[Game Thread] WW49: Wizards and Werewolves

[superdeath]

Fake Edit: thanks for clarifying superdeath, I was going to add your quote and a question next. I don't know if Serdoa actually had that kind of heat that he would need be facing much criticism here even if he had not been PR'd. The natural answer is that he was saying things that somebody didn't like being said.

When i get a bit more free time tonight ill go back and see who all was getting hammered by him.

[WarriorKnight]

Morning everyone. It's a beautiful day for some Explosion magic!

Firstly GG Tarkeel. I hope to see you again in another game, or maybe a bit later on in this one.

I'm real curious who would put a post restriction on Serdoa especially after he made a case to persuade several people, including myself, to give the scroll to him over superdeath.

novice, the more I look back over Day 1 the more I find myself agreeing with Serdoa and Rowain. While your early Day 1 pushes are good, it is nothing conclusive and the rest of your game leaves me with questions. While I do like your response in post 431 to Serdoa's overview, you are not bringing anything new to the table, just defending yourself against his accusations. What are your thoughts on everyone in the game?

[novice]

You think it is a ruse by Serdoa, but you’re voting Adrien for being behind it anyway?

Meant to say "would look like something Rogue-Like" As in, if you were to use a power of deception/control like a posting restriction, the rogue would be the perfect target imo. While i do doubt that Serdoa would do that to himself ( although it would be the 500 IQ play of the century ) The 2 mentioned players are the only ones where i could feasibly see having a power that fits this problem. Of the two, the Monk seems the easier fit as Meditating is rather quiet and a full no-voting power would be WAY too OP for this game. Unless this is the magical power of the Grognard?

Where does «would look like something Rogue-Like» fit into your original post?

[Gazglum]

Two theories, both alike in dignity:
That Rowain is scum, or Novice is mean.
Now ancient grudge? No, the same votes I see.
Where old debate makes motives hard to glean.

We must resolve the fate of these two foes
Lest with bick’ring, they bring us all to blows.

[Gazglum]

I guess I wasn't ready to fully commit. It would too quickly become the Novice vs. Rowain show, and it's just so hard to tell with Rowain. I swear his town game is tailored towards making it easier for him to play scum. Serdoa said it well:

It's 8 pm but I actually have to go to work. I guess I don't have anything better than Rowain at the moment, and he's already locked on me, so let's get the show on the road.

Fighter, blade in hand.
Says he wearies of this show.
Why then the re-run?

[novice]

I guess I wasn't ready to fully commit. It would too quickly become the Novice vs. Rowain show, and it's just so hard to tell with Rowain. I swear his town game is tailored towards making it easier for him to play scum. Serdoa said it well:

It's 8 pm but I actually have to go to work. I guess I don't have anything better than Rowain at the moment, and he's already locked on me, so let's get the show on the road.

Fighter, blade in hand.
Says he wearies of this show.
Why then the re-run?

I said I wasn’t ready for it on day one.

[novice]

Encouraging a push against Serdoa while he can't defend himself. Seems a bit opportunist to hit someone when they can't defend.

I was merely moving the discussion along. On that note:

That vote nailed thrawn. One possibility is that wolf-Serdoa was betting on a future modkill of town DS, but I doubt that. Another one is that wolf Serdoa was trying to save his scumbuddy DS, hoping for a return later on.

A DS modkill is not something scum wants, it robs them of a scum buddy or of a mislynch. So you're right to doubt that option.

If I understand our GM correctly, an absent DS will be modkilled at dusk tonight, which is frankly great news. If I had known Commodore would have that policy I would probably have looked for other targets yesterday.

[novice]

Thoughts on some players:

Rowain: Aggressively defensive, scumhunting is limited to calling everyone who suspects him scum.

Superdeath: I think he's just not making much of an effort, but sadly I don't think it means he's more likely than average to be scum. From what I gather he plays every game on this forum and clearly can't or won't be putting as much effort into each game as us powergamers.

Lewwyn: All the singing means less shouting, but he's actually engaging with a lot of players, so within the restriction he's made for himself he's making a good effort. All well within his scum range of course, as we always say. But I have nothing damning on him.

