Rogue Wolf Thread

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: Thread for the discussion of rogue wolf (opinions and suggestions).

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: yah we can discuss the name after we discuss the role

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn:

it's basically just a bit priesty (undesirable consequences if you don't kill a wolf)

oh true

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: niche OCCUPIED

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts:

Well, yeah, but I'm not saying that the next strong TK we make should be fakeable by wolves - I'm saying that RW was supposed to be, that it was the core aspect of its role, that most of its differentiating features are based on that aspect, and that it does not fulfil that aspect - making it, in essence, a bad role.

I dont think it was a core aspect of the role?

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: The original idea was

The Regretful Wolf is a town aligned packless lycan who feels remorse for killing town. However they must still kill every night.

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: which is harder to fake than the current version

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts:

I'll start - I developed the "original" version of Rogue Wolf, which I think made it to a vote but didn't pass, which was more complex but also definitely more interesting than the current version (it had to attack each night post-N1 and turned solo if it attacked a town). Whilst this version absolutely wasn't perfect and I wouldn't propose it again, I've been fairly vocal about how much I've disliked the changes made since.

To expand:

1. This role in its current form is, quite frankly, boring.
2. In regular games (in that wolfpack will rarely if ever fail to kill), it will function almost exactly like an Assassin with a disguise and more bullets: and, though it has a disguise, it's usually fairly easy to tell whether a TK is legit or not as soon as it executes a kill.
3. In games with unusual lists that would feasibly affect Rogue Wolf, it fails to achieve its core purpose - being another strong TK option so that we don't just keep cycling between Priest, Assassin, and the very occasional CL.
4. The other core purpose of Rogue Wolf was to be a TK that's easier for wolves to claim, and (as elaborated upon above) it definitely doesn't fulfil this right now.
5. Rogue Wolf is also kind of hard to test effectively, as - this relates to point 4 - it functions best when people don't know if it's in the list or not.

So, to summarise - it doesn't work and it's not interesting.

In my opinion, this role needs either an extensive rework or just deleting (and we go back to the drawing board on new strong TKs).

1) Not really an argument - Its boring because of the other points 2) It has interactions with these defensive/similiar roles: Alcoholic, Cursed Civilian, Idiot, Macho, Runner, Hooker, Witch, Amulet Crafter, Demon, Devil, Cerberus, Firebug, Vampire, Reaper, Horseman of Pestilence, Riding Hood, Cautious Hag, Guardian Which may not be a huge amount of possible interactions in every game, but there is definitely potential for there to be interactions Of course it also has interactions with a bunch of TIs and in some cases something like Assistant 3) How so? It seems to exactly archive its core purpose of being able to be used instead of Assassin and Priest 4) I dont think this was ever a core purpose of this or the original version, but this is an issue all strong TKs have and it can't be reasonably fixed on the RW side without making it not a strong TK. To allow wolves to better claim TK they'd need better abilities to fake a TK kill 5) This seems to just be a conjecture. I don't see any reason why this should be true. In fact it should work better if its known as that will lead wolves to be more likely to attack defensive roles

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

I dont think it was a core aspect of the role?

It definitely was when I made the version that actually got somewhere, which is what other versions since have been adapting.

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

1) Not really an argument - Its boring because of the other points 2) It has interactions with these defensive/similiar roles: Alcoholic, Cursed Civilian, Idiot, Macho, Runner, Hooker, Witch, Amulet Crafter, Demon, Devil, Cerberus, Firebug, Vampire, Reaper, Horseman of Pestilence, Riding Hood, Cautious Hag, Guardian Which may not be a huge amount of possible interactions in every game, but there is definitely potential for there to be interactions Of course it also has interactions with a bunch of TIs and in some cases something like Assistant 3) How so? It seems to exactly archive its core purpose of being able to be used instead of Assassin and Priest 4) I dont think this was ever a core purpose of this or the original version, but this is an issue all strong TKs have and it can't be reasonably fixed on the RW side without making it not a strong TK. To allow wolves to better claim TK they'd need better abilities to fake a TK kill 5) This seems to just be a conjecture. I don't see any reason why this should be true. In fact it should work better if its known as that will lead wolves to be more likely to attack defensive roles

