Pub Werewolf night! (also tabletop games)

Pub Werewolf night! (also tabletop games)

6.30 pm, till late

The Local Taphouse

184 Carlisle St, St Kilda

(near 3, 16 & 78 trams and Balaclava train station)

Entry is free, but you'll have the option to make a gold coin donation (to Amnesty International and/or the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

Join us in the Local Taphouse's games room for an evening of social gameplay in the classic game of deception and detection.

We will be running games of Werewolf throughout the night, and anyone is welcome to join. If you're eliminated and don't want to stick around and watch until the next game, the Local has a small collection of board games - or you're welcome to bring your own and play with other gamers! (Easy jump-in-and-out games will make it easy to mesh with the ebb and flow of Werewolf players.)

We usually get through three games per group, with a 20- to 30-minute break between each, and we're currently getting a couple of groups going at once - and there are usually a few people sitting out for meals and/or other games as well, so other gaming is always an option too.

Want to see this event on Facebook to invite non-Meetup friends? Click here. (But that's only Pub Werewolf - they're better off joining the Meetup.)

Need to know more about Werewolf? Click here.

Want to know how the previous night went? Click here.

Join or login to comment.

  • Daniel S.

    Thanks for the games guys, I had fun, and hope to come back again. It definitely opened my eyes to how differently Werewolf aka Mafia can be played amongst different groups - in terms of both rules and playing styles.

    If anyone's interested, here's a link to where I originally learned about Mafia, on a Twitch.tv stream that plays a webcam-based version of the game every week:

    http://www.twitch.tv/koibu/b/438942857 (this is the video from last week, game one starts about 12:45 in)

    August 7, 2013

    • Phil M.

      Hmm, I agree but also disagree. Definitely I agree that we should always have SOME games with known roles. I like being able to deduce things myself. But known roles have to be carefully mixed so that there is room for lying and unverifiable claims, otherwise the Werewolves basically have no room to play. (Witness my situation in the last game!) And some of the best games I've run and played have had no information at all: no reveal, no known roles (including the moderator naming roles each night that aren't in the game, so it's still possible they're active), nothing but close observation of your fellow players. It really ramps up the paranoia :)

      August 9, 2013

    • Phil M.

      * Quick addendum - the problem with the last game was NOT the selection of roles but the design of the Warlock. I failed to think through the implications the Witch seeing that someone was already saved by the Warlock, i.e. that they would be able to verify each other's identities. So it was entirely my own fault :-/

      August 9, 2013

  • Phil M.

    Another great night folks. Thanks to those who put up with my experiments with new roles... any feedback most welcome.

    1 · August 7, 2013

    • Phil M.

      @ Jesse: I'm actually OK with seat movement until the Golem is revealed... but yes, after that seat placement has to be fixed.

      August 9, 2013

    • Phil M.

      @ Stuart: I've never seen everyone putting their hands over their eyes. I would forbid it as a moderator. The Curious Kid is only worth including if peeking carries a substantial risk of getting caught. I'd also be tempted to say that the Curious Kid always counts as a free kill, so that even if they don't get caught peeking there is still a downside.

      August 9, 2013

  • Jesse M.

    A random thought. It's been said in the past that role reveals can ruin the spirit of the game a bit. I wonder how we might dissuade people from blurting their roles out (as there is no reason, in theory, why the whole village wouldn't just announce their roles and, unless the werewolves are very good liars, the whole game kind of falls over). If we were a medieval village, let's say, and someone announced that they were a witch, wouldn't we just burn them at a stake? It may be difficult and confusing to articulate a clear principle to apply when determining what people can and can't say but I just thought I might air a floating thought out here for comment.

    August 8, 2013

    • Jesse M.

      I was thinking with a doppelganger style character, they could only win if they had actually assumed a role on the winning side by the time the game ended. And it's like a one-off power so they need to choose wisely.

      The hitman (Assassin who has to kill a particular role) is interesting but you run into the Tanner problem where it's an honorary win and we still want to play on to see how the game *really* ends.

      August 8, 2013

    • Phil M.

      @ David - Ha! In some of our games that would be an automatic victory :P

      I'd actually think about a role like "Equalizer"/"­Normalizer"/"C­onformist" for games with a reasonable number of Villagers - must get rid of all roles other than Villager. @ Jesse - Yep, definitely the Doppelganger would only be able to win based on the role it chose. To make it extra interesting, I might allow the Doppelganger to use their ability after the Werewolves have chosen who to attack - so they think they've killed the Seer, but really someone else has taken on that role.

      The Assassin actually still has to survive to the end of the game, so I'd make the Hitman the same. But I don't have a problem with honorary wins anyway :) I just phrase them as "you win if X when the game ends".

