Werewolf Q+A

[Tanuchan]

I think that what you said about werewolves will be pretty hard to undo. However, if you are a seer we could pretend that what you saw was a seer-analogy to the assassins, and since you have little experience with that kind of seeing (you are fairly young and have probably not lived through any murders) you misinterpreted what you saw and took her for a real werewolf.

Yup, that's exactly what happened It was already being taken care of when I was preparing Lady Emily's lynching. Lucky me that I was already naming the assassin guild "Werewolves"... Don't worry about explaining it, Mr. Holmes has just arrived at Garnavon Hall!

[Savage Dragon]

Well now that we have only 7 players left in our current werewolf game, im curious as to how our next one will be working. Who will be MOD? Where will it be set? Also ive been thinking about it, and i think since we might want to add some more stuff to make it more interesting as we go along, I have an idea as to what we can do. It's something i did in another game of a similiar style. We could split up the werewolves. Make them no longer a team. or if we have enough players have two teams with two werewolves each. there are a lot of settings were that would fit nicely. I picture for the next setting Chicago with two rival mafia's going at each other. I think it would work great. opinions?

[Tanuchan]

Hmm... well, my opinion:

 

If you split the wolves, you will have to either work with 2 night kills (what is extremely advantageous to the wolves) or roll to decide who's the victim. If you set 2 night kills and 2 lynching, you'll finish the game earlier.

 

As for two teams... would they compete with each other to see who wins faster? Usually, when we have more than 17 players there are 3 wolves, and more than 20 allow 2 Seers.

 

The settings are completely free and depend on both moderator and players

 

As for next mod... any volunteer?

[Gnarlitch]

I like the competing wolves idea. It could work in any size of group, really, but bigger would be better. It would be sort of a last man standing sort of thing. The wolves could even choose to kill off one another, as, in this instance, thay wouldn't know who eachother was. It could make for a very quick game though. :dragon4:

[Tanuchan]

I hadn't thought about competing wolves ! Yes, it would be fun, specially in a big group I like the idea also !

 

But we would still have the problem of dealing with double night-kills... would it be possible to have the wolves getting turns? In this way, each night one of the wolves would kill. Gnarlitch, Dean, Nave, who are all mods longer than me, what do you think? Wolves would be competing among themselves, and not just against the villagers.

 

 

Lady Celes, thanks again for your words about the Chronicles I'm trying really to make that a story, and I do have many doubts if the result is an enjoyable reading... We "lived" that story and we know what happened, I really wonder how it goes for an "outsider"

And.. that last day wasn't as messy as this one in ww III ! At a time it seemed certain you'd lynch Eyremon, then at the end Tamaranis got almost all the votes! lol

 

~Tanny

[Nave]

heheh

 

Well I think the Wolves have a harder chance because they are outnumbered.

 

The only talking the wolves are supposed to do (according to the main rules, with no variations) is figuring out their target for the night.

 

So their team of 2 is not allowed to plot openly against the others, where as the rest of the players are able to plot against the wolves. In most games I've played, the wolves almost always lose (though it gets close).

 

Vahk, I'm in Put me down as being interested in the WerePups

[Katzaniel]

More Questions:

• So wolves cannot communicate at all on strategy? Not even inital plans on the first day? Logically, I think they should be allowed to communicate a little before the game begins.
• If the Seer checks on the Baner, is s/he told Baner or just Innocent?
• Are roles selected by dice or other totally random method (ie previous wolves have the same chance of being a wolf as anyone else, and suspicious personalities don't necessarily matter)?

That last one shouldn't be answered until after this game is over. Thanks.

[Gnarlitch]

More Questions:

• So wolves cannot communicate at all on strategy? Not even inital plans on the first day? Logically, I think they should be allowed to communicate a little before the game begins.

• If the Seer checks on the Baner, is s/he told Baner or just Innocent?

• Are roles selected by dice or other totally random method (ie previous wolves have the same chance of being a wolf as anyone else, and suspicious personalities don't necessarily matter)?

That last one shouldn't be answered until after this game is over. Thanks.

as far as question #1. that would be unusual, usually the wolves plan with eachother at least somewhat, etc.

 

#2. Normally the seer would know that they had just seen the baneer, but the mod can modify the rules as he or she sees fit for a game as long as they are clear before the game starts.

 

#3. And, yes, usually roles are selected randomly, so any "suspicious" looking character can be completely innocent, at least OOC. IC suspicious or notionally evil chars tend to be the first suspected and lynched, which is why when I mod a game the supposedly evil characters are almost never the wolf.

 

Of course, my answers are nominally my opinion and what is usual for games on the Kenzer boards, not necessarily what has been done here or what this specific mod has in mind.

