Lars Werewolf Game 3: [Game is ended]

[ezmate]

My night-by-night thoughts on who to kill:

1 Sure, why not kill ND...I work with him...I'd be freed up to taunt him. Plus, he sometimes gets smart.

2. I wanted Grund dead, but was told that suspicion for him was building & the village would lynch him.

3. Pushed to start killing unknowns rather than the "block". I thought that Grund might be the seer, but was quickly convinced that he was too much of a target to be the seer.

4. Grund was WAY too close with his list...he really had to die.

5. Soulbrother#1 was an easy choice...

6. With the Seer dead, start working on the known block. Killed Usul because he was unlikely to be protected AND it would stop Remus from discussing his ideas with someone.

7. Remus finally got something right?! Did you see his list, too? Well, he has to die. If he hadn't killed Nameless, we would have killed tru1cy.

8. tru1cy - Last known person to be eaten. If it came down to it, Bakhtosh was next, followed by Lord Mortis.

[ezmate]

Couldn't help but laugh when Grund got so close on the list to getting everyone minus Ezmate.

And as I told Lars in private, I suspected ezmate only after it was too late, and couldn't make a case against him when I was building my list.

(I also suspected Crux, and couldn't make a case against him. I chose to include Crux rather than ezmate on a gut hunch that didn't pay off.)

As I mentioned to Leigh in PM, ezmate seemed extremely innocent-- so much so that it would be shocking to discover that he was a werewolf. That fact itself-- that I would've been shocked to learn of his guilt-- was the thing that most nagged at me. Well done, ezmate!

Thanks Grund.

Just so you know, the hate I spewed at you ("You're a condescending SOB! You suck! You're confusing...")...it was all play acting. You were at the top of my list of people to eat from the 2nd night...I wanted the villagers to lynch you. I loved reading your posts...they were very insightful, but they scared the hell out of me.

I also attribute my pristine image to the fact that I'm an unknown around here...and I was able to play dumb & ignorant when it suited me.

We lynched and that list became history. That was a happy day.

I still don't understand why nobody on the village team discussed my list after I was killed for it. The idea that lists could get a person into trouble was certainly floating around (e.g., Leigh's list). I had even demonstrated my good faith (the evening I sensed I was going to die) by trying to exonerate innocents (Genghis, Soulbro) and by outing Nameless.

Any feedback on why my list was dropped would be most welcome!

I don't know why it was dropped. Perhaps it was because there were so many lists? Perhaps you didn't give enough logic to them (i.e. Here's the story of Nameless. Because of X, Y, & Z, I believe him to be guilty). I don't know why it was dropped, but I was VERY happy it was dropped.

[LordMortis]

I don't know that lists are ever dropped. But they are used to reinforce what we believe we know or what we would like to believe.

I had no reason to call attention to your list. You were dead and innocent and irrelevant for my purposes.

[msteelers]

What made the block powerful is that you couldn't vote for anyone on that list because they were all known innocents. And two of them could communicate at night. Other than that they were working off of the same information everyone else was working on, other than the seer and sorc.

But it only takes a few rounds and some luck and the seer has the same block built up.

You did the right thing going after the seer. And you also got helped out a little bit that Remus wasn't able to guess a wolf. All it would have taken really was for one wolf to be lynched and the game could have changed somewhat.

[LordMortis]

What made the block powerful is that you couldn't vote for anyone on that list because they were all known innocents. And two of them could communicate at night.

To me that huge. And on turn 2 yet. It was a bad situation for he wolves to be in. You can't argue against it and the longer you let it let it live the stronger it is in it's incontravertablity.

But it only takes a few rounds and some luck and the seer has the same block built up.

It takes a lot of luck and trust. There is no back room dealing and double dealing. At least that was my thought.

You did the right thing going after the seer.

And I continue to be dense. I guess some people you just can't reach.

[msteelers]

What made the block powerful is that you couldn't vote for anyone on that list because they were all known innocents. And two of them could communicate at night.

To me that huge. And on turn 2 yet. It was a bad situation for he wolves to be in. You can't argue against it and the longer you let it let it live the stronger it is in it's incontravertablity.

But it only takes a few rounds and some luck and the seer has the same block built up.

