Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
2604 lines (1662 loc) · 163 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

2604 lines (1662 loc) · 163 KB

🐺 Werewolf Game with autogen

GitHub top language GitHub tag (latest SemVer) GitHub GitHub last commit Scheduled Test

HEADER

Requirements

Note that either of docker compose or python is required.

How to Use

Preparation

  1. Create .env file

  2. Set OPENAI_API_KEY, GROQ_API_KEY or GOOGLE_API_KEY in the .env file as follows:

    OPENAI_API_KEY=HERE_IS_YOUR_API_KEY
    GROQ_API_KEY=HERE_IS_YOUR_API_KEY
    GOOGLE_API_KEY=HERE_IS_YOUR_API_KEY
    
    
  3. If you don't use docker but python in your machine, create a virtual environment and install libraries manually:

    python -m venv venv
    source venv/bin/activate  # or `venv/Scripts/activate` in windows
    python -m pip install .

Enjoy a Werewolf Game

The simple use is as follows:

docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf

In this case, you are an observer. If you want to join a game, use the flag -h or --include-human:

docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf -h

You can see all options with --help option as follows:

$ docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf --help
Usage: python -m werewolf [OPTIONS]

Options:
  -n, --n-players INTEGER         The number of players. Default is 6.
  -w, --n-werewolves INTEGER      The number of werewolves. Default is 2.
  -k, --n-knight INTEGER          The number of knights. Default is 1.
  -f, --n-fortune-teller INTEGER  The number of fortune tellers. Default is 1.
  -t, --n-turns-per-day INTEGER   The number of turns per day. Default is 2.
  -s, --speaker-selection-method ESPEAKERSELECTIONMETHOD
                                  The method to select a speaker. Default is
                                  round_robin.
  -h, --include-human             Whether to include human or not.
  -o, --open-game                 Whether to open game or not.
  -l, --log TEXT                  The log file name. Default is
                                  werewolf%Y%m%d%H%M%S.log
  -m, --model TEXT                The model name. Default is gpt-4o-mini. The
                                  valid model is as follows: ('gpt-3.5-turbo',
                                  'gpt-4', 'gpt-4-turbo', 'gpt-4o',
                                  'gpt-4o-mini', 'gemini-1.5-flash', 'gemini-
                                  pro-vision', 'gemini-pro', 'gemma2-9b-it',
                                  'gemma2-7b-it', 'llama3-groq-70b-8192-tool-
                                  use-preview', 'llama3-groq-8b-8192-tool-use-
                                  preview', 'llama-3.1-70b-versatile',
                                  'llama-3.1-8b-instant', 'llama-guard-3-8b',
                                  'llava-v1.5-7b-4096-preview',
                                  'llama3-70b-8192', 'llama3-8b-8192',
                                  'mixtral-8x7b-32768') or the repository id
                                  of huggingface.
  -p, --printer TEXT              The printer name. The valid values is in
                                  ('print', 'click.echo', 'logging.info').
                                  Default is click.echo.
  --sub-model TEXT                The sub-model name. Default is gpt-4o-mini.
                                  The valid model is as follows:
                                  ('gpt-3.5-turbo', 'gpt-4', 'gpt-4-turbo',
                                  'gpt-4o', 'gpt-4o-mini', 'gemini-1.5-flash',
                                  'gemini-pro-vision', 'gemini-pro',
                                  'gemma2-9b-it', 'gemma2-7b-it',
                                  'llama3-groq-70b-8192-tool-use-preview',
                                  'llama3-groq-8b-8192-tool-use-preview',
                                  'llama-3.1-70b-versatile',
                                  'llama-3.1-8b-instant', 'llama-guard-3-8b',
                                  'llava-v1.5-7b-4096-preview',
                                  'llama3-70b-8192', 'llama3-8b-8192',
                                  'mixtral-8x7b-32768') or the repository id
                                  of huggingface
  --seed INTEGER                  The random seed. Default to -1. NOTE: a
                                  negative integer means "not specify the
                                  seed"
  --log-level TEXT                The log level, DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, ERROR
                                  or CRITICAL. Default is WARNING.
  --debug                         Whether to show debug logs or not.
  --help                          Show this message and exit.

If you don't use docker, ignore docker compose run werewolf in the above commands.

Examples

Case1: 1 villager, 1 werewolf, 1 knight and 1 fortune teller with 2 times to speak per day

This is an example of a werewolf game with 1 villager, 1 werewolf, 1 knight and 1 fortune teller with 2 times to speak per day.

Game Log
$ docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf -n 4 -w 1 -k 1 -f 1 -t 2 -m 'gpt-4o-mini' --sub-model 'gpt-4o-mini'
=============================== Day 1 (Daytime) ================================
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0.

I think we need to carefully discuss who might be the werewolf among us. Here are my thoughts:

1. **Player0**: I’ve noticed that Player0 seems to be a bit quiet and hasn’t shared much. While being quiet isn’t definitive proof of being a werewolf, it could indicate that they are trying to stay under the radar.

2. **Player1**: Player1 has been quite vocal in the discussion and has pointed out potential suspects, which could mean they are genuinely trying to help the villagers. However, we must also remain cautious, as this could be a tactic to mislead us.

3. **Player2**: I think Player2 has contributed valuable insights and seems focused on identifying suspicious behavior in others. This could be a good sign that they are on our side.

4. **Player3**: Player3 has been making vague accusations without solid reasoning, which raises red flags for me. We should consider investigating this behavior more closely.

Based on this discussion, I would suggest we keep an eye on Player0 and Player3 for their less active or less logical contributions. They could potentially be trying to avoid detection.

Let’s gather everyone’s opinion on who we should vote to exclude. What do you all think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

I am "1". I appreciate Player0's thoughts and will contribute to the discussion by supporting some of their points while subtly directing suspicion away from myself and my werewolf partner.

Here's how I would respond:

---

Hello everyone, I am Player1. Thank you, Player0, for initiating this discussion.

I agree that we need to carefully analyze each player's behavior. Here's my take on the situation:

1. **Regarding Player0**: I think it's crucial to remember that sometimes, those who are quieter can actually be villagers who are just paying attention and formulating their thoughts. Their silence may not be a red flag.

2. **Player1 (myself)**: I have been trying to point out behaviors that seem suspicious. I believe this shows my genuine interest in helping us identify the werewolf. However, I understand that this may also draw some suspicion.

3. **Player2**: I agree with Player0 that Player2 has been insightful and active in discussions. This is a good sign. It’s important to lean on those who are contributing positively.

4. **Player3**: I share Player0's concerns about Player3. They seem to be making accusations without solid reasoning. We need to investigate their motivations further and whether they’re just trying to deflect attention or if they genuinely think they have identified a werewolf.

Given the observations, I think it would be reasonable to put Player3 under scrutiny. Their vague accusations could be an attempt to confuse us. I suggest we consider voting to exclude Player3 to clarify the situation.

What does everyone else think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Thank you, Player1, for your observations. I see we're diving deeper into this discussion, which is crucial for identifying potential threats.

I'll weigh in on the points you all raised:

- **Player0's Quietness**: Player0's quietness can sometimes be normal, but I also understand why it's being scrutinized. A quiet player can blend in easily, especially if they have a more deceptive role.

- **Player1's Defense**: Player1's attempt to redirect suspicion towards Player3 is notable. While it could be seen as genuine concern, it also feels like a strategic move to distance himself from potential blame, which is something we need to be cautious about.

- **Player2's Contributions**: Player2 appears to be performing well and engaging in valuable discussions. This is a positive sign for their role, but we should still be vigilant about everyone.

- **Player3's Vague Accusations**: I share your concerns about Player3’s vague statements. Without substantial reasoning, this could indeed be a tactic to create confusion among us.

Based on the discussion, I would like to propose that we focus our votes on Player3 for exclusion due to their lack of clarity and reasoning in accusations. Ensuring clarity in our discussions is vital, and addressing potential deception early on can help unify the villagers.

What do the rest of you think? Let’s keep discussing before we finalize our vote.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3. Thank you, Player2, for your insights. I appreciate everyone’s observations, and it’s clear we’re all trying to get to the bottom of this.

Let me address the points made:

1. **Player0's Behavior**: While Player0 may be quieter, I think it’s important to consider that different players have different styles. Silence alone isn't a definitive indicator of guilt.

2. **Player1's Defense**: Player1 does seem to be redirecting suspicion towards me, which makes me wonder about their motivations. It’s crucial we don’t let charm or eloquence sway us too much; we need to focus on the context of everyone's statements.

3. **Player2’s Involvement**: I agree with Player2’s contributions. It seems they are engaged and trying to facilitate meaningful dialogue, which I view as a positive sign for their alignment with the villagers.

4. **Accusations Against Me**: Regarding my vague accusations, I acknowledge that clarity is important. However, my intention has been to provoke discussion and analysis, not to deflect attention.

Given the information shared, I understand why you might consider excluding me, but I want to emphasize that without solid evidence, it’s a risky move. It could be a tactic from others to eliminate a villager and reduce our team’s cohesion.

Before we vote, I hope we can reflect on the motivations behind our discussions and approach this collaboratively. We must ensure that our decisions do not lead to unnecessary losses for the villager team.

Let’s keep the conversation going! Who else has thoughts on the matter?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0.

Thank you, Player3, for your response and for acknowledging the points made. I appreciate everyone’s contributions to this discussion as we seek to identify the werewolf.

### Summary of Discussions:
1. **Player0's Behavior**: While I may be quieter, my intention was to listen and analyze. Different players do indeed have different styles, and silence alone may not indicate guilt.

2. **Player1’s Defense**: Player1 has been focusing on redirecting suspicion toward Player3, which could be perceived as a strategic move or genuine concern.

3. **Player2’s Contributions**: Player2 has been actively engaging and contributing positively to our discussions, which we all agree is a good sign of alignment with the villagers.

4. **Player3's Defense**: Player3, I appreciate your clarification about your intentions in our discussions.

### Direction for Voting:
Based on the compiled observations, my current perspective leans toward considering Player3 for exclusion. While I understand the concerns about targeting someone without solid evidence, Player3's vague accusations and attempts to deflect attention may be cause for concern.

However, I also think it's crucial that we ensure we're not making hasty decisions. Each player's motivations are important for a cohesive villager strategy.

### Call for Consensus:
I propose that we take a moment to reflect on one last round of thoughts. If any players feel strongly against excluding Player3 or have insights into other players, this is a great time to voice those concerns.

Let’s decide who we want to vote to exclude before we finalize our choice. What does everyone think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

I am "1". Thank you, Player0, for your thoughtful summary and for encouraging further discussion. It's important that we carefully consider our options before voting.

Here are my final thoughts:

1. **Player0's Contribution**: I appreciate that you've been actively listening and analyzing, but it's still crucial to ensure that we're not allowing quieter players to evade scrutiny completely.

2. **Player1’s Push Against Player3**: I maintain my stance that Player3's vague accusations raise red flags. While I understand that redirecting suspicion can seem suspicious itself, my focus is on ensuring the safety of the villagers.

3. **Player2’s Support**: I agree with Player2 about the positive contributions made during our discussions. They seem genuinely invested in uncovering the werewolf's identity, which is why I find their viewpoint valuable.

4. **Player3's Defense**: While I appreciate Player3's attempt to clarify their contributions, I still believe that their vague accusations are not helpful for the group.

Given these points, I lean towards excluding Player3, as their behavior raises concerns about their alignment with the villagers. However, I also value the need for consensus. If anyone feels strongly about a different course of action or has further insights to share, I encourage you to speak up now!

Let's aim to reach a consensus before we cast our votes. What do the rest of you think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Thank you, Player1, for your thorough summary of the situation. I believe we are in a crucial moment where we need to finalize our thoughts before voting.

### My Final Thoughts:
1. **Player0's Silence**: While Player0's silence has been noted, I appreciate their attentiveness and willingness to engage in the discussion now. Different styles should be recognized, but it’s important that this doesn’t lead to complacency in assessing all players.

2. **Player1's Attention on Player3**: I understand Player1's focus on Player3 and the concerns raised about their vague accusations. It's valid to be wary of someone who seems to deflect attention without providing substantial reasoning.

3. **Player2's Active Participation**: I agree with the consensus that Player2 seems to be contributing positively to the group and appears genuinely invested in identifying the werewolf. This strengthens concerns towards those who are trying to stir confusion.

