Werewolf Game Mechanics

I would like to start a discussion on things you all feel work or do not work in the game rule/play wise.

This is not meant to be about STRATEGY. Those discussions should happen elsewhere.
This should be about regulations and game mechanics.

I will try to track topics here on the OP by a simple "subject- main point" line- but leave the rest for you all to discuss.

I will start by raising two items which I feel should be included in games going forward.

DISCLAIMER- Guys, do NOT take offense to constructive criticism. This is for ALL of our sake. Posters be respectful- and people that it is posted about, understand that those posting are just trying to HELP and not bashing.

First of all, I want to congratulate the people running this game (round 4 specifically). You guy(s) are doing great and I know it's a ton of work and coordination to pull this off, so KUDOS to you.

1. New players should not be substituted for non-active players.
Though the intention here is fairness and to keep the numbers strong- it seriously throws off any semblance of balance in the game. When a new player comes in, lets say after 5 days- we would have had 5 days to study each and every other player. We know how they voted, we can begin to collect reasonable assumptions and theories on that person. If a new person is substituted in, they are INSTANTLY at an advantage because they can alter their strategy or playstyle compared to the original player without raising suspicion. I don't care at all personally if the new player doesn't know much about the 60 previous pages of things that have happened, but he/she has had ZERO msg. interactions and is basically given a clean slate from that day. The purpose of this game is, in the end, to see if a wolf can trick a villager. Having a new person introduced mid-game, regardless of role, throws off the dynamic off the game.
I would say mechanically, it only makes sense for the character to die, and just damn, sorry, bad luck for whichever side he/she is on. Maybe this will keep players in touch with each other and keep each other from joining a game and then quitting. (or inviting people who will not play).

2. I hate to bring this up again, since it was mentioned many moons ago (like 4) and it was already discussed and RESOLVED satisfactorily in PMs, but as a GM of many games of many genres, I feel it's essential. During the game, a GM should not have any contact with players concerning strategies or play styles or anything. A GM should not have discussions with active players at all about the game unless the player is asking a question about the rules. It is fine for a GM to ask, "hey, what do you think about that thing that happened"- that's cool. But the GM should NOT reply with agreement or disagreement afterwards. If a GM thinks it's harmless to reply, "Yea, I agree to what you said" - is it then ok for the GM to reply "No, I think your strategy is ignorant" ?? Reaffirming a players convictions is just as wrong as countering them where a GM is concerned. It's anal.. I know. But if we want a game to be an honest GAME, then we need to ensure the players aren't influenced positively or negatively.


That's all I got right now off the top of my head, feel free to discuss, bash, distort, post your own, w/e.

Thanks.

----------------------

Topics:

1. No player substitutions.
2. No GM/Player game discussion. (Rules two-way, yes. Strategy P ->GM yes, Strategy/Comments GM -> P no )
3. Create a user group for those participating in a game and restrict posting to official thread to that group.
4. Clear rules for vote changing and enforcement of said rules.
5. Should neutral players, once victory conditions are met, remain in game?

Agreed on both point.

3. Players in the game get a special role similar to dead players with access to the graveyard. Only people with the role "Player" or "Moderator" are allowed to post in the game's topic, albeit everyone can view it. This should be really simply to set up on a forum software and will prevent incidents like proxy accounts and dead players saying things they shouldn't (like orange08 naming a wolf target upon his death).

4. I think that the "rules" for changing votes should be enforced. They are mentioned in the rules before we start, but the way people change their votes has been inconsistent at best. In order to make it easier to track who changes votes and how many votes there are at any given time, the previous vote should be crossed out and a new post should be added to the thread. (this is what the rules say, yet someone NOT doing this caused a huge conflict very recently). Voting has to be clear.