It takes a lot of luck and trust. There is no back room dealing and double dealing. At least that was my thought.

You did the right thing going after the seer.

And I continue to be dense. I guess some people you just can't reach.

Well look at it this way, with all of the blocks information, they still didn't get a wolf until it was almost too late. At best they were still guessing, and would always be guessing.

At some point the seer could come forward and tell what he knows. At best he lists all of the wolves. Then it doesn't matter if he is eaten or not. As long as the village votes based off of the list, they will either find that they are all wolves, or they will find an innocent or two and realize that they were lied to.

Chances are the seer comes out with a group of innocents and a group of wolves. If you lynch the wolves and they turn out to be evil, then it is a good bet that the innocents are exactly that, innocents. Then you have another voting block.

[tru1cy]

Let me say well played by everyone. I like the limited PM's as it forces people to post.

Things I like to see changed:

The WW Hunter role was seriously gimped. I like the old rule that if WW hit the hunter he dies, but takes one with him

Active posting. In a game where PM's are limited everyone needs to post. The lack of information from post hurt the village most of all. We need more than just names

Medium and Priest powers one shot deal needs to be increases. Maybe give them a 2-3 shot deal. With a game this big we can allow it

That's all I can think of at the moment. I would certainly be up for another game of this type

[Remus West]

Let me try here LM, our block was working on less information than every other player in the game. Everyone knew our roles AND their roles. We only knew our roles. Our information was never going to grow in the 100% right manner that the seer's was. We would always be guessing. So while killing us removes chunks for the village to rally behind they allow the seer time to build a similar block plus himself thus a block of 4 rather than 3. Or the seer outs some wolves while we are just guessing at them. 3 turns to kill us = 3 turns for the seer to build his knowledge. Had they killed us the seer would have gutted them.

[Remus West]

I don't agree with people saying that the medium needs to be changed. Having a power whose use can make it 100% clear you are innocent is huge.

I do agree that gimping the hunter the way it was hurt the village but I don't think you give him the power to take a wolf with him no matter what. I think if he announces he is the hunter he should lose that power or else he can declare himself without worry and still take a wolf down. That way if the village were to lynch him he could announce himself and still be able to protect but would lose the ability to take a wolf down when they come after him specifically.

Also, the priest was useless, even if they were to come forward there is no way to verify their information at all without killing them.

[msteelers]

Let me say well played by everyone. I like the limited PM's as it forces people to post.

Things I like to see changed:

The WW Hunter role was seriously gimped. I like the old rule that if WW hit the hunter he dies, but takes one with him

Active posting. In a game where PM's are limited everyone needs to post. The lack of information from post hurt the village most of all. We need more than just names

Medium and Priest powers one shot deal needs to be increases. Maybe give them a 2-3 shot deal. With a game this big we can allow it

That's all I can think of at the moment. I would certainly be up for another game of this type

I agree about the WW Hunter role and killing a wolf if they vote to eat him at night. I also like the idea that the Hunter gets killed if he protects a wolf, but I brought that up at the end of some other game as well. I don't remember if it was Lars or Padre's version or whoevers, but I thought I would mention it again.

I think the medium is good for a one time deal, but I wouldn't mind having the priest be able to use his power 2 or 3 times. That can be a very powerful role but if you use it at the wrong time it is completely wasted.

And I agree about the active posting. I think with no PM's people should only sign on if they are willing to participate. But this thread is up over 45 pages long, so it's not like people weren't posting. I think the way to counteract this is to lynch people the first few rounds that look like they are not posting. Unfortunately for us yossar was the priest, but didn't he tell us to lynch him anyway? That I don't understand.

[msteelers]

I don't agree with people saying that the medium needs to be changed. Having a power whose use can make it 100% clear you are innocent is huge.

I do agree that gimping the hunter the way it was hurt the village but I don't think you give him the power to take a wolf with him no matter what. I think if he announces he is the hunter he should lose that power or else he can declare himself without worry and still take a wolf down. That way if the village were to lynch him he could announce himself and still be able to protect but would lose the ability to take a wolf down when they come after him specifically.

Also, the priest was useless, even if they were to come forward there is no way to verify their information at all without killing them.

