The Rules: Roles (21 Players so far, max will be set to 22) - Evil: Wolves: 3 Traitor: 1 Good: Seer: 1 Guardian: 1 Tinker: 1 Masons: 3 Shaky Witness: 1 Neither Good or Bad Mayor (more on this below) Potential Other Roles (not assigned at the beginning of the game): Back-up seer: 1 Back-up wolf: 1 This game is set in the future and you have all served as your city's representative in the global werewolf resistance. It was thought that this resistance had cleared the earth of werewolves for good but that is no longer the case (more on this in Monday's write up!). Three of the city leaders have been disposed of and replaced by werewolves. One of these wolves, The Alpha, will send a message to The Globe each day if they so wish. These 3 wolves do not know each other's identities. Each night, the wolves each chose to kill a city's leader. If a wolf picks another wolf as its kill, the wolf’s seniority will come into play: A wolf who tries to kill a wolf ‘up the chain’, will themselves be killed. A wolf who tries to kill a wolf ‘down the chain’ will not kill the wolf. They will however find out their identity. For example, if Beta tries to kill Alpha, Beta will die. If Beta tries to kill Gamma, no wolf dies and Beta finds out Gamma's identity. Traitor: One resistance leader has also sworn allegiance to the wolves. This leader knows the identity of all wolves and must try to protect them. Guardian: One leader of the resistance developed a werewolf shield during the war, which lasts for an entire night. Sadly, their resources are low but they can provide this shield to one chosen player each night. Once a player has been been shielded, they are unable to be shielded again in future. The Guardian can shield themselves if they wish. If the Guardian is chosen by the wolf, the wolf will kill the Guardian after they have carried out their protection (unless the Guardian has of course protected themselves). Seer: One of the members of the resistance can message The Globe each day to view a player. Upon viewing a player, they will be told if the player is good or evil. They can then respond to The Globe with a message to be posted to all players. Tinker: There is a tinker. The tinker will exist from the start and not be removed. If the seer views the tinker they will be viewed as evil, despite being on team good. The tinker does not know they are the tinker. Masons: Three members of Team Good formed a bond at one of the bloodiest battles of the war, the Battle of Howling Mountain. They know each others identities as a result, and know they are all good. They do not know any other players’ identities. An Apprentice Seer will be in the game and used based on my decision as to how the game is going. Mayor: At the beginning of each day, I will randomly draw one player’s name from the list of all players, good and evil. I will notify all of the players in the morning write up as to who today’s mayor is. Their vote will count as 2 rather than 1 for that day’s lynching only. This can be an advantage to good or evil. The mayor can only vote for one player as opposed to voting once for two different players. For logistical reasons, once the mayor has placed their vote, The Globe will vote for the same player, to signify the mayor's second vote. EDIT: A player cannot be a mayor more than once. Mayors will cease to exists when the game has less than 9 players. Shaky Witness: Before the game starts, I will provide the shaky witness with the name of one player. This player will be randomly drawn from the following pool: 3 Wolves Traitor Tinker 2 Randomly Selected Good Players This knowledge might prove valuable the longer the games goes on, as allegiances are potentially unearthed. We have quite a large game so there will be a lot of normal villagers. I've added the Mayor to counter that to an extent and thought the Shaky Witness might be another role I could add. A full moon may be used at some point to create another wolf or wolves. The new wolf will not be the seer, traitor or the guardian. It may be the tinker (if the tinker exists in the game) and it may be a player already viewed as good by the seer. I will make a decision based on the game status as to whether or not it can be a mason and I will make it clear if the masons were included in the random 'new wolf' generation. The seer and wolves can either message me privately on this site (either The Globe or nornironhorn account, the nornironhorn one would be preferable though if you don’t wish to email as I’m more likely to be on it), or email watfordwerewolf@yahoo.com. Diamond mentioned you can see when someone is typing a private mail so maybe better to email. Messages will be pasted by The Globe account along with timestamps as per normal. No players are permitted to make contact outside the game, even if players know of each others roles (eg Masons, Traitor, etc.) Anonymous accounts: You will all be provided with an anonymous account and password. These passwords have been randomly generated, there is no links between different cities’ passwords (ie they are not all sports teams, colours, etc). Please don’t change passwords as the accounts were set-up with temporary email addresses so won’t be recoverable. If you have any issues, message me. Access will be granted to the entire forum (excluding cemetery) with these accounts so that you can browse other threads without having to log in and out. I don’t see any issue with commenting on non-werewolf threads using these anonymous accounts if you don’t want to log in to your normal account. Remember these accounts aren’t anonymous to me so they are traceable in that sense (although everyone on here is an experienced poster so I doubt there will be any issues anyway). Feel free to copy other user’s posting styles when using your anonymous accounts, etc. but I’d prefer it if user’s genuine names weren’t brought into the game. By all means, copy User X’s (for example, steve harrow) playing style, language, etc, if you wish, but don’t explicitly claim to be User X. In the cemetery, there will be a post hidden by spoiler tags that will link the city accounts to genuine accounts. Finally, there are no clues in city names, flags, etc. For example, three cities geographically close together are no more likely to be masons than 3 cities spread over the world. City names and roles will be completely randomised, as will the assignment of city names to users. Norwayhornet is as likely to be Oslo for example as anyone else is. EDIT (forgot the more generic rules, nothing new here): The game will start at 9am on Monday 27th April. Each day's play will begin around 9am and end at either 8pm, or when all votes have been cast, whichever is earliest. Players who do not vote or contribute will be killed that night. The game will take a break for the weekend and will run Monday - Friday. Voting ties will be separated by a public gambling event (possibly virtual). Once you have voted, you cannot change your vote. Same goes for messages with a kill or a viewing. Werewolves win when there are an equal number of good players and evil players. Villagers win when they have killed the wolf/wolves.