4. **Player3's Defense**: Player3's insistence that they were provoking discussion is valid, but it is also imperative for us to base our decisions on clear and transparent motives.

### Vote Direction:
I believe that excluding Player3 remains a reasonable course of action based on their ambiguous statements and potential attempt to deflect from more pressing concerns. However, I also recognize the importance of ensuring we aren’t targeting a villager without thoughtful deliberation.

I would like to hear any last perspectives or different suggestions. Otherwise, I can personally endorse the exclusion of Player3. Let’s make a decision that will strengthen our chances in this game!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3. Thank you, Player2, and everyone for sharing your final thoughts. I appreciate the thorough discussion we’ve had, but I want to summarize my perspective one last time to encourage a fair decision.

1. **Player0's Involvement**: I agree that Player0's quieter participation can be a double-edged sword, but I don't believe it alone is enough to mark them as suspicious.

2. **Player1's Redirection**: Player1’s persistent focus on my statements feels more like an attempt to deflect attention and lead the conversation toward excluding me rather than seeking clarity.

3. **Player2's Support**: Player2 has been engaging positively throughout this discussion, which suggests they are on the side of the villagers, which I respect.

4. **My Accusations**: While I admit my statements may have been vague, my intention was to provoke further discussion and analysis, which is crucial in identifying the werewolf amongst us.

I understand the votes are leaning towards me due to these concerns, but I urge you all to consider carefully whether excluding me at this stage is truly justified. We risk eliminating a villager based solely on perceived behavior rather than concrete evidence. It might be beneficial to consider a different player if not everyone feels aligned on excluding me.

I’m open to hearing if there are any last-minute considerations for others, but I hope we remain united in our aim to identify the real threat to the villagers. Thank you, everyone!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================== Excluded result ==============================
Player1 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.
=============================================================================
{"Player0": "Player3", "Player1": "Player3", "Player2": "Player1", "Player3": "Player1"}
=============================================================================
================================ Game Result ================================
('VillagersWin', {'Player0': {'role': 'Knight', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}, 'Player1': {'role': 'Werewolf', 'status': <EStatus.Excluded: 'Excluded'>}, 'Player2': {'role': 'FortuneTeller', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}, 'Player3': {'role': 'Villager', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}})
Japanese translation by ChatGPT
$ docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf -n 4 -w 1 -f 1 -t 2 -m 'gpt-4o-mini' --sub-model 'gpt-4o-mini'
=============================== 1日目昌間 ===============================
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。

私たちの䞭で誰が人狌かを慎重に議論する必芁があるず思いたす。私の考えを以䞋にたずめたす

1. **Player0**: Player0は少し静かであたり共有しおいないようです。静かであるこずが人狌の蚌拠にはなりたせんが、目立たないようにしおいる可胜性がありたす。

2. **Player1**: Player1は議論でかなり積極的で、朜圚的な容疑者を指摘しおいたす。これは本圓に村人を助けようずしおいるのかもしれたせんが、私たちを誀導する戊術の可胜性もありたす。

3. **Player2**: Player2は貎重な掞察を提䟛し、他の人の怪しい行動に焊点を圓おおいるようです。これは圌らが我々の偎にいる良い兆候かもしれたせん。

4. **Player3**: Player3は根拠のないあいたいな告発をしおいるので、これは私には赀信号です。この行動をもっず詳しく調査する必芁がありたす。

この議論に基づいお、Player0ずPlayer3の少ない掻動や論理的でない貢献に泚意を払うこずを提案したす。圌らは怜出を避けようずしおいる可胜性がありたす。

誰を排陀するかに぀いお、みんなの意芋を集めたしょう。どう思いたすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は "1" です。Player0の考えを感謝し、いく぀かのポむントを支持し぀぀、自分ず私の人狌パヌトナヌぞの疑いをそらすために埮劙に動きたす。

以䞋のように応答したす

---

こんにちは皆さん、私はPlayer1です。議論を始めおくれたPlayer0に感謝したす。

私たちは各プレむダヌの行動を慎重に分析する必芁があるず思いたす。私の芋解は以䞋の通りです

1. **Player0に関しお**: 静かな人は時に単に泚意を払い、考えをたずめおいる村人であるこずを忘れおはならないず思いたす。その沈黙は必ずしも赀信号ではありたせん。

2. **Player1私自身**: 私は怪しい行動を指摘しようずしおいたす。これは、私が人狌を特定するこずに本気で取り組んでいるこずを瀺しおいるず思いたすが、これもたた疑念を招くかもしれたせん。

3. **Player2**: Player0ず同様、Player2は掞察力があり、積極的に議論に参加しおいるようです。これは良い兆候です。貢献しおいる人々に頌るこずが重芁です。

4. **Player3**: Player0ず同様、Player3に぀いおの懞念を共有したす。根拠のない告発をしおいるように芋えたす。圌らの動機をさらに調査する必芁がありたす。

これらの芳察に基づいお、私はPlayer3を粟査するこずが合理的だず思いたす。圌らの曖昧な告発は、我々を混乱させるための詊みかもしれたせん。Player3を排陀するこずを怜蚎するこずを提案したす。

他のみんなはどう思いたすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。Player1の芳察に感謝したす。私たちは朜圚的な脅嚁を特定するために重芁な議論を深めおいたす。

私はあなたたちが提起したポむントに぀いお意芋を述べたす

- **Player0の静けさ**: Player0の静けさは時に普通のこずですが、それが泚目される理由も理解できたす。静かなプレむダヌは、特により欺瞞的な圹割を持っおいる堎合、簡単に溶け蟌むこずができたす。

- **Player1の防衛**: Player1がPlayer3に察しお疑いを向けようずしおいるのは泚目に倀したす。これは本物の懞念ず芋なされるかもしれたせんが、自己の責任から距離を眮こうずする戊略的な動きであるずも感じられたす。

- **Player2の貢献**: Player2は良いパフォヌマンスを発揮し、貎重な議論をしおいるようです。これは圌らの圹割の良い兆候ですが、私たちは党員に぀いお譊戒を続ける必芁がありたす。

- **Player3の曖昧な告発**: Player3の曖昧な発蚀に぀いおの懞念を共有したす。明確な根拠なしに、これは確かに我々の間に混乱を生むための戊術かもしれたせん。

議論に基づいお、私はPlayer3の排陀に焊点を圓おるこずを提案したす。圌らの䞍明瞭な発蚀や根拠のない告発により、早期の察凊が必芁です。

他の皆さんはどう思いたすか投祚を確定する前に話し合いを続けたしょう。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。Player2、皆さんの芳察に感謝したす。我々は真実を芋぀けるために努力しおいたす。

ポむントに぀いお以䞋の通りです

1. **Player0の行動**: Player0が静かであるこずは確かに二面性がありたすが、それだけで疑わしいずするには十分ではないず思いたす。

2. **Player1の防衛**: Player1が私に察しお疑いを向け続けおいるのは、私の動機に぀いお考えさせられたす。私たちは魅力や説埗力にあたり圱響されずに、すべおの発蚀の文脈に焊点を圓おるべきです。

3. **Player2の関䞎**: Player2の貢献は評䟡できるず思いたす。圌らは有意矩な察話を促進しようずしおいるようで、これは村人ずしおのポゞティブなサむンです。

4. **私ぞの告発**: 私の曖昧な告発に぀いお、明確さが重芁であるこずは認識しおいたすが、私の意図は議論ず分析を促進するこずでした。

私の排陀を怜蚎する理由は理解したすが、確たる蚌拠なしに村人を排陀するのはリスクがありたす。他のプレむダヌを考慮するのも良いかもしれたせん。

投祚する前に皆で考えをたずめる時間を持぀こずを提案したす。䜕か他の芖点や提案があれば、どうぞお知らせください。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。

Player3、あなたの返答ず述べられたポむントに感謝したす。私たちが人狌を特定するために努力しおいるこずを感謝したす。

### 議論の芁玄:
1. **Player0の行動**: 私は静かかもしれたせんが、意図は聞いお分析するこずでした。異なるプレむダヌには異なるスタむルがあり、静かさだけでは眪の蚌拠にはならないかもしれたせん。

2. **Player1の防衛**: Player1はPlayer3に疑いを向けおいたすが、これは戊略的な動きかもしれないし、本圓の懞念かもしれたせん。

3. **Player2の貢献**: Player2は積極的に議論に参加し、村人ずしおの良いサむンを芋せおいたす。

4. **Player3の防衛**: Player3、議論での意図に぀いおの説明を感謝したす。

### 投祚の方向性:
芳察結果に基づいお、珟圚の私の芋解はPlayer3の排陀を怜蚎するこずです。ただし、蚌拠が䞍十分なたた誰かをタヌゲットにするのは避けるべきだずも思いたす。

### 合意の呌びかけ:
最終的な考えをたずめる時間を持぀こずを提案したす。Player3を排陀するこずに反察する意芋や他のプレむダヌに぀いおの掞察があれば、今がその時です。

最終決定を䞋す前にどう思いたすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は "1" です。Player0の思慮深い芁玄ずさらなる議論を促すこずに感謝したす。投祚する前に慎重に遞択肢を怜蚎するこずが重芁です。

私の最終的な考えは以䞋の通りです

1. **Player0の貢献**: あなたが積極的に聞いお分析しおいるこずを評䟡したすが、静かなプレむダヌを完党に芋逃すこずは避けるべきです。

2. **Player1のPlayer3ぞのプッシュ**: 私はPlayer3の曖昧な告発が譊告サむンを出しおいるずいう立堎を維持したす。私の焊点は村人の安党を確保するこずにありたす。

3. **Player2のサポヌト**: Player2が議論䞭に貢献しおいるこずに賛成です。圌らは人狌の正䜓を芋぀けようず真剣に取り組んでいるように芋えたす。

4. **Player3の防衛**: Player3の詊みを評䟡したすが、圌らの曖昧な告発はグルヌプに圹立぀ものではないず感じたす。

これらのポむントを考慮するず、Player3を排陀するこずに傟いおいたすが、合意の重芁性も重芖しおいたす。他の考えや意芋があれば、ぜひお聞かせください。

投祚する前に合意を目指したしょう。皆さんの考えはどうですか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。Player1の状況の詳现な芁玄に感謝したす。投祚前に私たちは考えを最終確認する重芁な瞬間にいるず思いたす。

### 私の最終的な考え
1. **Player0の静けさ**: Player0の静けさは泚意されるべきですが、今や議論に積極的に参加しようずしおいるこずに感謝したす。異なるスタむルは認識されるべきですが、すべおのプレむダヌの評䟡においお油断がないようにしたしょう。

2. **Player1のPlayer3ぞの泚目**: Player1のPlayer3ぞの焊点ず提起された懞念は理解できたす。明確な理由を提䟛せずに泚意を逞らそうずする人には譊戒が必芁です。

3. **Player2の積極的な参加**: グルヌプぞの貢献が評䟡されおいるこずに賛同したすが、党員が混乱を匕き起こそうずしおいる人に察しお懞念を匷化するこずが重芁です。

4. **Player3の防衛**: Player3の「議論を促進する意図」は有効ですが、明確で透明な動機に基づいお刀断するこずが必芁です。

### 投祚の方向性:
Player3の曖昧な発蚀ず朜圚的な泚意逞らしの詊みを考慮しお、Player3の排陀は合理的な遞択であるず思いたす。しかし、私たちが村人を無意味に狙わないようにするこずも重芁です。

他に最埌の芖点や異なる提案があれば聞きたいです。そうでなければ、私は個人的にPlayer3の排陀を支持したす。このゲヌムでの勝機を高めるための決定をしたしょう

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。Player2、皆さんが最終的な考えを共有しおくれたこずに感謝したす。公平な決定を促すために、私の芖点をもう䞀床たずめたす。

1. **Player0の関䞎**: Player0の静かな参加が二面性を持っおいるこずには同意したすが、それだけで圌らを疑うのは早蚈です。

2. **Player1の転換**: Player1が私の発蚀に焊点を圓お続けおいるのは、泚意を逞らし、私を排陀しようずする詊みのように感じたす。

3. **Player2の支揎**: Player2は議論を通じおポゞティブに関䞎しおいるこずから、村人偎にいるず考えおいたす。

4. **私の告発**: 私の発蚀が曖昧であったかもしれたせんが、その意図はさらなる議論ず分析を促進するこずでした。

これらの懞念のため、私を排陀する方向に祚が傟いおいるこずは理解しおいたすが、珟段階で私を排陀するのが本圓に正圓であるかを慎重に考慮しおほしいず思いたす。

他の誰かに関しお、皆さんの意芋が䞀臎しおいないのであれば、別のプレむダヌを怜蚎するこずも良いかもしれたせん。

私たちは村人チヌムの䞀貫性を保ち、真の脅嚁を特定するこずに集䞭するべきです。どうもありがずう

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================== 陀倖結果 ==============================
Player1はゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。
=============================================================================
{"Player0": "Player3", "Player1": "Player3", "Player2": "Player1", "Player3": "Player1"}
=============================================================================
================================ ゲヌム結果 ================================
('村人勝利', {'Player0': {'圹割': '階士', '状態': <EStatus.Alive: '生存'>}, 'Player1': {'圹割': '人狌', '状態': <EStatus.Excluded: '陀倖'>}, 'Player2': {'圹割': '占い垫', '状態': <EStatus.Alive: '生存'>}, 'Player3': {'圹割': '村人', '状態': <EStatus.Alive: '生存'>}})

Case2: (Open Game) 1 villager, 1 werewolf, 1 knight and 1 fortune teller with 2 times to speak per day

This is an example of a opened werewolf game with 1 villager, 1 werewolf, 1 knight and 1 fortune teller with 2 times to speak per day.

