Werewolf discussion thread

Drumpot

Just a few thoughts on the rules . . Particularly if there are aspects of the game that the Mods do not want discussed, these need to be clear (I'm thinking of the doll thing). I know it makes sense to think "well why would they want one person simply saying they will give the doll to the person who would benefit their team", but when you are in game, you are looking for ways of helping your team. If this wasn't clarified (DO NOT TELL THE GROUP WHO HAS THE DOLL), you get it in your mind that its fair game (or at least not a major issue).

On reflection, I see why the Mods would be pissed, but there are a lot of things left ambiguous in many of these games. I had to PM the mods several times enquiring about my role (can you drop coin same person - Do NRV get informed that I have coined them) which led me to believe that elements of the game were still being ironed out as we went along (which is fine BTW). Particularly when you don't get a response from the Mods , you sort of think "well they obviously don't think its important I know the answer to this so I will sort of wing it". It means I try to wing other things and if I think well "How about this strategy of the Doll, why don't we get your man to come out and I can give him the doll". I am thinking, there is nothing in the rules saying I cant say I have the doll (at least I didn't think there was, I didn't check to be fair so that's on me) and there is nothing saying the character cant say "hello" so the village can use this to our advantage. In hindsight, this does look like the whole "mass character reveal" spoiler issue, but I genuinely didn't think I was doing anything wrong at the time.

For me, in future, I will try and PM mods if I am unsure of a strategy. I don't want to cheat and don't want people to think I am trying to win at all costs. Perhaps that should be included in the Rules (highlighted) that if you have an idea that involves role reveals or reveals that may help one side but could potentially not in the spirit of the game, check with mods before publically posting. These may sound obvious to some people, but I personally get so involved in the game , I forget that just because something isn't spelt out in the rules, doesn't mean its fair game.

Triceratops Ballet

In general terms I would say, that players should be aware that mods aren't reading the game thread at the same time or with the same detail as the players, so things you think might be obviously pulled up as soon as you slip, we're possibly dealing with something else in the mod room, or somewhere else. I for one am primarily logged in on this account and not the WWGM account. I only generally log in on the GM account when I have something to post there. You also have to remember that there are 20+ other players looking for clarifications on things they should/shouldn't be given clarification on. I'm not saying we didn't make mistakes but I'm trying to offer perspective as a few people have accused us of ignoring their pm's.

If you have a back room the best process is to create a mod questions thread. As even in your general threads there can be so much chatter that the mods don't read it all but I will always read a mod questions thread if it has a notification.

sKeith

Drumpot wrote: »

Just a few thoughts on the rules . . Particularly if there are aspects of the game that the Mods do not want discussed, these need to be clear (I'm thinking of the doll thing). I know it makes sense to think "well why would they want one person simply saying they will give the doll to the person who would benefit their team", but when you are in game, you are looking for ways of helping your team. If this wasn't clarified (DO NOT TELL THE GROUP WHO HAS THE DOLL), you get it in your mind that its fair game (or at least not a major issue).

On reflection, I see why the Mods would be pissed, but there are a lot of things left ambiguous in many of these games. I had to PM the mods several times enquiring about my role (can you drop coin same person - Do NRV get informed that I have coined them) which led me to believe that elements of the game were still being ironed out as we went along (which is fine BTW). Particularly when you don't get a response from the Mods , you sort of think "well they obviously don't think its important I know the answer to this so I will sort of wing it". It means I try to wing other things and if I think well "How about this strategy of the Doll, why don't we get your man to come out and I can give him the doll". I am thinking, there is nothing in the rules saying I cant say I have the doll (at least I didn't think there was, I didn't check to be fair so that's on me) and there is nothing saying the character cant say "hello" so the village can use this to our advantage. In hindsight, this does look like the whole "mass character reveal" spoiler issue, but I genuinely didn't think I was doing anything wrong at the time.

For me, in future, I will try and PM mods if I am unsure of a strategy. I don't want to cheat and don't want people to think I am trying to win at all costs. Perhaps that should be included in the Rules (highlighted) that if you have an idea that involves role reveals or reveals that may help one side but could potentially not in the spirit of the game, check with mods before publically posting. These may sound obvious to some people, but I personally get so involved in the game , I forget that just because something isn't spelt out in the rules, doesn't mean its fair game.

did you just copy 3 of the paragraphs from your previous post and repost them? why?