 

Also, there was the supposition made that the wolves almost NEVER win. Not neccessarily so. In a period of around 7 or 8 games at Kenzerco, the wolves won every time. It took forming coalitions by pm to stop the wolves. Of course, part of that was how much the game and players had evolved over time, taking normally devious RPG'ers and training them to be even more devious and sneaky. Recently, it has been awhile since the wolves have won, which has mostly been either bad luck on the wolves part or mistakes made in giving themselves away. Plus, in a couple of the games the seers and baneer got VERY lucky in finding eachother quickly and forming a coalition.

[Tanuchan]

I'm not quite sure about the rules for those who mod and how far they can go from the regular rules of the game... can they change the roles, etc.?

Mmm... what did you mean by "change the roles"?

 

You can choose to keep the spirit of wolves/hunter or baner/seer... see that we had werewolves in the first two games, then assassins, aliens, and now outlaws.

 

The Baner (Hunter) and Seer also can have variations as to fit the setting you choose... for example, the Seer could be a counter-intelligence agent (in a spy setting).

 

*Lets other more experient mods add their opinion... *

[Gnarlitch]

OOC: What happens if they just don't show up?

that will be decided on a case by case basis...

 

basically, it is because the entire game process is voting someone out, it's the whole point in playing. Here at the Pen it means you must try really hard to make up a reason for accusing someone. (note my first accusation in the Case of Garnavon Hall. I created a backstory for my accusation where I found clues, all of them made up, but that could possibly fit into the story. The Pen is all about creative writing, hence CREATE!) Anyways, the mod shouldn't have to decide the outcome of a vote except on very rare occasions. The players should put in an "abstain" vote or miss a vote/posting only on very rare occasions. Feel free to create all the story you want to support your accusation, as you are all creating much story anyways, which is what is expected here. Feel free to let others stories change your vote...as many times as needed to be true to your character and the story. But still vote.

[Tanuchan]

Gnarly, I apologize from my part. You know it was the first time ever that I didn't vote in a ww game, and exactly because of what you say.

 

However, I'd like to say also that here, I'm unwilling to create too much on any other player's characters, because we do care for the personality of the "person" we created. I would be really upset if someone created some background situation for Amanda that I saw as "impossible" or "out of character". Or if someone said something that wasn't in character for her. So I just avoid doing the same. And I'm quite sure at least some of the others feel the same. We make a point of PMing character's backstories to the people involved... as we did among us (Merelas, Elwen, and Deg), because they were involved with Amanda in some part of her life and that could come about during RP. So they are people who know how each one would probably react, and even so we avoid putting too much of each other in our posts. And I've PMd you the backstories so you could make good use of them if you needed. As a mod, I also received the same kind of backstory from some of the players.

 

So, this is my point... find an IC reason to vote. But don't do it by creating things that weren't said or referred to somewhere in the thread. It feels like you're intruding on a characters' "life". Some of us don't take it too kindly (I know I don't). We RP here... more than play. You praised us for that at K&C, remember?

 

This also seems like a rant... Nothing personal, Gnarly. There was no offense meant in what I wrote, just defending my point. I did mod here... never with such a crazy round, but I know how frustrating it is, when it comes to voting.

 

*hugs*

 

~Tanny

Edited May 1, 2004 by Tanuchan

[Tanuchan]

(IE: Elisabeth drawing her vote out of a deck of card in WWIII is a perfect example of that).

It was very IC for her, and a perfect example of the kind of creativity we need to put a vote in, when we don't have enough IC cues.

Edited May 1, 2004 by Tanuchan

[Gnarlitch]

In saying to write a story to create an IC reason to accuse someone, I didn't mean write a story involving another character; as in creating background or actions for the other character, as I hate it when that is done to me. I meant, create clues, footprints, etc. Act like a detective, or a tracker. Say you saw someone wandering around in the night or whatever. Just TRY to find a way to accuse someone IC. The deck of cards is great. Or Vahktang had dice roll out of nowhere in one game at Kenzer. Just have fun writing a story in character and let it flow, something may come. And, just because there is no obvious sign of murder doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Not all or even most murders are up front gory in your face obvious. You know that at least two of the deaths/disappearances are murders. You know that there was/still is a murderer among you. A little girl dissappearing should appear suspicious in that light.

[Katzaniel]

Certainly, whatever vote you need to make there should be an IC reason to do it. Obviously certain characters won't really be an option unless there is good reason to suspect them, but if you're pretty sure OOC that they're guilty then IC you're bound to find a reason - I of all people should know that, being forced in III to vote for my own son.

 

Having said that, I don't think you should force people to vote, Gnarlitch. Even to avenge my death! There are good reasons both IC and OOC to abstain occasionally, and there's just as good a chance of a tie with two voters or ten. I'm not sure what prompted five null votes last turn, and I'm sure it was very frustrating for you as mod, but I think you should reconsider disallowing it altogether.

 

Edit: I should add, that people should be wary of adding clues for people that you aren't positive are guilty. For example, when Gnarlitch had those clues in III it was the same to me as his saying he was either wolf or seer, and if I'd been wolf he would have died that night. Also, if he hadn't been seer and had been wrong about what his clues showed, it would have been difficult to give a good IC reason for it. So... just saying, clues can be dangerous, too.

Edited May 2, 2004 by Katzaniel

[Gnarlitch]

Having said that, I don't think you should force people to vote, Gnarlitch.  Even to avenge my death!  There are good reasons both IC and OOC to abstain occasionally, and there's just as good a chance of a tie with two voters or ten.  I'm not sure what prompted five null votes last turn, and I'm sure it was very frustrating for you as mod, but I think you should reconsider disallowing it altogether.

 

Yes, there are OCCASIONALLY reasons to abstain from voting. But many players do so half of the time or more, which skews the game. At the Kenzer boards, it is normal for one or two players to not vote each round. Here it is normal for about half to not vote each round. Yes, here the RP is more important. But all too often when players are going with a null vote they are making an excuse not to use their creativity to find a reason to vote for or against someone. Edmund Burke once said, "Evil wins when good men stand by and do nothing."

 

However, this was not intended to piss everyone off or to force everyone to make stuff up that doesn't apply or to make everyone vote every round. I simply stated no null votes THIS round. You guys are making way to big a deal out of it. Before I was merely teasing you guys for changing back and forth and making my life harder by making me decide who lived and who died. Problem is, that's not MY job as mod. That's YOUR job as the players. I also was trying to push you to bring more creativity to your in game stories, like I saw more of back in WWIII. But, as I said, I wasn't upset...before.

Edited May 2, 2004 by Gnarlitch

[Vahktang]

OOC Vote stands. And I don't like the innocent card, either. I *never* play on metagame knowledge, and never will.

But the reality is that we are playing a game.

 

In the regular game we can see the body language of the people talking, their tone, etc. Sure this would be tainted by alcohol, lateness of the hour, how we feel towards them, but this all info we don't get on these boards.

 

So, what to do about that, the fact that the information conveyed is very limited?

 

Nothing?

Smilies?

(I hope not. I'm lousy at those things)

 

 

Another reality is that real life intrudes.

How many times have we all seen someone not post for a while and vote them out?

A bunch. Then they usually come back with: computer down, some illness, etc, a very reasonable real life excuse.

But the game says play on.

 

There are also conventions to certain games.

In D & D type games, the new PC shows up and the established party pretty quickly accepts the character, although in most situations, if they were really playing their characters they wouldn't.

But they are playing a game.

And so are we.

 

But also remember rule 0:

 

The most important rule of any game is to have fun.

 

If my doing this is disruptive and you're aren't having fun because I am doing this, then you have to let me know.

I want everybody to have fun.

I don't want people to be offended or not have fun.

I'm having fun, but I will continue to have fun if I can't play that card (no biggie).

 

How do you get a poll around here?

I'll post one.

 

More later,

 

Vahktang

Edited May 2, 2004 by Vahktang

[Jammeez]

I keep losing sight of some of those rules Tangy mentions. It just gets lost in the RP. Like MTYFoolish's correction of the mistaking events around his death. I was bothered by the mistakes, and glad when he set it the record straight...but Tangy's right! What if someone wants to cloud the issue? Every player has that perogative. And the dead aren't supposed to interfere in any way that can influence voting...or slaughters, for that matter.

 

But playing online is much different than sitting around a table. We've developed our own rules and traditions...like the "dead man's party" and haunting, and like lynching the newbie just because.

 

Another thought: Each moderator has the perogative to set the rules leniency level where they feel it should be. Tangy feels PMing between players should be reserved for the wolves, and then only to agree on a slaughter, but not to discuss. But Itchy usually allows that stuff in his games, so although Tangy might not participate in the PMs, he can't really say others shouldn't.

 

I'm glad some of this stuff has come up, because I'm moderating a new WW game at K&C starting Monday. I needed to be reminded of some of the nuance. It's gotten so complicated over the past year!

 

And, on a lighter - or more serious? - note, I am going to apologize here for any offense I may have given any of you. I get overzealous and forget how I may be coming across. The game is supposed to be fun. I wish everyone lots of fun!

 

Jamz

[Tanuchan]

 

OOC Vote stands. And I don't like the innocent card, either. I *never* play on metagame knowledge, and never will.