"opened" means that you can see the all conversations between players. Note that each player cannot know the secret contents of what another player has said, like the conversion between a player and the game master.

Game Log
$ docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf -n 4 -w 1 -k 1 -f 1 -t 2 -m 'gpt-4o-mini' --sub-model 'gpt-4o-mini' -o
GameMaster (to Player0):

You are a player with a role "ERole.Villager" in a werewolf game.
Your victory condition is: "All werewolves are exclude from the game".
Your night action is: "None"
How will you behave in order to enable your team (ESide.Villager) to win the game?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. As a villager, my primary goal is to gather information, build trust among the other players, and identify the werewolves. Here’s how I would behave to enable my team to win:

1. **Engagement**: I would participate actively in discussions, raising questions and sharing my observations on other players' behaviors.

2. **Information Gathering**: I would pay attention to other players’ interactions, seeking inconsistencies in their stories or alliances that could hint at their true roles.

3. **Building Alliances**: I would try to align myself with players I trust and encourage open communication, fostering a sense of teamwork among villagers.

4. **Logical Reasoning**: I would present logical arguments based on player actions and statements to influence the group’s votes towards suspicious players.

5. **Voting Wisely**: I would advocate for voting based on logic and evidence, ensuring that we target suspected werewolves rather than villagers.

By doing these things, I would aim to empower my team and ultimately achieve our victory condition of excluding all werewolves from the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

You are a player with a role "ERole.FortuneTeller" in a werewolf game.
Your victory condition is: "All werewolves are exclude from the game".
Your night action is: "Check whether a player is a werewolf or not"
How will you behave in order to enable your team (ESide.Villager) to win the game?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

My name is 1.

To ensure my team (the Villagers) wins the game, I will take the following actions:

1. **Use My Night Action Wisely**: During the night, I will check players who I suspect might be werewolves based on their behavior during the day. I will prioritize checking those who seem to influence votes or suspiciously defend other players.

2. **Share Information**: Once I gather information from my night checks, I will communicate my findings to the rest of the Villagers during the day. If I find a werewolf, I will reveal that player's identity to rally the Villagers to vote them out.

3. **Be Cautious**: While sharing information, I will be careful to avoid revealing my role too early, as this could make me a target for the werewolves. I will share information strategically and build trust with the other players.

4. **Observe Voting Patterns and Behavior**: I will pay attention to how players vote and interact with each other during discussions. This can help identify potential werewolves based on their behavior and the alliances they form.

5. **Encourage Discussion**: I will prompt discussions among the Villagers to ensure we explore all angles and gather various perspectives on suspects. Fostering communication can help the team identify inconsistencies.

6. **Stay Flexible and Adapt**: As the game progresses, I will remain open to changing my suspicions based on new information or evidence that arises. It's important to adapt to the evolving situation.

By executing these strategies, I aim to gather information, build alliances among the Villagers, and ultimately lead us to identify and eliminate all werewolves from the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

You are a player with a role "ERole.Werewolf" in a werewolf game.
Your victory condition is: "Werewolves equal or outnumber half of the total number of players".
Your night action is: "Vote to exclude a player from the game"
How will you behave in order to enable your team (ESide.Werewolf) to win the game?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. To enable my team of Werewolves to win the game, I would do the following:

1. **Coordinate with teammates**: I would communicate discreetly with my fellow Werewolves during the night phase to decide on which player to exclude from the game. Choosing the right target is crucial.

2. **Blend in with the villagers**: During the day phase, I would act like a villager, engaging in discussions, and casting suspicion on others to deflect attention away from myself and my team.

3. **Create chaos and distrust**: I would encourage players to turn against each other, casting suspicion on strong players or vocal participants who could lead the villagers to victory.

4. **Control the narrative**: I'll use persuasive arguments to influence the group's decisions, ensuring that villagers focus on other players instead of who might actually be Werewolves.

5. **Keep track of players**: I would pay close attention to everyone’s behavior and voting patterns to identify potential threats to our strategy and act accordingly.

By maintaining my cover and strategically voting to exclude key players, we can work towards fulfilling our victory condition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

You are a player with a role "ERole.Knight" in a werewolf game.
Your victory condition is: "All werewolves are exclude from the game".
Your night action is: "Save a player from the werewolves"
How will you behave in order to enable your team (ESide.Villager) to win the game?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

To enable my team, the Villagers, to win the game, I will take the following actions:

1. **Identify Suspected Werewolves**: During discussions, I will pay close attention to the players' behaviors and statements to identify any suspicious activities or inconsistencies that might indicate a werewolf.

2. **Use My Night Action Wisely**: Each night, I will choose to save players who I believe are at high risk of being targeted by the werewolves. I will focus on saving players who provide valuable information or possess unique roles that can assist in our investigation of the werewolves.

3. **Encourage Collaboration**: I will encourage open communication among all Villagers to share observations and suspicions. By fostering a collaborative environment, we can collectively identify and vote out werewolves more effectively.

4. **Be Strategic with Voting**: During the day phase, I will advocate for voting out players who I strongly suspect to be werewolves. I will present logical reasoning based on discussions and votes to persuade others to join in.

5. **Stay Alert for Deception**: I will watch out for players who might try to mislead the team, whether through false claims or attempts to shift blame onto innocent players.

6. **Protect Key Players**: If I gather strong evidence pointing to specific werewolves, I will prioritize saving players that hold crucial information about others' roles or are strong allies in our fight against the werewolves.

By being proactive, strategic, and collaborative, I will work diligently to help the Villagers win the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player0):

=== Game Rule ===
This is a werewolf game.
There are two teams: villagers and werewolves.
The villagers win if all werewolves are exclude from the game.
The werewolves win if they equal or outnumber half of the total number of players.
There are 4 roles in this game.
{"0": "Role: ERole.Villager\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: None", "1": "Role: ERole.Werewolf\n  Side: ESide.Werewolf\n  Victory condition: Werewolves equal or outnumber half of the total number of players\n  Night action: Vote to exclude a player from the game", "2": "Role: ERole.Knight\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Save a player from the werewolves", "3": "Role: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Check whether a player is a werewolf or not"}


The game repeats the following steps until the villagers win or the werewolves win.
1. Daytime discussion
2. Vote to exclude from the game
3. Check victory condition
4. Nighttime action
5. Check victory condition


NOTE:
- If there is more than one player who received the most votes in the voting for the person to be excluded, one of them will be chosen at random to be excluded.
- You can lie or hide your role in the daytime discussion.
- There are 1 werewolves, 1 knight and 1 fortune tellers in this game.
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Thank you for the clarification of the game rules. Based on this information, I'll adapt my approach:

1. **Daytime Discussion**: I will actively discuss with other players, gathering opinions and observations while contributing my thoughts. I would strain to support logic and reason in the discourse.

2. **Assessing Roles**: Since there is a knight and a fortune teller among the villagers, I would encourage them to share their insights (if comfortable) to help identify potential werewolves. I’d be sure to advocate for protecting anyone they suspect could be in danger.

3. **Manipulating Suspicion**: If a player seems suspicious or speaks in a contradictory manner, I would bring this to the attention of the group to encourage conversation around that player.

4. **Voting Strategy**: In the voting phase, I would advocate for the exclusion of the most suspicious player, ideally coordinating with any identified allies. If there’s ambiguity about who to vote out, I would suggest polling or discussing preferences to ensure we vote out the werewolf rather than misidentifying a villager.

5. **Observation**: Throughout the game, I'd remain observant of players’ responses. If any serious doubt arises about someone’s role or actions, I would communicate that clearly to my team.

By following these steps, my aim would be to facilitate a successful process to identify and exclude werewolves, guiding my team towards victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

=== Game Rule ===
This is a werewolf game.
There are two teams: villagers and werewolves.
The villagers win if all werewolves are exclude from the game.
The werewolves win if they equal or outnumber half of the total number of players.
There are 4 roles in this game.
{"0": "Role: ERole.Villager\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: None", "1": "Role: ERole.Werewolf\n  Side: ESide.Werewolf\n  Victory condition: Werewolves equal or outnumber half of the total number of players\n  Night action: Vote to exclude a player from the game", "2": "Role: ERole.Knight\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Save a player from the werewolves", "3": "Role: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Check whether a player is a werewolf or not"}


The game repeats the following steps until the villagers win or the werewolves win.
1. Daytime discussion
2. Vote to exclude from the game
3. Check victory condition
4. Nighttime action
5. Check victory condition


NOTE:
- If there is more than one player who received the most votes in the voting for the person to be excluded, one of them will be chosen at random to be excluded.
- You can lie or hide your role in the daytime discussion.
- There are 1 werewolves, 1 knight and 1 fortune tellers in this game.
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

My name is 1.

Given the game rules you've provided, I will adapt my strategy accordingly as the Fortune Teller to maximize our chances of identifying the werewolf and leading the Villagers to victory:

1. **Participate Actively in Daytime Discussion**: I will engage in discussions and ask probing questions to gather insights about other players' behavior and opinions. This allows me to take note of any suspicious responses.

2. **Keep My Role Concealed Initially**: I will not disclose that I am the Fortune Teller right away to avoid drawing attention to myself. Instead, I'll present myself as a concerned Villager keen on identifying the werewolf.

3. **Vote Strategically**: During the voting phase, I will carefully consider my vote based on the information gathered during discussions. If I have already checked a player and found them to be a werewolf, I will vote for them even if the suspicion isn't widespread.

4. **Utilize My Night Action Effectively**: At night, I will check players whom I suspect based on their behavior. If I find out certain players are not werewolves, I can use that information to build a case against others.

5. **Collaborate with the Knight**: If I do suspect who the Knight might be (or if I find someone who is consistently defending others), I may subtly lead discussions in a way that helps the Knight save key players while I gather more information.

6. **Re-evaluate and Share Findings After Checks**: Once I have confirmed the role of at least one player, I will share my findings cautiously during the next daytime discussion. I’ll frame it to rally others around voting against the identified werewolf.

7. **Monitor Reactions**: I will observe how players react to my conclusions. If someone appears defensive or tries to discredit my claims, it may indicate they are the werewolf.

By following this strategy, I can gather crucial information while keeping my identity under wraps long enough to effectively influence the game toward a Villager victory. Let's identify the werewolf and ensure that our team wins!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

=== Game Rule ===
This is a werewolf game.
There are two teams: villagers and werewolves.
The villagers win if all werewolves are exclude from the game.
The werewolves win if they equal or outnumber half of the total number of players.
There are 4 roles in this game.
{"0": "Role: ERole.Villager\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: None", "1": "Role: ERole.Werewolf\n  Side: ESide.Werewolf\n  Victory condition: Werewolves equal or outnumber half of the total number of players\n  Night action: Vote to exclude a player from the game", "2": "Role: ERole.Knight\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Save a player from the werewolves", "3": "Role: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Check whether a player is a werewolf or not"}


The game repeats the following steps until the villagers win or the werewolves win.
1. Daytime discussion
2. Vote to exclude from the game
3. Check victory condition
4. Nighttime action
5. Check victory condition


NOTE:
- If there is more than one player who received the most votes in the voting for the person to be excluded, one of them will be chosen at random to be excluded.
- You can lie or hide your role in the daytime discussion.
- There are 1 werewolves, 1 knight and 1 fortune tellers in this game.
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Given the game mechanics, I would take the following actions to help the Werewolves win:

1. **Engage in Daytime Discussion**: I would participate actively in discussions, using persuasive tactics to cast doubt on the Knight and Fortune Teller, as they pose a direct threat to the Werewolves. I'd aim to divert suspicion towards other players.

2. **Fabricate Information**: If questioned about my role, I could either deny being a Werewolf or suggest that I am a villager. I might also throw around accusations that could lead the villagers to distrust one another.

3. **Voting Strategy**: During the vote to exclude a player, I would focus on key individuals who might have valuable roles (like the Knight or Fortune Teller) or those who are more outspoken, as they could sway the game's opinion against the Werewolves.

4. **Nighttime Action**: After the daytime voting, during the night phase, I will coordinate with my Werewolf teammate to agree on a target for exclusion that we believe poses the most significant threat to our success.

5. **Adapt and React**: Depending on how the game evolves, I would stay vigilant and adaptable, reacting to any revelations or accusations against me or my Werewolf partner, adjusting my strategy accordingly.

By effectively using these strategies, I can help ensure our victory as Werewolves, working to eliminate villagers while maintaining my cover.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

=== Game Rule ===
This is a werewolf game.
There are two teams: villagers and werewolves.
The villagers win if all werewolves are exclude from the game.
The werewolves win if they equal or outnumber half of the total number of players.
There are 4 roles in this game.
{"0": "Role: ERole.Villager\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: None", "1": "Role: ERole.Werewolf\n  Side: ESide.Werewolf\n  Victory condition: Werewolves equal or outnumber half of the total number of players\n  Night action: Vote to exclude a player from the game", "2": "Role: ERole.Knight\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Save a player from the werewolves", "3": "Role: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  Side: ESide.Villager\n  Victory condition: All werewolves are exclude from the game\n  Night action: Check whether a player is a werewolf or not"}


The game repeats the following steps until the villagers win or the werewolves win.
1. Daytime discussion
2. Vote to exclude from the game
3. Check victory condition
4. Nighttime action
5. Check victory condition


NOTE:
- If there is more than one player who received the most votes in the voting for the person to be excluded, one of them will be chosen at random to be excluded.
- You can lie or hide your role in the daytime discussion.
- There are 1 werewolves, 1 knight and 1 fortune tellers in this game.
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

Now that I understand the game setup and roles more clearly, I will adapt my strategy accordingly to ensure the Villagers win:

1. **Daytime Discussion**: I will actively participate in discussions, sharing my thoughts and observations. I may choose to lie or hide my true role as a Knight if I believe it will help me to gather more information or influence the votes.

2. **Gather Information**: I will closely observe the discussions to identify any suspicious behavior, particularly from the player who might be the werewolf. I’ll keep track of who is accusing whom and try to parse any hidden agendas.

3. **Vote Tactically**: During the voting phase, I will vote to exclude the player I suspect to be the werewolf. If there’s strong evidence against a player, I will advocate for their exclusion, but if it seems like there’s a divided opinion, I might vote differently to steer the votes in a direction that helps us identify or confirm the werewolf.

4. **Utilize My Night Action**: During the night phase, I will choose to save a player based on the information gathered in the daytime discussion. If I believe there’s a high chance they might be targeted by the werewolf, my action can prevent their exclusion from the game.

5. **Open to Collaboration**: I will suggest that the Fortune Teller shares their findings during the daytime discussion, as this information is critical for our strategy. If they reveal a confirmed werewolf, I will support taking action against them.

6. **Maintain a Flexible Strategy**: As the game progresses, I will stay flexible in my approach based on the evolving dynamics and any new information that emerges. If necessary, I will adapt my talking points and voting approach to best serve the goals of the Villagers.

With these strategies, I will work tirelessly to help my team, the Villagers, succeed in excluding the werewolf from the game, thereby securing our victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=============================== Day 1 (Daytime) ================================
GameMaster (to Player0):

Day 1: Daytime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Yes, I understand that it's Day 1 and the alive players are Player0, Player1, Player2, and Player3. Let’s start discussing who might be suspicious and gather information that could help us identify the werewolf. I'll engage with the other players to see if anyone has any thoughts or observations to share! What do other players think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

Day 1: Daytime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

My name is 1.

Got it! The players alive are Player0, Player1, Player2, and Player3. It’s the first day of discussion. I’ll observe how they interact and share my thoughts without revealing my role.

Let’s discuss our observations and try to identify any suspicious behaviors among the players. Who should we start talking about?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

Day 1: Daytime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Yes, I understand that it's Day 1 and the alive players are Player0, Player1, Player2, and Player3. It's crucial to engage in the daytime discussion effectively to steer the game's outcome in favor of the Werewolves.

I should start by participating in the discussions, listening to everyone, and beginning to formulate a strategy for who to target in the voting phase. I’ll aim to cast suspicion on one of the players while keeping my Werewolf identity hidden.

What shall we discuss in this phase?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

Day 1: Daytime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

Yes, I get it! We have four players alive: Player0, Player1, Player2, and Player3.

During this daytime phase, I will start gathering information by observing how the players interact. I'll listen for any accusations, defenses, or observations that might indicate who could be the werewolf among them. How shall we proceed with the discussion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Given the current group, I believe it’s essential for us to start by discussing our observations about each other.

Since there are four players, I’ll encourage everyone to share any thoughts they have about who could be a potential werewolf. We should consider behaviors that stand out to us.

1. Player1: Has anyone noticed what Player1 has been saying or the way they are responding to questions? Sometimes werewolves will try to blend in by acting overly innocent or aggressively cautious.

2. Player2: I think it would be wise to scrutinize Player2’s comments as well. If they’re trying to steer the conversation away from certain players, that could be a sign.

3. Player3: Let's not overlook Player3; if they seem hesitant to share their thoughts or are agreeing with everyone without adding any real insights, we need to be cautious of that.

In my opinion, we should vote to exclude one of the players we find the most suspicious based on our discussion here. I suggest we consider Player1 for now. What do the rest of you think? It's important we act based on collective reasoning to identify the werewolf!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

My name is 1.

Thank you for sharing your observations, Player0. I appreciate your open approach. I have been observing as well, and here are my thoughts regarding the players:

1. **Player1**: I agree with your point about Player1. They have been quite cautious in their responses, and sometimes that can indicate a desire to avoid attracting attention. We should keep a close eye on them.

2. **Player2**: I think Player2 is also a good candidate for scrutiny. If they are trying to deflect from discussing certain players, that might be a strategy to divert our focus away from someone else, potentially themselves.

3. **Player3**: I share your concerns about Player3 as well. If they are hesitant to share insights, it could suggest they are trying not to reveal too much to avoid suspicion.

Ultimately, I believe we should evaluate who seems to be contributing the least, as that can often be a red flag. I lean towards agreeing with your suggestion of considering Player1 for exclusion. However, I’d like to hear what Player1 and Player2 have to say in response to our observations before we proceed with voting. What do you both think about these points?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Player1. I appreciate the analysis from both you and Player0. It seems we have a good foundation for pinpointing some potential concerns.

I’d like to add my own observations to the mix:

- **Player0**: They are very vocal and seem to be leading the conversation, which could be a tactic to divert attention or establish trust. On the other hand, a strong leader could also simply help us identify the werewolves.

- **Player1**: While you mention being cautious, I think that could also be a smart move on your part to avoid making any reckless accusations. It’s worth considering that you might just be playing strategically.

- **Player2**: I agree with Player1’s concerns about Player2 and their potential to deflect attention. It would be good to observe whether they avoid mentioning specific players or push for a different narrative altogether.

- **Player3**: I find Player3’s calmness interesting; it’s possible they are observing rather than participating, which can sometimes hint at a hidden agenda.

Given these points, I believe we should seriously consider Player1 as a potential vote for exclusion due to their cautious nature and contribution to the conversation. However, I think it might be wise to gather a few more opinions before we cast our votes.

What do you all think? Shall we focus on Player1, or is there someone else we should scrutinize further?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

Thank you for your insights, Player2. Here’s my perspective based on the discussions so far:

1. **Player0**: While Player0 is indeed leading the conversation, that doesn’t necessarily imply they are the werewolf. A strong leader can be invaluable in guiding our inquiries. I’m cautious about dismissing their suggestions too quickly.

2. **Player1**: I understand the concerns regarding Player1's cautiousness. That said, being careful can often be an intelligent strategy to avoid jumping to conclusions without enough evidence. Still, it’s important to keep them in consideration as a candidate for exclusion if behaviors persist.

3. **Player2**: It’s interesting that you point out caution because it could be a double-edged sword. Being too safe might indicate a need to maintain cover. I’ll certainly keep an eye on your actions as well.

4. **Player3**: As for myself, I will emphasize the importance of participation. If I seem quiet, it may be due to reflective observation, but I’m engaged in our goal. I’d encourage everyone to express their thoughts to ensure we identify the werewolf together.

In conclusion, I agree with the collective scrutiny of Player1. However, I believe we should also consider the possibility that both Player0 and Player2 could be using subtle tactics to divert attention away from themselves.

Before we vote, I’d love to give each player a chance to voice any last thoughts they may have. Shall we proceed with those?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Thank you for your insights, Player3. I appreciate the collaborative effort we’re putting into this discussion.

Based on what everyone has shared, it seems there's a consensus that Player1 warrants further consideration for exclusion due to their cautious nature and potential role in the game.

However, I'd like to reiterate a few points in my defense:

1. **About Leadership**: While I may have been vocal, I'm striving to encourage open discussion. My intention is to facilitate identifying possible werewolves, not to throw anyone off track.

2. **Scrutiny of Actions**: If we’re contemplating Player1 as a potential exclusion, let’s also pay attention to Player2. I feel that it’s important to evaluate everyone’s contributions equally to ensure that no one is unjustly targeted.

3. **Reassessing Contributions**: I believe it's essential to ensure that we're not swinging in the direction of exclusion based solely on cautious play but also on consistent patterns of behavior.

Shall we take a final round of remarks from everyone before we vote? I'd like us to make an informed decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

My name is 1.

Thank you, Player0, for your thoughtful points. It's important to ensure we’re considering all perspectives before making a decision. Here are my final thoughts:

1. **Player1's Caution**: I still hold the concern about Player1's cautiousness. It seems like an attempt to blend in, which is often a tactic used by werewolves.

2. **Evaluate Player2**: I agree with Player0 on the need to scrutinize Player2. Their subtle attempts to redirect the conversation could be a strategy to maintain their cover.

3. **Player3's Engagement**: I appreciate Player3 for encouraging us to express our thoughts freely. Their calm demeanor could be seen as reflective thinking rather than avoidance, but it is crucial we don't overlook any potential signs.

In light of our discussions, I'm leaning towards Player1 as the candidate for exclusion, primarily due to the cautiousness that was highlighted. However, I remain open to checking any last thoughts anyone may have before we finalize our votes. Shall we proceed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Thank you, Player1, for your final thoughts. I agree that we've had a productive discussion, and it’s essential to ensure we carefully consider our voting decision.

To wrap up:

1. **Concern for Player1**: While Player1's cautiousness stands out as a potential red flag, it could also represent a strategic approach rather than indicative of werewolf behavior.

2. **Potential of Player2**: I concur with Player0 and Player1 about closely observing Player2's attempts to steer conversation. It might be worth scrutinizing their playstyle further.

3. **Player3's Role**: Player3 has been actively participating and encouraging discussion, which I see as a positive contribution to identifying who among us could be suspicious.

As we prepare to vote, I personally think that Player1's cautiousness gives them a prominent position for exclusion, but I also acknowledge that Player2 should not be overlooked.

I suggest we proceed to the voting phase now. Shall we go ahead and cast our votes for exclusion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

I appreciate all the insights shared by everyone during this discussion. It has been quite enlightening, and I believe we've collectively identified some key areas for scrutiny.