Pindicator: Hmm, yeah, I could see him as scum. (Let's lynch him tomorrow.) But seriously, he just thanked Superdeath for a clarification that was not the least bit clarifying to me, at least.

Gazglum: Saying that the Rowain/Novice show must be resolved today is an interesting stance. It's not like we have a lot of mislynches to waste, are you so sure one of us is scum?

[Serdoa]

I was not allowed to post more than votes for the first 12 hours of today. I've thought about why and so far I have:

a) someone just wanted to use his power
- That's fair I guess, and I wonder if that someone has come forward when I finally am allowed to post. 
- Spoiler: No one has and only DS hasn't posted.

b) someone wanted to make sure that my late vote on thrawn could not be discussed early
- This makes sense if someone wants to get me lynched, as we nearly never lynch whom we talk about at the start of the day. But I've also got the item, so that intention makes only sense for someone that believed SD would get it before logging off.

c) someone wanted to make me shut up
- Well, bad luck, I simply typed everything I wanted to write into a document and will dump it now on you all, have fun

And yeah ... Serdoa ... I think you are just one person but I am starting to wonder.

I am. Biologically. Not necessarily psychologically. But who is, really?

Oh, you mean how I "disagreed with most of what I read"? IIRC, it was nothing more concrete than your over the top attack on AdrienIer, and what I perceived as likely town-on-town bickering between Lewwyn and Rowain. Of course, when I tried to untangle that action, Rowain went haywire and declared me obvscum, so that kind of put a damper on that impression.

See, that is something that stood out to me. Your statement felt as if there was much more coming, than I asked and you told me that the time was not opportune. Now I first thought you wanted to hint at something, then that you just had tried to sound more convincing or give more weight to what you posted... and now I wonder if I misunderstood and you meant "I have to put my kids in bed and don't have time to post".

Serdoa I'm sure you looked through the thread as good as you can and I believe you had no ill intent but still you missed this:

@pindi
While I find your vote for me strange especially your statement:

But I can't vote off someone who loves OotS enough to have Durkon as avatar and try his accent. I only hope you are original recipe durkon and not the spawn of hel.

I'm now at a loss what to do. Perhaps I need to post in bold size 40 letters that people start to read them? Do I need to sprinkle rainbows and unicorns around them?

No I actually didn't miss it. I have the boardgame at home, so I could even relate. It did however seem like a jokey response to me, not your actual reasoning. Though as you state that it really was for that, let me again re-iterate: I do have the OotS boardgame at home

Also talks with SD but I hesitate to call it questioning. More trying to get him to actually talk a little bit more. But he then does vote SD, so apparently it was more than that. SD explains, and 5 minutes later everything is done and novices vote is on DS.

Yeah I was trying to draw him out of his shell. But then he accused Pindicator and Tarkeel (I think?) of skating by, but noone else, which seem wildly arbitrary, and good enough for an overnight vote. And then he explained that that was only roleplay, that their D&D classes were classes that were skating by from a Warlock's perspective. So I voted Dark Savant instead.

I have read it that way but I had to rush writing it down (I did you last in my overview even though you are in the middle as you had most posts) and did not make it obvious enough that moving from SD was sensible after his explanation. But it was a noteworthy interaction I felt, as in not mentioning it at all felt wrong.

As for voting to give Superdeath the item - it seemed thematic, and people like Gaz declared the item a curse and didn't want it, for fear of being nightkilled. I don't think the item is that important, so we can always just lynch Superdeath anyway if we run out of better ideas. Also, frankly, between Superdeath and you, if one of you is to have a saving roll against being lynched, I'd rather it was Superdeath than you.

Fair enough. I think if I get lynched you have a good case on me (or we are later in the game) and will easily be able to weigh losing an item against me being a wolf, while I believed SD would basically be lynch-proof as there is no way to get a really good case on someone not playing or only role-playing. In doubt, there will be someone else that seems just as good a lynch and with whom we would not lose an item.

But again, fair enough.

I agree with Novice's post here, it reads as an honest answer. Wolves can give honest answers, but it piles up on my read of him.

