Once Upon A Time WW Game Thread

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
nohika said:
*****************************************************

Lamesauce.

And busyness isn't always planned.

****************************************************
Click to expand...

I hope you confided in 1 other person who you looked into. So, we don't lynch them later. But, since no one came forward to defend you, I'm guessing not. :lame:
 
Busy night in Storybrooke. A brief recap (cause this mod wants to drive home and sleep....)

Someone was seen digging around in the cemetery. Surprise! NStarz has returned from beyond the grave.

Another player was swept up by a shadow. cuit has vanished. Hopefully it's temporary!

It seems with nohika's death, the last holder of the magic bean, the bean has vanished without a trace. Farewell, fair bean!!

And, most importantly: no one has died. 😱

It is now Day 5. Deadline is at 4pmEST. Happy 4th!!! Now, get lynching 😀

There are 29 players in the game. Can't guarantee I can count at this point...😴

Clock Tower
1. Rojo
3. dyachei
5. Alors
6. Dwin
8. cuit

Mary Margaret's Apartment
2. Jamr0ckin
3. Allie
4. FantasyFlyer
5. Hedgie
6. Tuckervet
7. bbeventer

Sheriff's Department
2. that redhead
5. Minnerbelle
6. The LIS
7. devyn
8. NStarz

Granny's Diner
1. Lupin21
2. Swings
3. WS
4. SV88
5. FH (I'm a foxy granny)
6. Fancy

Mr. Gold's Pawn & Antiques Shop
1.SnS
2. Wildcatj
3. DVM
4.wldlfstdnt
5. equineconstant
6. SOV
7. FS

Cemetery kayd:
Lissarae06 - Grumpy/Leroy
FFM - Tamara
nohika - Belle/Lacey
 
LetItSnow said:
I have never agreed that there's any difference. You're either FOR the villagers, or you're NOT. There's no truly 'neutral' position in WW. Yes, I know you disagree. It's my opinion that from a functional viewpoint, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

However, there ARE players who are told they are "neutral" in some games. They are not a wolf, and do not have their own win condition. Often times, they are put in as neutral to completely throw us off. Generally speaking, they are usually counted as a villager.

Do I know if we have neutral players in this game, no. SOV seemed to indicate that he did know, or thinks he knows.
 
Welcome back Nstarz!!

I'm flying home today and won't have internet access. Someone knows my role.

Happy Independence day peeps!! I am peacing out of the UK for a bit to celebrate 😉 Who has a beer and a hotdog ready for me??
 
wolfspeaker said:
So, the real -issue here is that he's withholding information from YOU and you don't like not being in the know. He is not hoarding information.
Not everything needs to be out in the open on thread this early in the game. Just like we shouldnt try and force pairs to come out into the open.

Ajd if it turns out that rojo is being played, it's not as if YOU haven't ever been played in a game before.
Click to expand...

NO, the issue is as I started before, he is believing things people say in PM's without thinking. I have already started some information is not good to reveal; I was rather quick to respond when SOV said we need to reveal info cause some noobs may not know better. Seriously, he is still trying to support FFM even after nearly everyone has said that Tamara is very, very bad news. He is throwing around BS that neutral is good to keep protected from lynch and that we should instead randomly lynch amongst 29 other players... if there is no information on a wolf during a lynch and someone says, "Hey so and so is neutral" I would lynch them in an instant. It is better than randomly trying to lynch a wolf among 29 players. Bottom line we need VILLAGERS and neutral is not equal to villager.


I don't care if you believe someone and they turn out to be a wolf, it happens. I do care when you claim such BS as it is better to random lynch than lynch a neutral.
 
wolfspeaker said:
Generally speaking, they are usually counted as a villager.
Click to expand...

Then they aren't neutral, they're villagers. What they *think* they are is irrelevant; if they COUNT as a villager, they ARE a villager.

Look, you clearly disagree with me, and that's fine. But nobody's given me a compelling argument to think there's any functional, practical, game-changing difference between "neutral" and "chaotic".
 
LetItSnow said:
Then they aren't neutral, they're villagers. What they *think* they are is irrelevant; if they COUNT as a villager, they ARE a villager.

