The Pub: Off-topic chat for forum gamers

[Internet Flea]

Whereas I'm less concerned about balance and more concerned about game tone. Lying to both sides is balanced, but it's likely to make both sides enjoy the game less.

[Saposhiente]

That's just the principle that each side needs to know that they may have a traitor. But lying to both sides is not balance. If the neutral learns everything, then leaks what they know, the wolves auto-lose.

[Lady Serpentine]

That's just the principle that each side needs to know that they may have a traitor. But lying to both sides is not balance. If the neutral learns everything, then leaks what they know, the wolves auto-lose.

A point. If it helps, this is for a blind-wolf game? Not sure it's enough, but still. That was something I was worried about, though, yeah. (That or them feeding all of the town power roles they can find to the wolves.)

Edit: As far as lying to both sides... Also a point. Just trying to figure out interesting takes on powers, really; have a ton of them to make for this. But probably not the best idea, yeah.

[Count Dingdong]

Do you mean, for example, a town-aligned voider alongside a wolf-aligned voider? Town-aligned beast alongside a wolf-aligned beast? Something in that vein? Or do you actually mean a player who is, say, a mason and a 'nilla wolf but is actually a hidden neutral role?

If they're the same person (i.e. one person has information about both teams that they can use to their advantage, but perhaps wants a different ending than either team), it could be problematic, as you have to be really careful that they can't ruin the game with their information. For example, moles in a network are bad, unless it's both (a) known from the beginning that there IS a mole (not might be but definitely is) and (b) there is a way to remove the mole if found. For instance, there's a spy in Witchhunt which can be removed to great advantage to the witches if found but could screw over the witches if left alive (as balance, the junior witch can screw over town if they stay long enough before converting or dying). ...that said, I don't really like the Spy role at all... it seems breakable...

If they're different people, it should be fine. There are duplicate roles on different sides: compare the Seer and the Devil. Even something so standardly "wolf" like the Beast has its town variations with the DOB. Any role can exist in any alignment; you just need to make sure that there is balance to the game. If you have a powerful role, town must be able to do something to counter it (kills -> bane/void; scries -> alpha/fool/disguiser; turtling -> bane restrictions/void; informant -> knowledge/separation; etc.).

...if you mean a town-aligned player and a wolf-aligned player who are actually a neutral team? ...I'm not sure? On one hand, the wolf player probably has knowledge of the wolves, so that's a huge danger to wolves. On the other, it's two people who *may* turn wolf. If wolves start out disconnected with a scry and careful kill of their own... perhaps? I think that the best way to do a wolf who's not a wolf is to have disconnected wolves.

The reason that I'm giving all the possibilities is that I don't want confirmation. Sometimes, just knowing that a role exists is detrimental to a role. For example, take Careless Citadel WW. There were two teams of equal power, and the rest were recruits, or so the OP stated. However, there was an unknown (small) third team whose recruiter had a Nun power. If I had made it clear from the beginning that there was a Neutral team that could not be recruited, the Nun power would be nowhere near as helpful as it was.


...joy. I was ninja'd a lot. :P Anyway, blind-wolf game means that a neutral which is BOTH town AND wolf can work. Again, knowing that there may be someone who scries as an ally who is against you can work poorly. It's why introducing a Fool or an Alpha/Godfather/Miller/Disguiser greatly weakens Seers: they know that some of their scries are outright wrong, so they're paranoid about all their scries, if only slightly, which can lead to mislynches. On one hand, not knowing that an ally might be a shifty neutral can cause problems by causing wolves/seers to trust too much in their network (bringing back Careless Citadel, there was a "Friend" role which scried as the same alignment as the scrier, which could have been really powerful if scried more :P). On the other, knowing that information can cause problems by causing them to trust too little. It's a tricky balance and difficult to call. Blind-wolf is still probably the best call if what I'm thinking is close to the truth.

[Lady Serpentine]

The idea is that the role is stated to be two different roles, on different teams, but is actually given to one person, yes. At least that's what I think you meant?

[Count Dingdong]

I asked a lot of stuff, gave a bunch of difficult possibilities, and rambled on quite confusingly, yes.

Yeah, if they're one role that's on both teams, I'd say that it's best that they not be given too much initial information about either team (for example, blind-wolf game (probably no masons, either...)). I'd also say that you should consider their win condition carefully. It shouldn't be more detrimental to one team than another but should still be possible for them to accomplish. If they don't need to kill anyone to fulfill their objective, that might be best. Think about what would happen if they defect to one team, and whether it's easier for them if they help one team over the other. Think about whether them helping one team gives that team a huge advantage. Think about what would happen if they're scried and brought into a network; can they abuse that information?

A good neutral has reason to get information from both sides, but has no reason to help either team win. A neutral should have reason to stay quiet about true motives but can remain a low enough threat to survive to finish their objective.

[Lady Serpentine]

Their goal is 'survive', at present.

I can PM you more details, but given they involve revealing exactly what role this is going to be, probably a bad idea if you might want to play in Shadows?

[Count Dingdong]

Yeah, that would probably be a bad idea if you want me to play. I will move to PMs, though, just cause... yep.

[EmeraldRose]

The game in question was Penguinator's Typical Werewolf. It was a very roleplay-heavy game, so I borrowed a character that I've RP'd as elsewhere, and she RP'd The Lady, per usual. We happened to both be wolves, so we ended up having a lot of chats, and we later followed that into my game running alongside it (and still running): Careless Investigation. The Peddler was supposed to arrive when I died in Typical, but... that happened much later than I expected, due to people listening to a scried wolf. If you'd like to start reading when the Peddler enters, you can do so here. The game around that time turned more RP-heavy as well.

I do really like that game, and I'm sure it's a good read. That said... I realize looking back that I never posted the wolf QT. I suppose I should get confirmation from blade and Duck, first, though...

That was a lot of fun indeed. I miss the more RP heavy games. I am not adjusting well to playing games where everyone puts everything right out in the open.

Which reminds me...I should probably take a look at Careless again since I'm back...

[reaverb]

On the "omniscient survival-win-con neutral role idea, possibly a mole with both the wolves and masons": I don't really like it because it seems it causes a ton of problems for little benefit? There are a lot of kingmaker problems (neutral claims and outs the wolves because they feel they have no chance at victory, neutral outs the masons to wolves so the wolves won't kill them). Now maybe those problems could be overcome for an excellent role idea, but it seems like optimal play with that role is to keep your head down and post just above lurking until the game ends. I think you could mitigate some of those problems but that role doesn't seem to be worth adding a lot of complexity to the game.

...that said, I don't really like the Spy role at all... it seems breakable...

By the way the version of the Witchhunt Spy that existed when Junior Witch was a thing is completely broken.

There's a reason the only game the Witches won here was Giantitp Witchhunt 3 and that's the one they randomly sacced the Spy Night 1. That's the only game I've seen Witches win in that ruleset anywhere. (Also saccing the Spy allowed the Witches to win despite all but one of them dying before Day 3)

On Fantasy Strike there were multiple games the Spy claimed Day 2.

Fantasy Strike tends to have players actively trying to break the game, which I think is why the original Witchhunt games didn't turn degenerate here? (Chocolate Pi said the Spy worked better in RL games, which I suspect is because it's harder for witches to communicate and ferret out the spy in RL)

Anyway Chocolate Pi aka Manikkath abandoned the original Spy years ago.

There have been a couple setups which built off the original witchhunt (as opposed to going for the "unlinked role and alignments" change Chocolate Pi made) and the first change is always to remove the Spy.

[Ramsus]

Well ERose (*snicker*), if you want roleplaying in your games, the game I'll be running in February will be super heavy on roleplay. The roleplaying will in fact be built into the mechanics.

[EmeraldRose]

Well ERose (*snicker*), if you want roleplaying in your games, the game I'll be running in February will be super heavy on roleplay. The roleplaying will in fact be built into the mechanics.

Ok, I will take a look. Why the snicker?

[Ramsus]

Really? Ok uncapitalize the R and drop the e at the end.

[Lady Serpentine]

On the "omniscient survival-win-con neutral role idea, possibly a mole with both the wolves and masons": I don't really like it because it seems it causes a ton of problems for little benefit? There are a lot of kingmaker problems (neutral claims and outs the wolves because they feel they have no chance at victory, neutral outs the masons to wolves so the wolves won't kill them). Now maybe those problems could be overcome for an excellent role idea, but it seems like optimal play with that role is to keep your head down and post just above lurking until the game ends. I think you could mitigate some of those problems but that role doesn't seem to be worth adding a lot of complexity to the game.

Oi. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, hm? I did not say 'omniscient', and to be honest I have no idea where you got that idea, seeing as they start off with no extra knowledge at all. You also seem to have completely ignored the fact that this is a blind wolf game, as I said above, given you're talking about outing all the wolves.

[Internet Flea]

You also seem to have completely ignored the fact that this is a blind wolf game, as I said above, given you're talking about outing all the wolves.

I don't think that part matters; if people know about the role, and are told it's on their side, they can be expected to network with it on that basis, and whether or not they start in contact is irrelevent. If they aren't expected to network with it, why tell them the role exists at all?

(Also, as a rule, I don't like roles who's goal is to survive, it makes for very passive play.)

[Lady Serpentine]

I don't think that part matters; if people know about the role, and are told it's on their side, they can be expected to network with it on that basis, and whether or not they start in contact is irrelevent. If they aren't expected to network with it, why tell them the role exists at all?

(Also, as a rule, I don't like roles who's goal is to survive, it makes for very passive play.)

My point is that it's (effectively) impossible to out all of the wolves, because the wolves won't know who all of them are for most of the game, not that they're not expected to network with it?

[Legato Endless]

(Also, as a rule, I don't like roles who's goal is to survive, it makes for very passive play.)

I'll second this.

[Shadow]

I don't like any neutral roles at all.

[Lady Serpentine]

I'll second this.

That's fair; I can try to figure out a different wincon for them.

I don't like any neutral roles at all.

I find this incredibly amusing given the name of it. XD

That said, noted, but eh. I think that that's not something we're likely to resolve?

[Internet Flea]

My point is that it's (effectively) impossible to out all of the wolves, because the wolves won't know who all of them are for most of the game, not that they're not expected to network with it?

I might as well respond to this.

If the neutral networks with a wolf (or Mason, or any other roles that exist), it can expose that wolf. Whether it networks with one wolf or several, it can cause damage to the team, due to the members of that team trusting the Narrator. That's a problem.

[Lady Serpentine]

I might as well respond to this.

If the neutral networks with a wolf (or Mason, or any other roles that exist), it can expose that wolf. Whether it networks with one wolf or several, it can cause damage to the team, due to the members of that team trusting the Narrator. That's a problem.

A point; it's not an automatic loss, though, which seemed to be what Reaverb was saying?

[Internet Flea]

A point; it's not an automatic loss, though, which seemed to be what Reaverb was saying?

It is in the worst-case scenario, where everyone manages to network with them. You're the only one who knows how difficult that would be. (I'm reading reaverb as saying what I'm saying, that's it's bad regardless of the scale.)

[Lady Serpentine]

It is in the worst-case scenario, where everyone manages to network with them. You're the only one who knows how difficult that would be. (I'm reading reaverb as saying what I'm saying, that's it's bad regardless of the scale.)

Ah. We were reading differently, then.

In any case, is there any way to mitigate that issue, without directly saying 'This role is not trustworthy'? As that sort of makes it pointless to include in that form.

[Peebles]

I think I've just missed the recruitment period for Classic, which sucks. I'd have liked to ease myself into WW here via the simplest game, but I've missed my chance. Are there any other simple games coming up that I could sink my teeth into?

I've played a bit before elsewhere, but not for an age. The rust is clinging to me like bees. Bees, dammit.

[Saposhiente]

You could sign up to be an auto replacement for Classic. We already have one, but you'll probably get in in a few weeks.

[Peebles]

Oh thanks, I didn't know replacements were a thing here. I'll drop the narrator a message to see if I can get in.

[Lady Serpentine]

I think I've just missed the recruitment period for Classic, which sucks. I'd have liked to ease myself into WW here via the simplest game, but I've missed my chance. Are there any other simple games coming up that I could sink my teeth into?

I've played a bit before elsewhere, but not for an age. The rust is clinging to me like bees. Bees, dammit.

Mine is... Exceedingly unsimple, but on the other hand, I could set up a recruitment thread for a less complicated one while I try to manage Shadows. Unfortunately, most of the variants are claimed, and my other one (Fae Werewolf) is also fairly complicated, besides being not all that well-balanced. On the other hand, I do have a vague idea, so... We'll see. Will probably try to post it here in a bit.

Though, yeah, replacements are definitely a thing. So that'd work too.

Also, welcome! Always nice to get new(?) people. (Or if you're returning more people, anyway.)

Edit: And such are the dangers of typing over long periods - it seems I have at least three hands now. Oh well, I'll just have to get a fourth so it looks less strange...

[Legato Endless]

Oh thanks, I didn't know replacements were a thing here. I'll drop the narrator a message to see if I can get in.

Nice Avvie.

Shadowrun is still in open recruitment, though its not very simple per se. Stil, it's the OP's first hosted game here, and he would be thrilled to get a few extra players.

There's also a game starting in Civilization Fanatics Forum as part of our mafia exchange program, but that's a hidden set up, so I'm not sure how complex it will be. I could ask the host if you like. Recruitment is open till next Tuesday.

Link

Edit: Nevermind, apparently you joined Shadow Run and I just ignored who was on the sign up list. <_<

Carry on.

[Peebles]

Though, yeah, replacements are definitely a thing. So that'd work too.

Also, welcome! Always nice to get new(?) people. (Or if you're returning more people, anyway.)

Thanks! I'm new here, but not entirely new to WW/Mafia. Not played in forever though.

There's also a game starting in Civilization Fanatics Forum as part of our mafia exchange program, but that's a hidden set up, so I'm not sure how complex it will be. I could ask the host if you like. Recruitment is open till next Tuesday.

Edit: Nevermind, apparently you joined Shadow Run and I just ignored who was on the sign up list. <_<

Carry on.

Yeah, I signed up to Sahdowrun a while ago, as it was the only game that I could find that was recruiting. I may take a look at that game link, but I like to try and keep to one forum at a time, otherwise I end up forgetting stuff. Me brainy no work good.

[Lady Serpentine]

Yeah, I signed up to Sahdowrun a while ago, as it was the only game that I could find that was recruiting. I may take a look at that game link, but I like to try and keep to one forum at a time, otherwise I end up forgetting stuff. Me brainy no work good.

I resemble this remark!

Also, the game I mentioned earlier will be up for review before I submit it... Later tonight, probably, I expected to have more time to work on it tonight. But about half the village is done and I know what the wolves are going to be, pretty much.