CaptainKraft wrote:4. I think that the "rules" for changing votes should be enforced. They are mentioned in the rules before we start, but the way people change their votes has been inconsistent at best. In order to make it easier to track who changes votes and how many votes there are at any given time, the previous vote should be crossed out and a new post should be added to the thread. (this is what the rules say, yet someone NOT doing this caused a huge conflict very recently). Voting has to be clear.

Well how would you suggest "enforcement"
A slap on the wrist?

Dock his pay?

Vote doesnt count?

It's a tricky matter and I'm not bashing your thought, just curious.

Slade wrote:

CaptainKraft wrote:4. I think that the "rules" for changing votes should be enforced. They are mentioned in the rules before we start, but the way people change their votes has been inconsistent at best. In order to make it easier to track who changes votes and how many votes there are at any given time, the previous vote should be crossed out and a new post should be added to the thread. (this is what the rules say, yet someone NOT doing this caused a huge conflict very recently). Voting has to be clear.

Well how would you suggest "enforcement"
A slap on the wrist?

Dock his pay?

Vote doesnt count?

It's a tricky matter and I'm not bashing your thought, just curious.

The moderated should simply pm then and remind them of the proper way to change votes.
If they continue to make the same mistake we can't really punish them for it because its really a minor mistake.

Slade wrote:

CaptainKraft wrote:4. I think that the "rules" for changing votes should be enforced. They are mentioned in the rules before we start, but the way people change their votes has been inconsistent at best. In order to make it easier to track who changes votes and how many votes there are at any given time, the previous vote should be crossed out and a new post should be added to the thread. (this is what the rules say, yet someone NOT doing this caused a huge conflict very recently). Voting has to be clear.

Well how would you suggest "enforcement"
A slap on the wrist?

Dock his pay?

Vote doesnt count?

It's a tricky matter and I'm not bashing your thought, just curious.

Emphasizing its importance when writing the rules and giving reminders for people committing the infraction should be enough to cut down on the problem.

Slade wrote:
Topics:

1. No player substitutions.
2. No GM/Player game discussion. (Rules two-way, yes. Strategy P ->GM yes, Strategy/Comments GM -> P no )
3. Create a user group for those participating in a game and restrict posting to official thread to that group.
4. Clear rules for vote changing and enforcement of said rules.

1. Agreed. Game should be more solid and we'll try to stray from that next time.
2. Guilty as charged, though I tend to just tell people that their strategy is "interesting" now.
3. Noted and also very easy to implement for the next round; it's not a problem. Should I drop dead people from the group?
4. The rules are pretty clear, not sure how to make them clearer. Also people on mobile seem to have a problem bolding/coloring their votes some time so maybe we could add an ASCII way of doing it.

Thanks for the critiques, keep them coming.

Snail wrote:

Slade wrote:
Topics:

1. No player substitutions.
2. No GM/Player game discussion. (Rules two-way, yes. Strategy P ->GM yes, Strategy/Comments GM -> P no )
3. Create a user group for those participating in a game and restrict posting to official thread to that group.
4. Clear rules for vote changing and enforcement of said rules.

1. Agreed. Game should be more solid and we'll try to stray from that next time.
2. Guilty as charged, though I tend to just tell people that their strategy is "interesting" now.
3. Noted and also very easy to implement for the next round; it's not a problem. Should I drop dead people from the group?
4. The rules are pretty clear, not sure how to make them clearer. Also people on mobile seem to have a problem bolding/coloring their votes some time so maybe we could add an ASCII way of doing it.

Thanks for the critiques, keep them coming.

The issue with voting is just that people are editing old posts rather than crossing it out and posting their new vote. The color/bold is irrelevant.

As far as the mobile issue, you could just have us write in all caps THIS IS MY VOTE, or something of that nature.

Snail wrote:3. Noted and also very easy to implement for the next round; it's not a problem. Should I drop dead people from the group?
4. The rules are pretty clear, not sure how to make them clearer. Also people on mobile seem to have a problem bolding/coloring their votes some time so maybe we could add an ASCII way of doing it.

