vampire) appeared dead or then x was found eaten happened (note y would be the vampire target, but since y was a werewolf nothing happens). However, raevnvii can PM the player involved what actually happened. The dead vampire must not (obviously) reveal the name of the werewolf to the villagers, only to his/her peer (another duh here). Wolfs would find out they were targeted but won't know by whom. This will make it interesting...
On the issue of same victim for both, I agree, werewolves win.
I agree also, if the head vampire get's lynched or eaten, then the Goth (if found before) can take over.
The Shaaman should have the power to cure the Undead after 3 days/2 nights.
I have no problem with the extra Hunter.
Also, I say if a Vampire targets a Werewolf to convert into undead, then the werewolf is immune and eats the vampire (or just isn't affected). This can be a serious issue since once either action happens, both Special bands will have an idea who the werewolf *(and vice-versa the vampire) actually is. Villagers don't need to find out what happened, all they need to know, all of a sudden x & z (where z is the vampire) appeared dead or then x was found eaten happened (note y would be the vampire target, but since y was a werewolf nothing happens). However, raevnvii can PM the player involved what actually happened. The dead vampire must not (obviously) reveal the name of the werewolf to the villagers, only to his/her peer (another duh here). Wolfs would find out they were targeted but won't know by whom. This will make it interesting...
On the issue of same victim for both, I agree, werewolves win.
I agree also, if the head vampire get's lynched or eaten, then the Goth (if found before) can take over.
The Shaaman should have the power to cure the Undead after 3 days/2 nights.
I have no problem with the extra Hunter.
I think rules are still being discussed so there's still time to get in the game. I only replied this morning.I still don't get the point of having vampires/goth/undead. It doesn't seem to mean anything to the underlying game of werewolves vs. villagers. *shrug*
Wow, I missed out because I called dibs in the old thread and missed this one.
EDIT: Personally, I think we should stick with just Werewolves... although I do like the idea of the Undead ranks still having a role to play in the game... at the same time, that could really lengthen the time between night and day.
Okay, if there's still room then count me in.
A few thoughts:
- I can't fight the feeling that the villagers are just "screwed" in this game and by that I mean it kinda seems like dumb luck whether you make it or not. It might be fun to even the odds some. How about we put everyone's true identity at risk by spicing up the voting some. Here's what I'm thinking, we take two votes a day. One vote is for who you want to lynch, the second vote is for who you want to be "revealed". The reveal vote is just like the lynch vote, but the person chosen has their true nature revealed openly to everyone at the end of the hanging. I think this would really spice up discussion and encourage everyone to participate more. I don't think you change any of the specials or roles as you have laid them out, as this "reveal vote" simply adds to the game without taking away anything. The werewolves will obviously be trying to steer these reveal votes away from themselves. For the vampire it's a risk either way, the votes could reveal who the chosen is thereby allowing them to turn them. The seer, of course, wants to steer the votes away from people he/she has already scanned. I think you get the point of how all the various scenarios could play out, ooh, imagine the horror of outing a werewolf with the reveal vote knowing that night is coming and death comes with it!
- I kinda like the Shaman/Witch Doctor/Village Healer/Mad Scientist role as it again seems to offer a chance to even the playing field for the villagers. But, my question is, if he/she successfully heals a vamp or wolfie then are the game players told about it or is it up the Shaman or the person healed to disclose the information if and when they see fit? Heck, does the healer even know if the healing was successful or are they just blindly moving from person to person?
.
Response:
1. I still believe we should hold 1 vote. Revealing identities would cause the game to loose it's mystery and logical reasoning part. Also the band of the WW or Vamps would loose members, fast. This reveal thing could be factored in, provided the WW or Vamps start with 1 extra member. Seer role should be also revealed by this vote. Tough on the Seer, but this would put more pressure to vote out the Specials. Ahhh the smell of desesperation.
2. If the Shaaman cures, then it would be quite obvious who is what now. If a WW or a Vamp is cured, it should stated to the villagers, x is now cured. However, now x would be an easy target for either Special band. The trick here would be to allow the Hunter to protect for the 1st turn after healing. Or make x immune to whatever side they were on for 1 turn.
I still don't get the point of having vampires/goth/undead. It doesn't seem to mean anything to the underlying game of werewolves vs. villagers. *shrug*
Wow, I missed out because I called dibs in the old thread and missed this one.
The vampires is another group (so now it's vampires vs. werewolves vs. villagers). The biggest issue is the balancing of the three, and that's what we're discussing (and awesome discussion so far - I like the way you think re: certain specials being immune to attack, mscriv!)
And sign-ups aren't closed, why did you think you missed it? Welcome aboard.
- Status