Werewolf

A Mind Game

also called "Mafia"

I really like it. But then I go to some strange parties.

Make up a set of cards, one for each player, with a role written on each one:

One "Moderator"

Two "Werewolf"

One "Villager (Seer)"

All the rest "Villager"

(Alternatively, the group can choose a moderator in advance; the moderator then takes the "Moderator" card, shuffles the rest, and hands them out face-down.)

Two players are now secretly werewolves. They are trying to slaughter everyone in the village. Everyone else is an innocent human villager; but one of the villagers secretly has the Second Sight, and can detect the taint of lycanthropy.

At Night, the moderator tells all the players "Close your eyes." Everyone should.

The moderator says "Werewolves, open your eyes." The two werewolves do so, and look around to recognize each other. The moderator should also note who the werewolves are.

The moderator says "Werewolves, pick someone to kill." The two werewolves silently agree on one villager to tear limb from limb. (It is critical that they remain silent. The other players are sitting there with their eyes closed, and the werewolves don't want to give themselves away. Sign language is appropriate, or just pointing, nodding, raising eyebrows, and so on.)

When the werewolves have agreed on a victim, and the moderator understands who they picked, the moderator says "Werewolves, close your eyes."

The moderator says "Seer, open your eyes. Seer, pick someone to ask about." The seer opens his eyes and silently points at another player. (Again, it is critical that this be entirely silent -- because the seer doesn't want to reveal his identity to the werewolves.)

The moderator silently signs thumbs-up if the seer pointed at a werewolf, and thumbs-down if the seer pointed at an innocent villager. The moderator then says "Seer, close your eyes."

The moderator says "Everybody open your eyes; it's daytime. And you have been torn apart by werewolves." He indicates the person that the werewolves chose. That person is immediately dead and out of the game. He reveals his card, showing what he was, and leaves it face-up.

Now it is Day. Daytime is very simple; all the living players gather in the village and lynch somebody. The mob wants bloody justice.

As soon as a majority of players vote for a particular player to die, the moderator says "Ok, you're dead." That player then reveals his card, and the rest of the players find out whether they've lynched a human, a werewolf, or (oops!) the seer.

There are no restrictions on speech. Any living player can say anything he wants -- truth, misdirection, nonsense, or bareface lie.

Contrariwise, dead players may not speak at all. As soon as the sun comes up and the moderator indicates that someone is dead, he may not speak for the rest of the game. No dying soliloquies allowed. Similarly, as soon as a majority vote indicates that a player has been lynched, he is dead. If he wants to protest his innocence or reveal some information (like the seer's visions), he has to do it before the vote goes through.

No player may reveal his card, to anyone, except when he is killed. All you can do is talk.

Once a player is lynched, night falls and the cycle repeats. Everyone closes their eyes, the werewolves (or werewolf) secretly select someone to kill, the seer (if alive) secretly learns another player's status; then the sun rises, one player is found dead, and the remaining players begin to discuss another lynching. Repeat until one side wins.

The werewolves win if they kill enough villagers so that the numbers are even. (Two werewolves and two humans, or one werewolf and one human.) At that point they can rise up and slaughter the villagers openly.

The seer is trying to throw suspicion on any werewolves he discovers, but without revealing himself to be the seer (because if he does, the werewolves will almost certainly kill him that night, since he's the greatest threat to werewolf national security.) Of course the seer can reveal himself at any time, if he thinks it's worthwhile to tell the other players what he's learned. Also of course, a werewolf can claim to be the seer and "reveal" anything he wants.

The only information the villagers have is what other players say -- and who dies. Accusing someone of being a werewolf is suspicious. Not accusing anyone is also suspicious. Agreeing with another player a lot is suspicious, and therefore so is pretending not to agree with another player. Never voting to kill a particular player is very suspicious for both of them -- unless it's the seer who knows that player is innocent.

The moderator should stick to the script to avoid mistakes or clues. If he says "Open your eyes, werewolves" instead of "Werewolves, open your eyes," a player may misconstrue the command before the last word.

The moderator should be careful to always talk towards the center of the group. If (for example) he turns to face the seer when he says "Seer, select someone," the werewolves may detect the change in acoustics.

It is really important that dead players not speak, and the moderator not speak outside his official capacity -- even to correct a blatant misstatement about a matter of record. (I've seen a game where one player -- a werewolf -- recited the history of the game up to that point: "X was murdered, then we lynched Y, then Z was murdered..." And he swapped two names, a night-murder and a day-lynching, to confuse matters. It would be unfair for a dead player to say "Hey, that's not right, I was lynched!")

There are several reasons to have an odd number of players (including the moderator): There will be an odd number of living players during each day, which prevents tie votes on lynchings; and the game will always end with a lynching. If there are an even number of players, you can get ties, and the game will end with a nighttime murder -- which is anticlimactic, because everyone knows when the sun goes down that the game will end at dawn. (Because the werewolves are certain to kill a human and win.)

But more importantly, the humans' chances are significantly weaker when there are an even number of players (including the moderator.) (See statistics.) This is probably because an even game always ends with a nighttime murder, and an extra murder is always to the advantage of the wolves; whereas an extra daytime lynching could help either side.