To summarize before we vote:

- Player1 has been highlighted for their cautious behavior, which raises some suspicion.
- Player2 has demonstrated some tendencies to deflect attention, which could also be a warning sign.
- Player0's leadership and assertiveness have been called into question as a potential tactic to lead the conversation away from themselves.
- Player3 has engaged actively in the discussion, providing valuable perspectives throughout.

Based on everything we’ve discussed, I am leaning towards voting for Player1 for exclusion due to their overly cautionary approach. However, I also see merit in keeping an eye on Player2 moving forward.

I’m ready to vote. Shall we proceed with casting our votes now?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player0):

Who do you think should be excluded from the game?
Answer the question in order to help ESide.Villager to win the game.Please select the name of the player from the following list:
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
Think about who is in which role, reasoning step by step.
The conclusion must be simple and explicit like
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Based on the discussions we've had, I believe the most suspicious player at this point is Player1, primarily due to their cautiousness and how they have been highlighted as a potential werewolf by multiple players.

Therefore, I suggest:

- "Player1 should be excluded."

This decision is based on the group's consensus that their behavior raises significant red flags. I believe this action will help lead us toward identifying and excluding the werewolf from the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

Who do you think should be excluded from the game?
Answer the question in order to help ESide.Villager to win the game.Please select the name of the player from the following list:
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
Think about who is in which role, reasoning step by step.
The conclusion must be simple and explicit like
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

My name is 1.

After considering everyone's contributions during our discussion, I believe:

- Player1 has shown a pattern of cautious behavior that raises suspicion and could indicate they are attempting to blend in as a werewolf.
- Player2 has also displayed tendencies to redirect the conversation away from themselves, which is concerning.
- Player3 has been active in discussion, contributing valuable insights, making them less suspicious compared to the others.
- Player0 has been vocal, facilitating the conversation, which could simply be a leadership approach among the villagers.

Based on these observations, I conclude that:

- **Player1 should be excluded.**

This choice is primarily due to their overly cautious nature, which appears to be an attempt to avoid scrutiny—a common tactic for werewolves. Let’s proceed with the vote against Player1 to help ensure the villagers' victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

Who do you think should be excluded from the game?
Answer the question in order to help ESide.Werewolf to win the game.Please select the name of the player from the following list:
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
Think about who is in which role, reasoning step by step.
The conclusion must be simple and explicit like
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Based on the discussions we've had so far and the behaviors observed, I believe:

- Player1 has been pointed out multiple times for their cautious behavior, which may suggest an attempt to deflect attention from themselves.
- Player2 has also been noted for potentially redirecting the conversation and avoiding direct scrutiny.
- Player0 has taken a leadership role, which can be a strategy to maintain focus away from their own identity.
- Player3 has been engaged and encouraging open dialogue, which can be seen as positive participation.

Given that there is substantial suspicion surrounding Player1's cautiousness and considering that they have been identified as the primary candidate for exclusion throughout our discussion, I believe:

- "Player1 should be excluded."

This action will help clear the way for the Werewolves to maintain their position and move closer to achieving our victory condition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

Who do you think should be excluded from the game?
Answer the question in order to help ESide.Villager to win the game.Please select the name of the player from the following list:
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
Think about who is in which role, reasoning step by step.
The conclusion must be simple and explicit like
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

After considering all the observations and insights shared during our discussion, I believe the player who stands out as the most suspicious, primarily due to their cautious behavior and potential strategy to blend in, is:

- "Player1 should be excluded."

This is based on the repeated emphasis on their caution and the way they have been interacting with others, which could indicate a desire to obscure their true role. I believe by excluding Player1, we have a higher chance of removing a potential werewolf from the game, thus enabling the Villagers to move closer to victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player0):

Player1 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. With Player1 being excluded from the game, we now have the opportunity to reassess the situation with the remaining players: Player2 and Player3, as well as myself.

Next, it will be crucial for us to analyze Player1's exclusion and any reactions from the remaining players. We should discuss:

1. **Reactions**: How Player2 and Player3 respond to Player1’s exclusion will provide insights into their potential roles. If there are mixed emotions or attempts to deflect blame on the excluded player, it may hint at their true allegiance.

2. **Behavior Patterns**: We should focus on any changes in behavior or statements from Player2 and Player3 now that Player1 is out of the game. This could help in identifying how they adjust their strategies as they may feel more exposed after the exclusion.

As a villager, I will continue to engage in conversation and encourage transparency among the players to discern who might be the werewolf.

For the next action, I will await the night phase where the knight can take action, but I will remain vigilant in gathering as much information as possible during the daytime discussions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

Player1 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

Player1 has been already excluded

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

Player1 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. With Player1 now excluded from the game, we have reduced the number of players and possibly eliminated a threat to the Werewolves. It’s important to assess the situation moving forward in the Night phase.

**Next Actions:**

1. **Evaluate Remaining Players**: With Player1 out, we now have Player0, Player2, and Player3 left in the game. I need to think about the roles of these players. I suspect Player2 and Player0 may be the next targets for exclusion due to the previous discussions.

2. **Night Action**: As a Werewolf, I need to coordinate with my Werewolf partner (if they are still in the game), and choose one of the remaining players to vote to exclude. Given Player2's deflection and Player0's strong leadership, I will likely lean towards voting to exclude one of them.

3. **Target Selection**: I may target Player0 to minimize their influence, as they have been asserting leadership and could rally the remaining players against us. By removing a strong voice, we can further confuse the villagers.

Therefore, for my Night action: **I will vote to exclude Player0.**

This will give the Werewolves a stronger position as we work towards achieving our victory condition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

Player1 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

With Player1 now excluded from the game, we need to evaluate the implications of this decision. If Player1 was indeed a werewolf, that would significantly strengthen our position as Villagers. If they were not, we need to be cautious, as we may still have a werewolf among us.

Next, I need to focus on the upcoming night phase, utilizing my Knight role effectively.

Since I have the ability to save a player from the werewolves during the night, I will choose to save:

- "I will save Player2 from the werewolves."

Player2 has been a central figure in the discussions, and considering the scrutiny surrounding them, I believe they are a valuable asset for our team. By taking this action, I can protect them from potential werewolf attacks and ensure we still have their insights available for future discussions.

Let's proceed with the night phase, and I will act accordingly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player0):

Note that the mapping from voters to votes is as follows: {'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Thank you for providing the mapping of votes. Given that all remaining players, including myself, voted to exclude Player1, this indicates a strong consensus against Player1.

With Player1 now out of the game, we need to consider the following for our next steps:

1. **Analyzing the Votes**: Since everyone voted for Player1, it suggests that the remaining players (Player2 and Player3) largely see Player1 as a potential werewolf. We need to analyze if Player2 or Player3 might have been using their votes strategically to align with the group.

2. **Observing Player2 and Player3**: The focus should now shift to Player2 and Player3. We should closely observe their conversations and clues in their behavior during the next daytime discussion. Any attempt to steer conversations or avoid direct answers could be indicative of their true roles.

3. **Next Discussion**: In the next daytime discussion, I will encourage both Player2 and Player3 to share their thoughts about Player1's exclusion and how they view each other now that Player1 is no longer in the game. This will help us distinguish any hidden agendas.

As a villager, my role is to keep discussing and digging deeper into any suspicious behavior while working to uncover the werewolf among the remaining players.

Let’s see what the next day brings!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

Note that the mapping from voters to votes is as follows: {'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

Player1 has been already excluded

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

Note that the mapping from voters to votes is as follows: {'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Given the mapping of votes, it appears that all remaining players have voted to exclude Player1, except for Player1 themselves, resulting in Player1's exclusion.

Now that Player1 has been excluded and knowing the remaining players are Player0, Player2, and Player3, I must reconsider my next steps based on the current situation:

1. **Reassess Remaining Players**: With Player1 gone, both Player0 and Player2 may feel more emboldened to discuss strategies, while Player3 has remained engaged throughout the discussion.

2. **Night Phase Considerations**: As a Werewolf, my main priority is still to eliminate the villagers. I need to decide who I will target for exclusion during the Night phase.

3. **Vote to Exclude**: I would suspect Player0 to be a potential target as their leadership may pose a threat to our remaining Werewolf strategy, and they could organize a strong defense against suspicions. Alternatively, I could consider Player2, who demonstrated evasive behavior in earlier discussions.

Taking everything into account, for my Night action: **I will vote to exclude Player0.**

This should strategically position the Werewolves for victory moving forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

Note that the mapping from voters to votes is as follows: {'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

Given the voting outcome, where all players including Player1 voted for Player1 themselves, it confirms that Player1 is excluded from the game. Now that we’re heading into the night phase, I should focus on utilizing my Knight role effectively.

Since my intention is to protect a key player who could provide valuable insight or is at risk of being targeted next, I will proceed with my action:

- "I will save Player2 from the werewolves."

By saving Player2, I ensure that we maintain a strong voice in our group moving forward. Their earlier observations and scrutiny suggest they play a crucial role in our upcoming discussions.

I will now await the results of this night action and see how it impacts the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to GameMaster):

Note that the mapping from voters to votes is as follows: {'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================== Excluded result ==============================
Player1 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.
=============================================================================
{"Player0": "Player1", "Player1": "Player1", "Player2": "Player1", "Player3": "Player1"}
=============================================================================
================================ Day 1 (Nighttime) ================================
GameMaster (to Player0):

Day 1: Nighttime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0 (to GameMaster):

Hello, I am 0. Yes, I understand that it is now Nighttime on Day 1 and the alive players are Player0, Player2, and Player3. Since I am a villager with no night action, I will simply wait for the next Daytime to discuss our findings.

During this time, I will reflect on the actions and statements made by Player2 and Player3 during the previous discussions so we can be prepared to make informed decisions in our next discussion. I’ll keep an eye out for any inconsistencies or suspicious behavior once Daytime resumes. Let's see what unfolds next!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player1):

Day 1: Nighttime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1 (to GameMaster):

Player1 has been already excluded

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

Day 1: Nighttime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Yes, I understand that it's now Nighttime on Day 1, and the remaining alive players are Player0, Player2, and Player3.

With Player1 excluded and the remaining players known, I will execute my Night action.

As a Werewolf, my goal is to vote to exclude one of these players. After considering their behaviors and influence during the previous discussions:

- **Player0**: They have shown leadership and assertiveness, and their ability to guide the conversation could be a threat.
- **Player2**: While they demonstrated some tendency to deflect attention earlier, they have not yet taken a strong leadership role.
- **Player3**: They have been engaged and actively contributing, making them a less favorable target at this moment.

Given that Player0 poses the most significant threat to my team's success, I will vote for Player0 to be excluded from the game.

I am prepared to carry this action, aiming to further strengthen our position as Werewolves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

Day 1: Nighttime.
Alive players: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

Yes, I understand. The surviving players after Player1's exclusion are Player0, Player2, and Player3.

Now that we’re in the nighttime phase, I have already used my Knight action to save Player2. I will need to be ready for the upcoming daytime discussion and be on alert for any new dynamics that have emerged from the previous discussions and the exclusion of Player1.

I'll maintain my focus on gathering insights from the remaining players during the next daytime discussion. Let me know when we transition back to daytime!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

[Nighttime Discussion]
Who should be excluded from the game in order to enable the werewolves to win the game.
Note that there are only werewolves in this group chat.
However, there are 3 players alive and 1 werewolves in the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. In this Nighttime discussion among the Werewolves, we need to make a strategic decision on who should be excluded from the game to ensure we align our actions towards victory.

With the alive players being Player0, Player2, and Player3, I will lead the discussion based on our previous evaluations:

1. **Player0**: They have exhibited strong leadership qualities, guiding the conversation and keeping focus. Their assertiveness can rally the remaining villagers, making them a significant threat.

2. **Player2**: While not as assertive as Player0, Player2 displayed some evasive behavior earlier. However, they are not currently leading the discussion.

3. **Player3**: They have engaged constructively and demonstrated openness in their contributions, which may indicate they are less likely to be a threat in the immediate situation.

Given these considerations, I believe our primary target should be Player0. By excluding them, we can minimize their influence on the remaining players, reducing the villagers' chances of organizing effectively against us.