But the reality is that we are playing a game.

 

Yeah, you're right.

 

I can't avoid all metagame thinking. I didn't really express myself well.

 

I meant just that, whatever reason I may have OOC, I always try to use IC reasons. And I don't like using metagame information, so I don't like changing votes because of a catch phrase. So it is also that, once voted, I just rarely change votes... unless there's something really convincing. And I don't consider a catch phrase *that* convincing, as you can always be bluffing.

 

But it is my personal view of the game. I just ignore the innocence cards...

 

No hard feelings on this, please.

 

 

[Katzaniel]

Hope that it's not what I said that made you mad, Gnarlitch... we all seem to be agreeing now, though, so I'm not going to talk about that.

 

I did want to say that in my opinion, we should make a rule to better clarify just how much OOC talk is allowed. Sure, a wolf and a villager can both claim to be innocent IC and out, but it really confuses things when people start basing votes on what other people have said OOC, and it looks like we're on the verge of doing that. I'm not trying to influence votes from the dead here, but I am trying to influence how much is said OOC. In my opinion, one shouldn't even state things like "Sorry, I've been away for the last week." or "I don't know who to think the wolf is!" because it gives information we don't need. I'm not saying I'm innocent of this, I just think some comments have prompted others and it is sort of getting out of hand, and we should try to cut back on this.

[Tanuchan]

I think that first of all, any lengthy OOC talk should be at this Q+A thread... Twice I got confused trying to track the game amid all OOC talk...

 

Then, yes I agree that there's been too much OOC talk about game strategy. The only good thing is that it's open to all eyes, so it isn't like PM alliance. However, all that talk should ideally be done IC among the villagers, and not OOC between the players.

 

It's up to each mod, but I basically agree with Katz, that OOC stuff should be cut down, at least in the game thread.

 

My two cents

 

[Vahktang]

I do agree that the last game has way too many OOC chat in the game thread. I did contribute to it thought...

My, did I.

And I was finally reminded of it (on _another_ thread) and brought the OOC over here.

No hard feelings on this, please.

No, never, no hard feelings.

It's just a game.

Character bashing, in character, is OK. Outrageous behavior, to some degree, is OK.

When in doubt, PM, to double check.

I for one, have enjoyed the "You'll be sorry", just as a tradition. I wait with bated breath for the time it burns us all, when Tangy turns out indeed to be the wolf.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

And the rest of your post I heartily endorse too.

Tangy feels PMing between players should be reserved for the wolves, and then only to agree on a slaughter, but not to discuss.

Clarification: I also believe and greatly encourage any role playing PMing.

And I think strategy, alliances through PMing is cheating.

But the final say of what is and what isn't is up to the Mod and I always play that way.

 

Good discussion.

 

More later,

 

Vahktang

[Vahktang]

It has been suggested that the Specials list (Wolves, Seer, Baner) be given to a backup in case of Real Life Intruding, delays, etc, in the game.

 

My recommendation is that the first one slain gets the list to keep just in case.

 

Your thoughts?

[Tanuchan]

I would say that's a *great* idea, as we've had some unexpected trouble lately and RL does have a tendency to intrude when we are completely unprepared!

 

Just a point, though: I think it should be given to the first person to be out of the game that actually can help if something happens, i.e., someone who has a predictable (within limits) online time and is usually seen around the boards with frequency. In this way, s/he will be able to pick up quickly if there's any trouble.

 

Also, my suggestion is that Katz would be an excellent backup when she's not playing; I know she's busy in RL, but maybe she can help from time to time

[Tanuchan]

Sweetcherrie: yeah, I usually keep 48h for day phases and 24 hours for nights... unless there's few people. Each mod is free to choose the extent of the phases and the criteria for running the game. That last game of mine (The Name of the Rose) was pretty standard for my style of modding.

 

And... you know... that Sesame Street one is a fun idea...

[Patrick]

I'm relatively new to the pen and I have a few questions about the Werewolf games and this seemed to be the right place to post them.

 

Are there any prerequisites to join the game, or is being an initiate enough?

 

I've been in previous roleplays on other sites before and I have played a real life version of this type of the Werewolf game, where there was a game master, criminals, normal people and one or several policemen. The players sat in a circle and during "night phase" everyone closed their eyes then the game master told the criminals to wake up, who by pointing chose victims, then the policeman woke up pointed at someone and was given the answer by the game master whether the target was a criminal or normal. Obviously the objective in this version was to do things with the least possible sound during night phase. And then during day phase there was a lynching.

 

I've been reading the recent game somewhat and it looks pretty similar. The inclusion of the baner is new, but apart from that are there any differences from the version I described?