Drumpot

sKeith wrote: »

did you just copy 3 of the paragraphs from your previous post and repost them? why?

Total accident ! ! Derp !

sKeith

Drumpot wrote: »

Total accident ! ! Derp !

cool cool.. i just didn't want to commit to reading it again if it was the same.
thanks

Triceratops Ballet

side note, the spirit of the rules means the intentions with which the rules were written. It's a principle that exists in common law. It doesn't imply "cheating" any more than "breaking the rules"

I think a common sense approach to the rules is a superior one as when rules are written and to be obeyed to the letter they are very inflexible and we'll end up with pages and pages of them

Drumpot

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

In general terms I would say, that players should be aware that mods aren't reading the game thread at the same time or with the same detail as the players, so things you think might be obviously pulled up as soon as you slip, we're possibly dealing with something else in the mod room, or somewhere else. I for one am primarily logged in on this account and not the WWGM account. I only generally log in on the GM account when I have something to post there. You also have to remember that there are 20+ other players looking for clarifications on things they should/shouldn't be given clarification on. I'm not saying we didn't make mistakes but I'm trying to offer perspective as a few people have accused us of ignoring their pm's.

If you have a back room the best process is to create a mod questions thread. As even in your general threads there can be so much chatter that the mods don't read it all but I will always read a mod questions thread if it has a notification.

This is something I completely forgot and didn't factor. . At the time I was PM'ing you, as far as I was concerned my punishment was the only thing you guys were dealing it.

I think not modding a game means I cannot fathom or consider how much work you guys put into the game. There is almost a selfish expectancy that you should of realised I wasn't trying to f**k things up. .

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

side note, the spirit of the rules means the intentions with which the rules were written. It's a principle that exists in common law. It doesn't imply "cheating" any more than "breaking the rules"

I think a common sense approach to the rules is a superior one as when rules are written and to be obeyed to the letter they are very inflexible and we'll end up with pages and pages of them

It may not imply "cheating" but I felt that you guys deciding to kill my character suggested you guys felt I was blatantly trying to unsettle the game to the point that you needed to completely shut me down. I felt you might aswell of mod killed me, so what is the difference really between somebody intentionally trying to cheat and ruin the game or me simply being lazy/ignorant/confused with regards to the "spirit rule"?

If you are going to take an absolute approach with the rules that are kind of open to interpretation I wont be playing this game. Not because I disagree with people following the rules but because it doesn't allow much room for human error or people getting caught up in the game. I get far too caught up in the game for my own good which isn't anybody elses problem, fault or responsibility but mine. It shouldn't allow the game to be ruined, but if the mods are going to take as stern approach to my mistakes as happened in this game there really is not point in me playing. I cant say I wont make those mistakes again. All I can ask is that I am judged in my general behaviour.

Triceratops Ballet

Drumpot wrote: »

It may not imply "cheating" but I felt that you guys deciding to kill my character suggested you guys felt I was blatantly trying to unsettle the game to the point that you needed to completely shut me down. I felt you might aswell of mod killed me, so what is the difference really between somebody intentionally trying to cheat and ruin the game or me simply being lazy/ignorant/confused with regards to the "spirit rule"?

Well the spirit thing imo is what happened here I didn't think you were trying to intentionally break the game but despite receiving a pm advising you not to push the doll thing, you persisted and we had to intervene.

Intentional cheating again imo would be pm'ing other players, talking about the game on another thread somewhere else on boards or change of plan.

Your actions aren't what broke the game, you just broke some rules and we had to take action on them.

Drumpot

Just throwing it out there as a future suggestion . .

Lets say the mods aren't sure how to deal with somebody and aren't sure of their intentions I terms of disrupting the game. Instead of mod killing them you could put it to the group? Have a "special lynch" that everybody votes on and if the majority votes to lynch the character they get lynched . . Considering the issues mods prob have trying to make decisions and the have to argue with people when they have made decisions, would there be times when this might help ?

I'm guessing previous mods will point out the limitations of this idea, but it also means you can take in game players opinions into consideration (is this player disruptive or at least adding to the fun) without having to contact everybody individually or actually reading the game thread at all . . Let the village decide and move on . .