Look, you clearly disagree with me, and that's fine. But nobody's given me a compelling argument to think there's any functional, practical, game-changing difference between "neutral" and "chaotic".
Click to expand...

I was referring to when the mod says your role is "neutral", as has happened in previous games. Not when a player tells another player they think they are neutral.
 
DVMDream said:
NO, the issue is as I started before, he is believing things people say in PM's without thinking. I have already started some information is not good to reveal; I was rather quick to respond when SOV said we need to reveal info cause some noobs may not know better. Seriously, he is still trying to support FFM even after nearly everyone has said that Tamara is very, very bad news. He is throwing around BS that neutral is good to keep protected from lynch and that we should instead randomly lynch amongst 29 other players... if there is no information on a wolf during a lynch and someone says, "Hey so and so is neutral" I would lynch them in an instant. It is better than randomly trying to lynch a wolf among 29 players. Bottom line we need VILLAGERS and neutral is not equal to villager.


I don't care if you believe someone and they turn out to be a wolf, it happens. I do care when you claim such BS as it is better to random lynch than lynch a neutral.
Click to expand...

So, you'd rather lynch someone who you think is a villager, but holding back information, than lynching someone who you are suspicious of and may be a wolf(it sounded like you think he's a villager). I'd be surprised if you have zero suspicions of anyone by Day 5.

That's just as bad, in my opinion. He hasn't hurt anyone. He hasn't thrown anyone under the bus. To my knowledge, he hasn't been freely sharing information with them(to bring back to the other wolves, if they are wolves). They have simply been confiding in him and he's willing to wait and see if some information pans out, before throwing them over.

And he's not the only one. So, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on him.

:shrug:
 
This whole nobody dying thing is confusing me. Is it that conditions aren't right? That the wolves keep being blocked? They can only kill certain nights? Or conversions? Probably something else I missed too.

Welcome back NStarz!!! Glad to see you!
 
Haven't gotten super far into the show, but are there only certain conditions on the show where the bad guys can do something? Specific parameters that have to be met?

I'm gonna do some more show watching and wiki'ing now, my so is gonna be in town till Sunday so ill try to post as much as I can
 
I missed a couple of "discussions" last night I would like to add to.

1) I completely disagree with LIS' characterization of neutral players both historically and in this game. The vast majority of neutral players in these games have no way to win, they are simply neutral. Their biggest downfall is usually that they may not count as villagers in the final tally. But that is really an issue in the endgame. When wolf numbers approach villager numbers, better to kill a neutral player than a villager IF you don't have a good chance of a wolf. Info is always best.
Yes there are also chaos players, and those usually don't have a win condition either, but are just there for entertainment purposes (wait, where is WTF this game).
The least common usage is to set up independent win conditions for a neutral player. And I have only ever seen that work once, so it is not really a big impact in games, or that commonly used in my experience or recollection.

In a game where there are a LOT of neutral players, it doesn't seem likely they have win conditions. Seems much more likely they are quasi-villagers. And there may be a mechanism to move them to one side or another (that would be how I would set up the game - but that is pure speculation on my part).

2) Regarding killing the quiet person/about to be mod-killed.
In general, I believe we should kill people we think are wolves, because generally as villagers we are good at that. But when there is zero info around, then I would rather kill the person about to be killed off, than make a mistake. Yesterday it seemed a choice between Dwin, who I believed, or Nohika who I thought would be mod-killed. So I went with Nohika, who I figured we were going to lose soon anyway.

2 days from now, I might totally argue against that, because if 2 people are suspicious, let the mods kill one, and we can kill the other increasing the chances of getting a wolf.
But right now, I felt like we are mostly RNG-ing. And then I don't want lots of deaths.

This is the same thing as one of Doc's games (Batman in lounge) where I advocated lynching the Joker over and over again at the beginning of the game even though we couldn't kill him. My reasoning was that we had no info, so let's prolong the game as long as we can to build up better info. People ridiculed me then, but the villagers eventually won that game.

So all these "strategies" I use are very dependent on what point in the game we are at. How much info do we have? And what are the issues?

No info? Lose as few people as possible.
Mid game? Increase your odds of getting wolves.
End game. Preserve villager lives at all costs.

