WW XCIII - Mine Wars - Battle of Blair Mountain - SYMPATHIZERS WIN!!!

[Autumn]

This game went on so long since I died I no longer remember all the things I wanted to find out. I figured they could bribe a town ahead, though I was surprised people never keyed onto that. But I'm surprised how many day actions there were. I think the villagers were really hurt by never hunkering down to try to game out what the mechanics were. I know they were confusing, but there was a lot that could have been figured, I think.

[The Jackal]

I agree, I for one enjoyed the historical tidbits. American History isnt usually my thing, but it was well narrated.

[PurdueBrad]

Agreed BK, thought it was fascinating and the wife is seriously going to try and adapt it for a classroom activity.

[Abe Sargent]

Thanks!

I think there were some good things here. Was it my best game as GM? Nope. I am not going to run a similar ruleset in the future, but I enjoyed trying it out. Thanks to BK for pioneering the Work type WW games (if I remember rightly) and also to Glengoyne for stepping in. Much appreciated. Totally want to see you in other games.

[PurdueBrad]

Autumn and EF I tried to bribe you both but failed each time. What were your numbers?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Poli

I may never play another Abe game again.

As soon as I post "The Dungeon II, This Time it's Serious" you'll be back

[PurdueBrad]

Abe, let me apologize to you, and I hope the tone of my later PMs conveyed that, but I did flip out over the no go in Phase 1 by the village. I didn't mean to be an ass about it but I didn't think it was in the spirit of the game.

I don't think I bullied Abe or even tried to, but my frustration was likely tangible. I would say that he made the right call here but I am biased. It's a tough spot. I think even a no go/re-do would've pissed me off a ton.

[Lathum]

OK, so I think instead of people just saying they will never play in an Abe game and others agreeing, I think the respectful thing to do would be at least tell him why. ( this is not an attempt to call anyone out, I know several people were frustrated with this game)

A few random thoughts.

The first thing that annoyed me was the large amount of mechanics in place to make the game intentionally long. I think when you have days on ebd with no kills and hidden mechanics it creates disinterest. I know there are a ton pf posts but alot of it was either filler or speculation on HOW the mechanics work instead of who to kill. In a game like this it was impossible for the village to come up with a strategty.

I think the fact that the sympathizers never had to fake work means something was busted.

I agree with BK about the creativity and writting, I just think you need regular kills to keep things moving.

[Autumn]

I was $2,000, PB.

[Poli]

I don't know after the Poli Dies/Bull Moose Special.

[Abe Sargent]

Like I said, BK caught me off my rules, only time it happened, so I had to make a rule on the spot. I;m pretty good about making logical choices under pressure.

[Poli]

Can I keep the stone?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think the fact that the sympathizers never had to fake work means something was busted.

I agree with this. While I don't think regular kills were necessary, the fact that they could fake work and they could do arrests felt overwhelming as a villager. It seemed there was no downside, especially now that I know that it didn't impinge on tehir night kills or bribes.

That said, I felt like if the villagers had actually made better work plans we would have been in good shape. We left a margin that left us vulnerable to arrest. If I had lived I would have kept pressing to put more on the work duties.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Abe, let me apologize to you, and I hope the tone of my later PMs conveyed that, but I did flip out over the no go in Phase 1 by the village. I didn't mean to be an ass about it but I didn't think it was in the spirit of the game.

I don't think I bullied Abe or even tried to, but my frustration was likely tangible. I would say that he made the right call here but I am biased. It's a tough spot. I think even a no go/re-do would've pissed me off a ton.

You're pissed, that I gave you a victory? It's not like my move was without consequences. Someone, from our side, died. Someone, as a matter of fact, who I could trust. That's a real consequence for what I did. It's not like by sending out 0 everything comes up roses for the villagers. C'mon.

[Autumn]

Oh also, did hte Sympathizers get to know what the missions were ahead of time when they bribed the next town? I assumed that was why they took me out with the Brutal, leaving only one hunter.

[Barkeep49]

BTW, still working on my long post, as Lathum suggests. 3964 wasn't it.

[Abe Sargent]

One of the pieces of advice BK gave me before running the game is that the work was often too easy for the village, so beware. Like I said, no doubt this ruleset wasn;t perfect, and no doubt there aren;t improvement sthat could be made in case someone wants to run it again, but I do think it was a nice experiment to try something different in WW, where a lot of the games are the same. I stand by that, and it was fun to GM and I hope, for the most part, was fun for you to play.

