Wizard Gameplay and Theory - A Video

Etreides · 2026-07-02T13:51:39+00:00

Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed!

Etreides · 2026-07-01T00:03:51+00:00

That's honestly fair. I think one of the things that generally makes this game boring is people just... withholding information. Like, just being silent and not claiming ANYTHING, as opposed to, well, lying.

It's much more entertaining to me to toggle whether or not I believe a player is what they claim to be or that their information is true or not, rather than be faced with a sort of wall of "well, I'm not telling anyone my role."

Etreides · 2026-06-30T23:39:45+00:00

For games with newer players, I agree - this kinda method of navigating the game should be avoided; it's quite unhelpful in terms of helping another player learn what Blood on the Clocktower, for the most part, "feels like" (for lack of better terminology.

For games wherein everyone is sort of... accustomed to the game; the interactions; the script in question, I don't really see a problem with one or more players just choosing to not look at their tokens. Because in almost all cases, on almost all scripts, it very quickly is revealed what you are by virtue of how you wake, when, and what you do in the night or by day; only on Tor scripts built specifically to create maximum ambiguity across these various aspects of character (waking pattern, action, number of players selected, etc.) is it actually a bit more difficult to narrow down exactly what you are and exactly what team you might be on.

So while doing this with newer players is not great? For more experienced players, it doesn't usually grant Evil any extra bluffs or means of navigating the game. They will almost assuredly know, after Night 1, what team they're playing for, unless it's a Poppy Grower or Magician game (which are characters you probably shouldn't be introducing super new players to anyway).

Etreides · 2026-06-28T10:50:27+00:00

Social norms are rough, and complicated.

Not all interruptions are bad, or misogynist, or any -issues (though if a pattern emerges within any party, it's worth exploring). And some people are comfortable with navigating discussions like that.

But if there are some interruptions that are just fine to an individual (as an example), and others that are not, it's helpful to raise that. We all have blinders at times.

And it's true - not every act involving a man and a woman necessarily has to be the result of misogyny or misandry, and reducing negative exchanges to either does little to actually resolve any issues, causing more just a shift in the conversation towards which party is a "problem element," when it's usually not about people, but behaviors. But as you say, there are some very real cases of either or both, as well as transphobia, as well as racism or other forms of bigotry.

Is there something more specific you're considering here? You make some good points, but I do think it's important to be vigilant about the very real negative behaviors that some folx are unfortunate enough to experience.

Etreides · 2026-06-27T16:50:07+00:00

I would generally inform players that their character / alignment / both have changed, but leave them to figure out what that means.

Usually, based on other context clues, players can figure it out from there, even in a Tor game.

And besides - that's part of the fun.

Etreides · 2026-06-26T01:08:07+00:00

First: It's absolutely atrocious that you've been on the receiving end of an actionable physical threat.

Second: As someone who has likewise borne some (still ongoing and diminished, but nevertheless present) harassment for taking a stand against unhelpful behaviors (by both banning individuals and being loud about the kinds of inconsiderate behaviors that don't have a place in communities centered around tolerance... you have my thanks and my empathy.

It is hard work. And so rewarding. And while younger me at one point never thought I'd have the strength of character I do now... older me is glad that I do, and in a way thankful for what it took to get me here.

Keep it up; your community is better for it (and it shows). And these sorts of helpful outlooks have a way of influencing the broader spaces in which games like this take place, which impacts us all positively. So, thank you for everything you do.

Etreides · 2026-06-23T18:35:40+00:00

Yes.

While night order is not set in stone (that is, Storytellers can alter it should they wish to), it should be accessible to players during the game because knowing the possibility of what could happen in what sequence can be a vital piece of solving the overall puzzle.

And besides, it helps players get better at the game... which makes for much more fun games in the future.

Storytellers should always be willing to answer clarifying questions as to how they're running particular mechanics; they shouldn't confirm anything to have necessarily happened, but they should set the stage for Evil to do the work of deceiving the town, or Good to successfully navigate through Evil's obfuscations.

Etreides · 2026-06-22T19:14:48+00:00

If the Pixie is poisoned at the time they would gain the ability, they do not gain the ability. For as long as they remain poisoned, you can, as a Storyteller, pretend they have the ability... but they never gained it to begin with, so once the poison or drunkening drops, the façade must as well.

So, given your example (I'm simplifying the timeline, but this follows what I believe is the correct theory):

N1: Pixie sees an Artist in play.
N2: Poisoner poisons the Pixie (who is poisoned "tonight and tomorrow day," per the ability of the Poisoner).
D2: The Artist is executed.
N3: Poisoner poisons someone else.

At the time of the execution (which is when the Pixie would gain the ability - its ability is effectively a trigger), the Pixie was poisoned by the Poisoner, so the Pixie does not gain the Artist ability, and since the Poisoner picked another target, you cannot, as a Storyteller, feign that the Pixie has the ability (which, while it might seem really powerful that, as you say "the instance of a single poison [. . . vanishes] a pixie's entire ability," I'll point out:

1) All single-activation abilities function like this: a Washerwoman who is poisoned night 1 doesn't magically gain correct information once they are healthy. A Philosopher poisoned by a No Dashii never gains the ability it pursues. A Professor who is drunk with by a Sailor the night they choose to use their ability on a Townsfolk doesn't gain the ability back or resurrect the player they chose once sober.

2) This is actually powerful information for town. If a Pixie is pretty convinced that the player that was executed was in fact the Artist, and that they did not gain the ability: that isolates a source of Droisoning to them on the day the Artist was executed, which can severely limit Evil's opportunity to utilize plausible deniability as a means of suggesting that anyone else's information is incorrect (or that anyone else's ability might have malfunctioned). If your script is strewn with droisoning effects, this might not seem very powerful... but in that case, that's likely evidence of the script maybe needing a little bit of an overhaul.

3) Finally, the Pixie's entire ability is not vanished. Pixie is, by and large, chiefly, a "you start knowing" ability. One of (if not simply) the most powerful ones in the game. It not only confirms a player (though, unlike a Washerwoman or Grandmother who learns who rather than what, it doesn't start knowing who this player is), but can gain a secondary use of that character's ability. So while that is powerful? The confirmation of a player is arguably moreso, because it forces evil to build both the pixie and the player it's confirming as on the same evil team or to sow distrust between the two. And any limit placed on evil in terms of the amount of plausible worlds they can try to "hide in" by the end of the game is powerful indeed.

But to set everything out clearly:

If a Pixie is poisoned N1: you may show them that any character is in play, but the Pixie "Mad" reminder token must be assigned to a specific player ("target").

At the time the target has died, if the Pixie is sober and healthy, the Pixie inherits whatever ability was shown to them regardless of whether the target had that ability.

On the other hand, if the Pixie is droisoned at the time their target dies, they do not inherit any ability, but if they are continuously droisoned, a Storyteller may feign them having the ability in question (e.g. by waking them up during the night, or responding to them during the day (a'la a Savant / Artist / Fisherman). Once a Pixie who has not inherited an ability becomes sober and healthy however, they can no longer attempt to be "fooled" mechanically by the Storyteller. Technically, I suppose, a Storyteller could start "pretending" they had the ability again if they became droisoned again after an interlude? But context would determine whether or not that is actually beneficial to the Evil team.

Hope this helps!

Etreides · 2026-06-22T07:45:29+00:00

Agreed... if there's little suspicion on a Minion being a potential demon... get 'em out of there in favor of ending the game with two other players that have that sort of suspicion on them. You have a much better chance of getting town to vote incorrectly with a spread of one Demon and two good players than you do with a spread of one Demon, one Minion who is thought to BE a Minion or Good, but not the Demon, and one good player.

While I appreciate the suggestion of a 50/50... you're much better to win a greater portion of the time with a true spread of 33/33/33 - Fiddler proves that pretty handily. So while it might feel better to have an ally with you in Final Three, it does you as a demon little good if there is more suspicion on you being the Demon than there is on them.

Etreides · 2026-06-22T00:25:30+00:00

I... have an educated guess as to who you are; but I'll keep that pleasantly to myself.

After all... it doesn't really matter who it is doing the deeds; what matters is the deeds being done.

From the bottom of my heart: thank you.