That's a good idea. I like the idea of the hunter only being able to take a wolf down with him if his identity is still a secret.

[noxiousdog]

My night-by-night thoughts on who to kill:

1 Sure, why not kill ND...I work with him...I'd be freed up to taunt him.

[ezmate]

My night-by-night thoughts on who to kill:

1 Sure, why not kill ND...I work with him...I'd be freed up to taunt him.

Immediately after his death, I told ND that I had killed him. I never imagined that the first person to die would be brought forward in a seance.


I did have a moment of panic when the medium decided to have a seance with ND. I think I actually sent him an IM saying something like, "You aren't going to out me are you? You can only talk about things you learned in the game!"

Thankfully, he didn't out me! Phew!

[LordMortis]

Let me try here LM, our block was working on less information than every other player in the game. Everyone knew our roles AND their roles. We only knew our roles. Our information was never going to grow in the 100% right manner that the seer's was. We would always be guessing. So while killing us removes chunks for the village to rally behind they allow the seer time to build a similar block plus himself thus a block of 4 rather than 3. Or the seer outs some wolves while we are just guessing at them. 3 turns to kill us = 3 turns for the seer to build his knowledge. Had they killed us the seer would have gutted them.

But the seer is a trusted role then. Say for instance, if Nameless came out as he is being lynched and claimed to be the seer. Your certainty goes out the window. In the long run you have to test Nameless but you have to test any seer that would come out. And that's assuming that the seer makes it to a point where he feels comfortable enough to come forward and be doubted.

3 turns to kill you = 3 turns that the seer gets to add three less people to his block. The amount of innocents he gains is a wash where as he might get wolves.

The situation is the suck for the wolves either way. But it seems less of a suck to me to kill off what is known absolutely about the game that is not in their favor.

[Genghis]

Without PMs it makes the wolves job much easier. They know who they are and any death but their own benifits them. The villagers, other than the seer, have no way to confirm anyone execpt by lynching them.

One change that I could see if it is run in the same way is if the seer scans a mason and confirms it then they should be allowed to start PMing the masons. This would allow the confirmation of a seer without having to lynch that seer.

[Remus West]

3 turns to kill you = 3 turns that the seer gets to add three less people to his block. The amount of innocents he gains is a wash where as he might get wolves.

But if the seer comes forward and says x,y,z are innocents and a and b are wolves. The village lynches two wolves. Remember, the seer had had 2 turns to build his knowledge base and the wolves could not count on it havng been destroyed already.

Although I really want to know why SB#1 chose to view UsulofDoom. That one I really don't understand his theory about not trusting us he posted when outing himself relied upon a mason betraying the village (intentionally for those of you who wish to make jokes about my lynch record), that move I still don't get. Of course my first game Ash told me he knew for a fact Orinoco was innocent when it was well obvious that that knowledge would be impossible to come by and I still missed it.... so new game new lesson.

[Bakhtosh]

Had SB1 scanned a ANY wolf OTHER than the one who had just come out as the seer...I think we would have had a better chance. Killing a potential seer would have been foolhardy at that point.

And Grund, you published several "lists" without giving us any kind of caption ("people I think are innocent" "people I think are guilty" ...etc...).

[LordMortis]

But if the seer comes forward and says x,y,z are innocents and a and b are wolves. The village lynches two wolves. Remember, the seer had had 2 turns to build his knowledge base and the wolves could not count on it havng been destroyed already.

The problem I see is that is just and instance, though. You are banking on what you hope to be true in a world where there are number of people out there to trying to decieve you. Your see by the time he is useful has a decent probability of being dead. If you encourage testing the seer by lynching his victims then you are encouraging someong to come forward feed you the wrong information.

For the seer to come forward and say the x,y,z are innoncent and a and b are wolves. Then the seer and his 1st pick had to live for five turns, his 2nd for four, his 3rd for three, his 4th for two, and his 5th for one. And this is with three people whom are known to be good, while protecting a fourth who is bad. This is when I wish I had a brain. But that hope can't be good.

And then you have to add to that hope that you are going to kill pieces of it to test a threoy that you can prove. Or you risk being lied to. Which you can rest assured is a good chance.