To me the question for any player is "How much do they help the villagers win?" In the beginning with no info, a quiet player does not help very much. A so-called neutral player that has some abilities may be much more helpful than a villager who isn't using them, or may not have them or whatever.
 
The last thing I will say is:

If we can identify a lot of neutral players, that does help us in narrowing down the list of who can be wolves.

That of course assumes we can distinguish between a wolf and a neutral player. In FFM's case, there was no way we can believe Tamara was not a wolf.

In Hook's case, although I have no direct knowledge, I can believe Hook is neutral.

If someone were to say they were Cora and neutral, I wouldn't buy it. But who knows.
 
I am leaving shortly for Princeton, and will be gone most of morning/early afternoon, but will be back later.

I don't have any info on who to lynch (just who not to)....

will see what comes out.
 
**************************************
I'll have you know that this WW thread made me interested in this show.

The past three days I've been watching it, pretty close to non-stop in my down time.

Thanks Kaydubs. 😉
*************************************
 
How many people does that make now? That are now fans of the show? 4?

Kaydubs, we need to keep track. Commission for our promotional services is clearly deserved. :laugh:
 
I am going to the Zoo today 😀 so I may not be around as much. I'll check back in and vote when info starts coming out.
 
Escalla said:
How many people does that make now? That are now fans of the show? 4?

Kaydubs, we need to keep track. Commission for our promotional services is clearly deserved. :laugh:
Click to expand...

*********************
I know! That's one thing I LOVE about these themed WWs. I always find new series/books/movies/shows to explore.

This is how I found the Tortall books! 🙂

**********************
 
wolfspeaker said:
So, you'd rather lynch someone who you think is a villager, but holding back information, than lynching someone who you are suspicious of and may be a wolf(it sounded like you think he's a villager). I'd be surprised if you have zero suspicions of anyone by Day 5.

That's just as bad, in my opinion. He hasn't hurt anyone. He hasn't thrown anyone under the bus. To my knowledge, he hasn't been freely sharing information with them(to bring back to the other wolves, if they are wolves). They have simply been confiding in him and he's willing to wait and see if some information pans out, before throwing them over.

And he's not the only one. So, I'm not sure why you are so hung up on him.

:shrug:
Click to expand...


You still don't get it, I don't know how else to get this through to you, but I will try one more time. I am NOT lynching him because he KNOWS who Hook is, that is dumb and no fault of his own.

I'm lynching him because he believes that keeping neutral players around is a good idea and that we should instead randomly lynch/guess amongst 29 other players who is a wolf. Yeah, odd aren't good there. It is better to get rid of the neutral player at that stage because it makes it so that a villager is not lynched. Basically, lynching a neutral/ chaos is a win to me, lynching a wolf is a bigger win.
 
StartingoverVet said:
I missed a couple of "discussions" last night I would like to add to.

1) I completely disagree with LIS' characterization of neutral players both historically and in this game. The vast majority of neutral players in these games have no way to win, they are simply neutral. Their biggest downfall is usually that they may not count as villagers in the final tally. But that is really an issue in the endgame. When wolf numbers approach villager numbers, better to kill a neutral player than a villager IF you don't have a good chance of a wolf. Info is always best.
Yes there are also chaos players, and those usually don't have a win condition either, but are just there for entertainment purposes (wait, where is WTF this game).
The least common usage is to set up independent win conditions for a neutral player. And I have only ever seen that work once, so it is not really a big impact in games, or that commonly used in my experience or recollection.

In a game where there are a LOT of neutral players, it doesn't seem likely they have win conditions. Seems much more likely they are quasi-villagers. And there may be a mechanism to move them to one side or another (that would be how I would set up the game - but that is pure speculation on my part).

2) Regarding killing the quiet person/about to be mod-killed.
In general, I believe we should kill people we think are wolves, because generally as villagers we are good at that. But when there is zero info around, then I would rather kill the person about to be killed off, than make a mistake. Yesterday it seemed a choice between Dwin, who I believed, or Nohika who I thought would be mod-killed. So I went with Nohika, who I figured we were going to lose soon anyway.

2 days from now, I might totally argue against that, because if 2 people are suspicious, let the mods kill one, and we can kill the other increasing the chances of getting a wolf.
But right now, I felt like we are mostly RNG-ing. And then I don't want lots of deaths.