This game can produce a lot of shouting (during the day) and a lot of humming (at night.) Don't play where the neighbors will complain. ("Don't mind us, we're just deciding who to kill!")

My cards are cheesy cartoons (smiley faces, smiley faces with fangs, and a smiley face with a third eye.) Some of my friends have made decks out of selected Magic cards, X-Files cards, and other card games with neat art.

Danny Novo has contributed a PDF file of Werewolf cards, after my cheesy cartoon idea.

I have done some statistical simulations of the game, mostly to figure out when to add a third werewolf. (Seventeen players looks right.)

When the seer secretly points to a player at night, the moderator says out loud "Yes, that's a werewolf" or "No, that's not a werewolf." (Avoid "he" and "she"!) The other players still don't know who was pointing or who was pointed at, but they do know what the answer was. If it was "yes", the werewolves know the pressure is on...

Don't use a "Moderator" card; instead, put in one more "Villager" card. Then have an extra Day phase at the beginning, where the lynched player becomes the moderator. Advantage: Everyone gets to introduce themselves and start casting suspicion around, based on no information whatsoever. (Since it's before the first night, not even the werewolves know who each other are!) Disadvantage: It's possible for the moderator to be a werewolf or seer, which starts one side off with a handicap.

Instead of passing out cards randomly, choose a moderator first, and then let the moderator decide who will be what. The moderator passes out cards as he pleases. (This might be fun if the group has played a lot of games together (not necessarily Werewolf) and know what it's like for different people to team up. If the group is new to Werewolf, I wouldn't recommend this variation.)

Instead of everyone making noise at night, everyone is as quiet as possible, and they listen for the sounds of pointing. (I feel this pollutes the pure brain-ness of the game. You should cast suspicion on each others' arguments, not on whether they can sign silently. But some people do play this way.)

If there are a whole lot of players -- say, seventeen -- it might be better to add a third werewolf. I have not experimented with this, so I don't know. Of course at that point it's also possible to split into two separate games.

If the number of players is even, you can give the villagers an advantage by granting the seer a free inquiry, letting the werewolves recognize each other, and then starting with a day-phase. (Or, equivalently, start with a night but don't let the werewolves attack that first night.) This keeps the parity normal. It's hard to quantify the advantage of a free inquiry, since it's entirely psychological, but at least you don't have an entirely information-free first day.

If the number of players is small, or even, perhaps improve the villagers' chances by giving one of them wolfsbane? The villager with wolfsbane cannot be killed by wolves; if he is picked, the moderator announces "It's dawn... nobody was killed last night." Of course, the herb is no protection from lynching. Disadvantage: this screws up the parity, so some games won't end with a lynching. (This is a very speculative variant, and needs a lot of playtesting before it can be recommended.)

A variant from Princeton: one villager has wolfsbane, but he chooses which doorstep to sprinkle every night. (He can choose himself.) If he picks the same person the wolves pick, that person doesn't die. If he picks a wolf, nothing happens. Disadvantages: again, this screws up the parity. Also, if the last two players are a wolf and the wolfsbane-owner, the game is a stalemate. (Hm -- that's the result that was described to me, but it doesn't necessarily follow. You could say that since the wolf-team has equal numbers, they win by daytime massacre, and the herb doesn't help.)

"Dark City": At night, the werewolves get to swap two villager cards (thus possibly changing the identity of the seer). Ideally, when a villager dies, it should not be revealed whether or not he was the seer.

"Cupid": One villager is also the Cupid. At the start of the game, he secretly indicates two others players. These players are now a pair of Lovers. (The moderator taps the Lovers on the shoulder, and has them open their eyes and see each other. So the Lovers know who each other are, and the Cupid knows who they are -- but none of them know (initially) whether the Lovers are human, wolves, or one of each.) Now: if one Lover dies (day or night), the other dies immediately of a broken heart. Furthermore: if the Lovers are the only two people left alive, even if one is a human and one is a wolf, they both win. ("Ours is a forbidden love." -- Willow)

Adam Cadre came up with a version that avoids the closed eyes, the humming and tapping, etc; the only hidden behavior is writing. All players write on a notecard at night. The moderator collects the cards and works out the results. Villagers write "sleep". The wolves can write a list of names of people to kill, in order of preference; if there is no consensus, one particular wolf (the alpha wolf) gets his wish. The moderator writes seer results on the seer's card before returning the cards. This scheme eliminates wolf conferring, but it may work better for some groups -- it eliminates the risk (and temptation) of peeking.

A friend has reported another name for the game: "Seduction", where two seducers try to deflower all the virgins before they're caught, with a gossip peeking. Every day the virgins go out and... arrange a tryst with one of their number? Send someone to a brothel? Ok, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Jake Eakle describes a live-action version. Everyone has a sheet of paper on his dorm-room door; wolves choose their targets by drawing a red X on the door at night. (Actual night!) Other symbols get used for seer probes, etc.