Might actually be able to make a stressful thing for the mods into a bit of fun for everybody, except possibly the person in trouble, but its an interesting alternative to stripping them of powers or modkill. Also makes a really strong point to the person in trouble . .

sKeith

Rule 2.
The Troll The Wolf Team cannot pass the troll amongst themselves, they must always pass it to another team. Discussion of the troll is not banned, but discouraged. Requesting the troll on thread is banned.



Maybe, discussion of the troll should have been banned altogether.
The cannot pass between wolf team fixed one half of the issue but
the other half is what happens if a goodie has it. They dont have this knowledge of who is on their team.
They are going to try to give it to good troy or another goodie. How do they do this? they are going to explore ideas, and as discussion was not banned, people will test the boundaries of discussion.

andy125

What did I miss....

sKeith

I'm not innocent here, I tested it 4 hours in, by substituting the word doll for troll.

The way I look at it is, any game is the mods game they designed it and people agree to play it. The spirit of the game is in many ways to me at least, is to play how the mods setup the game to be played and if there are some ambiguities with the rules, if you get direction you follow their guidelines.

Everytime someone has modded here recently they have tried to come up with new things to make thier game better but fun interesting, the downside of this of course is its like an experiment and things will get overlooked untill it is tested.

We have had oversights in loads of games and like strawbs said in the game played over on change of planes, she could have used one to her advantage but chose to put the game ahead first.

We all want to win to some degree but if problems do keep occuring, then games will naturally revert back to vanilla type games, nothing wrong with that either but maybe not as much fun. (certainly less work for mods)

If we keep going in the vain we are and stretching the game to its limits to see what would be cool, fun, entertaining, then we as a group have to take on an experimental mindset that everything wont be perfect but try to play within the realms of how the mods intended.

I know people aren't mind readers but surely there is a healthy balance to be struck in there somewhere.

Necro

andy125 wrote:

What did I miss....

Carnage. Absolute carnage. Some people even died :P

andy125

Necrominus wrote: »

Carnage. Absolute carnage. Some people even died :P

So a normal game of ww then

sKeith

what were the ACB's winning conditions? would they not count towards the parity and is, if (3 wolves left and 4 NRVs and the ACB ) and wolves munch a nrv, its game over wolves win?

sKeith

sKeith wrote: »

what were the ACB's winning conditions? would they not count towards the parity and is, if (3 wolves left and 4 NRVs and the ACB ) and wolves munch a nrv, its game over wolves win?

I thought ACB was a goodie, no?

He was under "Save Greendale Committee" along with Chang

Baggly

Drumpot wrote: »

Just a few thoughts on the rules . . Particularly if there are aspects of the game that the Mods do not want discussed, these need to be clear (I'm thinking of the doll thing). I know it makes sense to think "well why would they want one person simply saying they will give the doll to the person who would benefit their team", but when you are in game, you are looking for ways of helping your team. If this wasn't clarified (DO NOT TELL THE GROUP WHO HAS THE DOLL), you get it in your mind that its fair game (or at least not a major issue).

On reflection, I see why the Mods would be pissed, but there are a lot of things left ambiguous in many of these games. I had to PM the mods several times enquiring about my role (can you drop coin same person - Do NRV get informed that I have coined them) which led me to believe that elements of the game were still being ironed out as we went along (which is fine BTW). Particularly when you don't get a response from the Mods , you sort of think "well they obviously don't think its important I know the answer to this so I will sort of wing it". It means I try to wing other things and if I think well "How about this strategy of the Doll, why don't we get your man to come out and I can give him the doll". I am thinking, there is nothing in the rules saying I cant say I have the doll (at least I didn't think there was, I didn't check to be fair so that's on me) and there is nothing saying the character cant say "hello" so the village can use this to our advantage. In hindsight, this does look like the whole "mass character reveal" spoiler issue, but I genuinely didn't think I was doing anything wrong at the time.

For me, in future, I will try and PM mods if I am unsure of a strategy. I don't want to cheat and don't want people to think I am trying to win at all costs. Perhaps that should be included in the Rules (highlighted) that if you have an idea that involves role reveals or reveals that may help one side but could potentially not in the spirit of the game, check with mods before publically posting. These may sound obvious to some people, but I personally get so involved in the game , I forget that just because something isn't spelt out in the rules, doesn't mean its fair game.

