WW Central VI: Important WW information goes here - READ OPENING POSTS!

[rakkoon]

I prefer Rakkoons Deadly Catch.

When FC claims Mason and he is, his role is switched with a random player.
When FC claims Mason and he is not, lightning will strike him three times.

But your ideas aren't that bad either
The hot potato is a bit of a problem with time zones and stuff.
But I like the called kill

[Andre Fairchilde]

Or - if someone claims a team role - that entire team is reshuffled.

Or - all players are reshuffled, and the claimer is kicked out of the game.

But in reality, in live Werewolf games - most of the fun is the arguing, the role claiming (in live games I've never seen a Mason).

I guarantee someone has done this before - How about a game where there are no masons, but the scryer and baner (and wolf teams) start knowing each other?

(That's a thought for Mafia XI...)

[happyturtle]

The next time I design a ww game, I'm just going to leave out masons entirely. Maybe add a couple more power roles to the village side, but they have to work harder to network.

[Deathslayer7]

I must say that while your idea is good jontom, it has some flaws. I'll explain more when i dont have work.

[Trixie]

The next time I design a ww game, I'm just going to leave out masons entirely. Maybe add a couple more power roles to the village side, but they have to work harder to network.

Pfffft, never had a problem with masons in any of my games

Ok, maybe slight one the last game. No one role lists, it seems. :P

[Mordokai]

I guarantee someone has done this before - How about a game where there are no masons, but the scryer and baner (and wolf teams) start knowing each other?

(That's a thought for Mafia XI...)

That was how Titans worked, if memory serves. Well, at least as far as seer and baner goes. Then again, Titans' mechanics are quite a bit different from Mafia's. Still, I'd be willing to give it a shot. Might make a game a little bit more interesting and definetly different.

[Jontom Xire]

Everyone seems to be saying that they would either not have masons (same problem exists with baner) or that they have never seen a problem here. You should have heard the bitching and whining after YOW was over:

You know, I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say that I wouldn't use the tactics that were used by the masons...

But...

Seriously? Why play these games if the masons continue to out themselves again and again?

I'm the first to realize that I complain because I was a wolf (a rare role), and it didn't effect our kill choices or scrys too much.

What broke the game in this instance was turning Tatooine into a socialist paradise.

"Villagers do not bid on that body. Villagers do not buy anything, the collective needs it. Villagers give us your money, trust the collective that we have a safe bank and a plan. Villagers trust us. Villagers we are going to start lynching the lawyers. Villagers, do not trust X, today he is to be lynched."

Hmmm... Who was it just said "But in reality, in live Werewolf games - most of the fun is the arguing, the role claiming (in live games I've never seen a Mason)." So how come that doesn't apply to WW games here.


Also I have lost count of the games that state something like:

...

Role Claiming: If you want to die, feel free.

...

Something that I personally loathe, although here as in other games it was subsequently suggested that this wouldn't be a narrator kill and was more of advice not to attract wolf attention than an actual rule.

[RedScholarGypsy]

Hi, all.

After YOW I had an idea for a useful new rule to be added to games. It helps prevent what everyone in that game complained about: Masons outing themselves and then leading everyone by the nose. It replaces the rule often seen in games where players are outright banned from revealing their role to others on pain of narrator sourced insta-death. A rule that I dislike as being both unenforcable (PMs ruin it as do dropping hints) and too rigid. So here I give you...Jontom's Called Kill:

During the night, INSTEAD of the usual night kill, a called kill can be used. This only works on power roles. The person sending in the night kill must state:

1) That they are using a called kill.
2) Who the target is.
3) What their role in the game is.

If they get the role correct then the kill cannot be baned or blocked by any means. If they get it wrong then the kill fails.

The impact is that if any player outs themselves, with the help of a fellow mason, as a mason in order to form a network, even if the baner follows through by baning that player, team evil can still kill them and thus prevent a network forming. It also prevents other roles doing similar things.

Advantages:

This rule dissuades players from openly declaring their roles.
Players may still bluff etc. by declaring themselves as having a role they don't have to fool the wolves.
Players with roles may still use a proxy.

