castledoom.com

[Brf]

Double Trouble

There are two groups of monsters that are natually antagonistic -- Werewolves and Vampires for instance. Since these groups are hunting the same range, there is a natural rivalry with the other group, in addition the the normal racial hate common with evil groups.

These two groups know only their own members, and none of the opposing group.

In the interest of playability, the Wolves and Vampires would alternate nights for kills.

If the Wolves pick a Vampire, or vice-versa, as a victim, there is a 50/50 chance that the attack is by surprise, in which case the body will appear to be of a normal Villager.

If the attack is noticed, both victims change to their monster forms and fight to the death.... with the victor chosen by a 50/50 coin-flip. In this case, the dead body is identifiable as either a Wolf or Vampire.

For the humans to win, they have to eliminate both the Wolves and Vampires.

For either Wolves or Vampires to win, their group must outnumber the total remaining players.

[ExarKun]

that sounds frickin awsome.

[JuntaJoe]

I'd definitely say that version would be fun once we've all become more comfortable with the game.

[ExarKun]

I'd love to do it if I do get the GM role, but you are right. It may be best for like TWG 3-5ish around then. But none the less it does sound awsome.

[Brf]

Yup. I tossed that idea out as a bone -- as it were. We need a little more experience with a standard game before we try a nasty varient :D

[ExarKun]

Though this is simlear to one of Muji's previous ideas. But I like this one better. His version was merley two sets of wolves.

[Brf]

Yeah. We could do it as two sets of wolves too.... I just fleshed in the nightly attack routine with a wildcard when one group accidently or deliberately attacks the other....

Note that if a victim monster kills its attacker (which is chosen at random by the GM) the victorious victim is necessarily revealed to the attacking team as a member of the other team.

[Darkness]

So that would create a double coin-flip in some cases... cool :D That means you even have to pick your targets carefully cause it might be your own death instead.

I can see it being hard for the villagers to win a game like that though.. you'd have to balance the numbers out so that the winchances stay somewhat even :)

[Magwai]

Brf wrote: Double Trouble


Ow boy, stuff like this just freaks me out.... I wanna play it damnit = )

[JuntaJoe]

I've just renamed the thread to encompass all game concepts discussion.

Most of the discussion will be about roles anyway, but there might be something else someone has to comment on besides them and this seems like the best place to discuss permutations.


I actually do have a new derivative to present. The null vote that happens a lot in the early game seems to be variable in application. Some GM's see it as a pass vote and others see it as a vote not to kill someone.

Here's a new idea. Give the players one or two "Not Voting" votes and one or two "No Lynch" votes per game. Perhaps one of each to test the theory and adjust from there.

The "Not Voting" count could be the vast majority of votes cast, but one or two votes on a player would still result in a lynching. Even all but one "Not Voting" would result in a lynching. It's merely a pass and not a vote. Sort of like an excused absense. Those that vote regularly get to make the lynching decision.

The "No Lynch", however, is a true vote. If it gets the majority the no one gets lynched.

The combination of the two would create a new dynamic.

The "No Lynch" will become more popular late in the game. And the players could agree to mix and match them in a daily vote. It would only take one person to cast a "No Lynch" vote early on and the rest could take the "Not Voting" to stop a lynching. Perhaps if a person or small group jumps in late to try to cause a lynching with one or a couple votes then the "Not Voting" types can band together and retract their votes to add the exact number of "No Lynch" votes to save the day. Then the players would have a mixed pool of those two vote styles that the group dynamic can play with later in the game. Saving and passing would become more complicated and kill the boredom of a "dead" day when everyone seems to pass because they aren't sure who to vote for.

It turn these kinds of votes from boredom into strategy.

[Darkness]

i'd be more up for no 'no-votes' at all..

[Brf]

I am not in favor of no-votes either. I see it as a cop-out.

In any case, if at least 50% of the players do not vote, there will be no lynching, at least when I am GM. That will likely happen today, unless some of you start voting. I count 5-of-12 with no-votes, and Joker and Waray have not shown up... so likely there will be at least 7.

[JuntaJoe]

I'm not talking about a "permanent" solution here, Darkness.

Just yet another alternative to the usual.

In fact, with my plan, we now have 4 options:

1) Only "Not Voting"

2) Only "No Lynch"

3) Both (This with numerical derivatives also)

4) None

Now a GM can use this to help tailor their game to the desired difficulty level.

Perhaps the GM wants a real nasty game with numerous monsters or multiple conversions. Then to balance the game the GM may assign extra "No Lynch" votes. Or the GM may run a game with few players and no special roles. Then the GM could balance it out with no avoidance options at all to toughen it up.

Potential GM's should see this as one part of the overall complexity factor in the game and not simply do what the last GM did because they thought it was some kind of standard rule.

[Brf]

Well... I declare my first experiment with "Double Trouble", with werewolves and vampires, to be a great success. The player field was a little small, so there was only 2-each of werewolves and vampires, but the game still worked OK. I am sure with 3-each, or more, it would be great fun.

[JuntaJoe]

Concept: Bloody Double Trouble

Two monster groups with alternating kill nights.

Each monster group also gets a single visible Vigilante attack during the game.

The humans also get an extra Vigilante attack as well. It could be a Vigilante with 2 attacks, two Vigilantes, or another class of GM manufacture.

[Brf]

A Vigilante attack is declared by the player in the game forum. I dont think we want one of the monsters declaring they are a monster, so they can make an extra kill. That is instant death for the declaring player. Same thing for a Vigilante villager with two kills.... as soon as he takes one, the monsters would kill him.

[JuntaJoe]

Don't you see? The exposure is the trump card. Sure, there might a mass killing day, but I doubt it would happen early.

The risk of exposure would keep all this killing power in check until the decisive end of the game and probably result in a wild finish.

It seems that when a group gains the upper hand (ie: monster kill the Seer or the Seer meets the Masons) then the end is almost inevitable.

Not so with this plan. When the end draws near and some parties are known or suspected, then the different surviving power groups have an alternate, risky, and bloody path to gain dominance. Mid-game superiority would not ensure victory.

C'mon, the games tend to be predictable at the beginning and end. It's easy to fix the beginning by limiting null votes, but the end is a lot harder to fix. Trying this plan along with one null vote per player and every day will be unpredictable.

[Darkness]

the double double trouble gets just too many deaths in the game

the group of players is shrinking, not growing.. you dont want too many people to die too fast, or the games will only last a few days.

[Brf]

The regular double-trouble should have no more deaths than a regular game, since monsters alternate hunting nights....

In Joes example, the monsters are given their own Vigilante-type, who, by announcing his role, signs his death warrant. Since it is a suicide role, the monster player is unlikely to use it until near the end.

In role-play, the monster would change-form in the city-square and take out another player -- thereby admitting he is a monster and first-in-line for that day's lynching.

[JuntaJoe]

Brf gets it. The game might proceed just a bit faster, but only at the end. The beginning and middle should be pretty normal.

It would be changing the null voting that would speed up the early game and that is entirely seperate from my idea.

Which is why I mentioned the various null voting options earlier for GM's to use a format that might work best with their particular game.

Lastly, remember that I'm merely discussing a potential game format. Not pushing for this to be implemented as common usage. This thread is about discussing optional formats so that potential GM's don't feel they need to trot out the same tired theme every time.

If our member pool is slipping a bit then novelty can keep it fresh and perhaps lure a few of the stragglers back.


[Edit] A thought just struck me. The monster Vigilante attack might be suicidal, but still devastating if when the monster Vigilante was already losing a lynching vote. Then they could take someone with them to the grave, keeping the monster/human ratio close. Or if done late then it might be the one death that gives the monster group the majority and wins the game. The subtle permutaions of this ensure an interesting ending.