I think it would be a shame if you didnt keep playing. I dont think any mods start off looking to screw anyone over with the rules, but if you get caught up and do something wrong (and you can even see that now with a clear head) its fair enough if you are pulled up on it. Its nothing personal and from what i have seen since the game, the mods dont mind because you held your hands up.

I, for one, would hope you would play the next game anyway! I think its gonna be fun!!

Digital Solitude

Drumpot wrote: »

It may not imply "cheating" but I felt that you guys deciding to kill my character suggested you guys felt I was blatantly trying to unsettle the game to the point that you needed to completely shut me down. I felt you might aswell of mod killed me, so what is the difference really between somebody intentionally trying to cheat and ruin the game or me simple being lazy/ignorant/confused with regards to the "spirit rule"?

From a neutral stance, there isn't a difference. If you break the rules, there need to be repercussions. I get what you're saying about what's the difference between cheating the rule and accidentally overstepping it Drumpot, but we worded it as best we could for our own vision for the game. Regardless of if you were cheating or not (and I don't think you were, and wouldn't accuse you of such), you would have told us you weren't cheating either way.

We don't really have much of a choice but to enforce a punishment of some sort with the rule in place, and the warning administered.

If you are going to take an absolute approach with the rules that are kind of open to interpretation I wont be playing this game.

This is one thing we as a group need to take away from the scenario. I know sKeith has said it above, but retrospectively it was an awful way of wording the rule.

I know I've even said above " it was our vision for the game" and we shouldn't have had a vision in view where all of you would read the rules and understand what we were getting at, that was a recipe for disaster from the start, it just took a major **** hitting the fan before it was realised.

Digital Solitude

sKeith wrote: »

what were the ACB's winning conditions? would they not count towards the parity and is, if (3 wolves left and 4 NRVs and the ACB ) and wolves munch a nrv, its game over wolves win?

ACB was a goodie in terms of parity, that's why he became NRV.

As for why we didn't kill Derry outright, no mod wants to have to kill a player when there are other options to take. I don't think any of us realised how disheartening that would have been in hindsight.

sKeith

Digital Solitude wrote: »

ACB was a goodie in terms of parity, that's why he became NRV.

As for why we didn't kill Derry outright, no mod wants to have to kill a player when there are other options to take. I don't think any of us realised how disheartening that would have been in hindsight.

Okay, then, with this winning condition in mind, the mods had a different vision than the game setup or OP suggests.

ACB was told they are neutral and to cause mayhem. role and in BR. Was put into baddies rooms, but, to win, they need the goodies to win.

at one point, a game mod said, derry is not playing according to rule 8, he seems to think he is on good side. Rule 8 is , in it to win it. him thinking he is a goodie should not be violating rule 8 , its actually following it.

Was this confusion deliberate?

Digital Solitude

sKeith wrote: »

Okay, then, with this winning condition in mind, the mods had a different vision than the game setup or OP suggests.

ACB was told they are neutral and to cause mayhem. role and in BR. Was put into baddies rooms, but, to win, they need the goodies to win.

at one point, a game mod said, derry is not playing according to rule 8, he seems to think he is on good side. Rule 8 is , in it to win it. him thinking he is a goodie should not be violating rule 8 , its actually following it.

Was this confusion deliberate?

Nope, I don't have any rebuttal other than you got us there. It wasn't discussed, I can't remember if myself or Dottie wrote the ACB role, but it would appear we had differing assumptions on it, and we've been caught out.

mahamageehad

Drumpot wrote: »

Just throwing it out there as a future suggestion . .

Lets say the mods aren't sure how to deal with somebody and aren't sure of their intentions I terms of disrupting the game. Instead of mod killing them you could put it to the group? Have a "special lynch" that everybody votes on and if the majority votes to lynch the character they get lynched . . Considering the issues mods prob have trying to make decisions and the have to argue with people when they have made decisions, would there be times when this might help ?

I'm guessing previous mods will point out the limitations of this idea, but it also means you can take in game players opinions into consideration (is this player disruptive or at least adding to the fun) without having to contact everybody individually or actually reading the game thread at all . . Let the village decide and move on . .

Might actually be able to make a stressful thing for the mods into a bit of fun for everybody, except possibly the person in trouble, but its an interesting alternative to stripping them of powers or modkill. Also makes a really strong point to the person in trouble . .

