Should the Hunter be allowed to choose his kill-Night Round

[Bfett1326]

Should the Hunter be allowed to pick his kill during the Night Round?


1. Yes, but must be before the end of the day round
2. No, let random.org decide
3. Yes but within a time frame (e.g. 2 hour time limit)
4. Other (please specify)

*Please note that the Hunter will be removed from the Game thread after he dies, he will have to PM the game Host/Mod to announce his kill*

[randy1985]

I say no

[Bfett1326]

It would match closer to the actual table top game, but players need to take into consideration the time zone differences

[ruffrider]

I say yes because then it gives way to more strategy playing.
Might even make him worth another (+)point when setting up

[Shaken_Not_Stirred]

tbh i'd just let random do it because of the time zone differences not everyone will be on at the same time so they may potentially miss their deadline for it plus it's just easier that way to keep the game flow moving

[witty0ne]

I say no let random.org handle it.

[BigCambo]

Random.org

[CoyoteStarrk]

I say yes but with a time limit of 30 mins to an hour.

But then again the Hunter could be someone like mOOse or Mim who's in a different timezone and is most likely asleep during that period. So yeah, what the hell, let it be random.

[Captain_Fantasy]

What was the conflict over the last game's hunter role?

[angra]

I say let Captain_Fantasy decide

[jim gatton]

Is or has there been a problem come up in the past? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Three D]

Hmmm, again I have to say, why so much concentration on the time zone thing? I would be interested to hear Mim's point of view on this.

It's not that I don't want to make concessions to accomodate them but we don't on any other fronts. It already interferes with votes, potions, wolfishness and generally keeping up with the game. If that is so important why don't we pick a time that allows more players to participate more in the vote? Have we been through that already? Is there no better time?

I think the main points are:

1. What matches game play; how powerful is the hunter supposed to be?
2. Can we do it in a way that maintains the intended power of the role and fairness to all?
3. Is there anything about current gameplay or experience that indicates this is a good/vad idea?

The Hunter is a +3. I'm the first to say I don't understand how to work out the game value but I can see he is as powerful as the guardian. The guardian is a powerful motherfucker and he can choose who he protects. From the first time I read about the random.org thing I thought that was a raw deal. I think it does the hunter a disservice to take away his power.

That's my

[mOOse]

Originally Posted by D Ddun Hmmm, again I have to say, why so much concentration on the time zone thing? I would be interested to hear Mim's point of view on this. It's not that I don't want to make concessions to accomodate them but we don't on any other fronts. It already interferes with votes, potions, wolfishness and generally keeping up with the game. If that is so important why don't we pick a time that allows more players to participate more in the vote? Have we been through that already? Is there no better time? I think the main points are: 1. What matches game play; how powerful is the hunter supposed to be? 2. Can we do it in a way that maintains the intended power of the role and fairness to all? 3. Is there anything about current gameplay or experience that indicates this is a good/vad idea? The Hunter is a +3. I'm the first to say I don't understand how to work out the game value but I can see he is as powerful as the guardian. The guardian is a powerful motherfucker and he can choose who he protects. From the first time I read about the random.org thing I thought that was a raw deal. I think it does the hunter a disservice to take away his power. That's my

agree on all accounts.

at first i did think it gave him a little too much power (ie being able to pick the most well hidden wolf as his kill), but i think this is just because we've for some reason been playing that role wrong this whole time, ie using random instead of letting the hunter decide his kills.

obviously the hunter was intended to be, as ddun puts it, a "powerful motherfucker" and i see no reason to screw with his intended role, at least not by choice. this is why, if he's around when the kills happen, he should be able to pick his kills (day and night round) and if he's not around, then we go to random in order to keep the game going as the last resort.

like i said in the other thread, i'm sure the people who made the game years ago, and have been re-working it since, created roles and rules that would ensure fair games (ie equal chances of victory for both teams). if we start taking away or adding powers to certain roles we'll screw with that balance. it's bad enough that the hunter won't always get to pick his kill like he would in real life, why handicap him even further but taking away his intended abilities when he is online and able to use them?

[Tim the Tool Man]

Let me gather my thoughts on this and put them to words.

[Tim the Tool Man]

Now lets begin.

When the Hunter role was first introduced here on the forums in the Werewolf Game, the Hunter was allowed to kill one of his/her attackers if killed during the Villager Lynching and would "Randomly" kill one of the werewolves, as determined by random.org, if killed during the night round by the werewolves. If killed by the Magician or Witch during the night round, the Hunter in return would kill their killer.