Disadvantages:

Players cannot form networks by openly declaring their roles. Ok, so this is the reason for the rule, but in some games this was at times an essential tactic.
If team evil fail to kill the baner who is protecting themselves, they can guarantee to kill them the next night.

Narrators use this rule with caution. I still miss some of the old-school WW games where players outed themselves to win the game, but with the risk of making another player vulnerable as the baner was protecting only them. However YOW was a bit of a joke, with an impenetrable mason bank and me leading the voting so directing almost every lynch.

So you effectively are giving the wolves an unkillable, but conditional voider?

[Jontom Xire]

Not quite.

A voider could void anyone not just the baner.
A voider would need to know who the baner was to bane the baner.
If it was a voider, the voider could void someone independantly of the night kill and the night kill woul still succeed if the target was unprotected.

I see what you're getting at however. I'm not sure (I'd need to check) if I originally posted when I first had the idea, or if it was just knocking around in my head, that the target would need to have claimed the role for the called kill to work. Whichever, it's an idea.

Also it would be quite easy to make it of limited use. I.e. the wolf team get one per power role in the game, and also lose one every time a power role dies from any other means. I.e. if they just use them randomly they lose them and could run out allowing the good guys to form a network safely.

It will need a bit of play-testing.

How about, the bad guys only get one, but if they use it and miss they lose it. If it is successful then they get another one.

[Andre Fairchilde]

....

Did you see the part where I said I wasn't going to be a hypocrite and say "I would'nt use those tactics..." Because I can't say that I wouldn't. It worked. You won. The game became tedious and difficult for the bad guys. Poor us. We had a night kill - you didn't. I have no reason to complain.

Also, from speaking with Goof - Reinholdt came within a night action of winning the game (the night when the ENTIRE mason bank was unprotected)- so that's still pretty balanced. Even with all the tricks, my nemesis may *still* have won. ***shakes fist***

[Reinholdt]

Did you see the part where I said I wasn't going to be a hypocrite and say "I would'nt use those tactics..." Because I can't say that I wouldn't. It worked. You won. The game became tedious and difficult for the bad guys. Poor us. We had a night kill - you didn't. I have no reason to complain.

Also, from speaking with Goof - Reinholdt came within a night action of winning the game (the night when the ENTIRE mason bank was unprotected)- so that's still pretty balanced. Even with all the tricks, my nemesis may *still* have won. ***shakes fist***

I try my best.

Masons claiming is not really unbalanced unless there are special rules like items involved. Mostly it just makes the game really boring, for the good guys no less.

Anyways, Playground Squares WW Edition has started halfway down on page 2.

[Deathslayer7]

The problem with your "fix" JX is the fact what happens when two Masons come out and claim at the same time. One supporting the other.

Then you have a double bind. If you kill one or the other, then you confirm the other one and boom! Network is formed for the cost of two Masons. Possibly one.

If the wolves leave the Masons alone, then you still semi-verify that they are Masons, as you don't want to risk killing them and have people actually form the Network.

So either way it seems to me that the Masons are the problem here, seeing as how they can network.

[Trixie]

Everyone seems to be saying that they would either not have masons (same problem exists with baner) or that they have never seen a problem here.

Oh, I tweaked them a bit, to counter just this situation

Something that I personally loathe, although here as in other games it was subsequently suggested that this wouldn't be a narrator kill and was more of advice not to attract wolf attention than an actual rule.

I agree, it's very crude and fun-taking Damocles-sword that doesn't work at all when abused by someone clever.

[Lex-Kat]

How about this suggestion:

A third team. Their sole goal: kill the masons. Every night, they can target a mason who has outed himself for assassination.

The Baner can protect the mason, but only from one attack. So if both the wolves and the assassins target the same player, and he is baned, he dies.

[Fawkes]

That's really just adding more wolves.

[Lex-Kat]

Kinda. But what can I say, I really hate role-claiming.

[Darkcomet]

Eh.

I find roleclaim = instadeath rules and other such nonsense irritating. Mostly in that it forces power roles to be utterly defenseless in the event a lynch even randomly turns towards them.