3. Yes
4. Maybe a codeword or something like Captain said? IVOTE or whatever.

Introducing the topic of "neutral players" for discussion.

We all agree they can align and conive all they want when the other neutral(s) are alive, discussion is if they shoud be removed from the game once they have acieved their victory or not.

More on the subject of neutral players.
If a neutral player remains in the game after they have won their mini game, it in the end will always be a benefit for the wolves.
After time unless something extremely weird happens- when it gets late in game, all wolves know each other, yet villagers should still be guessing and debating on who is who.

Imagine if you will then- 5 villagers left, 3 wolves, and 1 neutral.
Villagers prob know 3 of them together but it's still just trust, can't be sure.
Wolves on the other hand by this point are almost surely in touch and communicating because they are designed to discover each other. This leaves the "chaos" causing neutral as an extra potential vote/arguement the villagers need to deal with/maybe vote for- while the wolves know for sure who is on their side.

Also- imagine the end game scenarios with 1 neutral 1 villager and 1 wolf left. Whichever side the neutral wants to play with has an advantage which they shouldn't have.
I get the arguement that the team should then just 'woo' the neutral- but personally I just feel that goes against the spirit of the game.

Thank you. (on phone, sorry if errors)

I think the neutral throws a little twist into the game that makes it a little less predictable. Not necessarily a bad thing if you ask me.

You also make a good point...

So, I am pretty much neutral (pun intended) on this one. It can be a bit more interesting if he is a wildcard, yet a bit more fair if he is not.

Slade wrote:More on the subject of neutral players.
If a neutral player remains in the game after they have won their mini game, it in the end will always be a benefit for the wolves.
After time unless something extremely weird happens- when it gets late in game, all wolves know each other, yet villagers should still be guessing and debating on who is who.

The wolves would still need to figure out who the neutral is lest they accidentally eat him one night. Eating a neutral is in effect the same as attacking a baned target.

Slade wrote:Also- imagine the end game scenarios with 1 neutral 1 villager and 1 wolf left. Whichever side the neutral wants to play with has an advantage which they shouldn't have.

Wrong. In this situation the wolves have already won because neutrals count neither towards villagers or wolves.

I do agree, however. From a roleplaying perspective, the neutral has no reason to stay in a werewolf-infested town after he's achieved his objective, and from a mechanical perspective he serves no purpose and cannot gain anything save for finishing his end on any bargains he might've struck.

Zed Di Dragon wrote:

Slade wrote:More on the subject of neutral players.
If a neutral player remains in the game after they have won their mini game, it in the end will always be a benefit for the wolves.
After time unless something extremely weird happens- when it gets late in game, all wolves know each other, yet villagers should still be guessing and debating on who is who.

The wolves would still need to figure out who the neutral is lest they accidentally eat him one night. Eating a neutral is in effect the same as attacking a baned target.

But they can with 100% accuracy by the Devil. The villagers do not have a 100% accurate reading.

Zed Di Dragon wrote:

Slade wrote:Also- imagine the end game scenarios with 1 neutral 1 villager and 1 wolf left. Whichever side the neutral wants to play with has an advantage which they shouldn't have.

Wrong. In this situation the wolves have already won because neutrals count neither towards villagers or wolves.

I mean as a vote. In the end it comes to who is standing last, a villager or a wolf. If it's one of the 3 each, the neutral's vote for a villager, or for a wolf- matters a lot. Through the whole game after the other neutral is dead, the living neutral could be the deciding vote but really he/she has no business being there.

I do agree, however. From a roleplaying perspective, the neutral has no reason to stay in a werewolf-infested town after he's achieved his objective, and from a mechanical perspective he serves no purpose and cannot gain anything save for finishing his end on any bargains he might've struck.

well that's good...

sooo...... we start again now yes?

Slade wrote:sooo...... we start again now yes?

AP exams end in two weeks, that might be a good time to consider starting.