[Abe Sargent]

By the way, can anyone ever recall a WW game where the seer, BG AND Duke all hit paydirt on the same day?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

You're pissed, that I gave you a victory? It's not like my move was without consequences. Someone, from our side, died. Someone, as a matter of fact, who I could trust. That's a real consequence for what I did. It's not like by sending out 0 everything comes up roses for the villagers. C'mon.

No, my point was this, if a seer doesn't put in an order or a wolf doesn't put in an order, there is a bit of punishment there (no scan, no kill). I felt like we would've been punished if we would have been forced to waste our action on an empty battlefield. My reaction was when it was still up in the air on what Abe would do, not after he made his call (obviously).

[Autumn]

I had fun Abe. I think the natural tendency is to deconstruct it as soon as it's over since we've been sitting, unable to see it all and unable to discuss it openly.

I think every game people vent over whatever isn't working for them. And I think any complicated ruleset is going to get complaints for either being too complicated or too opaque. I think the main difference I would suggest for this ruleset would have been trimming down the number of events or changes of rules. Just the regular rules were enough for us to try to wrap our hands around. One game changing event would have been cool, but I think it got to feel a bit much when there were several events (by which I mean things like the game ending battle, but also the other battle, the two day camps, those sort of things).

I love a game with a unique ruleset though and I enjoyed this one. The work element was fun for me and I loved the historical immersion of it as well as some of the twists and items. I can't believe I didn't get a role though, seemed like everybody had one.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Oh also, did hte Sympathizers get to know what the missions were ahead of time when they bribed the next town? I assumed that was why they took me out with the Brutal, leaving only one hunter.

No, we didn't. We took you out because I was convinced you were roled since we failed at bribing you twice, once at 1k and once at 1500.

[Autumn]

Oh, what the heck happened there. Poli was sure he had convinced the wolves to kill EagleFan, but he was confused about who was a hunter. But they did try to kill EF? Was that just horrible luck for the wolves?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I had fun Abe. I think the natural tendency is to deconstruct it as soon as it's over since we've been sitting, unable to see it all and unable to discuss it openly.

I think every game people vent over whatever isn't working for them. And I think any complicated ruleset is going to get complaints for either being too complicated or too opaque. I think the main difference I would suggest for this ruleset would have been trimming down the number of events or changes of rules. Just the regular rules were enough for us to try to wrap our hands around. One game changing event would have been cool, but I think it got to feel a bit much when there were several events (by which I mean things like the game ending battle, but also the other battle, the two day camps, those sort of things).

I love a game with a unique ruleset though and I enjoyed this one. The work element was fun for me and I loved the historical immersion of it as well as some of the twists and items. I can't believe I didn't get a role though, seemed like everybody had one.

I agree.

[PurdueBrad]

NO, we tried to bribe freakin' EF and Poli blocked a bribe attempt, not a kill.

[PurdueBrad]

Abe, a very deep game and one I enjoyed. It's probably the game I've had the most hand-wringing about and the most second-guessing about when it came to decision making on my part. I would describe my game experience here as fun and yet tense.

[Danny]

There were some things I didn't care for, but all in all it was a fun game that was at least interesting.

[Danny]

PB, I did likely feel you were a wolf today though, as soon as I died, I PMed about three people who were dead saying you were a wolf :P

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

No, my point was this, if a seer doesn't put in an order or a wolf doesn't put in an order, there is a bit of punishment there (no scan, no kill). I felt like we would've been punished if we would have been forced to waste our action on an empty battlefield. My reaction was when it was still up in the air on what Abe would do, not after he made his call (obviously).

PB you missed my point. There was punishment. You became one villager closer to winning.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

PB you missed my point. There was punishment. You became one villager closer to winning.

Agree with what you are saying. What I had said to the wolves is that I would be fine if Abe would take away the guy that was going to launch the gas but there is no way any lunatic would gas a completely empty battlefield. So we could've lost a soldier but should've been allowed to keep the gas IMO.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Danny

PB, I did likely feel you were a wolf today though, as soon as I died, I PMed about three people who were dead saying you were a wolf :P

Yeah, I figured I was fairly obvious today but had hoped that Lathum's reveal had me covered and then Claph's as well.

[Barkeep49]

Please note, I had an older version of this up. I deleted it as I left out an important paragraph.

Ok so here's the deal. Barkeep's grand theory of what makes a good werewolf game, boils down to one idea: agency. The players must feel like they can control the outcome of the game. WW, at its most basic, is about making the choice of who is a wolf? Of making the choice who do I vote for? Of making the choice who do I kill?

My goal, when running a game, is to take the idea of choice and put it on steroids. I want lots of people, hopefully everyone, to not only have to make a choice, but to have to make a MEANINGFUL choice. And hopefully to have to make several meaningful choices.