      August 9, 2013

  • Phil M.

    Also: are other people keen to try Two Rooms and a Boom again if Jesse brings it?

    July 10, 2013

  • David B.

    Great time as always. However, I would like to comment on the abstain vote change. Using the new method, you could in theory have someone lynched based on a single vote. For example, 19 out of 20 people abstain, but one person votes to lynch. This means there is a majority according to the new approach. This seems to me to be against the spirit of the game.

    August 7, 2013

    • Phil M.

      An entirely different voting option is dealing with things one nomination at a time. The way Christopher runs games, as soon as someone is successfully nominated, they immediately have to defend themselves and then there's a vote on that nomination. If the lynch vote fails, they can't be renominated until someone else has been unsuccessfully nominated. I'd be open to trying this method if others find it interesting. Less reasonable, but more flavourful...

      August 8, 2013

    • Jesse M.

      I would be happy with a ban on abstensions. I think thumb up or down sends a very clear signal and stops people from being able to hide behind their apathy. Also, on a practical note, it is harder to sneak in a thumb down from a thumb up position instead of a no thumb position, which is an issue I've noticed from time to time.

      I wouldn't mind trying the Christopher solution too. It would be more flavourful and sometimes straw polls may impact the outcome of potential votes in an unfair way. Maybe we can still have a rule that forces night after the third vote - no matter the outcome. Then there remains a question of whether we allow for double jeopardy in the same day. Either answer would make for an interesting dynamic, as long as we agree before the game begins.

      August 8, 2013

  • Ariane

    Does anyone know of any parking nearby?

    August 6, 2013

    • Stuart

      On the street should work - across the road, I think there are no restrictions after 5 or 6. Not sure about the same side as the pub.

      August 6, 2013

    • Ariane

      cheers

      August 6, 2013

  • KameSama

    Hey all! Looking forward to it. Just thinking - should I familiarize myself with the rules in advance or is it simple enough to pick up quickly?

    August 6, 2013

    • Stuart

      You should be able to figure it out pretty quickly - there's usually a "simple" game running with basic roles and explanations, and the moderators are good at explaining what's going on.

      August 6, 2013

  • carol c.

    Sorry guys, moved house and still unpacking

    August 6, 2013

  • Andy G.

    Hi Phil
    (remember me from civica)
    This werewolf thing is going gangbusters! Congrats. Not sure if I can make t, but will try and at least swing by for a beer.

    Andy Graham

    1 · July 19, 2013

    • Phil M.

      Andy! Hey! Sorry I missed this message until now - have been busy with a panel at PAX, getting consulting going, a bunch of stuff I would love to tell you about if you can make it! But either way, great to hear from you and we should try and catch up soon!

      July 28, 2013

  • Nicole

    Maybe next week ...

    July 28, 2013

  • Daniel S.

    I learnt about this game (under the name Mafia) recently and I'm excited to have found a local group that plays it.

    I've never played, but watched some videos of games. The biggest difference between the version I've seen and the version described in the link is that I'm used to players *not* revealing their cards when they die. Can someone confirm what rule you guys use for that, and why?

    July 14, 2013

    • Phil M.

      Hi Daniel, we decide this before each game, but the typical game here has us revealing species but not specific role. So if someone's a Werewolf you find that out, but no more information than that. Where we vary from that, it's usually as you describe, no reveal.

      July 14, 2013

    • Daniel S.

      Thanks Phil. I'd be happy to try both.

      July 15, 2013

  • Jason

    Did u ever have any luck finding a pub round Brunswick to hold the event Phil?

    July 12, 2013

    • Phil M.

      Still looking... have a couple more leads to follow up and then after that I might throw it open to the group.

      July 12, 2013

  • Phil M.

    All righty folks, next event is up. I'm not promising anything... but post requests for (and discussion of) roles and mixes of roles you'd like to see in the comments.

    July 10, 2013

    • Jesse M.

      @David, Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the confusion where there are two nominees. That does make it a bit more confusing, but maybe not impossible. It could be the nominee with the greater margin is lynched. It could be a bit confusing at first though.

      July 12, 2013

    • Jason

      In that case it would have to be majority. Realistically though, we're never going to know how good a system is or isn't if we never try it. I'd be keen to see a game with 2 witches, I think it would work best if they were played sequentially, they couldn't be simultaneous... could they? W cub slaughtered and both witches killing on the same night - throw a hunter or two into that mix and that is one dead village.

      July 12, 2013

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Create your own Meetup Group

Get started Learn more
Henry

I decided to start Reno Motorcycle Riders Group because I wanted to be part of a group of people who enjoyed my passion... I was excited and nervous. Our group has grown by leaps and bounds. I never thought it would be this big.

Henry, started Reno Motorcycle Riders

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy