Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI was a villager in game 1 and game 2
Sounds like fun. Did you play more than one game?
and we lost both of them. It is extremely
difficult for villagers to win because they know
nothing.
The only person who knows everything is LEUR.
I am currently involved in game 3 and already there
is useless discussion because everyone is telling lies.
No one reveals their role in the game and it is up to all
involved to try and determine who is who.
It is full of mystery and intrigue and lies and you would
be hard pressed to know who is telling the truth.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 205025
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodySounds like a Friday night at the legion.
I was a villager in game 1 and game 2
and we lost both of them. It is extremely
difficult for villagers to win because they know
nothing.
The only person who knows everything is LEUR.
I am currently involved in game 3 and already there
is useless discussion because everyone is telling lies.
No one reveals their role in the game and it ...[text shortened]... f mystery and intrigue and lies and you would
be hard pressed to know who is telling the truth.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyThen, considerably more difficult than the Table Game of "Clue"?
I was a villager in game 1 and game 2
and we lost both of them. It is extremely
difficult for villagers to win because they know
nothing.
The only person who knows everything is LEUR.
I am currently involved in game 3 and already there
is useless discussion because everyone is telling lies.
No one reveals their role in the game and it ...[text shortened]... f mystery and intrigue and lies and you would
be hard pressed to know who is telling the truth.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOne game. What was fun was deciding what (who) to have over for dinner; choosing villagers who showed leadership, were highly involved, and/or had smarts for the game, the idea being to intimidate the rest and to keep them focused on their on their own personal survival. Also by chance, my partner played a "quiet" game and I talked more. Of course I don't know if any of this made any difference.
Sounds like fun. Did you play more than one game?
In the discussion after the game I posted some links including one where some simulation work showed that with 2 werewolves, random chance of them winning was about 70% against 8 or so villagers and dropped to about 50% against 15 villagers. This was in a simplified game with no mafia, seer, etc. Then another link showed the same general % results for actual games, suggesting that villagers trying strategies to win are no better that villagers choosing who to kill at random. Another point was that the organizer could start with more werwolves if there are a lot of villagers, for example 3 ww's for 20 villagers, 4 for 30, etc.
Originally posted by JS357Had no idea the game is so intricately involved (in some ways like chess, itself).
One game. What was fun was deciding what (who) to have over for dinner; choosing villagers who showed leadership, were highly involved, and/or had smarts for the game, the idea being to intimidate the rest and to keep them focused on their on their own personal survival. Also by chance, my partner played a "quiet" game and I talked more. Of course I don't know ...[text shortened]... e werwolves if there are a lot of villagers, for example 3 ww's for 20 villagers, 4 for 30, etc.
I appreciate your painstaking explanation. Thank you, JS.
