Ideas on how to take advantage of the new space

[st.cronin]

This thread is NOT for complaining, but for optimists who think this new space might allow us to things in a different and possibly better way.

One idea I had is that whoever is on deck should go ahead and take sign ups now. The sign up thread will obviously stay on the first page, and when the current game is almost over the gm can pm players who signed up to make sure they are still interested.

Any other ideas or thoughts, lets hear them.

[Blade6119]

Well, its now possible to have threads discussing strategy and even possibly a thread for outsiders to post in during a game and discuss their own thoughts. Both of these are touchy as to whether they would effect current games though.

[Alan T]

This is what I posted in the other thread.. like I said I'm not too worried about post counts, but I know others are. My main concern is the advertising and sign ups of new games, in order to get enough interest. Here is what I posted in the other thread as a compromise that i hope the forum moderators would allow:

Here is a humble suggestion on my part.. I know it won't make everyone happy since many people really care strongly about their post counts, but it hopefully will make the majority of people happy..

- WW games will be run in this forum where post counts are turned off therefore keeping those who are actually complaining about something such as player X's post count is inflated due to WW games happy.

- WW game announcements and sign up threads as well as new player needed threads be allowed to be posted in the general discussion section.. This will allow the visibility to new games or when new players are needed to be done in a non-annoying manner, and keep our ability to enjoy playing these games going.


I know that this doesn't address some of the smaller complaints such as too many clicks or the segregation issues, but could this at least be a happy middle compromise?


If they aren't going to go for that, then only thing I can think of is longer term signups, with a mandatory check in before the start date to make sure everyone is still interested in playing (to avoid drop outs).

Like an example, I am running the next game.. I could post a thread while Barkeep's game is running such as:

WW XXXXVVVVVIIIIwhateer Signups: The Founding of Tombstone: Tent. Startdate: October 10th.

The game obviously would not start until Barkeep's game is done if it runs over, but you could then put out the basic idea ahead of time and allow for people to sign up. On October 9th (the day before the start date) if Barkeep's game is finished, there would be a mandatory check in, that those who haven't checked in can be PM'd a reminder to make sure they are still interested.

[st.cronin]

Also we could have two games going on at once ... a simple game, and a complex game, or else a fast paced game and a slow moving one.

[hoopsguy]

I'm all for the idea of running multiple games at a time if people are interested in doing so. I also like the idea of getting sign-ups out earlier, although this obviously could create issues when the game does roll around weeks (months?) later.

[st.cronin]

What about starting a new game every Monday. And players can't play more than one game at a time. So, whoever gets killed off in this game in the next three days plus whoever is not playing and wants to, can join the game starting on Monday.

Maybe every other Monday would work better - I'm just brainstorming.

[Alan T]

What about starting a new game every Monday. And players can't play more than one game at a time. So, whoever gets killed off in this game in the next three days plus whoever is not playing and wants to, can join the game starting on Monday.

Maybe every other Monday would work better - I'm just brainstorming.

I liked the other idea better..

1 Simple game and 1 complex game going at one time.

I think I am getting the vibe that some people really feel overwhelmed by the more complex games (especially if newer players), or they just don't have enough time that week to contribute to one.. Having a more laid back simple game can possibly address that issue, while still running a complex game for those such as myself who enjoy those alot.

My hope would be those playing the simple games would at times feel the desire to jump into a more complex game, or those in the more complex games might at times want to take a break and just go to the more laid back game

[Peregrine]

I suppose one side benefit is that there's an easy way to see all the WW games that have been run, and to get a better feel of the history and how the game has evolved here.

[Mr. Wednesday]

The current arrangement can lead to more convenience in one sense, once these side threads die down... when it was in the General Discussion forum, the active game thread would often get bumped from the "most recently posted thread" slot, but in here it's liable to have a monopoly on it.

[Barkeep49]

I think we should also get together a good primer of WW together and also perhaps a history of the games. These could both be stickied to the top of the forum. I think petitioning SD to give someone mod powers for the forum, like FFF has for Hat Trick, could see some benefit. I think reverting back to seperate sign-up and game threads would be helpful.

I think it would allow us to run games which require participation in more than one thread. I know on another forum they did a Survivor WW where there were tribes and people were honor bound not to read the threads of people in other tribes.

I think it would allow us more freedom to do things like the Wolfies, which is an idea Hoops and I have been kicking around as a celebration of all things Wolf, in a manner more formal than what Lathum had done.

So that's what I see as ways to take advantage of this new space.

[saldana]

I think we should also get together a good primer of WW together and also perhaps a history of the games. These could both be stickied to the top of the forum. I think petitioning SD to give someone mod powers for the forum, like FFF has for Hat Trick, could see some benefit. I think reverting back to seperate sign-up and game threads would be helpful.

I think it would allow us to run games which require participation in more than one thread. I know on another forum they did a Survivor WW where there were tribes and people were honor bound not to read the threads of people in other tribes.

I think it would allow us more freedom to do things like the Wolfies, which is an idea Hoops and I have been kicking around as a celebration of all things Wolf, in a manner more formal than what Lathum had done.

So that's what I see as ways to take advantage of this new space.


all excellent ideas, particularly the independant mod or 2...since most of us will frequent this area, it will be easier to patrol for one of us than for the regular mods that may not be here as often

[Blade6119]

LOL, we could just go and call it mafia and keep playing in the GD :)

[jeff061]

I think we should also get together a good primer of WW together and also perhaps a history of the games. These could both be stickied to the top of the forum. I think petitioning SD to give someone mod powers for the forum, like FFF has for Hat Trick, could see some benefit. I think reverting back to seperate sign-up and game threads would be helpful.

I agree with that. There absolutley needs to be a sticky explaining what this is all about so browsers don't have to read through 40 pages to figure it out.

Wish I had more time to play. I always get the itch, but I just can't :).

[VPI97]

I don't know if there's been a head 'coordinator' of WW activities, but I'm willing to bet that if someone started a poll or something and you guys decided on a mod, Ben would probably make them mod of the forum with all the powers to sticky threads and moderate posts.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't know if there's been a head 'coordinator' of WW activities, but I'm willing to bet that if someone started a poll or something and you guys decided on a mod, Ben would probably make them mod of the forum with all the powers to sticky threads and moderate posts.You are correct, sir.

[Abe Sargent]

Blade has done the one thread, I've jumped in a lot since I started, Barkeep and hoops would be at the top of my list. Somebody else wants to put their name in for mod, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Fouts]

LOL, we could just go and call it mafia and keep playing in the GD :)

Just call it football, and vote and unvote teams all day long. Post counters would go NUTZ!!!??!

[hoopsguy]

My only thoughts on a moderator would be that I would like it to be someone who plays here every once in awhile. If one of the current moderators fits that profile, terrific. If not, then lets figure something out collectively.

[Barkeep49]

Blade has done the one thread, I've jumped in a lot since I started, Barkeep and hoops would be at the top of my list. Somebody else wants to put their name in for mod, I'd be happy to hear it.
I appreciate the mention Anxiety and would be happy to serve either independently, or even better, with hoopsguy, who I think would be a great mod, if people liked that idea.

I would further say that there are a couple other people who I also think would make fine WW forum mods including path (who has been asbent of late) & saldana, not to mention a few others (those two just rolled off the fingertips :)).

[saldana]

I appreciate the mention Anxiety and would be happy to serve either independently, or even better, with hoopsguy, who I think would be a great mod, if people liked that idea.

I would further say that there are a couple other people who I also think would make fine WW forum mods including path (who has been asbent of late) & saldana, not to mention a few others (those two just rolled off the fingertips :)).

thanks for the mention BK....i would have no problem with yourself and or Hoops...and would also be happy to take on the task...

perhaps we should stick to odd numbers in our concept for the purposes of never having a tie if a resolution is needed for something?

[WVUFAN]

I'm cool with Barkeep being the mod here.

[Abe Sargent]

saldana would be good too. Lathum's a solid choice too.

[Blade6119]

Id vote hoopsguy or barkeep

[Abe Sargent]

Personally, I like the idea of Blade being a mod, then being voted off the mod ship, then coming back as the elected representative of the WW peops. That's funny to me.

[Blade6119]

Personally, I like the idea of Blade being a mod, then being voted off the mod ship, then coming back as the elected representative of the WW peops. That's funny to me.

Modding the WW forum will be a very simple job for whoever does get chosen. We tend to work out all disputes in thread, and really dont have many of the problems other forums do. We dont have unncessary threads, random trolls, or really any threat of offensive posts. Players get mad at each other, but the need for modding in the WW community has been minimal. The position should likely be held by a figure head who everyone can respect if something needs to be done in the future. Of the powers i had while a mod, i cant think of one that would have needed to have been used any time in recent memory. WW is a fairly self-sustaining community, regardless of outsiders views of us.

[Blade6119]

Personally, I like the idea of Blade being a mod, then being voted off the mod ship, then coming back as the elected representative of the WW peops. That's funny to me.

Dola, when we pick someone we should send the pm:

"We pick Blade...just kidding"

[hoopsguy]

Blade, that was one of my concerns as I thought about putting a hat in the ring for WW mod - I know that you did not enjoy the experience very much.

I wouldn't mind seeing us start a separate thread on this topic, as it is detracting a little bit from the original ideas that were floated around earlier in the thread.

Both subjects are good topics, and since we have our own section of the board now we should feel comfortable more than one post :)

[Blade6119]

Blade, that was one of my concerns as I thought about putting a hat in the ring for WW mod - I know that you did not enjoy the experience very much.
My lack of enjoyment came from mis-use of powers/rule breaking by other mods, lack of activity in discussions from certain mods, and the obvious selection of mods who had similar agendas instead of a sampling from all facets of FOFC. The WW mod will face none of these same problems, so i would ask you not to worry about all the complaints i made to you while a mod and treat this situation with a fresh perspective if possible. This position should be quite independent from the other mods, and honestly should be more of a title then anything. I highly doubt whoever is appointed mod will have to do much of anything. We tend to self-police our own in WW, which i think is a good thing.

[Barkeep49]

I agree our self policing is a good thing and will allieviate the need to do much of anything.

[saldana]

i had an idea a couple weeks ago i thought it would be fun to see, but personally dont have the time to do it right now....

since one of the topics that seems to come up in many games is who is a vet and who is a rookie, i thought it would be cool to go back through all the old games and tabulate the rosters to show who has played the most games, and which ones, and who has hosted the games and which ones.

for example
Lathum - I, II, IV, VII, X, XII, XIII,
Saldana - XII, XIII, XV, XII XX (Hosted) XXII

it would actually be alot easier to do now that all the games are in this forum

[Raiders Army]

I appreciate the mention Anxiety and would be happy to serve either independently, or even better, with hoopsguy, who I think would be a great mod, if people liked that idea.

I would further say that there are a couple other people who I also think would make fine WW forum mods including path (who has been asbent of late) & saldana, not to mention a few others (those two just rolled off the fingertips :)).

I agree with hoops and saldana as choices for mods. I just don't know path enough to endorse him.

I'm Raiders Army and I approve this message.

[Thomkal]

To get back to the original theme of this thread, obviously more games going on at once should be the #1 priority. With just one game going on I think people tend to "overconcentrate" on it, leading them to poorer decision making in some cases (yes that's me). Probably no more than three games at once though, with differing complexity levels with a basic game being offered at times to teach newbies.

I think we could have discussions on new formats, themes, roles, etc. Help the new (or old) mod out by floating a theme/format/role out there and see what the community thinks about. Maybe that gets a couple people to work together on a game that makes it better than if only the one worked on it, etc.

-There should be a history of the completed games, perhaps with a brief description on the theme, key and noteworthy game play that took place during it, and who won of course.

[BrianD]

If we get a WW forum mod, will that person have the ability to ban people from this particular forum?

[Thomkal]

Actually if were looking for a mod, perhaps it should be Peregrine, the one who brought WW here?

[Chief Rum]

I would suggest we run a "newbie" game every now and then. It would always be a simple game and the players would know going in that everyone involved would be in at best their third or fourth games (we can cut it off wherever).

Or we could let two vets in, who would be named as such and not allowed to be killed for three days and nights. Or allowed to participate, but can't vote or be killed or have any special abilities.

[hoopsguy]

Vet advantages:
1.) Understand game mechanics - have seen them in previous games
2.) Some kind of sense for what is/isn't likely for rules when they aren't defined - not much of an issue in simple games
3.) Better feel for other players - not as much of an issue in a simple game, where there isn't as much room to freelance

I am all for a game where we declare it "new players only" or a game where we have preferential sign-ups for people with 4 games or less. But I think it would be a little weird to put rules about not being able to kill a player for a certain number of nights, or identify someone as a plain villager from the outset.

Just my .02 on those ideas, CR.

[cthomer5000]

If we get a WW forum mod, will that person have the ability to ban people from this particular forum?

They'd be sort of like.... second-class citizens?

[Chief Rum]

Vet advantages:
1.) Understand game mechanics - have seen them in previous games
2.) Some kind of sense for what is/isn't likely for rules when they aren't defined - not much of an issue in simple games
3.) Better feel for other players - not as much of an issue in a simple game, where there isn't as much room to freelance

I am all for a game where we declare it "new players only" or a game where we have preferential sign-ups for people with 4 games or less. But I think it would be a little weird to put rules about not being able to kill a player for a certain number of nights, or identify someone as a plain villager from the outset.

Just my .02 on those ideas, CR.

I am talking more from a recruitment side. We have seen people gfet intimidated that they might have to play with people who have played the game numerous times and have lots of experience.

So if we tell them they can play a game where they are playing with newer players, and even have a resource for help, they might be encouraged more to give it a shot. And if they like it enough, they can then "graduate" to try the regular games.

Of course, anyone is free to join a regular game at any time they want to. But at least with a newbie game, they could ease into things and geta feel for it.

[Barkeep49]

I think running a game of, say 12,

4 wolves
1 seer
1 bodyguard
6 villagers

WIth all people who are new to the game would make a lot of sense. Play just regular rules, so bg couldn't guard someone two nights in a row, pick an intersting setting and poof. Maybe even the first time appoint a couple of mentors, one for the villagers and one for the wolves, who they could rely on to ask questions.

