It needs someone to volunteer to run it. So far Diamond and I have done one each, I don't mind running another one but I'd rather different people did the next few before I do so again.
I've said I'll do the next one (unless anyone has any objections). The plan is to make an anonymous account for everyone so there will be no bias from previous games. I was thinking Monday 4th May for a start date (pretty much a month after Diamond's). Sign up will be open from the Monday before.
No objections here, quite the opposite. Do I detect a Star Wars theme? That's evil talk right there. Hang 'im.
Ha, I hadn't even thought of that! Sadly I'm not in to Star Wars enough to even know where to begin in making it themed. I'm thinking for user accounts I'm going to set each player up with a city's name, ie Berlin, Oslo, etc. Those who watch Money Heist will see where I got the inspiration from... those who don't watch Money Heist need to start (not that it will affect the game at all, it is just an incredible show).
Fair enough, I assumed you’d just make an account with the name of the role I.e. Pub landlord, baker etc. Happy for Norn to run the next game, but I’d love if possible for it to be brought forward a week, as I’m pretty bored right now!
Ok, I'll run the sign up from next week (Mon 20th) with a view to starting the game the following Monday (27th)
Something is happening apparently! The globe created a post and Berlin and Athens liked it! Are these the anonymous names I wonder?!
Cities will all begin with a different letter and I'm trying to make the profile pictures a bit different to each other to make it easier to remember things/players from previous days. Been having a think about roles too - I think it is going to be a fairly basic game in terms of using only existing, regular roles, as I think the anonymous accounts should be enough to keep it interesting!
There should be a bonus round at the end. The last wolf or villager to die gets to guess all players usernames and if they do they reverse the whole result!
Had a lot of thoughts today and got myself a 'theme' sorted and day 1 intro to go with it. The roles are going to be very similar to Diamond's game and nothing fancy (although there is one thing that I've slightly changed which makes things a little different but I will point it out in the rules). What are players' thoughts on wolves picking each other as kills? I had considered a non-Alpha picking an Alpha wouldn't result in a kill and the non-Alpha would then know the Alpha (which is how Diamond did it) but then also if the Alpha killed a non-Alpha then the non-Alpha player would be killed. Too difficult for team evil maybe?
I actually quite like the idea of wolves not being able to kill each other full stop. However if you decide to go this route I think it’s imperative you have a guardian to even it up a little bit.
Guardian will be in the game, as will the traitor and masons (they worked well last game). The traitor role will be disclosed in the rules as that's where I have made my slight change.
I personally think that you shouldn’t reward poor play, and a wolf picking a wolf is bad play. Maybe an alpha shouldn’t be able to be killed by a beta. But maybe in that case, the beta should die. The wolves should learn each other’s identity only if they select the same kill. If it unbalances the game, I’d rather have an early full moon.
I agree. If a wolf picks a wolf they shouldn't learn each others identities. So the only way is one gets killed off. I'm sure in other games if either wolf chooses another then the lowest ranking gets killed no matter who chose who. There are opportunities to create new wolves in the game if it becomes uneven so kill a wolf off it they select another wolf to kill.
If there's a Guardian they should only have the power to complete one successful protection. Even then that could still be one to many. In the werewolf game two games ago, with a guardian, team good won incredibly easily. And last game, without a guardian, team good still won with a little bit to spare. The game isn't so interesting if the outcome appears inevitable from the beginning, and a guardian puts things way too much in team good's favour.
I had tipped the balance too far in that game by having no traitor. Also it didn't help that the original alpha got the virus carrier (martyr) on night 1.
The guardian played incredibly well in that game, but good wolves won’t pick the most obvious target in the village to avoid the kill being blocked by the guardian. Therefore the guardian is typically much less effective. Also, after day 1, wolves often take out the villagers who the guardian has already saved, reducing effectiveness. The guardian does however allow you to be a bit more ‘obviously good’ as a good player, which in my opinion makes the game more fun.
I've only played two werewolf games now, but how often on here have team evil actually managed to win?
Having read the above I'm thinking of a two successful protection limit for the Guardian? So if they visit someone and so does a wolf, then they lose one of their protections. If they visit someone and the wolf doesn't, then they keep their protections. Going to put some more thought into the wolves killing each other. Also, what is the normal protocol for a wolf choosing a wolf but the guardian has also chosen to protect the wolf? I was thinking the wolf trying to kill would see the guardian and turn away, thus not knowing the person he picked was a wolf?
So maybe once, out of how many games?! Really the chances should be 50:50 (or perhaps 60:40 in favour of good as they have more players). I still think two successful protections is too many for a Guardian - I can't envisage team good not winning if the Guardian also manages to prevent two wolf kills. Please correct me if such a scenario has ever happened on here.
Evil have the best chance of winning if they play well enough. The odds are stacked in their favour. Even at the end of the last game most people were only 50/50 as to who evil was until Norn stepped up and swayed it.
But how many games here have evil actually won? If the odds really were "stacked in their favour" then they should be winning the majority of games, however it seems that the reverse is happening.