I don't think this game offered the villagers meaningful choices. There were choices, alright, but the villagers were completely unable to judge the effects of those choices. For instance the missions. Day 1? That was a complete waste and we lost a camp. But was losing a camp a big deal? Impossible to say since we didn't know how much leeway we had there. The cost benefit of the tension between mission and work was just impossible to judge. We could make some guesses, but who knows.

It’s very hard to offer meaningful choices when you don’t even know the end game. Sure there was the 8 camp bit. But early on that seemed like it was out of reach. So it became a traditional WW game, except the preconceived events messed that idea up. SO instead there was this strategic end game. It’s hard for either side to plan when they don’t even understand what goal it is they’re trying to reach. I don’t think the wolves had any more idea than the villagers did that we were about to enter a whole new phase of the game. And it seems, from what I’ve put together, that the choices were kind of pushed in that direction on all sides. I don’t begrudge Abe this. Seeing how a different end game plays out, is a fun interesting idea. But it made planning, in the end for both sides, an effort in futility.

As did the preconceived events. The villagers were completely helpless there. And there were no events that were going to auto help the villagers. Having some oh shit moments for both sides? That can be great game play. I think to the Mythology game where the voting all of a sudden ended early. Some people were pissed. But that was a great moment (though one that I'm glad that don't get repeated). Of course the ending early was not only an "oh shit" moment, it was one controlled by the players. In the final stages, the gas/bombing is just like that. It's an "oh man I can't believe that happened" moment controlled by the players. I think the problem here is that Abe was trying too hard to tell a story. I had a game, Spawn 2, where I know I fell into this trap. It wasn't enough to just have a game of WW. No I had to tell a story. And so certain things were done, which the players couldn't account for and which denied the players their agency. I won't repeat that mistake again. And I don't think Abe will either. The story is not the thing in WW, the play and the choices, that's the thing.

And because of that story, we didn't just have 1 "oh shit" moment in that final stage, we had 2. And that second time, wasn’t an “oh shit” moment in a good way it was an “oh shit” I have no idea what’s coming and perhaps should just give up. Which is too bad, because that end game was a neat concept. I like new mechanics, and this was certainly it. I think structurally it had the huge disadvantage of turning it from a game of villagers vs wolves into barkeep vs wolves. As I’ve thought it over these past couple days I’m not sure how you prevent that from happening, other than to do a complete role reveal. Villagers can only discuss in the thread, thus continuing to give the wolves the advantage of public discussion, but at least there can be a legitimate discussion, and perhaps even a vote.

That idea of the villagers having to conduct their business in public while the wolves can influence that public business and still scheme behind closed doors is the biggest advantage the wolves have. I’m pretty certain you could design a game where the wolves can’t even night kill someone and they could still have a chance simply by that advantage. In this game not only was there uncertainty over who to trust, as there was in a normal werewolf game, there was also the bribing mechanism. If we're playing a traditional WW game, it becomes VERY hard to ever kill Lathum at the end. He’s been cleared. Having to make that conclusion, a conclusion we could clearly have drawn based on what we did know? That’s meaningful game play.

And that’s what I want to emphasize in the end. I don’t have a problem that Abe took some risks with new mechanics. I try stuff out all the time, some of it works, some of it, even stuff that I found really neat, doesn’t work. If we’d had a pretty traditional game of WW up until that final stage, I think people, especially with the writing and research, would feel differently about the game. But without the ability to have any real understanding of what was going on, no plans could be made. Without plans, the villagers could never really get their act together. Without coordination the villagers don’t have a chance. So the thing that I hope everyone takes away from this, is that they make sure to give the players agency, and then step back and let the game unfurl. It can be complicated or simple. It might be a blowout, it might be close. But when the players have had to make some difficult decisions, and been proven right or wrong on those decisions, it will be a game they’ll remember fondly.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Agree with what you are saying. What I had said to the wolves is that I would be fine if Abe would take away the guy that was going to launch the gas but there is no way any lunatic would gas a completely empty battlefield. So we could've lost a soldier but should've been allowed to keep the gas IMO.

Ah yes. I understand this point and feel it could have been a fair outcome as well.

[PurdueBrad]

BK, I get you too, sorry for misunderstanding before, reading too quickly.

[PurdueBrad]

OH, for the record, even as a villager I honestly would've tried to go on that mission. I really like to try the game dynamics in these type of games because the reward is usually better than the risk.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Please note, I had an older version of this up. I deleted it as I left out an important paragraph.