Previous mod stepping in with a limitation. :pac:

Having a vote like this would take what could be a minor infraction that needed to be corrected and make a mountain out of a molehill. Usually the mods either talk it out themselves, talk it out with the deadroom or both. I even put in the mod help thread to use the deadroom as much as possible coz often as a mod you're too close to the rules and you've chopped and changed so much that you know what you meant, but others may read it differently. So a vote like this would completely derail the thread for a few hours instead of the forget it and move on mentality we've used previously.

The other big problem is, as Digi said previously, often there are a few issues for the mods to deal with - mod kills, inactive players, rule breaks, power changes etc. that the players may not be aware of, so the don't have a birds eye view of what's right to do or fair. The dead room often have a better grasp on those facts, but you can't tell active players during a game something like "well John has been mod killed, and he was the SK, so the village are already at a massive advantage so we're not granting a request for extra bullets" you get what I mean??

I would say defo don't give up on the game. after a few they get a bit less intense, they did for me anyways.

sKeith

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Nope, I don't have any rebuttal other than you got us there. It wasn't discussed, I can't remember if myself or Dottie wrote the ACB role, but it would appear we had differing assumptions on it, and we've been caught out.

i'm not trying to catch anyone out. pfft.. was just trying to understand for myself.

mahamageehad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The way I look at it is, any game is the mods game they designed it and people agree to play it. The spirit of the game is in many ways to me at least, is to play how the mods setup the game to be played and if there are some ambiguities with the rules, if you get direction you follow their guidelines.

Everytime someone has modded here recently they have tried to come up with new things to make thier game better but fun interesting, the downside of this of course is its like an experiment and things will get overlooked untill it is tested.

We have had oversights in loads of games and like strawbs said in the game played over on change of planes, she could have used one to her advantage but chose to put the game ahead first.

We all want to win to some degree but if problems do keep occuring, then games will naturally revert back to vanilla type games, nothing wrong with that either but maybe not as much fun. (certainly less work for mods)

If we keep going in the vain we are and stretching the game to its limits to see what would be cool, fun, entertaining, then we as a group have to take on an experimental mindset that everything wont be perfect but try to play within the realms of how the mods intended.

I know people aren't mind readers but surely there is a healthy balance to be struck in there somewhere.

Agreed. Theres defo a middle ground to be found. We must be nearly overdue a vanilla game by now. :P

I completely understand mods wanting to make their game unique. Sure, we tried that and made a mess of it! :P Tis a constant rolling experiment. I said afterwards that we tried to do too much, and that if I ever modded again and I wanted to stay complex, I'd cap the numbers way earlier. The more moving parts you have, the easier it is to miss something game breaky (like how giving everyone a character name could backfire! :P)

sKeith

sKeith wrote: »

i'm not trying to catch anyone out. pfft.. was just trying to understand for myself.

I think he was neutral in terms of being able to cause mayhem to the bad team as well as the good team, from reading before I think neutral players nearly always count towards a village win. He was listed under the good roles in the OP and the reason he was in the bad rooms in the back rooms was down to logistics from what I read.

Digital Solitude

sKeith wrote: »

i'm not trying to catch anyone out. pfft.. was just trying to understand for myself.

I know, but look at what it says about the decisions we've made.

In light of this, I'm sorry Drumpot, you got the short end of the stick regards positioning and your role in the game shouldn't have been so muddied.

mahamageehad

mahamageehad wrote: »

Agreed. Theres defo a middle ground to be found. We must be nearly overdue a vanilla game by now. :P

I completely understand mods wanting to make their game unique. Sure, we tried that and made a mess of it! :P Tis a constant rolling experiment. I said afterwards that we tried to do too much, and that if I ever modded again and I wanted to stay complex, I'd cap the numbers way earlier. The more moving parts you have, the easier it is to miss something game breaky (like how giving everyone a character name could backfire! :P)

Ya I agree like everyone has a responsibility in some ways mods. To make a fair game and players to play a fair game. These things can easily be accidentally overlooked which is part and parcel of everything.

But just like mods shouldn't purposely engineer a unbalanced game for one team or one player. Players shouldn't try break a game due to an oversight my the mods (IMO)

There are no games if there are no mods and a worry of mine would be people would eventually just not be arsed to do it if it causes too much hassle.

sKeith

I shudder thinking about MU. its so sterile. I prefer the way we have it, mistakes and all, to the robotic automated approach.

sKeith

we are human after all, no?