This is the same thing as one of Doc's games (Batman in lounge) where I advocated lynching the Joker over and over again at the beginning of the game even though we couldn't kill him. My reasoning was that we had no info, so let's prolong the game as long as we can to build up better info. People ridiculed me then, but the villagers eventually won that game.

So all these "strategies" I use are very dependent on what point in the game we are at. How much info do we have? And what are the issues?

No info? Lose as few people as possible.
Mid game? Increase your odds of getting wolves.
End game. Preserve villager lives at all costs.

To me the question for any player is "How much do they help the villagers win?" In the beginning with no info, a quiet player does not help very much. A so-called neutral player that has some abilities may be much more helpful than a villager who isn't using them, or may not have them or whatever.
Click to expand...

Your number 1 is BS.
 
DVMDream said:
You still don't get it, I don't know how else to get this through to you, but I will try one more time. I am NOT lynching him because he KNOWS who Hook is, that is dumb and no fault of his own.

I'm lynching him because he believes that keeping neutral players around is a good idea and that we should instead randomly lynch/guess amongst 29 other players who is a wolf. Yeah, odd aren't good there. It is better to get rid of the neutral player at that stage because it makes it so that a villager is not lynched. Basically, lynching a neutral/ chaos is a win to me, lynching a wolf is a bigger win.
Click to expand...

I understand why you are opting to lynch him, but I'm just going to say I think it's not a great idea. I reason to believe he is a villager, just waiting on some sort of confirmation of that.
 
I got poison appled...no voting or PMing for me today. 🙁
 
HOWDY!!! I'm back 🙂 I used to be a seer but I lost my powers after I got dead. Boo.
 
StartingoverVet said:
I missed a couple of "discussions" last night I would like to add to.

1) I completely disagree with LIS' characterization of neutral players both historically and in this game. The vast majority of neutral players in these games have no way to win, they are simply neutral. Their biggest downfall is usually that they may not count as villagers in the final tally. But that is really an issue in the endgame. When wolf numbers approach villager numbers, better to kill a neutral player than a villager IF you don't have a good chance of a wolf. Info is always best.
Yes there are also chaos players, and those usually don't have a win condition either, but are just there for entertainment purposes (wait, where is WTF this game).
The least common usage is to set up independent win conditions for a neutral player. And I have only ever seen that work once, so it is not really a big impact in games, or that commonly used in my experience or recollection.

In a game where there are a LOT of neutral players, it doesn't seem likely they have win conditions. Seems much more likely they are quasi-villagers. And there may be a mechanism to move them to one side or another (that would be how I would set up the game - but that is pure speculation on my part).

2) Regarding killing the quiet person/about to be mod-killed.
In general, I believe we should kill people we think are wolves, because generally as villagers we are good at that. But when there is zero info around, then I would rather kill the person about to be killed off, than make a mistake. Yesterday it seemed a choice between Dwin, who I believed, or Nohika who I thought would be mod-killed. So I went with Nohika, who I figured we were going to lose soon anyway.

2 days from now, I might totally argue against that, because if 2 people are suspicious, let the mods kill one, and we can kill the other increasing the chances of getting a wolf.
But right now, I felt like we are mostly RNG-ing. And then I don't want lots of deaths.

This is the same thing as one of Doc's games (Batman in lounge) where I advocated lynching the Joker over and over again at the beginning of the game even though we couldn't kill him. My reasoning was that we had no info, so let's prolong the game as long as we can to build up better info. People ridiculed me then, but the villagers eventually won that game.

So all these "strategies" I use are very dependent on what point in the game we are at. How much info do we have? And what are the issues?

No info? Lose as few people as possible.
Mid game? Increase your odds of getting wolves.
End game. Preserve villager lives at all costs.

To me the question for any player is "How much do they help the villagers win?" In the beginning with no info, a quiet player does not help very much. A so-called neutral player that has some abilities may be much more helpful than a villager who isn't using them, or may not have them or whatever.
Click to expand...

My point exactly... I'm glad to see we have similar theories on this.
 
Current lynch tally:
rojo 2 - DVMD (contingency), FH (contingency)
WS 1 - SnS (contingency)

Looking for 24 more votes. Deadline 4 PM EST.