So we can't say who we really are or make a claim who we think others may be - Is that right? No main user names at all?
I felt that it is best to leave genuine usernames completely out of it, but happy to change if others want to speculate. Although I'm not sure what the benefit would be in speculating the City Z is User X for example.
No, they would only know that the person's name I have given them is one of those 6/7 roles. EDIT: My thinking was that the longer the shaky witness survived, the more valuable the info they get is. For example, if the seer asks about a tinker and finds out there is no tinker, the shaky witness can rule their given name out as being a tinker. They then know there was a 2 in 3 chance they got an evil player. If someone evil is lynched or killed during the game, the shaky witness can maybe look for clues in the play between the name they have been given and the killed evil player. They would need to be careful though to keep their cards close to their chest for a while though as it might also add some paranoia to the wolves game too. They'd ideally like the shaky witness dead as there is a chance the shaky witness knows they are evil and the longer the witness is alive, the stronger their feelings will be about the name given (hopefully).
Just to see if we can pick them out by style alone more than anything. I'll keep my own list and see how close I get.
Ah, of course there is no issue with that! Kind of like a side game in itself. I just mean in the daily threads there is probably no need for players to 'accuse' other players of being a particular user.
Norn when are you going to give out game accounts ? A bit concerned by random generated passwords as will during earlynpart of day will be using Norwegian keyboard top row is different.
I'm giving @Grrwood another day to respond as he hasn't been online since yesterday lunch time. I can change the password for you if it is going to be an issue but they are all a word followed by a number or two - no special characters, etc. Shouldn't be any issues for you.
Will someone only ever be a mayor once? i.e. after a person has been made mayor once, are they kept "in the hat" and so could be randomly selected again another day, or are they taken off the list? And if there are say 5 remaining players and they have all been mayor before, will there just be no mayor?
Not sure about the tinker thing. I'd suggest on the first day, probability wise it would definitely be best for the Seer to ask if there was a tinker as this information is going to be useful to Good either way. If they viewed them as a regular view, would it be revealed they were the Tinker? Always feel sorry for the Tinker, don't think I've ever seen someone argue their way out of it once viewed. Thanks again for setting this game up by the way, really appreciate the effort you're putting in and will help the next week of lockdown pass a lot quicker.
The shaky witness sounds cool, but I’m not sure about it. If I got the role, I’d announce immediately that I am the shady witness and give the names provided to me. I’d ask if anyone else wants to come forward and claim they have the role. If one of the names on the list says they have the role, then that’s one person who immediately looks very guilty. If the village kill me, I’d be confirmed good, and the seer has a small list of names to select from. The wolves also can’t really kill that role, as it will confirm that the person in the role is good.
Will you enforce early messages, at least on the first day or 2? This seems to have worked well in recent games. In previous games the first few days have been really slow if one or both messages don't come in until very late (if at all).
I see your point but maybe to balance that out one of the players in the pool could be the Seer? If that were the case, the Witness would have to be a lot more careful about revealing the name as the Seer would not want to “out” themselves so early on.
I'm also not convinced by the not being told if there's a tinker thing - as you say it'd probably be the case that the most sensible thing to do will be for the seer to ask to ask if there's a tinker on the first day, in which case all nornironhorn's decision has done/will do is simply mean that team good start the game guaranteed to be wasting the first day without a viewing - which to me is not so interesting. I'd rather we just knew at the beginning, so we could get on with the game and the more interesting task of the viewings from the beginning. Such a decision/rule would only make sense if nornironhorn thinks it would make the game more balanced if team good effectively starts the game 1 viewing behind. Another question on that - would we still get a message from the seer on the day they ask if there's a tinker? Could the wolf then also just lie and say they asked and were told there was/wasn't a tinker?
To clarify, the shaky witness gets one name only. They just know that the one name was randomly drawn from the aforementioned pool of players. They do not get the entire list of players from the pool. When the shaky witness gets that name, it won't mean much to them. If the shaky witness can stay alive for a few days and player allegiances are found out, then maybe the information becomes more useful as the shaky witness will likely have closely monitored the named player's activity. I'll have a think about the tinker thing again too.
