Election TWG

[chardish]

I'd like to run XXII and I might do it like this.

Election TWG

The gameplay is perfectly normal. 16 players, 3 wolves (1 of them master wolf), 1 seer, 1 guardian.

The game features cardflipping - meaning when you die, either by wolfing or by lynching, everyone learns your role.

The catch: At the beginning of the game every human sends in 6 votes to the host, privately: 1st 2nd 3rd choice for who they want to be seer, 1st 2nd 3rd choice for who they want to be guardian. Wolves don't vote.

If your 1st choice vote was for a wolf, then it gets ignored and converted to a 2nd choice vote. If that was a wolf too, it gets converted to your 3rd choice vote. If your 3rd choice vote was also a wolf, your vote doesn't count. (Odds of this happening: 00.21%)

The person with the most votes gets "elected" to the role. In case of a tie, the person who had more 2nd choice votes wins. In case of a tie, the person who had more 3rd choice votes wins. In case of a tie, coin toss to determine who wins.

It is not to your advantage to share who you voted for, especially not publicly, because this makes it easier for the wolves to track down the blues.

Balance: The wolves are allowed to pick one person as "unelectable" who cannot be elected to any blue role. Voting for the unelectable person is like voting for a wolf; your vote gets changed to the next one down.

[Afrobean]

Perhaps you could make it so votes are weighted. For example, 1st choice gets 3 points, 2nd gets 2 points, 3rd choice gets 1 point. Then all the points would be added up and the one with the highest point count would get the role rather than the one with the most "first pick" votes.

Also, can peope vote for self?

[talisman]

shouldn't in the case of a tie it go to the person with the most first choice votes, then if it's still tied, go to second choice votes?

ps do FFArt...

[evilbutterfly]

The gameplay is perfectly normal.


<3


The game features cardflipping


<9

And um, I think adding up 1st choice votes then going with 2nd choice is better than giving the votes weight. However, if the votes are given weight, it couldn't be 1, 2, 3. 1, 4, 9 would probably be better, so that your first choice counts for quite a bit more.

Anywho, I love the idea, except I'm not sure I'm hearing this right....does this mean that everybody is human, and that the seer/guardian can NEVER die? So the only counterbalance to seering and guarding is the wolves' ability to make people unelligible?

PS: I know exactly what I would do the minute this game started, but I shan't share it here because I don't wanna ruin it.

[Afrobean]

First, I agree with your comment eb about the weighting. It definitely should be heavily weighted toward one.

Second, what are you talking about with the "never die" stuff? What would stop them from dying? Wolves could still attack them and they could still be lynched.

Third, if you see a flaw in the game, say it now. Don't pull a Tass and exploit a flaw in the game midgame when you knew about it before hand. Also, Chardish has proven that he's the type who will cancel a game in the middle of it if a large flaw surfaces in the middle of the game.

[talisman]

no the voting happens at the beginning only.... after that is night one when I assume the wolves can kill whomever they please. blues aren't invincible... that would be dumb.

[chardish]

The votes will not be weighted, because this prevents players from having to solve complex algebra equations from their given knowledge to attempt to deduce who's who. You give 3 names, but only the one closest to the top without being ineligible really counts.

But once again, it's stupid to reveal who you voted for to anyone, because they might be a wolf. I was hoping people would learn this after the Alderoth/Sayban game, but we won't go into this. (I still maintain that the tribal game would have worked, but it ended about as stupidly as if all the wolves had revealed that they were wolves at the beginning of TWG I.)

[QreepyBORIS]

I think this idea is fine, and I see no immediate or gigantic flaws in it.

I'd like to play it.

[mead1]

I still claim that game as a Victory...

Anyway, this game sounds good. I'd vote for it.

[evilbutterfly]

Oh wait, for some reason I thought that we'd vote for a new set of blues everyday. I don't know why I thought that. .__.

[talisman]

I mean, this is what I would do:

1. Send out a pm telling everyone to vote me for guardian.
2. Explain to them that I will decline the role.
3. Then the second choice guardian will guard me, and I'll be the center of an alliance.

A wolf can't possibly try this because they won't get votes, if someone gets the guardian nod before it has been revealed that it was declined, they know that whoever was doing it was a wolf. They accept the role, and then everyone else knows who one of the wolves are. Easy kill, so the wolves wouldn't fake it.