While claiming and subsequent networking is problematic, I do not believe adding something that is effectively an instadeath is the way to deal with it.

[Supagoof]

Meh. Simple solution.

Remove masons.

No masons = no problem.

Sure, masons are nice to add roles without too much power to the game. And if a mason steps forward to add power to his team, then they are fully utilizing the full abilities of the mason group. If you don't want that to happen, remove the masons.

If you think that give the wolves to much an advantage for being banded together when the lynch comes up, then make them blind. Either that, or let them get caught in their own lynch trap.

I like the idea JX, I really do. But it would only work in certain games, where the mason leading the team to victory has been a large impact on many of the games.

Another thought is to give the wolves a power role assassin. Where the assassin can only attack power roles - completely seperate of the night kill (they could end up with 2 kills in the night.) Then add rules about cooldown conditions or verified target conditions. If team good managers to lynch the assassin, then all bets are off and let the role claims go forward.

As for YOW, even with the mason bank, that game was close.

18 days of play. Down to a handful of players. And it could have gone multiple ways.

Like if the bandits robbed from you on the day you missed the updates and didn't transfer your money.

If the outlaws started killing you sooner.

If the banfits started robbing you sooner.

There is a point in every YOW game where the store closes, and the money protection is no longer available. (R2D2). Also, spending away that money each time you are attacked A. give the bandits a chance to find it in the desert and B. gives them the opportunity to jump ahead of you in line and purchase R2D2. Fortunately the standing order didn't come up as two standing orders (if they put a standing order in, then it becomes a 50/50 chance of whose first.). If that had happened, events could of went a bunch of different ways.

But I digress, the thought is great, but would only work for specific games.

[happyturtle]

When I was Al Capone in Mafia, Wolfbane roleclaimed as mason early, and I ordered a kill on him that night. Most of my team disagreed with that, some rather vehemently, assuming he would be baned.

I have to wonder, why are wolves so gun-shy about trying to kill potentially baned targets?

[Lex-Kat]

Because, if he's baned, he's verified.

[happyturtle]

And if he's not killed, and no one challenges him, he's verified too.

[Shadow]

I remember the good old days when people kept their mouths shut and the lies flowing. When the masons were a secretive order bent on the quiet elimination of the wolves rather than the public announcement of this goal.

Part of the reason I got bored was the fact that no matter the rules, nor the game, nor the players, nor the roles involved, every single game was exactly like the last, and played out in exactly the same way.
Unfortunately I can't complain too much about this because it's partially my fault for helping to buck the trends of playstyle with strategies that worked fairly consistently.
So rules and/or roles were created to countermand this, so we adjusted our playstyles to circumvent these new rules, which meant that even more rules and/or roles were needed to balance the *new* playstyles, etc, etc, ad nausea.

The game has become a shadow of it's former glory in my eyes.

Consider: You're attempting to create more rules to counter the playstyle that the players have evolved to.... which only reinforces my entire point.

We need to get back to basics. We need to keep our mouths shut. We need to suspect *everyone* and give away NOTHING. If we can get back to basics, we can get back to fun.
Heck, if that happens I might even return.

[Deathslayer7]

ironically that's why i never send out pms or the like. Sure once in a while I'll hint, but I never give a lot away.

The only time i do is when i take chances and trust others. As of yet, it has not bit me in the butt.

[Lex-Kat]

I think you should have played Assassins, Shadow. I asked that no one call out their role, and as far as I can remember, no one did. Or did so only when in fear of a lynch.

And most of the players seemed to enjoy those.

[Jontom Xire]

The problem with your "fix" JX is the fact what happens when two Masons come out and claim at the same time. One supporting the other.

Then you have a double bind. If you kill one or the other, then you confirm the other one and boom! Network is formed for the cost of two Masons. Possibly one.

If the wolves leave the Masons alone, then you still semi-verify that they are Masons, as you don't want to risk killing them and have people actually form the Network.

So either way it seems to me that the Masons are the problem here, seeing as how they can network.

That always happens anyway. It's how the masons can prove that they are who they say they are. They will form a network with or without this new rule. But with this new rule, two night kills that are unstoppable and bang, kiss bye bye to your two masons. And if more come forward...

Masons have two main advantages in the game. One is the ability to confirm each other's identities and so win everyone's trust as per YOW. The other is process of elimination. They know each other are safe. In the end game that becomes critical. If you have 5 players and 3 are masons... Good guys have won already. So it is essential for the wolves to kill the masons before the end game.

The current problem is that if two masons come forward and support each other's claims and the baner protects one, then even when the wolves kill one, the villagers now have a figurehead to band behind for the rest of the game. And if he's competent or well led, that is game changing and the wolves can do nothing about it until they have found and killed the baner.

Anyway, it was an idea I wanted to offer you all. As some of you have said it won't work for every game, but I never actually stated that myself before because I figured it was obvious.

[DungeonMaster77]

I remember the good old days when people kept their mouths shut and the lies flowing. When the masons were a secretive order bent on the quiet elimination of the wolves rather than the public announcement of this goal.

Part of the reason I got bored was the fact that no matter the rules, nor the game, nor the players, nor the roles involved, every single game was exactly like the last, and played out in exactly the same way.
Unfortunately I can't complain too much about this because it's partially my fault for helping to buck the trends of playstyle with strategies that worked fairly consistently.
So rules and/or roles were created to countermand this, so we adjusted our playstyles to circumvent these new rules, which meant that even more rules and/or roles were needed to balance the *new* playstyles, etc, etc, ad nausea.

The game has become a shadow of it's former glory in my eyes.

Consider: You're attempting to create more rules to counter the playstyle that the players have evolved to.... which only reinforces my entire point.

We need to get back to basics. We need to keep our mouths shut. We need to suspect *everyone* and give away NOTHING. If we can get back to basics, we can get back to fun.
Heck, if that happens I might even return.

Shadow, you just took the words out of my mouth.

This is my endeavor with all future WWC games...

[Deathslayer7]

ok but either way the network is still formed with the loss of the two masons. So in either situation it's a lose/lose situation for the wolves. Thus the problem is with the masons.

[Murska]

Yeah, but usually people don't want to sacrifice two masons to hopefully form a network in case the other roles are active and not paranoid. It's one of the reasons why wolves don't really do sacrifice plays very often. Every wolf/mason is not just a role, it's a player, and it's not really fun to suicide on day one for a somewhat unfun and/or unfair advantage that might or might not lead to a victory for your team(in the game you don't get to play).

*grumblegrumble SEU*

[Jontom Xire]

Sorry about SEU, Murska. But good play all the same. Your sacrifice will be remembered.

Murska has a point. Plus if you have 4 masons and lose 2, then even if you do connect the baner, seer, fool and last two masons successfully, it's not necessarily that great. Firstly you've lost 50% of your masons, secondly the wolves will guess you're networked and start using voting patterns to find the rest of you (if they're any good).

It's probably better to wait for the seer to scry you.

As for being players not just pawns I will forever be upset with Helgraf when I was a wolf in a game with him and we were trying to pretend one of the wolves was a seer/seer proxy. After throwing the villagers three wolves in a row (suspiciously lucky) and the real seer had a proxy countering our claim and it was blatantly obvious that the whole strategy had failed and Helgraf was about to die, he decided it would be a good idea to feed my name to the villagers too, in an attempt to .. I don't know what to be honest. I feel he was just irritated with me constantly pointing out that the whole strategy was flawed and broken and not going to work and decided to be petty. It was quite definitely a good example of flogging a dead horse.

Anyway, to get back to the point, it is one thing to ask for volunteers to step up and be sacrificed for the common good, another to just do it to people without their agreement. And asking for volunteers when they KNOW for a fact that they will be dead and out of the game means you aren't likely to find many takers. It's one thing to take a risk, another to volunteer for it. In YOW I only did it when I was going to get lynched anyway.

[Mordokai]

Because, if he's baned, he's verified.

Nah, that doesn't really bother me, personally. What I am loathe to do is waste a possible kill on a person that is possibly unkillable. And every wasted kill is a big loss, for me personally. Even if it would only kill a villager.