To clarify my proposed tinker role: Player X is the tinker: The seer asks to view X. They are told X is evil. The seer asks if there is a tinker. They are told that there is a tinker and that x is the tinker. There is no tinker: The seer asks if there is a tinker. They are told that there is no tinker. I wanted to 'even the game up' a little for Team Evil by introducing this role but happy to scrap it too. Re: The Mayor, I don't think there is any issue with someone being a mayor more than once. It will be completely random.
I don't see the point of this, as already mentioned by SLB and I, it would only just guarantee that the seer uses/wastes their first view on asking if there is a tinker or not. How will this actually make the game more interesting?
The only potential problem might be towards the end of the game - if/when it gets down to only say 5-6 remaining players, someone getting to be the mayor could be too influential. If a player can only be mayor once it might reduce the chances of there being a mayor at the end when each vote matters more. That could be a negative, though on the other hand it could also be amusing to have the extra element of chaos/randomness thrown in to the mix, making it more difficult to predict the possible outcome.
Would it? I'm sure there are plenty of players in the game who wouldn't bother asking, especially not on Day 1. For example, if I was the seer I'd approach it like this: 50% chance there is a tinker in the game. 20 odd players playing and I only know my role. I have 20 to choose from to view on Day 1. Of those, there is usually a 1 in 20 chance that I could pick a tinker. This time the chance is reduced as there may not be a tinker. Do I ask if there is a tinker? I have a 50% chance of knowing for sure someone is good and removing a challenging obstacle for team good. Or do I take a stab in the dark and hope I don't get the tinker on Day 1. After all, if I take a stab in the dark I'm much more likely to get an evil player. As I said, happy to remove it though.
I could always stop the mayor role when the game size gets below a certain point. In the last game, if dom/steve had become the mayor on the final day there is a good chance evil would have won. On one hand, it would be unfair on Team Good who won when everyone only had one vote, but on the other it would have rewarded evil for good play throughout in getting two players to the end of the game.
Current thoughts: Keep shaky witness Remove tinker ambiguity (either have a tinker or don't and announce it from the start) Have a mayor for the first X days.
That's still much better odds of "knowing for sure someone is good" than taking a stab in the dark to try and get an evil player, especially when you won't even know yet if that evil player is actually evil or potentially just the tinker. I'd agree with removing the tinker ambiguity - it seems more an unnecessary time-wasting annoyance, rather than challenging obstacle.
Oh sorry, that makes sense. It' a very limited, but fun addition then. Keep. I see the rationale, but I don't really think you need to balance up the game that much, as the anonymous accounts will make it easier for team evil to stay hidden. I think the potential for a wasted viewing without any information for the seer is definitely overpowered for team evil. Given the balance of werewolf often comes down to a single crucial day, getting no information on a day could be unrecoverable for good. The likelihood of viewing a tinker is much smaller than the likelihood of viewing an evil, so tinkers don't often cause too much confusion. This rule change would ensure that a tinker is a core focus of the game. If the viewing is delivered in the usual message format, this would be an easy get out for a wolf to avoid naming a player (thus making it harder to work out who is good later in the game) whilst also sowing immediate confusion.
Rules now edited, edits in italics. The Shaky Witness stays (probably a bit like the masons in that this role will be useless in some games but sure). A player cannot become Mayor twice. The role of the Mayor ceases to exist when the game has less than 9 players. There will be a tinker in this game. This role will be the same as usual. The seer can no longer ask if there is a tinker and be told of the tinker's identity.
The City has now been randomly drawn that I will be giving to the Shaky Witness at the start of the game. The logic used was as follows: The pool of players the city was randomly pulled from: Alpha Wolf Beta Wolf Gamma Wolf Traitor Tinker Good Player 1 Good Player 2 Good Player 1 & 2 where themselves randomly selected from the list of all good players, including special roles (minus of course the Shaky Witness themselves).
Anonymous user account details now sent out. Let me know if there are any issues logging in. Preferably by messaging this account but I'll obviously be keeping an eye on The Globe account as well before the game begins.
Will you be messaging us through our country accounts or personal ones? Just thinking if we use these anonymous countries again the old messages will still be there from previous games unless they can all be deleted.
I'll probably message the roles out via the country accounts but that will likely be it. If the Alpha/Seer/Guardian don't want to email the address I posted then they will be messaging via their accounts too. In reality though, it shouldn't make much difference going forward. At the end of the game the list of usernames/cities/roles will be made available so everyone can see who was who. If someone else wants to use the random accounts again in future they'll likely randomly allocate them all again. If someone using their city account has been messaging me (eg the seer), I'll delete the messages from their account once the games ends to be safe anyway. If the only message history is me giving the player a role, I won't bother.