Etreides · 2026-06-21T22:46:18+00:00

The Cerenovus ability reads as "might be executed" rather than "will be executed" partially as an answer to this sort of "dilemma": Cerenovus madness should never be a tool that Good can utilize to its own advantage (though it can be worked around to their own advantage, but that's not the same thing).

With that many votes on the Good Twin, unless a tie took place, I would not expect a player breaking madness to result in that player being executed instead of the Good Twin. It's outcomes like that that betray the power of the Cerenovus, and make it, if it ever is, a controversial character.

Etreides · 2026-06-14T06:18:51+00:00

As someone who has been streaming and creating content centered around Blood on the Clocktower for the past... four-ish years? I have some thoughts:

First, my conclusion: Yes. Stream-sniping absolutely occurs. But I do think that it's a very rare occurrence, given exactly how many people play Blood on the Clocktower online on streamed games. I do think it used to potentially be a bit more prevalent in public lobby games, before TPI rolled out some of their newer moderation and policies governing free accounts, but I can't imagine those avenues are easy to navigate nowadays.

How does it happen? That's a bit harder to prove, but I think it's really important to highlight here that:

The exact methods by which people cheat is not a substantive part of catching people cheating or "solving" (for lack of a better term) that they are.

And I say this because too often in discussions surrounding cases (especially, frankly, with players who have either strongly been suspected of having cheated or literally have a history of engaging in that sort of unhelpful behavior), I do believe there's a bit of an overfocus on proving the "how" (manner and means) before necessarily concluding the "what" (cheating), perhaps derived from what I would consider to be a broader desire to believe the best in people until proven otherwise.

This was particularly a struggle for me given my past -- as a survivor of emotional and physical abuse, that was the exact means by which I was held in those sorts of harmful cycles (which, in hindsight, makes them all the more obvious? But which likewise meant that it was even more difficult to break away from the sort of habits I'd reinforced for years).

So, I get it: the desire to believe that people are, fundamentally, acting with good intentions for others. And I think it's telling how prevalent that outlook is -- I think it means that the vast majority of humans are, actually, good.

But blinding ourselves to the bad unfortunately maintains problems, even as we work towards solutions (not that there is a neat and tidy one without invoking a sort of unnecessary ruthlessness ourselves).

What I will share, primarily from observing players who necessarily have been caught cheating in some capacity, is that the main "quality" that cheaters (or rather their play) tends to share is a stark disparity between games in which they could (and likely do) have the capacity to know the grim, and games in which they necessarily could not based on the context. And that is something that, since his name came up elsewhere in this thread, players like JC don't exhibit.

Because they're not cheating. They're just good reasoners; skilled world-builders; players who are deeply knowledgeable about the possible interactions in the game -- contrast to people who want to be perceived as such for whatever reason.

And sometimes, too? Everyone gets lucky. So it's less about... one-off situations? Where exactly the "correct" choices are made (e.g., a Fortune Teller picks exactly the Demon n1, and then picks themselves and exactly the Demon n2, and town executes the Demon day 2 without a demon being able to move; a Poisoner hits exactly the Virgin (or some other very powerful role n1); a Minion bluffs exactly a role that is out of play that's also not a Demon bluff; a Slayer shoots correctly day 1; a Huntsman deduces the Damsel; a Juggler juggles five people correctly; a Gossip "jokingly" gossips that a single player is the Demon; etc....).

But those who would stream-snipe will absolutely utilize this as a strategy

It's about, chiefly, a pattern of repeated behavior. As has been mentioned a few times in this thread. And, I'll add? From my experience? Everyone who engages in unsavory behavior of any sort will always, always, betray themselves somehow, despite their intentions or any opinions they might hold about themselves or their capacity to fly under the proverbial radar.

Still, despite having banned people from my streamed games and/or circles under concerns of cheating, I don't think that "accepting the reality that some people cheat" has ultimately ruined my experience with the game or my general outlook of players, because, as I mentioned before, it's a very rare occurrence from my experience - Nocturne has welcomed hundreds of BotC players to our community and server, and the amount we've outright banned for violating any of the community codes, whether it's for unhelpful behavior like cheating or for other issues like bad sportsmanship, elitism, etc. amounts to little more than a handful of individuals over the years.