[Grundbegriff]

And Grund, you published several "lists" without giving us any kind of caption ("people I think are innocent" "people I think are guilty" ...etc...).

Yes. Nevertheless, I provided enough information to make clear what the lists were for.

After work, I'll try to whip up some commentary.

[Remus West]

But if the seer comes forward and says x,y,z are innocents and a and b are wolves. The village lynches two wolves. Remember, the seer had had 2 turns to build his knowledge base and the wolves could not count on it havng been destroyed already.

The problem I see is that is just and instance, though. You are banking on what you hope to be true in a world where there are number of people out there to trying to decieve you. Your see by the time he is useful has a decent probability of being dead. If you encourage testing the seer by lynching his victims then you are encouraging someong to come forward feed you the wrong information.

For the seer to come forward and say the x,y,z are innoncent and a and b are wolves. Then the seer and his 1st pick had to live for five turns, his 2nd for four, his 3rd for three, his 4th for two, and his 5th for one. And this is with three people whom are known to be good, while protecting a fourth who is bad. This is when I wish I had a brain. But that hope can't be good.

And then you have to add to that hope that you are going to kill pieces of it to test a threoy that you can prove. Or you risk being lied to. Which you can rest assured is a good chance.

All of which adds up to why I said that the seer should be viewing folks not to find wolves but that are likely to survive a long while. Had I been the seer ezmate would have been outed simply because he was new here and thus less likely to attract attention, for the same reason Mark, zoltaire, and SB#1 would have been cleared. I would not waste time viewing Grund, ND or CR as all of them seem to get targeted early so are likely to end up being a waste of my vision. When I had a block and wanted the last pieces had I hit wolves early then I would have been looking for wolves instead of survivors.

[LordMortis]

All of which adds up to why I said that the seer should be viewing folks not to find wolves but that are likely to survive a long while. Had I been the seer ezmate would have been outed simply because he was new here and thus less likely to attract attention, for the same reason Mark, zoltaire, and SB#1 would have been cleared. I would not waste time viewing Grund, ND or CR as all of them seem to get targeted early so are likely to end up being a waste of my vision. When I had a block and wanted the last pieces had I hit wolves early then I would have been looking for wolves instead of survivors.

Even then what do you gain? Three more potential people in your potential arsenal to replace the three dead "masons."

[Bakhtosh]

It does suck that SB1's first role in a WW game was as the seer. He obviously wasn't quite sure of the rules and conventions. He made the crucial mistake of checking Usul when ND clearly stated that he was a mason, confirming Remus & Usul's story. To be fair to SB, ND didn't say, "I was a mason with Remus and Usul". He just said that he was a mason. Most of us understood that confirmation, but to a first timer, it was obviously confusing.

There is some merit to his acting out enough to get several votes but not enough to be lynched. That probably ensured that the wolves didn't mark him as a priority dinner.

[Remus West]

Even then what do you gain? Three more potential people in your potential arsenal to replace the three dead "masons."

As noted the knowledge base of the masonic block gets no larger period. So what happens if while you are eating it the seer spots three more wolves? Or even two but the village can then connect some dots? Knowledge that everyone shares has already done its damage, it is new knowledge that can kill.

[ezmate]

For the seer to come forward and say the x,y,z are innoncent and a and b are wolves. Then the seer and his 1st pick had to live for five turns, his 2nd for four, his 3rd for three, his 4th for two, and his 5th for one. And this is with three people whom are known to be good, while protecting a fourth who is bad. This is when I wish I had a brain. But that hope can't be good.

And this is yet another benefit I brought up when it came to killing unknown innocents: You have a good chance of killing people who have been scanned, thus wasting the Seer's time.

You know that the seer isn't going to be scanning the known block of people, so if you kill one of them, you definitely aren't killing someone he scanned.

[Remus West]

There is some merit to his acting out enough to get several votes but not enough to be lynched. That probably ensured that the wolves didn't mark him as a priority dinner.

I actually thought that part was played very well, even to the point of not stopping in the face of accusations which would have been more suspicious. I can even understand the visions he did make, but not that one, and not his timing in coming forward. I reread his posts and would never had thought him the seer until he came forward even when I was reading them and being sure nameless was a wolf. Of course I haven't played the seer yet so I might have a different view of that role had I played it.

[LordMortis]

As noted the knowledge base of the masonic block gets no larger period. So what happens if while you are eating it the seer spots three more wolves? Or even two but the village can then connect some dots? Knowledge that everyone shares has already done its damage, it is new knowledge that can kill.

To me that's all what if's and building plans on hopes. That's what exactly what I am trying to get past to see what everyone seems to see as intuitive but me.

What if the three who are even more incorruptable and trust worthy than the seer find those same three wolves?

[LordMortis]

For the seer to come forward and say the x,y,z are innoncent and a and b are wolves. Then the seer and his 1st pick had to live for five turns, his 2nd for four, his 3rd for three, his 4th for two, and his 5th for one. And this is with three people whom are known to be good, while protecting a fourth who is bad. This is when I wish I had a brain. But that hope can't be good.

And this is yet another benefit I brought up when it came to killing unknown innocents: You have a good chance of killing people who have been scanned, thus wasting the Seer's time.

You know that the seer isn't going to be scanning the known block of people, so if you kill one of them, you definitely aren't killing someone he scanned.

That actually makes sense to me but not enough to sway my bad at odds opinon.

[ezmate]

As noted the knowledge base of the masonic block gets no larger period. So what happens if while you are eating it the seer spots three more wolves? Or even two but the village can then connect some dots? Knowledge that everyone shares has already done its damage, it is new knowledge that can kill.

We definitely agree on how the game should be played. I even agreed with your picks for lynchings!

[Bakhtosh]

LM, your theories on this game sound perfect...for a game with PMs.

In that case, your #1 priority is voting blocks that can coordinate and strike without revealing the coordinator. Also, the sorc should be looking for a wolf to coordinate with them and then start looking for specials.

In a game like this, the #1 priority is information. Without confirmable information, we have nothing to go on but guesses. And you saw what guessing did to the village this time. Similarly, the sorc should be looking for the seer. He can try to get the seer lynched or just blurt it out once that day's lynching victim is irrevocable. The wolves do not need the sorc for anything else.

If you had scanned SB1 on round 2 or 3 and found him to be the seer, he would have died, and with the right timing, he would have died before getting a chance to tell what he knew. Yes, you would have died the next day, but now the 4 wolves could have sat back and taken out the villiagers one by one with very little fear of all 4 being found.

[Remus West]

As noted the knowledge base of the masonic block gets no larger period. So what happens if while you are eating it the seer spots three more wolves? Or even two but the village can then connect some dots? Knowledge that everyone shares has already done its damage, it is new knowledge that can kill.

To me that's all what if's and building plans on hopes. That's what exactly what I am trying to get past to see what everyone seems to see as intuitive but me.

What if the three who are even more incorruptable and trust worthy than the seer find those same three wolves?

Then they do it by guess work weakening the village with each miss. The seer, even if he misses viewing wolves, gains another piece of the puzzle rather than killing it.

[Remus West]

I even agreed with your picks for lynchings!

You know I hate you right? Maybe ND will give me your address and I can send a group of juvenile deliquents down to hang out with you for a few days.

[LordMortis]

LM, your theories on this game sound perfect...for a game with PMs.

And then I'm totally fucked up because I would take a totally different approach in a game with PMs. You can set traps and coordinate in a game with PMs. The three become much less dangerous when you can coordinate and backstab using cover of darkness.

In a game like this, the #1 priority is information. Without confirmable information, we have nothing to go on but guesses.

That's what I say and yet I have a different conclusion. Killing the knowns is denying the village information and moving them back to speculation.

[LordMortis]

Then they do it by guess work weakening the village with each miss. The seer, even if he misses viewing wolves, gains another piece of the puzzle rather than killing it.

So what? The seer has another piece.

[The Meal]

Immediately after his death, I told ND that I had killed him. I never imagined that the first person to die would be brought forward in a seance.

Lars actually said specifically not to do this (chat with dead players, either via PMs or in real life) because of the potential for a seance.

I don't agree with people saying that the medium needs to be changed. Having a power whose use can make it 100% clear you are innocent is huge.

In retrospect, I very much agree. The public seance is the difference between the medium and the priest.

Also, the priest was useless, even if they were to come forward there is no way to verify their information at all without killing them.

In the other discussion thread, I laid out an idea for there to be multiple priests that I think could work out to be *very* interesting (but only in a game that disallowed private communication between non-masons and non-werewolves). Basically have some number of priests, possibly less-than-or-equal-to the number of WW's, and each night let each one individually select a corpse for which they'd like the role determined. Only in the cases where multiple priests select the same persons would they receive a reading. They would not find out the names of their fellow priests, nor would they be allowed private consultations.

This would open up another potential for a trusted bloc, and it'd also allow for the possibilities of a faux-trusted non-WW bloc to be approximated. Seems to raise the possibilties for lots and lots of additional information (some true, some false) and non-PM intrigue.

~Neal

[Bakhtosh]

But without the seer, there is no information. With the seer gone, the wolves no longer have to target him. They can take out any public voting blocks at their leisure and stay safely hidden among the confused.

If the wolves had taken the time to kill the 3 knowns in this game, you KNOW that every turn, the seer is scanning someone other than the knowns. He's either replacing those with more trusteds or he's picking out wolves with no fear of being eaten at night.

Since the game is over once he finds 4 wolves, those 3 nights of peace keep him from coming out while he continues to work.

[ezmate]

Immediately after his death, I told ND that I had killed him. I never imagined that the first person to die would be brought forward in a seance.

Lars actually said specifically not to do this (chat with dead players, either via PMs or in real life) because of the potential for a seance.

I know. ND & I talked about it briefly & he said, "there's no way in hell anyone would seance me..." I agreed & we proceeded to break the law...

[LordMortis]

Since the game is over once he finds 4 wolves, those 3 nights of peace keep him from coming out while he continues to work.

The game is over if he finds the balance of wolves (or a large enough balance of innocents) soon enough to have that information be meaningful and he is trusted.

If you go by the balance of innocents, they are easier to get to than finding four wolves and easier still when three of them are already in your corner not dieing every turn.

[LordMortis]

Immediately after his death, I told ND that I had killed him. I never imagined that the first person to die would be brought forward in a seance.

Lars actually said specifically not to do this (chat with dead players, either via PMs or in real life) because of the potential for a seance.

I cheated as well. I would quote in game talk to Remus off board without saying anything new and after the seance I would talk at Raven about the game while he would talk about other games he was in. The goal was never to gather or give information off board but rather to soundboard what the hell was happening. I'd feel bad about doing it even with no plotting or giving anything away or anything but I couldn't stop myself.

[Remus West]

In the other discussion thread, I laid out an idea for there to be multiple priests that I think could work out to be *very* interesting (but only in a game that disallowed private communication between non-masons and non-werewolves). Basically have some number of priests, possibly less-than-or-equal-to the number of WW's, and each night let each one individually select a corpse for which they'd like the role determined. Only in the cases where multiple priests select the same persons would they receive a reading. They would not find out the names of their fellow priests, nor would they be allowed private consultations.
~Neal

The problem with this is that once one of them dies, if there are only 3, the chances of them picking the same target drop radically. The same is ture after the first turn when the number of unknown dead increases for each individual priest. Even if they manage to get a vision each night they are still only knowing half of the dead so realistically they will not know the roles of that many people. I am going to wait on Chaosraven's game where he has someone knowing all of the roles of the dead to decide if that is to much knowledge for one special or not.

[Remus West]

Immediately after his death, I told ND that I had killed him. I never imagined that the first person to die would be brought forward in a seance.

Lars actually said specifically not to do this (chat with dead players, either via PMs or in real life) because of the potential for a seance.

I cheated as well. I would quote in game talk to Remus off board without saying anything new and after the seance I would talk at Raven about the game while he would talk about other games he was in. The goal was never to gather or give information off board but rather to soundboard what the hell was happening. I'd feel bad about doing it even with no plotting or giving anything away or anything but I couldn't stop myself.

We both made Raven listen to our random ideas but he never commented back and our conversations always devolved into "I have to go log on because I can't talk to you about this here." so I didn't really consider any of it cheating as anytime we were doing more than quoting ourselves we posted it.