1. Never said it was an argument. It's obviously not.
2. It's not a huge amount of possible interactions, correct: it's also not a huge amount of likely interactions in some cases. But that doesn't change my point, imo: since in normal lists wolves are only like to fail to kill once or twice, RW basically functions like an Assassin/Priest in that regard, with slightly less choice over when to kill. Yes, obviously it has interactions with TIs, too, and I can see those very rarely having some interest, but due to the easy provability of strong TKs they usually won't, imo. In fact, now I think of it, it only actually has unusual interactions with FT or CS in terms of TIs. I think whether your point is a counter to mine and vice versa is subjective on how different/interesting you want a role to be from the "generic" TK model, Assassin. In my case, I think the relatively few likely interactions don't make it interesting enough, but you might disagree.
3. My point here is specifically that in a game where there are enough likely interactions for RW (i.e, where wolves are going to miss several kills, like in this game), it's not likely to get many kills off before its death, sort of preventing it from being a particularly strong TK - just like in this list, where we knew it wasn't going to get a tonne of kills off, so WWW was intended to compensate.
4. I have addressed this point a couple of times already: if you accept that it was a core position, which it certainly was when I developed the original regretful wolf suggestion into the first rogue wolf full-role suggestion that got voted on, it was absolutely a core part. And if a role doesn't fulfil a core intended aspect, regardless of whether it is actually possible to fulfil, something needs changing.
5. This was specifically in relation to point 4, though I failed to say that, in that if the TK isn't known in a list, it gives a found wolf more opportunity to claim RW and get out of a lynch.

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts:

2. The role is intended as a replacement for the "generic TK model", so it should be similiar enough to achieve this. Also, one of the ideas of this version of RW is to allow wolves to knowingly fail kills, so even in games with role lists we've used in the past, there would maybe be an extra failed kill with the addition of RW.
3. This is just a matter of considering the role when making the role list. It's similiar to Priest in that way. If we put Priest we don't want to put too many non-lycans.
4. It may have been a core part of the other version, but we're not using that version so I don't really see how that is relevant to this version
5. This is a good point, but can still work in lists where RW is known

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn:

2. The role is intended as a replacement for the "generic TK model", so it should be similiar enough to achieve this. Also, one of the ideas of this version of RW is to allow wolves to knowingly fail kills, so even in games with role lists we've used in the past, there would maybe be an extra failed kill with the addition of RW.
3. This is just a matter of considering the role when making the role list. It's similiar to Priest in that way. If we put Priest we don't want to put too many non-lycans.
4. It may have been a core part of the other version, but we're not using that version so I don't really see how that is relevant to this version
5. This is a good point, but can still work in lists where RW is known

3. We definitely need to do this more often, s10g1 3/8 roles were detectable by the AT and both solo had weak disguises and we added PT and Tanner Vs the CS

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: Idk how town won that one

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

3. We definitely need to do this more often, s10g1 3/8 roles were detectable by the AT and both solo had weak disguises and we added PT and Tanner Vs the CS

this isn't a relevant example

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: (and also that was considered)

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

2. The role is intended as a replacement for the "generic TK model", so it should be similiar enough to achieve this. Also, one of the ideas of this version of RW is to allow wolves to knowingly fail kills, so even in games with role lists we've used in the past, there would maybe be an extra failed kill with the addition of RW.
3. This is just a matter of considering the role when making the role list. It's similiar to Priest in that way. If we put Priest we don't want to put too many non-lycans.
4. It may have been a core part of the other version, but we're not using that version so I don't really see how that is relevant to this version
5. This is a good point, but can still work in lists where RW is known

2. Yes, but it should be different enough that it will function differently/more interestingly in a list. Like I said, this is something of a subjective matter: we clearly disagree here. I think if RW is only likely to miss one or two kills, intentionally on the part of pack or not, that's not a significant enough difference for it to be an interesting option: you clearly think otherwise.
3. That's literally my point, though, and relates to what I say above. In any list where pack and therefore RW are likely to miss several kills (three/four or more), it's not likely to be killing enough to be able to function as a strong TK. Only one or two missed kills and for me that's not significant enough differentiation to actually be interesting.
4. I get your point here, but as far as I was aware, the people who developed my RW into the current RW over a couple of stages were trying to keep this aspect of the role. If they weren't and I'm mistaken, then RW is solely supposed to be "Assassin but kind of a bit different but not very", which explains why I don't think it's functionally differentiated enough from Assassin to be interesting.

To expand on point 4: the two other strong TKs, CL and priest, both differ significantly from Assassin. a) Priest differs in that it can fail to kill, that it has consequences on miskills, and that it has an inbuilt (if very risky) investigative function. b) CL differs in that it has a group. Whilst only being one difference, it's a functionally highly significant one, for reasons I don't feel the need to elaborate on. c) Looking at RW currently, it differs from Assassin in two ways: the disguise, obviously, which as I have explained is a largely non-functional, insignificant difference, and the inbuilt, very weak Coroner function, which by itself isn't enough to differentiate the role very significantly. Of course, there's a potential difference in number of functional kills, but as I've said if this does come in to play then RW no longer functions as a strong TK in the given list.

I guess, typing that out, I've realised why we're of different opinions here: you want a strong TK that can be used instead of Assassin, and I want a strong TK that I have significant motive to use instead of Assassin. I don't find that in RW because, for me, the potential interactions don't differentiate it enough in games where it can still function as a strong TK.

Sure, you could look at a list with an Idiot and a Runner and a Cuck in and think, 'hey, we could use RW instead of Assassin here', but you'd do that because you'd know functionally that there'd be fairly little difference in how the two roles would act, rather than because you'd think that significant interest or differing plays, outside of potentially encouraging wolves to attack Runner claims which is essentially the only different play a RW might encourage, would be facilitated by using the RW instead. The lists that you'd build around RW being the strong TK would look basically identical to the ones built around having an Assassin, which isn't true when building lists around Priest or CL, for sure. Adding a strong TK for the sake of having another strong TK isn't what I feel we should be doing: in my opinion, we should be looking to add a strong TK which generates different points of interest and different potential plays and lists than Assassin, our generic TK. I don't think RW fulfils this. You might have lower standards than I, but those'd have to be some low, low standards to like RW.

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: I think the design brief for rogue wolf when it cot reworked was Lycan Townsfolk Strong killing role (i.e not just one kill) Disguise so you can't just check them to confirm they're what they say they are A mechanic different from any existing TK

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: in which case, fulfilling aspect 2 is only possible without meaningfully fulfilling aspect 4, and aspect 3 is completely useless

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: I dont think the disguise is "completely" useless

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: And the no kill mechanic even if it only happens once or twice is already very significant

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: On top of the main mechanics there is also a bunch of smaller effects of it being a lycan: • If a Lone Wolf attempts to kill it, the LWo dies • A secondary ability used by the RW will be redirected by an Assistant • Killing a RH will make it ascend • Priest can kill it • It can convert a Cursed Civilian • It can't kill a Recluse • If it attempts to kill a Runner, the runner will escape

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: I forgot recluse was immune to wolfish kills

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: Overall the role just has a bunch of things that all in some minor ways make it different from Assassin

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: also if it uses an ability on recluse recluse learns it's identity too right?

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: oh nvm

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: not wolfish

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: could be changed though to make that interaction more interesting

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: yeah

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: but its probably fine like this

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

Overall the role just has a bunch of things that all in some minor ways make it different from Assassin

This by itself is true but I disagree with the conclusion that you draw from it (that the difference is significant overall).

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: CL and Assassin are the exact same by themselves

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

I dont think the disguise is "completely" useless

I was being a little hyperbolic, I'll admit, but I think it functions in so few circumstances that it doesn't end up adding to the role.

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

CL and Assassin are the exact same by themselves

Yes, but CL has a group, which makes a HUGE difference to lists and plays.

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: pretty much the same as TC+Assassin except that that pairing isn't known in the role list

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange:

I was being a little hyperbolic, I'll admit, but I think it functions in so few circumstances that it doesn't end up adding to the role.

The situations I can see happening and having impact are an early Devil check by a non-pack player, and an early Warlock/CF/FT check.

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts:

I was being a little hyperbolic, I'll admit, but I think it functions in so few circumstances that it doesn't end up adding to the role.

I think there's quite a few circumstances where it can to something? • Getting seen by TI • Getting seen by WI • RW claim used as a defence by an actual wolf

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: I mean the disguise won't do much after mechanically proving yourself

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: but you have to get there first

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: Which is made harder by the disguise

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: The disguise only impacts one TI at all: it only impacts packless WI. I don't think mechanically proving yourself is made harder by a disguise, really?

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: Honestly with this amount of discussion and neither of us budging, it's looking like we're just not going to convince each other at all, ever.

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: I would be fine with changing the killing mechanic honestly, but I definitely disagree that the whole lycan part is insignificant

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts:

The disguise only impacts one TI at all: it only impacts packless WI. I don't think mechanically proving yourself is made harder by a disguise, really?

Isn't it AT/CS/FT for TIs?

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: As well as devil's wager

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: and yeah its only Warlock and Lone Warlock, but like this is the same for all disguises

[CrowdfordBot]

e_thsn: PW also can't check RW as RW

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: right so it even works on PW

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts: and on TrW

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: AT would already see any killing role as a threat: CS wouldn't be affected because if it's checking a RW claim it'll know not to check it as RW.

[CrowdfordBot]

mctsts:

and on TrW

It will see it as a slight threat

[CrowdfordBot]

shapechange: yeah TrW is affected my bad