Both mods are on the road today. nohika may be helping with tallies. Please keep an unofficial one going if needed. 🙂

I'm thinking of a night deadline late tonight instead of really early in the morning. Send in your PMs as soon as you know what you're doing. An official time will be posted this afternoon.
 
After a very busy two days (which by the way did not even end in cuddling a lion 😡 ) I plan on spending much of today watching this show. I've watched 4 or 5 episodes now and I'm quite in love. Though that first episode was quite sad.
 
thedrjojo said:
you have explained, because he is using the same logic as me... logic you call very, very dumb.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me break it down and explain why I don't see it the same way...




StartingoverVet said:
I missed a couple of "discussions" last night I would like to add to.

1) I completely disagree with LIS' characterization of neutral players both historically and in this game. The vast majority of neutral players in these games have no way to win, they are simply neutral. Their biggest downfall is usually that they may not count as villagers in the final tally. But that is really an issue in the endgame. When wolf numbers approach villager numbers, better to kill a neutral player than a villager IF you don't have a good chance of a wolf. Info is always best.
Click to expand...

Neutral player, as SOV stated above, may not count as a villager in endgame...umm, wait, don't we want villagers to win? Ok, so if the neutral player may not or does not count as a villager in "endgame" why the hell should you wait until "endgame" to lynch them? Seriously? That is like saying, "well, yeah, x is a wolf, but it is really only an issue towards the endgame when their numbers are bigger." Excuse me?

Villager lynch = bad
non-villager/neutral player lynch/chaos character = good (yes, there are a few exceptions here and there, but overall it is good).
wolf= amazing, awesome lynch

I don't care if it is beginning game, endgame, mid-game, beginning-mid game, mid-end game or whatever other time frame, that above does not change, ever.

StartingoverVet said:
Yes there are also chaos players, and those usually don't have a win condition either, but are just there for entertainment purposes (wait, where is WTF this game).
Click to expand...

Say what? Since when? Let us get some examples here:

The fox in my mysterious planet game--> chaos with own win condition
Mother Nature in Iditarod--> chaos with own win condition
Grumpy Cat in Meme Game--> chaos with own win condition

I can only think off hand of one game where chaos did not have their own win condition.

StartingoverVet said:
In a game where there are a LOT of neutral players, it doesn't seem likely they have win conditions. Seems much more likely they are quasi-villagers. And there may be a mechanism to move them to one side or another (that would be how I would set up the game - but that is pure speculation on my part).
Click to expand...

I created a game with a lot of neutral players that were actually "villagers" but I told them they were neutral. Let me say, I had quite a few comments that people did not like that. They felt that if they were truly "neutral" than they should have the benefit of being neutral. I only called them neutral cause their role was neither helpful/harmful to only the villagers or only the wolves. Most people did not like that, I actually did not either.
 
DVMDream said:
Ok, let me break it down and explain why I don't see it the same way...






Neutral player, as SOV stated above, may not count as a villager in endgame...umm, wait, don't we want villagers to win? Ok, so if the neutral player may not or does not count as a villager in "endgame" why the hell should you wait until "endgame" to lynch them? Seriously? That is like saying, "well, yeah, x is a wolf, but it is really only an issue towards the endgame when their numbers are bigger." Excuse me?

Villager lynch = bad
non-villager/neutral player lynch/chaos character = good (yes, there are a few exceptions here and there, but overall it is good).
wolf= amazing, awesome lynch

I don't care if it is beginning game, endgame, mid-game, beginning-mid game, mid-end game or whatever other time frame, that above does not change, ever.



Say what? Since when? Let us get some examples here:

The fox in my mysterious planet game--> chaos with own win condition
Mother Nature in Iditarod--> chaos with own win condition
Grumpy Cat in Meme Game--> chaos with own win condition

I can only think off hand of one game where chaos did not have their own win condition.



I created a game with a lot of neutral players that were actually "villagers" but I told them they were neutral. Let me say, I had quite a few comments that people did not like that. They felt that if they were truly "neutral" than they should have the benefit of being neutral. I only called them neutral cause their role was neither helpful/harmful to only the villagers or only the wolves. Most people did not like that, I actually did not either.
Click to expand...

my last neutral role didn't really have a win condition but would let me choose which side won. So I can see SOV's point.
 
dyachei said:
my last neutral role didn't really have a win condition but would let me choose which side won. So I can see SOV's point.
Click to expand...

This was the exception I was talking about. There have been some, including my mysterious planet game, but no one can really be "neutral" each player is in to win for:

-villagers
-wolves
-yourself

Even your role, eventually would have chosen either wolves or villagers for a win.
 
DVMDream said:
This was the exception I was talking about. There have been some, including my mysterious planet game, but no one can really be "neutral" each player is in to win for:

-villagers
-wolves
-yourself

Even your role, eventually would have chosen either wolves or villagers for a win.
Click to expand...

there have been a few roles where you get to "choose". And they never get to because villagers would rather lynch them. The majority have said after they would choose for the villagers. Just pointing that out.
 
Also, I have received some information from a source. It won't help us find a wolf, but it allows us to keep this in mind....


Someone was converted to evil last night.
 
I fall into the DVM camp on the lynching of neutral players (especially if they don't count for villager numbers). Only bad lynch is a villager lynch, not all too broken up over FFM.
 
I'm about to hit up the parade and other fourth activities, so I'll put in my vote just in case once again. I will also add that I am working my way through a few bloody marys.

lynch dyachei

For the reason that she has dy in her name and that translates to die in my brain. It feels like a threat.
 
DVMDream said:
I chose for the wolves when I had that role... :laugh:😛
Click to expand...

and last game, wolves were a douche to dyachei and the villagers were nice, so she was going to likely join the villagers.

We disagree here on this. I dunno. I understand your position, I just don't think it is like that, and agree with SOV on this. You still want to lynch me, then you can still want to lynch me, but you think I'm a villager, someone else has already claimed to believe me to be a villager (wonder what that means 🙄)... so, i guess keeping villagers alive over everything else doesn't mean much...
 
Lupin21 said:
I'm about to hit up the parade and other fourth activities, so I'll put in my vote just in case once again. I will also add that I am working my way through a few bloody marys.

lynch dyachei

For the reason that she has dy in her name and that translates to die in my brain. It feels like a threat.
Click to expand...

this seems legit 🙄
 
Right now, unlynch rojo.

Alors, bbeventer and SOV have all been giving me wolfie vibes (so has TRH but not sure now with her claim of being attacked). If there is no information on a wolf later today, my lynch will be amongst one of the first three.
 
thedrjojo said:
and last game, wolves were a douche to dyachei and the villagers were nice, so she was going to likely join the villagers.

We disagree here on this. I dunno. I understand your position, I just don't think it is like that, and agree with SOV on this. You still want to lynch me, then you can still want to lynch me, but you think I'm a villager, someone else has already claimed to believe me to be a villager (wonder what that means 🙄)... so, i guess keeping villagers alive over everything else doesn't mean much...
Click to expand...

I was typing my unlynch of you when you posted this. 🙂

By the way, the cows say hello. :naughty:
 
Dwindlin said:
I fall into the DVM camp on the lynching of neutral players (especially if they don't count for villager numbers). Only bad lynch is a villager lynch, not all too broken up over FFM.
Click to expand...

we don't know where they count.... so when we have the luxury of time, then I'm willing to take a little of it... if we still haven't found a wolf soon and starting to feel the pressure, then yeah, I'll get more concerned. There are 3 deaths so far... all 3 of them via lynch... the wolves had 1 kill so far, and they just came back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WildZoo
SDN Fairgrounds - 10th Annual Noob WW Game
67 68 69 70 71
Replies
4K
Views
33K
spiane
spiane
Animal Midwife
Death Nommy - Game Thread
83 84 85 86 87
Replies
4K
Views
53K
Animal Midwife
Animal Midwife
WildZoo
  • Poll Poll
Mission ImpoWWssible Game Thread
46 47 48 49 50
Replies
2K
Views
38K
Clem J
Clem J
WildZoo
Noob WW Game 2025 Sign Ups: All New WW Players Welcome! (CLOSED)
2 3 4 5
Replies
229
Views
15K
vampyrica
vampyrica
kaydubs
Melee WW Game Thread-April 2024
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
2K
Views
31K
Sandy Dikson
Sandy Dikson
Top