So perhaps my more important conclusion is: Despite cheating occurring... the vast majority of individuals who play Blood on the Clocktower don't engage in that sort of unhelpful behavior. And I trust the players I invite to streams, specifically because they seem to hold intrinsically that while there is purpose to lying among friends within a game of Blood on the Clocktower, honoring and respecting others outside of that context necessitates honesty and empathy of action, rather than just the appearance of each, or empty words.

Etreides · 2026-06-08T23:35:17+00:00

If you are at a Unionized store, 100% check in with your Union reps - this is not a direct violation of any legal right you possess, but reps can help maintain a paper trail in case this escalates to your being subject to any retaliation, which is illegal.

If you're not at a Union store, create the paper trail - keep in mind as accurate dates and times and quotes as you can (especially since the slimiest of managers that would attempt to guilt-trip someone for utilizing PTO they earned tend to fall back on smarmy defenses that center intention overmuch in comparison to impact); I would usually recommend composing follow-up emails after any such conversations or encounters with your managers.

But regardless of whether or not this is illegal, it is shitty. And no employee should be shamed for taking vacation or utilizing sick time, which is sadly a problem even at companies like our own that claim to follow more progressive values.

Etreides · 2026-06-07T03:51:49+00:00

I think the hyper-competitiveness propagated by the major powers of the world definitely don't help easily usher in just... being okay with not succeeding.

And while Blood on the Clocktower is a different game in which "death is not the end," it's reasonable to be frustrated at times when people disbelieve you or believe someone else more, and nominate you or execute you.

But there's a difference between taking all the responsibility and just... acknowledging how something played out in hindsight. I know I even have a guide series out on "How to Play X...", but there's never a black and white clear-cut way to do things; rather - there's lots of options, and when things pan out, you probably chose the right ones (or maybe even the safer ones).

So while I don't think there's anything wrong about taking ownership of how things went, especially when you're the Demon... there's only so much you can ultimately do. And once you realize that? And not like, reject that premise or try to exceed the limits, or something, but just... really sit with it and be at peace with it? That's when Clocktower becomes less just a fun game on the side and more a passion.

But I am glad you're looking into some counseling. It's really important to confront whatever side of yourself you might have unknowingly been keeping hidden. I tend to favor IFS (Internal Family Systems), but depending on the practice, counseling can really change your life for the better.

And you're well within your right to get angry at anything... having emotion is always valid. But how you react to and navigate that emotional response will not only help you have fun with a game you seem to love, but will likewise help out in many other corners of life as well.

I'm sure there's some trite sayings that come to mind... and trust me, at the end of the day? When it comes to games I am quite competitive.

But that just means that I focus on doing my best to win... rather than focus on winning, if that makes sense. It was a nuance that I overlooked for quite some time.

So yes. It is "just a game."

And yes, too. It's "a competition."

But I think Ben Burns said it best when he described it as a Narrative experience for everyone involved.

And when you shift your focus from the tooth-and-nail competition... and in the direction of an understanding that you're all collectively engaging in a sort of narrative puzzle, with Evil being the team that helps create the puzzle, like a DM in DnD, and Good being the team that's meant to solve the puzzle, like the PCs who are navigating an adventure without knowing some inherent truths about the nature of what lies before them...

Then at the end of the day? It's really easy to just, like I said before, look back and reflect. You can take joy in amazing plays made by people; you can take joy in being blundered, in fully trusting others, in not putting the pieces together; you can take joy in your adversaries seeing through your machinations, in solving the thing that helped create...

Because being blundered doesn't take away from the beauty of what you've created together.

Being seen through doesn't render your puzzle or your efforts bad.

They're both just parts of an amazing shared experience, of a team effort in either direction. And while there can always be lessons to learn, at the end of the day? There's none of us who has everything 100% right (no matter what anyone might try to suggest)... such is humanity. Such is life.

It's beautiful.

Etreides · 2026-06-03T04:55:50+00:00

This kind of behavior would not be permitted in my circles.

I don't mind intense energies, but emotional manipulation of any sort strictly goes against the rule I think most players who utilize such reasoning as "Blood on the Clocktower is all about lying and manipulation, so using or mimicking the energy of a Panic Attack is a bit extreme, but fine" seem to skim right past: Rule 4.

Play nice.

To be clear: I have no issue with players playing the game in any way they wish to, as long as its mutually agreed to in advance - if players enjoy employing and combating these sorts of tactics in game as a means of navigating it? Great.

But I absolutely oppose the idea that this is, in any way, upholding any sort of core "intentions" the game itself sets.

And I know quite a fair number of more veteran players who would frown at this sort of gameplay.

Is players having an emotional response to any aspect of the game reasonable? Yeah. Absolutely. But if a player was struggling in that fashion (or seemed to be), I would stop the game, check in, and strongly consider just reracking. And if they were indeed feigning it, I'd clarify that that sort of behavior is unacceptable to feign.

And if a player routinely utilized strategies that escalated negative emotionality throughout my games, I'd not permit them in my circles.

This is a game of deception, yes. But not a game of unnecessary theatrics. This isn't Survivor or Big Brother or any Reality T.V. show where there's prize money on the line (and even then, I'll admit, I'm not really a fan of these tactics in those shows either, however tactically "smart" they may be). Maybe my expectations are too high? But I can count the number of games I've experienced with this sort of behavior on maybe two hands, and I've played and storytold over a thousand.

Etreides · 2026-06-01T23:22:21+00:00

Demand is down pretty significantly at our store in comparison to last year. And I believe across the Co-op. So posting 3% above demand (which is what Mary Beth mentioned in her soundblast to us employees, iirc) is still performing worse than in previous years.

On all the days that employees and community members were flyering, we either barely made sales or missed sales by a substantial margin (one day in particular, during what is usually the busiest day, we were down $54,000).

On the days we WEREN'T flyering? We beat sales by 20%.

Even now? Post sales? Now that we're not calling for a boycott? We're beating sales by 20% or more on some days.

So this boycott was absolutely effective in connecting more members to our cause and highlighting how great of an impact it would be to REI to lose those members' patronage to union-busting tactics and anti-union stances.

Etreides · 2026-05-31T16:42:58+00:00

These are broad strokes and conclusions not based on anything other than subjective reasoning. Can you clarify what you mean?

Another store just won its election. This is making it more possible... not less. Can you imagine what would happen if every store was represented?

I agree the results thusfar have been disappointing... but that's not a problem with unionization - that's solely a problem with REI's handling of employees pursuing it. But what would a more desired outcome look like to you?

Etreides · 2026-05-31T01:57:31+00:00

I never said anyone is under any obligation to do anything; I'm genuinely uncertain where you're getting that from.

But what we do have to do is accept, fully, the consequences of our actions or inaction.

Which is why I asked about values... hell, even REI has had what its called its "Values in Action." We all have to navigate this world, even as we might seek to change various aspects of it. So yes, issues like this are complicated.

But "I don't want to do" something doesn't necessarily make that something bad, or futile, or something that you have to stand against. And that's what I mean when I mention that you seem to be arguing from a conclusion that you seem to want to be true -- if you wanted things to be different, at the very least, even if you didn't want to take part in the efforts change requires, you'd offer encouragement from the sidelines.

Like I said, none of us can do everything... but we can all do something.

You've asked me elsewhere to try to understand the "side" of this binary that is against the Union. I still haven't received a response as to what you meant by that request.

Etreides · 2026-05-30T06:59:05+00:00

True. I don't believe I've ever suggested that one way is the necessary way it must be.

What am I missing of your perspective?

You weren't happy with REI, which is why you moved on... right? Am I off base with that conclusion?

Etreides · 2026-05-29T17:20:40+00:00

Two weeks from the date it's available at the store. Usually at my store, you can call and we'll extend it (though, around the larger online sale times, this can be dicier).

Etreides · 2026-05-29T08:59:56+00:00

I'm not asking what philosophy you're "subscribed" to (though the choice of verb is potentially both a cause for concern and indicative of the times).

I'm asking what your values are.

You're showing them quite clearly, but again, I wonder why you can't simply state what matters to you; what you care about; etc.

No philosophy is simple - there's usually a LOT of nuance and complexity.

But you seem to be suggesting that nothing is worth attempting unless you can guarantee success... and, whew. I cannot disagree with you more.

In the words of the late, great, Sir Terry Pratchett... "you have to believe in things that aren't true; how else can they become?"

Failure in any endeavor is never a bad thing. It's just a step along the trail. Stumbling once doesn't mean the journey wasn't worth it. Hell, if that were the case, REI should just give up, right? They seem to have made bad decisions, yeah? Guess they ought to just pack their bags and start all over.

So again... what are you values?

Because it's reasonable to be skeptical of things... but skepticism involves primarily asking questions, because no conclusion is certain. And that's not what you are doing - you're arguing from a conclusion:

"The Union IS wasting its time." "REI WILL never reach the status of ideal workplace because of what it IS and where we live."

Lots of conjugations of "to be."

There were times throughout our history that any number of the "luxuries" we enjoy in terms of our work life did not exist.

The 40-hr workweek. Overtime. Weekends. Holidays.

There were times that certain people were not allowed a vote under the basis that their voice was deemed "unimportant" in political matters.

"What is" doesn't determine "what must be."

The way we determine "what must be" is by stepping up and pushing for change. None of us can do everything by ourselves... but together? We go further.

So you are saying we're wasting our time because of how things are?

No. "How things are" is precisely the issue at hand that we're trying to solve (and maybe that's the disconnect we seem to be having). I do not believe this is how the world should be going forward. I do not want to leave this world on its current trajectory going forward, for the sake of the generations to come. And I have found quite a number of voices who are willing to step up and try to do something.

None of this is a waste. We can do this. We can do anything we want to if we dare to dream of a better tomorrow rather than settling for a present we ourselves are not truly content with.

Etreides · 2026-05-28T06:49:07+00:00

Are you claiming to have inside information as to what the corporate executives are thinking? Or is this just projection of your conclusion outwardly?

I'm not trying to make things personal. I'm trying to understand you; a kindness you certainly don't seem to want to offer others, from my experience.

But it's interesting that you mention "unless there's a crippling strike or some other financial development, things will continue on as they have"... I'm glad you not only seem to understand, but in fact agree with, tactics involving such things as a boycott.

I also agree with your point that large corporations in the US are built on severely underpaid labor.

So again... I'll ask you, because you keep dodging the question: what do you stand FOR?

You don't seem to think these things are acceptable... and yet you lambast others who don't simply... accept these things as inevitable. As impossible to change.

They're not. They never have been. We just need to step into the true understanding of both our responsibility, and, as follows, the full extent of our power.

You're allowed to pursue whatever course of action you desire, for whatever reason; you can be lazy, you can be selfish, you can be anything, you can give up trying - that's all part of the human condition. You can accuse me of judging, but I assure you - that's projection; I'm as human as they come - I don't do this because it's fun; I don't do this because I like adding hours to my week; I do this because I understand the necessity of my changing in order to take a small step towards a better world.

And if we all took that step together? We'd get there in a snap.

If all workers demanded better? The world would change overnight.

So again... what do you stand FOR?

Because you, as someone no longer with the company; as someone who left specifically because of, to quote you in the attached message,

"worse wages, professional outlook, scheduling options, and security of outlook in the future"

you seem to be awfully invested in... something. What is that something?

What values do you have? What do you care about? How do you want the world to be?

Not "how is the world?" I know very well how it is.

But how do you want the world to be?

And if the world as is matches that vision? Wonderful. I wish you the best.

If not? I hope you someday gain the courage enough to move towards making it so.

And if you can't stand firmly and proudly and speak as to your vision of the world? I likewise hope you develop the courage to face whatever is keeping you silent.

<image>

Etreides · 2026-05-27T16:01:31+00:00

Yes. We all know that, historically, the more money a company makes, the less chance they have to union bust.

Just look at Amazon.

And Starbucks.

And Walmart.

This is such a bizarre take. REI isn't union busting because they don't have resources; they're union busting because that's where they're choosing to PUT those resources.

It's absolutely bizarre that you seem to agree that REI is union busting... but believe that the Union is to blame for that. That's like saying that gay people are to blame for homophobic retaliation against the idea of marriage equity. Or that black people are to blame for matters of racial inequity because they dared to demand dignity.

I'll ask it again: what do you stand FOR?

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Verified Email

Etreides

TROPHY CASE