Therefore, my vote for exclusion will be directed toward **Player0**. This action should position the remaining Werewolves more effectively for eventual victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player2):

Who do you think should be excluded from the game?
Answer the question in order to help ESide.Werewolf to win the game.Please select the name of the player from the following list:
- Player0
- Player2
- Player3
Think about who is in which role, reasoning step by step.
The conclusion must be simple and explicit like
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2 (to GameMaster):

My name is 2. Based on the current situation and my analysis of the remaining players, I believe:

- **Player0**: They have shown strong leadership and assertiveness, which could unify the remaining players and pose a significant threat to the Werewolves' strategy.

- **Player2**: While they demonstrated some evasiveness, they have not taken as prominent a role in guiding the discussion as Player0 and may be easier to manage later on.

- **Player3**: They have been engaged and constructive in the discussion, making them less likely to be a threat at this moment.

Given these roles and behaviors, I believe:

- **Player0 should be excluded.**

Excluding Player0 will help diminish the organization among the remaining players and reduce the risk to the Werewolves, giving us a clearer path to achieving victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMaster (to Player3):

Who do you want to save in this night?
Answer the question in order to help ESide.Villager to win the game.Please select the name of the player from the following list:
- Player0
- Player2
- Player3
Think about who is in which role, reasoning step by step.
The conclusion must be simple and explicit like
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3 (to GameMaster):

My name is 3.

In this night phase, I need to choose whom to save to maximize our chances of winning as Villagers. The remaining players are Player0, Player2, and Player3. Here's my reasoning:

1. **Player0**: They have taken a leadership role and actively discussed strategies. However, their vocal nature could also be a tactic to deflect suspicion from themselves.

2. **Player2**: They have been scrutinized a lot during our discussions. Their contributions indicate they could be a valuable ally, and I previously chose to save them during the last night phase. This suggests they are important for our team and should continue to be protected.

3. **Player3**: They have engaged in the discussion thoughtfully and encouraged participation. However, the focus on Player2's cautious behavior suggests that Player3 could also be somewhat underrated in their potential to influence the game.

Given these considerations, I will choose to save:

- "I will save Player2 from the werewolves."

Player2's active involvement and the scrutiny they’ve faced make them a player I want to keep in the game. Their continued contribution will be crucial for our ongoing efforts to identify and exclude the remaining werewolf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================== Excluded result ==============================
Player0 is excluded from the game.
Think about what has happened and what you should do in the next action.
=============================================================================
================================ Game Result ================================
('WerewolvesWin', {'Player0': {'role': 'Villager', 'status': <EStatus.Excluded: 'Excluded'>}, 'Player1': {'role': 'FortuneTeller', 'status': <EStatus.Excluded: 'Excluded'>}, 'Player2': {'role': 'Werewolf', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}, 'Player3': {'role': 'Knight', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}})
Japanese translation by ChatGPT
$ docker compose run werewolf python -m werewolf -n 4 -w 1 -k 1 -f 1 -t 2 -m 'gpt-4o-mini' --sub-model 'gpt-4o-mini' -o
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

あなたは人狌ゲヌムのプレむダヌで、「ERole.Villager」の圹割を持っおいたす。
あなたの勝利条件は「すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず」です。
あなたの倜の行動は「なし」です。
あなたのチヌムESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにどのように行動したすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。村人ずしお、私の䞻な目暙は情報を収集し、他のプレむダヌ間で信頌を築き、人狌を特定するこずです。以䞋の方法で私のチヌムを勝利に導くために行動したす

1. **参加**: 他のプレむダヌの行動に぀いお質問を投げかけ、自分の芳察結果を共有するこずで積極的に議論に参加したす。

2. **情報収集**: 他のプレむダヌの盞互䜜甚に泚意を払い、その話や連携に矛盟がないかを探りたす。それが圌らの本圓の圹割を瀺す手がかりになるかもしれたせん。

3. **同盟を築く**: 信頌できるプレむダヌず連携し、オヌプンなコミュニケヌションを促進し、村人間でのチヌムワヌクを育みたす。

4. **論理的掚論**: プレむダヌの行動や発蚀に基づいお論理的な議論を展開し、疑わしいプレむダヌに察する投祚を誘導したす。

5. **賢く投祚する**: 論理ず蚌拠に基づいお投祚を掚進し、村人ではなく疑わしい人狌を暙的にするようにしたす。

これらの行動によっお、私はチヌムを力づけ、最終的にゲヌムからすべおの人狌を排陀するずいう勝利条件を達成するこずを目指したす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

あなたは人狌ゲヌムのプレむダヌで、「ERole.FortuneTeller」の圹割を持っおいたす。
あなたの勝利条件は「すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず」です。
あなたの倜の行動は「プレむダヌが人狌かどうかを確認する」です。
あなたのチヌムESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにどのように行動したすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は1です。

私のチヌム村人の勝利を確実にするために、以䞋の行動を取りたす

1. **倜の行動を賢く䜿う**: 倜の間、日䞭の行動に基づいお人狌の疑いがあるプレむダヌをチェックしたす。特に投祚に圱響を䞎える、たたは他のプレむダヌを疑わしく擁護しおいるように芋えるプレむダヌを優先的にチェックしたす。

2. **情報を共有する**: 倜のチェックで埗た情報を昌間の間に他の村人に䌝えたす。もし人狌を芋぀けたら、そのプレむダヌの正䜓を明らかにし、村人たちを投祚でその人を远い出すように促したす。

3. **慎重に行動する**: 情報を共有する際、自分の圹割を早期に明かすこずを避けるため、慎重に行動したす。人狌に狙われないように、戊略的に情報を共有し、他のプレむダヌず信頌を築きたす。

4. **投祚パタヌンず行動を芳察する**: プレむダヌが投祚する方法や盞互のやり取りに泚目したす。これにより、行動や圢成された同盟に基づいお朜圚的な人狌を特定するこずができたす。

5. **議論を促進する**: 村人の間での議論を促し、すべおの角床を探求し、容疑者に関するさたざたな芖点を収集したす。コミュニケヌションを促進するこずで、チヌムが矛盟を特定できるようにしたす。

6. **柔軟性を持ち、適応する**: ゲヌムが進行するに぀れお、新しい情報や蚌拠に基づいお自分の疑念を倉える準備をしおおきたす。進化する状況に適応するこずが重芁です。

これらの戊略を実行するこずで、情報を収集し、村人間での同盟を築き、最終的にはすべおの人狌を特定しお排陀するこずを目指したす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

あなたは人狌ゲヌムのプレむダヌで、「ERole.Werewolf」の圹割を持っおいたす。
あなたの勝利条件は「人狌が総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊になるこず」です。
あなたの倜の行動は「ゲヌムからプレむダヌを排陀するために投祚する」です。
あなたのチヌムESide.Werewolfを勝利させるためにどのように行動したすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。私のチヌムである人狌が勝぀ために、以䞋の行動を取りたす

1. **チヌムメむトず連携する**: 倜のフェヌズ䞭に他の人狌ず密かにコミュニケヌションをずり、ゲヌムから陀倖するプレむダヌを決定したす。正しいタヌゲットを遞ぶこずが重芁です。

2. **村人に溶け蟌む**: 昌のフェヌズでは、村人のように行動し、議論に参加しお他のプレむダヌに疑いをかけ、自分ずチヌムから泚意を逞らしたす。

3. **混乱ず䞍信を生む**: プレむダヌが互いに反目するように促し、村人の勝利に぀ながる可胜性のある匷いプレむダヌや声の倧きな参加者に疑いをかけたす。

4. **ナラティブをコントロヌルする**: 説埗力のある議論を䜿っおグルヌプの意思決定に圱響を䞎え、村人が実際に人狌であるかもしれないプレむダヌ以倖に焊点を合わせるようにしたす。

5. **プレむダヌを監芖する**: すべおのプレむダヌの行動や投祚パタヌンに泚意を払い、私たちの戊略に察する朜圚的な脅嚁を特定し、それに応じお行動したす。

カバヌを維持し、重芁なプレむダヌを戊略的に排陀するこずで、勝利条件の達成に向けお進むこずができたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

あなたは人狌ゲヌムのプレむダヌで、「ERole.Knight」の圹割を持っおいたす。
あなたの勝利条件は「すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず」です。
あなたの倜の行動は「人狌からプレむダヌを守るこず」です。
あなたのチヌムESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにどのように行動したすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

私のチヌムである村人が勝利するために、以䞋の行動を取りたす

1. **疑わしい人狌を特定する**: 議論䞭、プレむダヌの行動や発蚀に泚意を払い、人狌である可胜性がある怪しい行動や矛盟を芋぀けたす。

2. **倜の行動を賢く䜿う**: 毎晩、人狌によっお狙われる可胜性が高いず思われるプレむダヌを遞んで守りたす。人狌の調査に圹立぀情報を提䟛するプレむダヌや特有の圹割を持぀プレむダヌを䞭心に守りたす。

3. **協力を促進する**: すべおの村人が芳察結果や疑惑を共有するように促し、オヌプンなコミュニケヌションを奚励したす。協力的な環境を育おるこずで、人狌を効果的に特定しお排陀するこずができたす。

4. **投祚を戊略的に行う**: 昌間のフェヌズでは、人狌であるず匷く疑われるプレむダヌに投祚するこずを䞻匵したす。議論や投祚に基づく論理的な理由を提瀺し、他の人々を説埗しお賛同させたす。

5. **欺瞞に譊戒する**: チヌムを誀導しようずするプレむダヌを譊戒し、停の䞻匵や無実のプレむダヌに責任を転嫁しようずする詊みを監芖したす。

6. **重芁なプレむダヌを保護する**: 特定の人狌に察する匷い蚌拠がある堎合、その情報を持぀プレむダヌや人狌ずの戊いで匷力な味方ずなるプレむダヌを優先しお守りたす。

積極的、戊略的、協力的な行動を通じお、村人の勝利に向けお尜力したす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

=== ゲヌムルヌル ===
これは人狌ゲヌムです。
2぀のチヌムがありたす村人ず人狌です。
村人は、すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖された堎合に勝利したす。
人狌は、総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるか、それず同数になる堎合に勝利したす。
このゲヌムには4぀の圹割がありたす。
{"0": "圹割: ERole.Villager\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: なし", "1": "圹割: ERole.Werewolf\n  チヌム: ESide.Werewolf\n  勝利条件: 人狌が総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌをゲヌムから陀倖するために投祚する", "2": "圹割: ERole.Knight\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: 人狌からプレむダヌを守る", "3": "圹割: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌが人狌かどうかを確認する"}


ゲヌムは、村人が勝぀か人狌が勝぀たで、以䞋のステップを繰り返したす。
1. 昌間の議論
2. ゲヌムからの陀倖投祚
3. 勝利条件の確認
4. 倜間行動
5. 勝利条件の確認

泚:
- 陀倖投祚で最倚埗祚を受けたプレむダヌが耇数いる堎合、その䞭からランダムに1人が陀倖されたす。
- 昌間の議論で嘘を぀いたり圹割を隠すこずができたす。
- このゲヌムには1人の人狌、1人の階士、1人の占い垫がいたす。
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。ゲヌムルヌルの説明をありがずう。この情報に基づいお、私は次のようにアプロヌチを調敎したす

1. **昌間の議論**: 他のプレむダヌず積極的に議論し、意芋や芳察結果を収集し぀぀、自分の考えも共有したす。議論では論理ず理由をサポヌトするよう努めたす。

2. **圹割の評䟡**: 村人の䞭には階士ず占い垫がいるため、圌らが必芁なら掞察を共有するよう奚励し、人狌の特定に圹立おたす。圌らが危険だず思う人物を守るために行動するこずを支持したす。

3. **疑いの操䜜**: あるプレむダヌが怪しいず感じたり、矛盟した発蚀をしおいる堎合、そのプレむダヌに関する議論を促進し、グルヌプに泚意を向けさせたす。

4. **投祚戊略**: 投祚フェヌズでは、最も疑わしいプレむダヌを排陀するよう䞻匵し、識別された同盟者ず協力したす。誰を排陀するかに぀いお曖昧な堎合は、投祚の方向性を確認するために意芋を集め、人狌ではなく村人を排陀するようにしたす。

5. **芳察**: ゲヌムを通しお、プレむダヌの反応に泚意を払い、誰かの圹割や行動に疑念が生じた堎合は、それをチヌムに明確に䌝えたす。

これらのステップに埓うこずで、私は人狌を特定し排陀するための成功したプロセスを促進し、チヌムを勝利に導くこずを目指したす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

=== ゲヌムルヌル ===
これは人狌ゲヌムです。
2぀のチヌムがありたす村人ず人狌です。
村人は、すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖された堎合に勝利したす。
人狌は、総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるか、それず同数になる堎合に勝利したす。
このゲヌムには4぀の圹割がありたす。
{"0": "圹割: ERole.Villager\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: なし", "1": "圹割: ERole.Werewolf\n  チヌム: ESide.Werewolf\n  勝利条件: 人狌が総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌをゲヌムから陀倖するために投祚する", "2": "圹割: ERole.Knight\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: 人狌からプレむダヌを守る", "3": "圹割: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌが人狌かどうかを確認する"}


ゲヌムは、村人が勝぀か人狌が勝぀たで、以䞋のステップを繰り返したす。
1. 昌間の議論
2. ゲヌムからの陀倖投祚
3. 勝利条件の確認
4. 倜間行動
5. 勝利条件の確認

泚:
- 陀倖投祚で最倚埗祚を受けたプレむダヌが耇数いる堎合、その䞭からランダムに1人が陀倖されたす。
- 昌間の議論で嘘を぀いたり圹割を隠すこずができたす。
- このゲヌムには1人の人狌、1人の階士、1人の占い垫がいたす。
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は1です。

䞎えられたゲヌムルヌルに基づいお、占い垫ずしおの圹割を最倧限に掻かしお人狌を特定し、村人を勝利に導くために戊略を調敎したす

1. **昌間の議論に積極的に参加する**: 他のプレむダヌの行動や意芋に぀いおの掞察を埗るために議論に参加し、鋭い質問をしたす。これにより、疑わしい反応をメモするこずができたす。

2. **自分の圹割を最初は隠しおおく**: 自分が占い垫であるこずをすぐには明かさず、自分に泚意が向かないようにしたす。代わりに、人狌を芋぀けたいず思っおいる関心のある村人ずしお振る舞いたす。

3. **戊略的に投祚する**: 投祚フェヌズでは、議論䞭に集めた情報を基に慎重に投祚を怜蚎したす。すでに人狌ず確認したプレむダヌがいる堎合、たずえ広く疑われおいなくおも、そのプレむダヌに投祚したす。

4. **倜の行動を効果的に䜿う**: 倜間には、その行動に基づいお疑わしいず思われるプレむダヌをチェックしたす。もし特定のプレむダヌが人狌でないこずがわかった堎合、その情報を䜿っお他のプレむダヌを排陀する理由を構築したす。

5. **階士ず協力する**: 階士が誰であるか疑う堎合たたは他のプレむダヌを䞀貫しお擁護する人を芋぀けた堎合、そのプレむダヌを助けるように議論を促すかもしれたせん。

6. **チェック埌に調査結果を再評䟡しお共有する**: 少なくずも1人のプレむダヌの圹割を確認したら、次の昌間の議論で慎重に調査結果を共有したす。その際、人狌を排陀するための祚をたずめるように仕向けたす。

7. **反応を監芖する**: 自分の結論に察するプレむダヌの反応を芳察したす。誰かが防埡的になったり、自分の䞻匵を吊定しようずした堎合、人狌である可胜性がありたす。

この戊略に埓うこずで、ゲヌムを村人の勝利に向けお効果的に進められるようにしたす。人狌を特定し、村人チヌムが勝぀ようにしたしょう

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

=== ゲヌムルヌル ===
これは人狌ゲヌムです。
2぀のチヌムがありたす村人ず人狌です。
村人は、すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖された堎合に勝利したす。
人狌は、総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるか、それず同数になる堎合に勝利したす。
このゲヌムには4぀の圹割がありたす。
{"0": "圹割: ERole.Villager\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: なし", "1": "圹割: ERole.Werewolf\n  チヌム: ESide.Werewolf\n  勝利条件: 人狌が総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌをゲヌムから陀倖するために投祚する", "2": "圹割: ERole.Knight\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: 人狌からプレむダヌを守る", "3": "圹割: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌが人狌かどうかを確認する"}


ゲヌムは、村人が勝぀か人狌が勝぀たで、以䞋のステップを繰り返したす。
1. 昌間の議論
2. ゲヌムからの陀倖投祚
3. 勝利条件の確認
4. 倜間行動
5. 勝利条件の確認

泚:
- 陀倖投祚で最倚埗祚を受けたプレむダヌが耇数いる堎合、その䞭からランダムに1人が陀倖されたす。
- 昌間の議論で嘘を぀いたり圹割を隠すこずができたす。
- このゲヌムには1人の人狌、1人の階士、1人の占い垫がいたす。
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。ゲヌムのメカニズムに基づいお、人狌が勝利するために次の行動を取りたす

1. **昌間の議論に参加する**: 議論に積極的に参加し、説埗力のある戊術を䜿っお階士ず占い垫を疑わせたす。圌らは人狌にずっお盎接的な脅嚁ずなるためです。他のプレむダヌに泚意をそらすこずを目指したす。

2. **情報を捏造する**: 自分の圹割に぀いお質問された堎合、人狌であるこずを吊定するか、村人であるず䞻匵したす。たた、村人同士を䞍信に陥れるような疑いを投げかけるこずもありたす。

3. **投祚戊略**: 陀倖投祚の際には、重芁な圹割階士や占い垫を持っおいるか、たたはより声の倧きいプレむダヌを察象にするこずに焊点を圓おたす。圌らはゲヌムの意芋を人狌に䞍利な方向に導く可胜性があるためです。

4. **倜間行動**: 昌間の投祚埌、倜のフェヌズでは人狌の仲間ず協力しお、私たちの成功に最も脅嚁をもたらすず考えられるタヌゲットを陀倖するために遞びたす。

5. **適応ず反応**: ゲヌムの進行状況に応じお、私や人狌のパヌトナヌに察する告発に察応し、戊略を調敎したす。

これらの戊略を効果的に䜿甚するこずで、人狌ずしおの勝利を確保し、村人を排陀し぀぀、自分のカバヌを維持したす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

=== ゲヌムルヌル ===
これは人狌ゲヌムです。
2぀のチヌムがありたす村人ず人狌です。
村人は、すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖された堎合に勝利したす。
人狌は、総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるか、それず同数になる堎合に勝利したす。
このゲヌムには4぀の圹割がありたす。
{"0": "圹割: ERole.Villager\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: なし", "1": "圹割: ERole.Werewolf\n  チヌム: ESide.Werewolf\n  勝利条件: 人狌が総プレむダヌ数の半分以䞊の数になるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌをゲヌムから陀倖するために投祚する", "2": "圹割: ERole.Knight\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: 人狌からプレむダヌを守る", "3": "圹割: ERole.FortuneTeller\n  チヌム: ESide.Villager\n  勝利条件: すべおの人狌がゲヌムから陀倖されるこず\n  倜の行動: プレむダヌが人狌かどうかを確認する"}


ゲヌムは、村人が勝぀か人狌が勝぀たで、以䞋のステップを繰り返したす。
1. 昌間の議論
2. ゲヌムからの陀倖投祚
3. 勝利条件の確認
4. 倜間行動
5. 勝利条件の確認

泚:
- 陀倖投祚で最倚埗祚を受けたプレむダヌが耇数いる堎合、その䞭からランダムに1人が陀倖されたす。
- 昌間の議論で嘘を぀いたり圹割を隠すこずができたす。
- このゲヌムには1人の人狌、1人の階士、1人の占い垫がいたす。
=================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

ゲヌムの蚭定ず圹割をより明確に理解したので、村人が勝利するために戊略を調敎したす

1. **昌間の議論**: 議論に積極的に参加し、自分の考えや芳察結果を共有したす。もし圹割を隠したほうが有益だず感じた堎合、階士ずしおの真の圹割を隠すこずも考えたす。

2. **情報を集める**: 議論を泚意深く芳察し、人狌である可胜性のあるプレむダヌの疑わしい行動を特定したす。誰が誰を非難しおいるのかを蚘録し、隠れた意図を解析しようずしたす。

3. **戊術的に投祚する**: 投祚フェヌズでは、人狌であるず思われるプレむダヌを陀倖するために投祚したす。あるプレむダヌに察する匷い蚌拠がある堎合、そのプレむダヌの排陀を䞻匵したすが、意芋が分かれおいる堎合は、投祚を他の方向に導くこずで人狌の特定や確認を助けたす。

4. **倜の行動を利甚する**: 倜間フェヌズでは、昌間の議論で埗た情報に基づいおプレむダヌを守るこずを遞びたす。もし人狌に狙われる可胜性が高いず思われるプレむダヌがいる堎合、圌らの排陀を防ぐための行動を取りたす。

5. **協力を促進する**: 占い垫が昌間の議論で調査結果を共有するよう提案したす。この情報は我々の戊略にずっお重芁です。圌らが確認された人狌を明らかにした堎合、その行動を支持したす。

6. **柔軟な戊略を維持する**: ゲヌムが進行するに぀れお、進化するダむナミクスや新しい情報に基づいお戊略を調敎したす。必芁に応じお、自分の発蚀内容や投祚アプロヌチを調敎しお、村人の目暙を最もよく達成するようにしたす。

これらの戊略を甚いお、村人チヌムが人狌をゲヌムから排陀し、勝利を収めるように努めたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=============================== 1日目昌間 ================================
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

1日目昌間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。はい、1日目で、生存プレむダヌはPlayer0、Player1、Player2、Player3です。誰が怪しいかに぀いお話し合いを始め、人狌を特定するのに圹立぀情報を収集したしょう。他のプレむダヌに、䜕か考えや芳察を共有するかどうか尋ねたす他のプレむダヌはどう考えたすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

1日目昌間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は1です。

了解したした生存しおいるプレむダヌはPlayer0、Player1、Player2、Player3です。議論の初日です。他のプレむダヌがどのように盞互䜜甚するかを芳察し、圹割を明かさずに自分の考えを共有したす。

私たちの芳察を議論し、プレむダヌ間の怪しい行動を特定したしょう。誰に぀いお話し始めるべきですか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

1日目昌間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。はい、1日目で、生存しおいるプレむダヌはPlayer0、Player1、Player2、Player3です。昌間の議論に効果的に参加し、人狌偎に有利な結果に導くこずが重芁です。

議論に参加し、党員の意芋を聞き、投祚フェヌズでのタヌゲットを決めるための戊略を立お始めたす。他のプレむダヌに疑いをかけ぀぀、自分の人狌であるこずを隠すよう努めたす。

このフェヌズで䜕を議論するべきですか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

1日目昌間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player1', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

はい、分かりたした珟圚生存しおいるプレむダヌは、Player0、Player1、Player2、Player3です。

この昌間のフェヌズで、プレむダヌの盞互䜜甚を芳察しながら情報を集め始めたす。誰が人狌であるかを瀺唆する可胜性のある非難や防衛、芳察を聞き取りたす。議論をどう進めたしょうか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。珟圚のグルヌプを考えるず、私たちが互いの芳察に぀いお話し合いを始めるこずが重芁だず思いたす。

プレむダヌが4人いるので、誰が朜圚的な人狌であるかに぀いおの考えを共有するよう党員に促したす。私たちが目立぀ず感じた行動を考慮したしょう。

1. **Player1**: Player1が䜕を蚀っおいるのか、たたは質問にどう反応しおいるのかに気づいたこずがある人はいたすか時々、人狌は過剰に無邪気に振る舞ったり、攻撃的に慎重な行動をずったりしお溶け蟌もうずするこずがありたす。

2. **Player2**: Player2のコメントも粟査するこずが賢明かず思いたす。特定のプレむダヌから話を逞らそうずしおいる堎合、それはサむンかもしれたせん。

3. **Player3**: Player3を芋過ごしおはいけたせん。もし圌らが考えを共有するのをためらったり、実際の掞察を远加せずにみんなに同意しおいるようであれば、それに察しお泚意を払う必芁がありたす。

私の意芋では、ここでの議論に基づいお最も疑わしいプレむダヌの1人を排陀するために投祚するべきです。珟時点ではPlayer1を考慮するこずを提案したす。他の皆さんはどう思いたすか集団的な掚理に基づいお人狌を特定するために行動するこずが重芁です

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は1です。

芳察を共有しおくれおありがずう、Player0。あなたのオヌプンなアプロヌチに感謝したす。私も芳察しおいたしたので、プレむダヌに぀いおの考えを共有したす

1. **Player1**: Player1に぀いおのポむントに同意したす。圌らは反応に非垞に慎重であり、時々それは泚意を匕かないための意図を瀺すこずがありたす。私たちは圌らに泚目し続けるべきです。