[blahblah18]

i think the advantage for the reds is the narrowed down of who the blues will be, don't let them also axe people who it can be.. that's WAAAAY OVERPOWERED for trying to catch blues. Please remove that caveat and then it'll be decent I think

[talisman]

I mean, read what I just posted guys... that's a serious loophole. It's basically a guaranteed human alliance and victory.

[whorlichan]

Aww, dammit Chardish. I wanted to host the next TWG and here you go with a brand new shiny idea that everyone will want to play. :( Well, I'll put up my (not-so-shiny) idea against yours when the host vote thread comes up and then we shall see!

[Tasselfoot]

Talisman's idea is extremely good... you should eliminate the "turn-down" option as well. Whoever is the top voted is it, and thats that. Also, Blah's point is merited as well... don't let them limit who could be the seer/guardian. Because if I was a wolf, I'd pick someone like myself (or chardish, or ap) to not be either, then assume people would pick that person in the top 3 at least, and keep that person alive because they are a proven green to the wolves, and attack the next most likely candidates. It also leaves the wolves to NEVER touch the "unpopular" or new players who would never get voted for.

The popularity factor in weighing as to who the potential blues could be is hugely in favor of the wolves. The only counter-balance to that is the auto-psychic, which I don't see as a good enough balance. Perhaps whoever the 2 players who are 2nd (1 in each voting, or if the same person is 2nd in both, take whoever has the most total 3rd place votes as the 2nd person) could know who each other are and be a 2-person mason team.

[chardish]

1) Good point Talisman. I think we'll have to remove the option of declining the roles. This will also make people think twice before electing power players to the blue positions.

The initial thought behind declining was that if Tass, Guido, AP gets elected guardian it might be more to the humans' advantage for them to not be guardian, because they're obvious wolf candidates. But I guess you guys will all have to figure out that a power player shouldn't be guardian, and try not to lose at the vizzini game with the wolves that will inevitably follow.

2) Auto-psychic might have to be altered so that you learn human/wolf status, but NOT special roles. In a game like this, once the guardian is gone, it's just going to be nonstop wolfing of the power players until the seer's dead too. Eventually any remaining power players get lynched out of assumption that if they've lasted this long they must be wolves. Game dies of inactivity and is eventually won by the wolves for that reason.

3) 2-man mason team is too powerful, especially in a game with no MW. Remember that if the humans play this right the wolves won't be able to guess the blues. So, you'd be working with (best case for humans) 3 wolves vs. 2 masons + seer + guardian + auto-psychic. UNBALANCED. And I don't want to toss in MW to try and "balance" an already balance-iffy game.

[Tasselfoot]

So you didn't mention on whether or not the wolves would still get their veto powers. My point is valid regarding that and it should be eliminated...

So it becomes wolves (no MW? ok...) vs seer, guardian, auto-psychic... and the wolves will likely attack the power players. so, all the roles... seer, guardian, and if there were 2 masons... would all likely be "popular" players. wolves attack them, it balances out because you plan on the blues getting attacked early in the game.

That was my take.

[chardish]

Sorry to pass up that point on veto powers. Perhaps the wolves should lose those since that eliminates 2 potential blues leaving 11 left.

Maybe I'll add a MW, but the way I see it, the wolves are always trying to get the blues, right? There's no special bonus in this game for pegging a blue. It just changes the way blues are selected.

3 wolves (1 MW) + ability to deduce identities of blues vs. unkillable psychic, seer, guardian, 2 masons still seems like too much. And the humans are stupid if they elect the obvious as blues.

[Kilgamayan]

3 wolves vs. seer + guardian + autopsychic is already unbalanced towin the humans' favor.

[Tasselfoot]

you're forgetting the wolves' knowledge of who the blues could be... of the 13 humans, there really are only 5-6 people who could be blue. and figure at least 1 of those is a wolf.

[QreepyBORIS]

That last sentence made no sense, because the wolves know who each other are. :P

[Tasselfoot]

Qreepy: figure there are only 5 people that everyone will vote for in terms of roles... those are the 5 people that the wolves will attack. odds say that at least 1 of those 5 people will be a wolf, so there are now only 4 people the wolves need to attack.

Make more sense?

[Kilgamayan]

But no one knows who will vote for who in terms of roles. I could vote for a power player who I know will know what to do with what they're given, or I could vote for someone lesser who I know has an extremely low chance of being wolfed, or I could even throw darts at a board.

If the humans have any brains at all they won't tell other people how they're voting. Then the wolves will have zip to work with.

[chardish]

Taking Kilga's advice maybe autopsychic should reveal blues too?

Kind of a double-edged sword there.