Ok so here's the deal. Barkeep's grand theory of what makes a good werewolf game, boils down to one idea: agency. The players must feel like they can control the outcome of the game. WW, at its most basic, is about making the choice of who is a wolf? Of making the choice who do I vote for? Of making the choice who do I kill?

My goal, when running a game, is to take the idea of choice and put it on steroids. I want lots of people, hopefully everyone, to not only have to make a choice, but to have to make a MEANINGFUL choice. And hopefully to have to make several meaningful choices.

I don't think this game offered the villagers meaningful choices. There were choices, alright, but the villagers were completely unable to judge the effects of those choices. For instance the missions. Day 1? That was a complete waste and we lost a camp. But was losing a camp a big deal? Impossible to say since we didn't know how much leeway we had there. The cost benefit of the tension between mission and work was just impossible to judge. We could make some guesses, but who knows.

It’s very hard to offer meaningful choices when you don’t even know the end game. Sure there was the 8 camp bit. But early on that seemed like it was out of reach. So it became a traditional WW game, except the preconceived events messed that idea up. SO instead there was this strategic end game. It’s hard for either side to plan when they don’t even understand what goal it is they’re trying to reach. I don’t think the wolves had any more idea than the villagers did that we were about to enter a whole new phase of the game. And it seems, from what I’ve put together, that the choices were kind of pushed in that direction on all sides. I don’t begrudge Abe this. Seeing how a different end game plays out, is a fun interesting idea. But it made planning, in the end for both sides, an effort in futility.

As did the preconceived events. The villagers were completely helpless there. And there were no events that were going to auto help the villagers. Having some oh shit moments for both sides? That can be great game play. I think to the Mythology game where the voting all of a sudden ended early. Some people were pissed. But that was a great moment (though one that I'm glad that don't get repeated). Of course the ending early was not only an "oh shit" moment, it was one controlled by the players. In the final stages, the gas/bombing is just like that. It's an "oh man I can't believe that happened" moment controlled by the players. I think the problem here is that Abe was trying too hard to tell a story. I had a game, Spawn 2, where I know I fell into this trap. It wasn't enough to just have a game of WW. No I had to tell a story. And so certain things were done, which the players couldn't account for and which denied the players their agency. I won't repeat that mistake again. And I don't think Abe will either. The story is not the thing in WW, the play and the choices, that's the thing.

And because of that story, we didn't just have 1 "oh shit" moment in that final stage, we had 2. And that second time, wasn’t an “oh shit” moment in a good way it was an “oh shit” I have no idea what’s coming and perhaps should just give up. Which is too bad, because that end game was a neat concept. I like new mechanics, and this was certainly it. I think structurally it had the huge disadvantage of turning it from a game of villagers vs wolves into barkeep vs wolves. As I’ve thought it over these past couple days I’m not sure how you prevent that from happening, other than to do a complete role reveal. Villagers can only discuss in the thread, thus continuing to give the wolves the advantage of public discussion, but at least there can be a legitimate discussion, and perhaps even a vote.

That idea of the villagers having to conduct their business in public while the wolves can influence that public business and still scheme behind closed doors is the biggest advantage the wolves have. I’m pretty certain you could design a game where the wolves can’t even night kill someone and they could still have a chance simply by that advantage. In this game not only was there uncertainty over who to trust, as there was in a normal werewolf game, there was also the bribing mechanism. If we're playing a traditional WW game, it becomes VERY hard to ever kill Lathum at the end. He’s been cleared. Having to make that conclusion, a conclusion we could clearly have drawn based on what we did know? That’s meaningful game play.

And that’s what I want to emphasize in the end. I don’t have a problem that Abe took some risks with new mechanics. I try stuff out all the time, some of it works, some of it, even stuff that I found really neat, doesn’t work. If we’d had a pretty traditional game of WW up until that final stage, I think people, especially with the writing and research, would feel differently about the game. But without the ability to have any real understanding of what was going on, no plans could be made. Without plans, the villagers could never really get their act together. Without coordination the villagers don’t have a chance. So the thing that I hope everyone takes away from this, is that they make sure to give the players agency, and then step back and let the game unfurl. It can be complicated or simple. It might be a blowout, it might be close. But when the players have had to make some difficult decisions, and been proven right or wrong on those decisions, it will be a game they’ll remember fondly.

I agree, but I don;t think the events are as anti this as you might think. For example, take the On the Steps event.

I could have just done this:


Day Action, Sympathizers:

On the Steps of the Courthouse: Once, during the game, you may take a Day Action to kill any ally.


Same thing. Mechanically, both are abilities to kill an ally once. For storyline reasons, I wanted the event to occur after Sid was an ally, because that is when it happened irl. But I wanted the Sympathizers to have a choice, so that was given to them, instead of just killing Sid off automatically.

The kill events were meant to supplement the low number of kills the Symapthizers had and to keep the game going, not as punishment. They were just a different way to keep the game from getting stale.

[PurdueBrad]

BK- Did you know from the beginning about your tie-breaking ability with voting? Also, how many times did you actually use it?

I like that as a role or a tie in to a role, the tie-breaker.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I agree, but I don;t think the events are as anti this as you might think. For example, take the On the Steps event.

I could have just done this:


Day Action, Sympathizers:

On the Steps of the Courthouse: Once, during the game, you may take a Day Action to kill any ally.


Same thing. Mechanically, both are abilities to kill an ally once. For storyline reasons, I wanted the event to occur after Sid was an ally, because that is when it happened irl. But I wanted the Sympathizers to have a choice, so that was given to them, instead of just killing Sid off automatically.

The kill events were meant to supplement the low number of kills the Symapthizers had and to keep the game going, not as punishment. They were just a different way to keep the game from getting stale.

Actually you're only proving my point. You could have given the Sympathizers the choice of which ally to kill. But you didn't. You made the choice for them. You wanted it to be a certain way and so it was a certain way. Perhaps, they would have felt more threatened by Mother Jones and would want to see her offed. That seems like a legitimate gameplay decision on the sympathizers part. But they didn't have to make that choice. Their choice was going to be made for them down the road. Giving the sympathizers that ability is not at all the same as having it happen automatically. You wanted the game to reflect history. It did. The union had a just cause, but never really stood a chance, things looked good for them only because of some dumb luck (what are the odds that Pass is both a wolf AND that I'm the duke? AND that Poli protects the right person?), while the system was structured to give the sympathizers a huge leg up.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

BK- Did you know from the beginning about your tie-breaking ability with voting? Also, how many times did you actually use it?

I like that as a role or a tie in to a role, the tie-breaker.

I knew from the beginning. I could use it an unlimited amount of times (Abe correct me if I'm wrong). It's a good role. I like it too as a gameplay mechanic. Of course there needs to be a back-up in case that person dies. But it is a good role to have.

[PurdueBrad]

BK, we had a choice on which ally to kill, we just didn't get the option until a certain day.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

By the way, can anyone ever recall a WW game where the seer, BG AND Duke all hit paydirt on the same day?

That was harsh.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

OH, for the record, even as a villager I honestly would've tried to go on that mission. I really like to try the game dynamics in these type of games because the reward is usually better than the risk.

What got me on you for that was your flip to not go on the mission. Was that something related to a discussion with other wolves at he time?

I wish I hadn't done vote analysis or I wouldn't have flipped from you. Your Jackal vote was a HUGE factor in my attitude towards you.


Oh yeah, someone did say to not trust Lathum....

[EagleFan]

What other kind of items were out there?

I received a shotgun from Poli (part of the mistaken move turned out very positive) but it really wasn't much good to me as with my specialty so I ended up giving it to TheNorm.

[Abe Sargent]

Shotgun, Fiddle, Rifle, Food Supplies, Dynamite, Ledger, Knife, Tents, and two other things i can't remember off the top of my head. Ten total items.

Oh, and you guys would have gotten a BUNCH of items on Day Two if you had gone with the "Everybody go on Mission" plan. I hadn;t seen that one coming and there was about a 66% chance of each person getting an item, but those with searching got one automatically.

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, money was one. When ntndeacon slipped in, he could steal some of the $$ from teh Sympathizers if he rolled it.

[Danny]

I was a pretty cheap bribe I think if you guys came after me.

[EagleFan]

I was a 3000 bribe. Sounds like they tried to go after me twice. Once they were blocked by Poli and another time they came up 500 short.

We were all wondering how bribe attempts work and if thee as a risk. Apparantly not as I never knew until after my death when PB told me about it.

I was a little surprised that no one looked at clap as a possible bribe target. He practically asked for it and posted his bribe amount. At one point yesterday I saw someone had clap and PB at the top of their trust list and fiured we were in trouble.

[Chief Rum]

I hate to bring this up, but...

...village decision to kill USFL instead of clap, the decision I said was one of the stupidest I have ever seen a village go, was, as it turned out, probably the most "important" decision for the wolves in the game.

Well, that and clap announcing his bribe price.

FWIW, I was bribeable at $1500.

[Lathum]

Yeah, the decision to cconvert Clap was so logical.

ME and Danny were talking about it and Danny thought maybe it was a bluff and I said c;mon, it's Clap.

[Lathum]

umm

[EagleFan]

Jeez, these sympathizers keep getting more powers. Now it's the triple post power...