This post feels odd to me. Not that someone gives a positive read for once, but that Adrien says it reads as an honest answer, then admits himself that wolves can do that too, just to nonetheless put it on his pile of positive reads on novice. To me it seems you admit yourself that it is a null-tell but that you will still give him town-points. Or alternatively that you try to have it both ways ("Its good, but still could be bad"). I still believe writing like that is often the sign of a wolf who doesn't want to commit to any one read as they KNOW already what would be the right read. 

That vote nailed thrawn. One possibility is that wolf-Serdoa was betting on a future modkill of town DS, but I doubt that. Another one is that wolf Serdoa was trying to save his scumbuddy DS, hoping for a return later on.

The vote in itself is problematic, as all vote that nails a townie can be. But it's more that thrawn had just come back, and sounded exactly like in 46 when he had to quit because it was too overwhelming. In no way was it scummy. So that vote seems a bit too easy.

As I showed with my vote when it happened, I don't like that post from Adrien either. And not just for one reason alone, but for basically every single sentence in it:

1) "That vote nailed thrawn" - Thrawn not voting himself nailed thrawn. Tarkeel not changing his vote nailed thrawn. Rowain keeping on novice nailed thrawn. What I try to say: There have been several possibilities how that could have played differently and my vote was 11 minutes before deadline, enough time for others to consider what they do. I'd be inclined to agree if I voted with 1 minute to spare, but I didn't.

2) "wolf-Serdoa was betting on a future modkill of town DS but I doubt that" - Why do you even write it then, besides sowing doubt? And why would I stick my neck out in such a case? To get one lynch in on a player that does seem lost instead of a lost player? I don't mind being suspected as a wolf, that's part of the game, but at least respect that I'm a good wolf player.

3) "wolf Serdoa was trying to save his scumbuddy DS" - Ok, what wolf play is better: Trying to save a lost cause who might not even return anyhow or hammering home on him and getting town cred? Honestly, give me some respect for my wolf-play. But besides that, if I wanted to save DS specifically, I believe voting with 20 minutes left to move thrawn up, even though I am the whole time around and even though thrawn pretty clearly presented himself as an option all the time makes also no sense. Basically, my whole play D1 does not coincide with that suspicion and you have to willfully ignore how the day itself was played to come up with this. 

4) "The vote in itself is problematic, as all vote that nails a townie can be." - What is that supposed to mean, even if you'd be of the opinion that I did nail him? The vote in itself doesn't tell you anything, as a villager does not know anyones alignment. A vote always is only relevant when looked at for the reasons given and other plays made. Else we can all stop posting besides voting and go from there. It does work well with your point 3 though, if you really simply looked at the vote and ignored everything else. 

5) "But it's more that thrawn had just come back, and sounded exactly like in 46 when he had to quit because it was too overwhelming." - That is a bold statement, lets see

Working on catching up but more and more looks like I won’t be able to play properly. Especially with so much going on, without being fully in it, it’s easy to miss or forget important things. By page 10 I already had to jump back and forth a lot to see if the accusations are warranted, and I think I need to reread everything and take notes.

One thing that made an impression is that CMF gave a detailed commentary, and while that sort of thing is needed when joining at that stage, it was more thorough/detailed/committal than what I’d think a wolf can try to get away with, especially since no one else posted at that level. Unless it’s a part of a pretense of course but then you get in the wine video ad infinitum.

Superdeath's posts have been very curt, even accounting for the superdeath factor. I know it’s a low hanging fruit and will change the vote to someone else later for more input but voting now just so there is something. I have some feels for the others but need to review more before I can say and probably have to start over with notes...

I can see this becoming a lot of fun in the later days, but was thinking it'd be more of a leisurely side game like Codenames, not a full time project...

That doesn't sound at all like he did now. In WW46 he made this long post, shared his thoughts on the game, etc. Here he made a flurry of short posts, reminiscing the other games and stayed away from giving thoughts about the actual game. I could easily see a wolf going down acting like that, trying to save his hide but at the same time not leaving behind trails if he gets lynched.

Now, I'm not saying one can't have a different read, but I did go back and looked at the old games and saw that thrawn could contribute and be part of the game. I don't think it is such a stretch to come to the conclusion that him falling into "it is too much" cant merely be from the game alone (what I feel is with 12 people relatively easy to overlook) but from being a wolf in the game on top of everything else.