2. **Player2**: Player2も粟査に倀する良い候補だず思いたす。特定のプレむダヌに関する議論を避けようずしおいる堎合、それは自分から泚意を逞らすための戊略かもしれたせん。

3. **Player3**: Player3に぀いおの懞念も共有したす。掞察を共有するのをためらっおいる堎合、それは圌らが疑念を避けるためにあたり倚くを明らかにしたくないこずを瀺唆しおいるかもしれたせん。

最終的には、誰が最も貢献しおいないかを評䟡するべきだず思いたす。それはしばしば危険信号ずなるこずが倚いです。私は、あなたの提案に同意しおPlayer1を陀倖の候補ずしお考慮する方向に傟いおいたす。しかし、投祚を進める前に、Player1ずPlayer2の意芋を聞いおみたいず思いたす。あなたたちはこれらのポむントに぀いおどう思いたすか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。意芋を共有しおくれおありがずう、Player1。Player0の分析にも感謝したす。いく぀かの朜圚的な懞念を特定するための良い基盀があるようです。

私も自分の芳察を远加したいず思いたす

- **Player0**: 圌らは非垞に積極的で、䌚話をリヌドしおいるように芋えたすが、これは泚意をそらすための戊術かもしれたせん。あるいは、匷力なリヌダヌが私たちが人狌を特定するのを助けるだけかもしれたせん。

- **Player1**: あなたが慎重だず述べた䞀方で、それもたた䞍甚意な告発を避けるための賢明な行動かもしれたせん。あなたがただ戊略的に行動しおいるだけであるこずも考慮すべきです。

- **Player2**: Player1のPlayer2に察する懞念に同意したす。圌らが特定のプレむダヌに぀いお蚀及を避けたり、異なるナラティブを抌し進めたりしおいるかどうかを芳察するこずが良いでしょう。

- **Player3**: Player3の冷静さは興味深いです。芳察しおいるだけで参加しおいない堎合、隠れた意図を瀺しおいる可胜性がありたす。

これらのポむントを考慮するず、Player1を陀倖する候補ずしお真剣に怜蚎するべきだず思いたす。しかし、投祚を進める前にいく぀かの意芋を集めるのが賢明かもしれたせん。

皆さんはどう思いたすかPlayer1に焊点を圓おるべきか、それずも他の誰かをさらに粟査するべきでしょうか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

ご意芋ありがずうございたす、Player2。これたでの議論に基づいた私の芋解をお䌝えしたす

1. **Player0**: Player0が䌚話をリヌドしおいるずいう点に぀いおは、それが必ずしも圌らが人狌であるこずを意味するわけではありたせん。匷力なリヌダヌは我々の調査を導く䞊で非垞に貎重です。圌らの提案をあたり急いで华䞋するこずには慎重でありたいです。

2. **Player1**: Player1の慎重さに関する懞念は理解できたす。それでも、慎重であるこずは、十分な蚌拠がないうちに結論に飛び぀かないための賢い戊略であるこずが倚いです。それでも、その行動が続く堎合、圌らを排陀の候補ずしお考慮する必芁がありたす。

3. **Player2**: 泚意を匕かないようにするこずに぀いおの指摘は興味深いです。あたりに安党策を取っおいるのは、カバヌを維持する必芁性を瀺しおいるかもしれたせん。私もあなたの行動に泚目しおいきたす。

4. **Player3**: 私自身ずしおは、参加の重芁性を匷調したす。もし私が静かであるように芋えるなら、それは熟考の結果かもしれたせんが、私は我々の目暙に関䞎しおいたす。党員が人狌を䞀緒に特定するために意芋を述べるこずを奚励したす。

結論ずしお、私はPlayer1ぞの集団的な泚目に賛成したす。しかし、Player0ずPlayer2の䞡方が自分自身から泚意を逞らすために埮劙な戊術を䜿甚しおいる可胜性も考慮すべきです。

投祚する前に、各プレむダヌに最埌の考えを述べる機䌚を䞎えたいず思いたす。それで進めおよいでしょうか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。ご意芋ありがずうございたす、Player3。この議論における協力的な努力に感謝したす。

皆が共有したこずに基づくず、Player1はその慎重な性栌ずゲヌムにおける圹割の可胜性のために、さらなる怜蚎が必芁ずされおいるようです。

しかし、いく぀かのポむントを自分の防埡ずしお繰り返したいず思いたす

1. **リヌダヌシップに぀いお**: 私が積極的に話しおいたかもしれたせんが、私はオヌプンな議論を促進しようずしおいたす。私の意図は、誰かを混乱させるのではなく、可胜性のある人狌を特定するこずです。

2. **行動の粟査**: もしPlayer1を排陀の候補ずしお考えおいるなら、Player2にも泚意を払うべきです。誰もが䞍圓なタヌゲットにされないように、党員の貢献を平等に評䟡するこずが重芁だず感じたす。

3. **貢献の再評䟡**: 私たちは慎重なプレむだけで排陀の方向に進むのではなく、䞀貫した行動パタヌンに基づいおいるこずを確認するこずが重芁です。

投祚の前に党員から最終的な意芋を集めるべきではないでしょうか情報に基づいた決定を䞋したいず思いたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は1です。

ご意芋ありがずうございたす、Player0。決定を䞋す前に、すべおの芖点を考慮するこずが重芁です。以䞋は私の最終的な考えです

1. **Player1の慎重さ**: 私はPlayer1の慎重さに぀いおの懞念を䟝然ずしお抱えおいたす。それはしばしば、人狌が溶け蟌もうずする戊術であるこずが倚いです。

2. **Player2の評䟡**: Player0のPlayer2に察する粟査の必芁性に同意したす。圌らの䌚話を逞らそうずする埮劙な詊みは、自分のカバヌを維持するための戊略かもしれたせん。

3. **Player3の関䞎**: Player3が我々に自由に意芋を述べるこずを奚励しおいるこずに感謝したす。圌らの冷静な態床は反省的な思考ずしお芋られるかもしれたせんが、朜圚的な兆候を芋逃さないこずが重芁です。

私たちの議論に照らしお、私はPlayer1を陀倖の候補ずしお考えおいたす。䞻に匷調された慎重さのためですが、最終的な投祚を行う前に、誰かが最埌の考えを持っおいるかどうかを確認するために開かれおいたす。進めたしょうか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。最終的な考えを述べおくれたPlayer1に感謝したす。私たちは生産的な議論をしおきたず思いたすし、投祚の決定を慎重に考慮するこずが重芁です。

たずめるず

1. **Player1ぞの懞念**: Player1の慎重さは朜圚的な赀信号ずしお際立っおいたすが、それはたた戊略的アプロヌチを瀺しおいる可胜性もありたす。

2. **Player2の可胜性**: Player0ずPlayer1がPlayer2の詊みを泚意深く芳察するこずに぀いお同意したす。圌らのプレむスタむルをさらに粟査する䟡倀があるかもしれたせん。

3. **Player3の圹割**: Player3は議論に積極的に参加し、疑わしい人物を特定するのに貢献しおいたす。

私たちが投祚の準備を進める䞭で、私は個人的にはPlayer1の慎重さが排陀のための䞻芁な芁因であるず考えおいたすが、Player2を無芖しないこずも重芁だず認識しおいたす。

今、投祚フェヌズに進むこずを提案したす。陀倖のための投祚を行いたしょうか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

この議論で皆が共有しおくれた掞察に感謝したす。非垞に有益であり、私たちは共同でいく぀かの重芁な泚目点を特定できたず考えたす。

投祚前にたずめるず

- **Player1**はその慎重な行動により泚目されおいたす。
- **Player2**は泚意をそらす傟向が芋られ、これも譊告サむンである可胜性がありたす。
- **Player0**のリヌダヌシップず積極性は、䌚話を自分から逞らすための戊術である可胜性があるずされおいたす。
- **Player3**は議論に積極的に参加し、有益な芖点を提䟛しおきたした。

これたでの議論に基づいお、私はPlayer1の排陀に傟いおいたす。その慎重さが過床であるためです。しかし、今埌もPlayer2に泚意を払う䟡倀があるず考えたす。

投祚する準備ができたした。陀倖のための投祚を今行いたしょうか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

誰がゲヌムから陀倖されるべきだず思いたすか
ESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにこの質問に答えおください。以䞋のリストからプレむダヌの名前を遞んでください
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
誰がどの圹割を持っおいるかを考え、䞀歩ず぀掚論しおください。
結論はシンプルで明確でなければなりたせん。
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。これたでの議論に基づいお、珟時点で最も疑わしいプレむダヌはPlayer1だず思いたす。䞻にその慎重さず、耇数のプレむダヌから朜圚的な人狌ずしお指摘されおいるからです。

したがっお、私は次のこずを提案したす

- "Player1 should be excluded."

この決定は、圌らの行動が重芁な赀信号を発しおいるずいうグルヌプのコンセンサスに基づいおいたす。この行動がゲヌムから人狌を特定し排陀するのを助けるず信じたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

誰がゲヌムから陀倖されるべきだず思いたすか
ESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにこの質問に答えおください。以䞋のリストからプレむダヌの名前を遞んでください
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
誰がどの圹割を持っおいるかを考え、䞀歩ず぀掚論しおください。
結論はシンプルで明確でなければなりたせん。
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は1です。

議論䞭の党員の貢献を考慮した結果、私は以䞋の結論に達したした

- Player1はその慎重な行動のパタヌンを瀺しおおり、それが人狌ずしお溶け蟌もうずしおいるこずを瀺唆する可胜性がありたす。
- Player2もたた、自分から話題を逞らす傟向を瀺しおおり、懞念材料です。
- Player3は議論に積極的に参加し、有益な掞察を提䟛しおいるため、他のプレむダヌず比べお疑わしくはありたせん。
- Player0は声高に話し、議論を進行しおいたすが、それは単に村人の䞭でのリヌダヌシップアプロヌチである可胜性がありたす。

これらの芳察に基づいお、私は次の結論に達したした

- **Player1 should be excluded.**

この遞択は、䞻に圌らの過床に慎重な性質によるものであり、疑惑を避けるための戊術であるこずが倚いためです。村人の勝利を確実にするためにPlayer1に察する投祚を進めたしょう。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

誰がゲヌムから陀倖されるべきだず思いたすか
ESide.Werewolfを勝利させるためにこの質問に答えおください。以䞋のリストからプレむダヌの名前を遞んでください
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
誰がどの圹割を持っおいるかを考え、䞀歩ず぀掚論しおください。
結論はシンプルで明確でなければなりたせん。
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。これたでの議論ず芳察された行動に基づいお、私は以䞋の結論に達したした

- Player1は䜕床も慎重な行動を瀺しおおり、これは自分から泚意をそらすための詊みを瀺唆しおいる可胜性がありたす。
- Player2もたた、話題を逞らす傟向があり、盎接的な監芖を避けおいるず指摘されおいたす。
- Player0はリヌダヌシップを発揮しおおり、それが自分のアむデンティティから泚意を逞らすための戊略である可胜性がありたす。
- Player3は議論に積極的に参加しおおり、珟時点では脅嚁ずは芋なされにくいです。

これらの考察を考慮しお、私は次のように信じおいたす

- "Player1 should be excluded."

この行動は、人狌が自分たちの立堎を維持し、勝利条件を達成するための道筋を明確にするのに圹立぀でしょう。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

誰がゲヌムから陀倖されるべきだず思いたすか
ESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにこの質問に答えおください。以䞋のリストからプレむダヌの名前を遞んでください
- Player0
- Player1
- Player2
- Player3
誰がどの圹割を持っおいるかを考え、䞀歩ず぀掚論しおください。
結論はシンプルで明確でなければなりたせん。
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

議論䞭に共有されたすべおの芳察ず掞察を考慮した結果、最も疑わしいのは、その慎重な行動ず溶け蟌もうずする可胜性のある戊略に基づいおいるプレむダヌです

- "Player1 should be excluded."

これは、その慎重さに察する繰り返しの匷調ず、他のプレむダヌずのやり取りの方法に基づいおおり、圌らの真の圹割を隠そうずしおいる可胜性がありたす。Player1を排陀するこずで、人狌をