castledoom.com

[Muji]

And I just confirmed your confirmation... :P

[Guest]

i love the idea of the Undertaker role

[Brf]

The Clairvoyant - Different from the seer, this person just "knows" certain things....

Once per night, The Clairvoyant can ask the GM any Yes-or-No question, which the GM must answer to the best of his ability.

The question must be a Yes-or-No, so The Clairvoyant could ask "Is the Seer still alive?" or "Is So-and-so a wolf?", they could not ask "Who are the Wolves?".

The GM may assign a failure chance when they assign the role.... 17% (1-out-of-6) is suggested as a failure chance for game-balance.

If the GM does not know the answer to the question, they may answer "Maybe" or "I dont know". Most questions about future events fall into this category.

If failure is indicated, GM deviousness is encouraged.... For instance, a "no" could be answered as "yes" or "maybe". An "I-dont-know" answer could be switched to a "yes" or "no".

EDITED:

Optionally:
Give a 2/3 change of a correct answer, with the remaining 1/3 always answered "I Dont Know". No incorrect information would be given.

[Darkness]

so the clairvoyant would basically never know whether the answer he got is the right answer ? so still be somewhat clueless ? :)

[Brf]

You are correct.... but with an 83% accuracy rate, they could assume the answer was correct. This is better than the 66% rate that was given for the Soothsayer -- or what ever it was -- in the last game we played on Rival.

[JuntaJoe]

And I think when the game crosses the 20 player threshhold that you really need an extra "oracle", so to speak.

[Darkness]

well i like the role anyway, just getting it straight for myself..

[CooJoe]

I thought of a variation on the GA.

Have the Masons vote on who to protect that night.

Interesting Idea?

[Magwai]

GA/Mason, I don't know, it means if the seer finds one mason, you have your block and are pretty damn powerfull.... I think that's too easy.

About the other rule, it's a bit the same as towndrunk (we once ha that in TH)...
I think it could work... but that you should only answer 100% right and if the 17% failure works, then say "maybe" or "don't know", because I don't think the GM should ever give out false info, that ruins the game...

[JuntaJoe]

If a partial seer, not the main one, gets accurate data then I'd recommend no more than a 2 out of 3 chance to get info instead of 5 out of 6. You would need a negative to counterbalance the loss of the confusion factor.

[Brf]

JuntaJoe wrote: If a partial seer, not the main one, gets accurate data then I'd recommend no more than a 2 out of 3 chance to get info instead of 5 out of 6. You would need a negative to counterbalance the loss of the confusion factor.

Ah... but if someone just flips a coin and goes by that, they will be accurate 50% of the time. 66% is not much better.... That is why I recommended 83% accuracy.

Suppose the GM were doing the coinflip: Heads I answer correctly, Tails I flip the coin and give a random answer. This would yield a correct answer 75% of the time, and is based on a 50-50 coinflip. Therefore, to be considered accurate at all, it would have to be correct at least 75% of the time, otherwise it is no better than the player doing the coinflip.

Your example of 66% accuracy means that the GM is answering correctly only 33% of the time and the other 66% is done by a coinflip (resulting in a random correct answer half the time). I would think for a role to be useful at all, it should have a better answer-percentage than 33%

My example of 83% accuracy is actually based on a GM answer percentage of 66%, The other 33% is a coinflip which results in a random correct answer half the time.... yielding a total correct percentage of 83.

[JuntaJoe]

Getting pretty complicated for the average player to understand, Brf.

The role needs to be defined precisely in only a couple sentences.

[Brf]

JuntaJoe wrote: Getting pretty complicated for the average player to understand, Brf.

The role needs to be defined precisely in only a couple sentences.

I was explaining why I went with 83% and how 66% is hardly better than nothing, considering a coinflip will give you 50%. Answering correctly 83% of the time is actually the same as answering 66% of the time, if you consider the remaining 33% as a coinflip, which would give a correct answer half of the time -- raising the correct percentage from 66 to 83.

[Magwai]

I feel ignored :P

[Brf]

Ok.... That would work too. Since their ability can be used only once per night.... an "I dont know" would help limit the power of the role. In that case, lowering the percentage of a correct answer to 66% is reasonable, if the other 33% were always answered with a "I dont know".

[JuntaJoe]

The light turns on, eh?

[Brf]

JuntaJoe wrote: The light turns on, eh?

Thats what I get for reading one post at-a-time, rather than reading yours as a response to Magwai.

After thinking about both posts and thinking through the scenerios in my head, I could see that it is a much more useful role, as you two modified it..... If a correct answer is given 2/3 of the time and "I dont know" the other 1/3, it should be a much more useful and interesting role than if an incorrect answer were possible....

[bannie]

Id rather use the town drunk than the 'partial seer', it seems to stick more with the flavor of the game

[Magwai]

I still rather don't see an GM give out false information...

[Brf]

Magwai wrote: I still rather don't see an GM give out false information...

Read a few posts up. I was agreeing with you.

That is why I dropped my percentage from 83 to 66, because the other 33% would be a "I dont know", rather than an incorrect answer.