[saldana]

Vet advantages:
1.) Understand game mechanics - have seen them in previous games
2.) Some kind of sense for what is/isn't likely for rules when they aren't defined - not much of an issue in simple games
3.) Better feel for other players - not as much of an issue in a simple game, where there isn't as much room to freelance

I am all for a game where we declare it "new players only" or a game where we have preferential sign-ups for people with 4 games or less. But I think it would be a little weird to put rules about not being able to kill a player for a certain number of nights, or identify someone as a plain villager from the outset.

Just my .02 on those ideas, CR.

i think this is a very cool idea, and there are enough of us that run games that it shouldnt be a problem to have multiple ones running...i will try and find some time over the weekend to work on my WW Toteboard idea that i mentioned earlier, which will aid everyone i think in knowing whether or not they qualify for these games...i personally have no idea how many games i have played in....does it count as being in the game if you die the first day?

[Chief Rum]

i think this is a very cool idea, and there are enough of us that run games that it shouldnt be a problem to have multiple ones running...i will try and find some time over the weekend to work on my WW Toteboard idea that i mentioned earlier, which will aid everyone i think in knowing whether or not they qualify for these games...i personally have no idea how many games i have played in....does it count as being in the game if you die the first day?

Well, if it isn't too hard (and it might be), it might be a good opportunity to tally if a player died early (let's say first two days), if they lived all the way through, and what their success rate is in living as wolves. Then we would really know who the stars are. :)

[saldana]

Well, if it isn't too hard (and it might be), it might be a good opportunity to tally if a player died early (let's say first two days), if they lived all the way through, and what their success rate is in living as wolves. Then we would really know who the stars are. :)

i think that would be quite cumbersome, since alot of games dont have a roster in the first post that got updated every time a player died. or what team they were on.

[Barkeep49]

I thought it might be worthwhile to bump this thread. Now that I officially have the mod tools, and have taken care of items 1 and 2 (close the threadkiller, sticky the GM signup list), what should be next on our agenda? I am off next week and would have the time, and hopefully the inclination, for a larger project. So what can we all do to continue sprucing up our new space?

[Grammaticus]

I thought it might be worthwhile to bump this thread. Now that I officially have the mod tools, and have taken care of items 1 and 2 (close the threadkiller, sticky the GM signup list), what should be next on our agenda? I am off next week and would have the time, and hopefully the inclination, for a larger project. So what can we all do to continue sprucing up our new space?

A basic primer on what the game is and how to play it. Should include the more common roles, etc.

[Bek]

A basic primer on what the game is and how to play it. Should include the more common roles, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(game)

[Barkeep49]

Ok here's what I came up with for a very basic WW primer. Suggestions, additions, criticism, etc are very welcome, as this was something I basically threw together while watching Friday Night Lights.



Werewolf games are fun. While some games on FOFC get rather complex, the basic format is simple and that is what will be described here. There are two sides, the villagers and the werewolves. The werewolves are trying to kill the villagers, and the villagers are trying to find to the wolves first.

There are two parts, or cycles, to werewolf games. During the day cycle, the villagers vote on a player to “lynch”. Whichever player has the most votes at the end of the day is killed. During the night the werewolves decide a player to kill. The game ends when the werewolves gain equal numbers to the villagers or the villagers have killed all the werewolves.

Each side has some different advantages and disadvantages. The werewolves are few in number, but know who is a villager and who is a werewolf. They also have the advantage of being able to private message with each other during the game.

The villagers biggest advantage is numbers. There are generally twice as many, or more, villagers as there are werewolves. There are also generally a few villagers who have special abilities to help thwart the werewolves.

The most important is the seer. The seer is able to chose one player at night and find out if he is a villager or a werewolf. Also important is the bodyguard. This player can choose one player each night and if that player is safe from being killed by the wolves.

There are also a couple of other roles the villagers might have, though their role can prove to be as much of a hindrance for the villagers as a help. The first such role is the duke. This player has the ability once per game to choose a different player to be lynched if he is the one chosen to be lynched. Another role which can produce uncertain outcomes is the vigilante. This person, who is a villager, may select one time another player to kill during the night.

From these basic rules there have been many variations run on FOFC. Some are closer to these basic rules while others are radically different. There are many veterans around who would be willing to help you if you have questions.

[path12]

It might also be a worthwhile idea to put together some ideas for game balance for GM's. I know there's a couple threads about that over on BGG for example, and they even have some sort of program (though I've never been able to figure it out exactly.)

For example, general ratios of good/evil based on number of players. Effects of special roles and ranking of strengths for said roles. How reveal on death/non reveal on death can affect balance. Those sorts of things.