What I think we must keep in mind is that this is a forum and we are adapting this game and it's roles for forum play.

In the truest essence of the Hunter role, the Hunter when killed, either during the day round lynching or during the night round, can choose any 1 player to kill, no matter what that player's role is or if that player played a hand in killing the Hunter or not. The Hunter also reserves the right not to kill any one.

011b.png

So in keeping with the spirit of the game and the role of the Hunter, I suggest the following:

Day Round Lynching - If the Hunter is killed during the day round lynching, the player who is the Hunter can kill any player of his/her choosing or not kill a player at all. There should be a reasonable time limit to allow the player that is the Hunter to PM the game host. Up to 2 hours seems reasonable to me, however, the Hunter should also be proactive and PM the game host in advance their choice in case of the Hunter's death. This will avoid the need to wait on the Hunter to decide what to do and allow the game host to keep the game moving. Now if the Hunter does not PM the game host a player's name to kill in the time limit set, I think the game host should take this to mean "NO KILL" by the Hunter. This will force the player who is the Hunter to be more active in regards to their role and does not penalize specific players when the Hunter's choice, in all reality, can be any player. This also puts the responsibility on the player who is the Hunter rather then the game host.

Night Round Kill - Same as Day Round Lynching.

If the Hunter is killed during the night round, the player who is the Hunter can kill any player of his/her choosing or not kill a player at all. There should be a reasonable time limit to allow the player that is the Hunter to PM the game host. Up to 2 hours seems reasonable to me, however, the Hunter should also be proactive and PM the game host in advance their choice in case of the Hunter's death. This will avoid the need to wait on the Hunter to decide what to do and allow the game host to keep the game moving. Now if the Hunter does not PM the game host a player's name to kill in the time limit set, I think the game host should take this to mean "NO KILL" by the Hunter. This will force the player who is the Hunter to be more active in regards to their role and does not penalize specific players when the Hunter's choice, in all reality, can be any player. This also puts the responsibility on the player who is the Hunter rather then the game host.

Now this way of thinking brings the Hunter Role as close to possible to the true spirit of the role. The responsibility of killing a player or not, resides solely with the player that is the Hunter and not the game host. So, if the Hunter kills a player or fails to kill a player, only the player that is the Hunter can be blamed for who they killed or who they didn't kill. Lastly, this does not allow for an "Automatic Kill" of a Werewolf during the night round, when the Hunter is killed by the Werewolves.

[Tim the Tool Man]

To further my point.....

If the Hunter is not going to be here at the end of Day Round, they should PM the game host and say.....

Please kill *INSERT THE NAME OF ANY PLAYER* in case I am lynched.

and at the start of the Night Round, they should PM the game host.....

Please kill *INSERT THE NAME OF ANY PLAYER* in case I am killed by the Werewolves.

If at any point the game host does not get a PM from the Hunter, the game host should PM the Hunter and give them up to 2 hours to reply. If there is no reply in that time frame, then there is NO KILL made by the Hunter.

[Tim the Tool Man]

I know as a villager, the "Automatic Kill" of a werewolf during the night round seems nice, however, as the Hunter Role is described in the rule book, this "Automatic Kill" is putting the Wolf Team at a disadvantage. I know I have helped created most of the rules and role adaptations for the Werewolf Game here on the forums and in the past I have supported, endorsed, and/or written the rules and/or role adaptations as what I thought best for the forum environment, however, in regards to any past position or opinion I had maintained on this particular role, my opinion now, is that of what the rule book is. As forum moderator, I must take the rules and roles and transcribe them for use on the forum. I try to remain impartial and give no preference to any player or team. As such, things change. This game will remain in a constant state of evolution until such time all possible scenario's can be played out.

Some players may want to argue or debate the scenario in regards to the "Automatic Kill" of a Werewolf during the night round, however, no matter how a player describes the scenario they wish to outline, the rule book does not take into account the over-active imagination or over analyzing of things by players, only the very basic of rules and role descriptions.

[cantswleepclownswillgetme]

Thats essentially my objection. Giving the hunter a list of wolves is too much, whatwith the numbers of villagers vs. number of wolves. Too much like shooting fish in a barrell. The way the role is described above is how I was thinking it was being played. Admittedly I havent checked the rules in about ... a year, so......

Having the hunter pick, however it be done, I think is essential. I mean if a seer misses a peek, they dont get another chance, barring a RL complication and communicating with the mod anyway. So having the hunter kill be automatic isnt a good idea IMO.
Random generation takes all the fun out of the role as well. What is the fun in that?
The hunter is a potentially powerful role, but as we are playing now is the ONLY role given a list of wolves to pick from. Let it be more like the gaurdian, hes on his own, unless of course he hooks up with a seer.
Stop thinking of it as a guy with a knife killing off his one of his attackers. If it helps, maybe think of the wolves as more high tech. Maybe theyre using sniper rifles and the hunter just has a big ass, one shot pistol. And all the houses in the village are made of plywood.
Think more of the overall effects on the game.

I've never played any version (before the last game, of course) where the Hunter got to see what anyone's roles were before choosing who to kill.

I've played versions where the Hunter was allowed to pick someone to kill if voted to hang by the villagers- but that was because he knew who among them had voted to kill him.

I don't think giving the Hunter a choice of all the wolves is fair or reasonable, and should be kept random.

When I checked the rules as soon as that hit, it said that if killed during the Day round- s/he had 15 minutes, but if killed during the night round it was chosen at random.

I assumed that that was the updated rule.

Allowing the hunter to know which of the players are werewolves and then pick from them is overpowered.

Even in the game rules themselves state the Hunter has to choose WITHOUT KNOWING THE ROLES.

The Hunter is not a seer, the Hunter's ability is that he gets to take someone out with him.

Frankly, I felt it was a boon to let the Hunter kill a random wolf if killed by the wolves at night- this way it caused some tip-toeing by the wolves.

As D Ddun pointed out- the Guardian gets to choose who to protect.

The Guardian does not, however, get to know who s/he's protecting. The Witch does not get to learn what roles the victims have before being saved/poisoned.

We have to keep in mind that the Hunter is not also a Seer role. There is no reason that the Hunter should receive a list of wolves.

Either a random wolf is killed when the hunter is killed during the night round, and the hunter gets to choose among those who voted for him if killed during the day round, or we just let the Hunter choose someone to kill without any assistance.

Honestly, if we're giving the Hunter the knowledge of who the werewolves are- then why aren't we revealing the roles of the players who voted for the Hunter to allow them to choose which role they want to take out?

It seems rather lopsided in my opinion- and not because I got chosen to die last game.

[mOOse]

couple of things. this whole time i assumed the official rules said that in real life games, the hunter gets to choose who to kill from people that killed him, not anyone they want in the village.

and that makes sense in my head also if you tried to imagine what a hunter would actually do. the hunter, as he's being killed, has the ability to take someone down with him that is part of the mob which are killing him. if it's during the day, he takes someone down who is lynching (ie voting for) him. if it's at night, he again takes one of his attackers down, except now all his attackers are wolves, so naturally he takes a wolf down with him. from a story point of view, ie imagining this actually play out, what sense is there in him killing a random villager while he's being killed by the wolves at night? how would that even be technically possible? he's being eaten by the wolves and then somehow kills a random villager telepathically? wut? is this maybe not outlined specifically in the rules posted by tim because it is assumed?

also, bfett said this in another thread:

Originally Posted by Bfett1326 In the table top game. *as I have played with friends and other groups* 1. Night Round Begins 2. Wolves Pick the Hunter as their kill 3. Finish up night round 4. Day Round begins 5. Host reveals the death 6. All players close eyes again, except for the hunter since he is already dead. 7. When all eyes are closed, the Mod tells the wolves to open their eyes, the Hunter picks on of the kills. In a Day Round 1. Hunter is killed 2. Hunter picks on of players who voted for him For a scenario of a TIE in the Day round The Hunter has three votes (Players 1, 2 and 3) Player 1 has three votes (Players 4, 5, 6) Both players die at the same time, so the Hunter would only be allowed to pick to kill Players 2 and 3.

which supports exactly my theory. i guess it's possible he's been playing it wrong all this time, but you have to admit it makes sense. at least from a story point of view.

Originally Posted by Kahlil Honestly, if we're giving the Hunter the knowledge of who the werewolves are- then why aren't we revealing the roles of the players who voted for the Hunter to allow them to choose which role they want to take out?

this doesn't make sense. if we play the hunter role so that he takes one of his attackers down when he dies, then during the night round that person will be a wolf. he can't not pick a wolf, so it's not like you're revealing roles, you're just letting him choose which wolf in particular he takes down.

in the day round, the group of people that voted to lynch him could consist of wolves, villagers, seers, etc. there it obviously would matter if you revealead the roles.

we're debating two different things at the moment, whether you let the hunter choose his kill or leave it to randomness, and also whether he has to kill one of his attackers or he gets to kill whoever he wants. we should probably settle on one then move on to the other to avoid what could become mass confusion..