A version called "Thing" (as in, "who goes there?"). In this, the villagers don't lynch -- they choose someone to test, and the subject is only killed if he is a genuine wolf. And after a successful detection, the villagers get another go; the day only ends after a test comes up innocent. (The first one's free, so there at least two tests per day.) What's the catch? At night, the werewolves pick a villager to convert. Their victim starts playing for the wolf team immediately, although he won't find out who infected him until "werewolves, open your eyes" the next night. I am told that the play dynamics are wildly different, since you're looking for changes in behavior, not hidden conspiracies.

I am told that a children's psychiatric facility has gotten its kids playing a "fox/henhouse" variant of the game. They use a one-shot vigilante role (on the villager team, can kill a werewolf at night once per game).

Other variants are noted below, with links to groups that play that variant.

Dimitry Davidoff had a web page up on which he describes the origin of the game. The site is no longer available, but a copy can be found on archive.org. His rules are well off the current average, though. The players may lynch any number of people during the day, and lynched players do not reveal their identity. The villagers can only find out if they've won by ending the day and seeing if there are any killers left. There's no communicating at night, and there is no moderator or Seer.

More about the origin of the game, from its creator:

i was studying at psychology department of moscow university. i was doing two years at once (roughly junior and senior years - yep, was a crazy time =) and teaching ap psychology class for high schoolers (translating it to american realities). my course paper was about time as the primary psychological (human) construct. so in my class, i was playing with different notions of time - why we want spent time as we spend it? is there a time we spent we rather wouldn't (this would be a definition of a psychological symptom incedentally). anyway, i was trying to find an activity for students - so it would produce a biggest time spending with the smallest input (and i wouldn't have to prepare for classes that much =). i was trying to find something that would structure time not by means of outside organization (being in class) or preparation (for example, previous common knowledge as a topic). first i was asking couple of students to make a secret agreement in a hall (about topic they want to discuss), then return to the classroom for others to guess it. and while watching this discussion, i suddenly realised (eureka kinda moment) - that WHO is in agreement is the biggest secret of all. my students become the first players. then of course student parties in my dormitory - biggest one in moscow - housing thousands of students from different departments. it quickly spread to other departments and dormitories - likely over next summer, through student summer camps. i [have] tried to keep a track of mafia since then - treating it as a natural experiment of a meme spreading. i guess due to its nature (no real prerequists to the game besides being a human - that was the idea of course), the game was spreading pretty fast in russia. in all possible discourses, from bandits and prisons (i have a firsthand accounts) to goverment meetings. and students of course were providing the main drive. i went to a few meetings with students in the us (mit media lab was one of the venues, btw) - and its the same pattern everywhere. anyway, few things extra from the top of my head:

1. the whole approach (there are few other games i've created at that time) is grown out of lev vygotskiy (founder of the soviet psychological school in '20s) and alan turing's test.

2. the 'moral' aspect of the game is/was important too - errors of first and second type are unintuitive concept in psychology. to force players in accepting errors was one of my primary concerns. there were some psychological disputes on that topic, i was trying to solve

3. in '89-'90 i was teaching psychology 101 for international students (mostly from socialist countries then), some of them probably become first seeds in spreading mafia outside russia.

4. i am still finding new things about mafia all the time, it is surprisingly euristic. -- Dimitry Davidoff (from email, September 2005)

Steven Clays reports: "We (= a Belgian group of 2500 ecologists between 8-25) learned the game from Slovenian people in July '96." Hm.

If you have any more information about the early history of the game, please send me a note. That's erkyrath@eblong.com .

Wherewolf, by Christian Zoli.

Ultimate Werewolf, by Ted Alspach.

Les Loups-Garou de Thiercelieux -- a French publication by Philippes des Pallières and Hervé Marly of Lui-Même Games. Has a number of additional character cards, including the "Cupid" described above. Published in English as "The Werewolves of Millers Hollow".

Lupus in Tabula, from daVinci Games. Also has a bunch of character cards. (That page has rule translations into a bunch of languages, including Esperanto...) Da Vinci has since come out with an extended Werewolf game called Lupusburg.

Are You A Werewolf? -- published by Looney Labs. Just werewolf, villager, seer, and moderator cards; rules basically as described on this page. (Looney Labs events tend to degenerate into Werewolf late at night. Friday night at Origins 2002, we had four games running with 52 people total...)

And I might as well give my opinion about this sort of thing:

I did not invent this game, so I have no right to permit or forbid people from publishing commercial versions of it, or otherwise making money off of it. As far as I'm concerned, it's folk culture, as much as hopscotch or chess. (Even if it was invented in 1986 (see below). Folk work fast. The word gets around.)

On the other hand -- if you publish a version which is called "Werewolf", as opposed to "Mafia" or some other theme, it would be cool if you noted my name. I don't insist. I'm just asking. Because I am the sole inventor of the idea of having this game be about werewolves... and while that gives me no rights of ownership, it does mean that the chain of causality flows back through me.

It's kind of a weird feeling, actually. I am your memetic lycanthropic Eve!

Heh.

Werewolf Statistics

This page in Spanish (translation thanks to Daniel Gómez)

Zarfhome (map) (down)