6) "In no way was it [the way thrawn sounded] scummy" - What you mean is that you feel that he didn't sound scummy. But stating that is was "in no way scummy" of course puts much more weight to your words. It's the way to tell people "Serdoa has to have realized it" without saying it. It's the way to make sure there is no discussion about this statement even being true.

Basically, I believe Adrien, you just try to sow doubt and maybe get me mislynched. Your case is construed, logically unsound and above all else: I makes no sense in light of all my D1 plays.

I can see how post 135 by superdeath corresponds to what others have described as "scum going for the easy mislynch on thrawn". It's also his first serious post, almost 24h in. And it's in the middle of some interesting back and forth between various players, so it's kind of odd that he'd try to redirect the discussion on thrawn.
The fact that he comes back at post 215 but posts nothing that contributes to the discussion is also a bad point.

Pressuring Serdoa for his vote leads nowhere until he can talk freely, so Superdeath

I stayed on Thrawn because of two reasons, 1: He failed to mention anything that wasnt "what should i be" or other nonsense and i wanted him to post something of substance 2: I went to bed and was at work when he showed up at the end.

Wanting him to post anything of substance indicates you just tried to pressure him to participate, but leaving the vote there indicates you thought he had a good chance to be scum. 

I, the great warlock of Yggdrasil do not see any reason other than deception for the glorious game-maker to give anyone the ability to make Serdoa have this talking restriction. I believe it is a classic rogue trick to avoid suspicion and protect himself from being kicked out this round.

Who would be granted such an ability? While i believe it is a ruse, my best guesses would be the  Monk   making someone else only able to "meditate"/vote OR Rowain the barbarian, perhaps with some sort of "rage/anger blinds you/cant talk"?

If Serdoa has this posting restriction, someone doesnt want him using the scroll that easily to bring back someone from the dead to give us wisdom. That is my best guess

What exactly do you mean with all that? First it sounds like you think I came up with it myself. But then you indicate you believe someone has the ability and used it on me. And then you vote for Adrien, without even knowing if he has the ability or at least questioning him about it? There are imo good reasons to vote Adrien, but not that. Especially as I have to add, we know that abilities were rolled before alignment, so it doesn't tell anything what ability someone has. Even if someone came forward to claim he used it on me would not be in itself damning. I'm actually surprised that still no one asked that simple question "Who silenced Serdoa and why?". I actually thought it was you SD.

You explain it after being questioned by novice, but that explanation still doesn't answer that for me, as your post clearly states that you believe it is to "protect himself from being kicked out this round". If you meant to say someone wanted to protect me, this 'himself' there is not making sense. Basically: I don't believe you. I think you either changed your mind halfway through writing your post OR you asked others what they think and they told you that an attack on me over this would make no sense, so you changed your post but left that part by accident in. And the only way to ask others is if you are a wolf-munchkin

superdeath

I don't know if Serdoa actually had that kind of heat that he would need be facing much criticism here even if he had not been PR'd. The natural answer is that he was saying things that somebody didn't like being said.

We've all forgotten the scroll have we? Even if it is not strong, I sincerely doubt there was a chance to get lynched today over other targets. If I wanted to fake a post restriction, I would do so on D3 or D4 - and do it for the whole day, not just a few hours. Which btw is why I am certain that this is one of the "role-powers", as it is a nice touch without really being strong, which is also the only way to keep the game balanced when you give role/power before alignment. I'd also think that people have their "role-power" and some an additional "real-power" - like watcher or tracker. Or maybe none of those "real-powers" exist at all in the game. But that's enough meta-speculation for me.

[Rowain]

A DS modkill is not something scum wants, it robs them of a scum buddy or of a mislynch. So you're right to doubt that option.

Why would scum not want a modkill of a villlager? It is a free mislynch without work or traces.
Just some math: Let us assume we lynch a player today then DS gets modkilled at the end of night 2 (thats how I understand C here)

For this purpose a day/night cycle. So DS needs to vote by Night 2 to avoid modkill.

Add the nghtkill and voilà at start of D3 we are 5 players down and sit at 3 players 3 munchkins 1 grognard.