Small Games

[Barkeep49]

I was recently asked via PM, if the time might not be right to bring back the small games. I think it might be but wanted to throw it out there to see what others think.

I would say that I think we would want to make explicit what a "small game" is before restarting them. Before the break, small games were creeping up to the 15 or so player range. That to me is no longer small. I'm thinking that if it is decided to bring back small games that they be capped at a small number of players, say 12. This would keep the interest in and focus on the large and complex games, which is the way I think it should be.

But perhaps it's too soon? I'm curious as to what others think.

[hoopsguy]

I would enjoy seeing concurrent games out there again. It can be a long wait between games for the people who bite it on Day 1/2.

Question for the people who have started with small games and moved up to the larger ones (there are a few people who fall in this category, right?) - did you find the small games to be significantly less complex than the larger games? Because I got the impression at one point that small game also meant simple/conventional ruleset. I would be much more interested in exploring small games if it meant "fewer starting players" rather than "fewer starting players with vanilla rules".

[Alan T]

I'm in the same camp, that I initially thought the small games were to be simple games, not complex rule sets and good for new players. Not saying it was bad, but that definitly changed over time. (I probably was guilty of that myself even, I don't remember!)

[path12]

I always like the small games to be easy for newbies to get into. I always used the same basic ruleset (2 wolves, one seer, one BG, maybe a sorceror or hunter) dressed up in different themes.

Also think games like that keep your deduction abilities sharp.

[JHandley]

Speaking as a newbie, 18 people is just too many for wolves to get lost in. It's an incredibly frustrating experience. I'm certainly not going to play one again that has more than 12.

[path12]

Speaking as a newbie, 18 people is just too many for wolves to get lost in. It's an incredibly frustrating experience. I'm certainly not going to play one again that has more than 12.

I think you're more involved with the game with a smaller number, and it is easier to figure out what to do with a more basic ruleset, but it is also good to jump into the larger ones early -- they're frustrating at first, but you get the hang of it after awhile. And really, you're gonna make mistakes every game.

[JHandley]

Maybe. I think there were a lot of things that combined to make this game really sour for me. There was the weekend when no one was around, there were gigantic lulls in the discussions because no one knew what the hell was going on... work, lives, iphones, just all around ugly.

[Barkeep49]

Maybe. I think there were a lot of things that combined to make this game really sour for me. There was the weekend when no one was around, there were gigantic lulls in the discussions because no one knew what the hell was going on... work, lives, iphones, just all around ugly.
I wouldn't so quickly write off the larger games.

So far, with many others yet to give their two cents, is the consensus is that besides a cap (which no one has objected to) we would also like them to be simple/more theme oriented? I know the games did start with that in mind, but they did evolve differently. Just trying to get a feel for where people stand.

[Passacaglia]

I think some games with complicated rulesets might thrive with upwards of 18+. For example, my Clue game will has potential for multiple kills per night, and a lot of action going on. I'd like a lot of people to be in it, so that the game goes on for a while.

[Barkeep49]

I think some games with complicated rulesets might thrive with upwards of 18+. For example, my Clue game will has potential for multiple kills per night, and a lot of action going on. I'd like a lot of people to be in it, so that the game goes on for a while.
Is this more in response to JHandley and his preference for small games or your stating that you're hoping we don't add back in small games at this time to encourage people in the large games?

[RendeR]

From what I've seen after 6 total games, I think there is enough interest to have a small game and a large game running at the same time.

Is there a problem with players playing in more than one game at a time?

[JHandley]

From what I've seen after 6 total games, I think there is enough interest to have a small game and a large game running at the same time.

Is there a problem with players playing in more than one game at a time?
I would imagine it would be very difficult to go from thinking a guy is a wolf in one game and a villager in another game running at the same time. As it stands, it appeared to me that people had a hard time letting go of someone's role in a previous game.

[RendeR]

Not so much letting go a a previous game role, but remembering how well some of these people do as wolves is important.

I think the main thing would be to ensure the small games are kept small and very basic, so they don't interfere with people that are in the bigger ones.

Might be a pain in the ass, I dunno.

[Alan T]

Not so much letting go a a previous game role, but remembering how well some of these people do as wolves is important.

I think the main thing would be to ensure the small games are kept small and very basic, so they don't interfere with people that are in the bigger ones.

Might be a pain in the ass, I dunno.

Usually how the small games started, they started the week after a large game started. you had about 6-8 people already killed in the other game who would join up in the small game plus maybe another 1-3 people who wern't playing in the big game.

I don't think there was ever a rule against playing in both, but most people usually didn't.

[path12]

I would imagine it would be very difficult to go from thinking a guy is a wolf in one game and a villager in another game running at the same time. As it stands, it appeared to me that people had a hard time letting go of someone's role in a previous game.

I used to play in a bunch of different games at the same time. It's not as hard to switch up on a person from game to game. What is hard is finding enough time to participate fully in each game and provide some kind of meaningful conversation/analysis.

[LoneStarGirl]

I would love to get a small game started today, but I doubt that is possible. This WW game might be my last for a long time because I am flying to yellowstone the 8th and I start work on the 14th and kids come back to school the 20th. Between teaching, getting my masters and coaching volleyball i will have no time for werewolf... I'll miss yall :p

[Lathum]

I like the small games but I am skeptical about having the numbers to sustain them. I guess the only way to find out is to try.

[Passacaglia]

Is this more in response to JHandley and his preference for small games or your stating that you're hoping we don't add back in small games at this time to encourage people in the large games?

Just in response to JHandley -- I think large games have their place. I'm in favor of small games -- I think adding them back in will mean that large games are large because of the type of game it is, rather than just because a lot of people want to play in that time period.

I hope that if we add in small games, we keep them going even if it seems like participation is not big enough to fill a large game -- then we won't need to worry about losing steam.