Werewolf Organisation: Electric Boogaloo Redux

  • The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
Thanks goreae. I get the problems with the were-vamp thing. The problem isn't a big deal but its twofold:
  • trying to keep balance in mind when describing the "strength" of the wolf team, and
  • trying to keep the GM from being able to fudge the output of the game too much ("Wolves are kicking ass and nobody died last night? Welp, I have a funny feeling that RNG is going to nudge this game back into balance a bit.")
The reason for the kill-list is that it sorta preserves that whole "Whoever crosses his path first" thing. And its nice to stack the weaker roles at the top of that list so that the wolves can't abuse it.
 
Pyure said:
Thanks goreae. I get the problems with the were-vamp thing. The problem isn't a big deal but its twofold:
  • trying to keep balance in mind when describing the "strength" of the wolf team, and
  • trying to keep the GM from being able to fudge the output of the game too much ("Wolves are kicking ass and nobody died last night? Welp, I have a funny feeling that RNG is going to nudge this game back into balance a bit.")
The reason for the kill-list is that it sorta preserves that whole "Whoever crosses his path first" thing. And its nice to stack the weaker roles at the top of that list so that the wolves can't abuse it.
Click to expand...
Well the thing with the werevamp, if he does get a kill in that way, his identity is revealed and everyone knows he's a wolf, meaning he's going to die the next night from lynching. This is more of a liability to the wolves than an asset. Yes, they got a free kill, but they also lose a member in the process.
 
goreae said:
Well the thing with the werevamp, if he does get a kill in that way, his identity is revealed and everyone knows he's a wolf, meaning he's going to die the next night from lynching. This is more of a liability to the wolves than an asset. Yes, they got a free kill, but they also lose a member in the process.
Click to expand...
Fair point, that addresses the team-balance concern. One kill is not worth one death for the wolves.
I still hate trusting the GM to do a legitimate straw-drawing tho :)
 
Pyure said:
Fair point, that addresses the team-balance concern. One kill is not worth one death for the wolves.
I still hate trusting the GM to do a legitimate straw-drawing tho :)
Click to expand...
Lol I bet you still don't believe I legitimately randomised the wolf team for purification 3. I actually did. It disturbs me to this day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lethosos
LivingAngryCheese said:
Lol I bet you still don't believe I legitimately randomised the wolf team for purification 3. I actually did. It disturbs me to this day.
Click to expand...
I'd have to go back to check who the wolf team was, I forget. Wasn't it like 3.5 power players?

Any GM who says after the game that they were 100% validly rolling RNG, I'll buy it. But in the middle of the game, especially if things are going badly for one team, its hard to feel confident that all the roles are legit. The temptation has to be big for the GM to "force" the balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LivingAngryCheese
Pyure said:
I'd have to go back to check who the wolf team was, I forget. Wasn't it like 3.5 power players?

Any GM who says after the game that they were 100% validly rolling RNG, I'll buy it. But in the middle of the game, especially if things are going badly for one team, its hard to feel confident that all the roles are legit. The temptation has to be big for the GM to "force" the balance.
Click to expand...
Shaz, vike and Spwn.
 
Pyure said:
I'd have to go back to check who the wolf team was, I forget. Wasn't it like 3.5 power players?

Any GM who says after the game that they were 100% validly rolling RNG, I'll buy it. But in the middle of the game, especially if things are going badly for one team, its hard to feel confident that all the roles are legit. The temptation has to be big for the GM to "force" the balance.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'll admit I've thought about it purely in the interests of a more fun game, but never actually come to it.
 
There's still fun in a game that turns out lopsided. Hopefully one side is reveling in their glory, and the other side can laugh about their terrible situation.
 
Fraction2 said:
There's still fun in a game that turns out lopsided. Hopefully one side is reveling in their glory, and the other side can laugh about their terrible situation.
Click to expand...
This is my opinion too. Occasionally a game should statistically just end up as a three-day bloodbath, and its not really a commentary on the balance of the game itself. It just falls out that way sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LivingAngryCheese
Pyure said:
This is my opinion too. Occasionally a game should statistically just end up as a three-day bloodbath, and its not really a commentary on the balance of the game itself. It just falls out that way sometimes.
Click to expand...
There's no way to balance out people's luck, and as a GM all you really should do is laugh at the unfortunate series of events.

Becoming RNGesus yourself usually ruins those moments for somebody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LivingAngryCheese
In past games I've hosted, I would randomly make a new secret thing just out of the blue, but I always made the result of which random, like when the muscle man's duel first happened, I made it a chance to win, and the muscle man ended up dying anyways which sort of defeated the point.
 
@RealKC, as per discussion, is it ok if we page you for the next game? The signup will probably start in 2-3 days. @Shazam08 will add you to the notification list.

(You aren't signing up for anything by saying yes, you're just agreeing to let us notify you about a game. And you can get out of this list at any time.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shazam08
Oh, after this monocon game is done, I'm going to submit another monocon game to the queue: Marriage at Monocon. It's a concept game where two players can marry each other and share their power usage, win condition, and they know each others role as well.
 
goreae said:
Oh, after this monocon game is done, I'm going to submit another monocon game to the queue: Marriage at Monocon. It's a concept game where two players can marry each other and share their power usage, win condition, and they know each others role as well.
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't even change the format that much. This was an excellent game w/o any quirks, I'd just make the minor adjustments you've already made in-game and re-run it.
 
goreae said:
Oh, after this monocon game is done, I'm going to submit another monocon game to the queue: Marriage at Monocon. It's a concept game where two players can marry each other and share their power usage, win condition, and they know each others role as well.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a very interesting concept.

P.S.: Pyure, you ninja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom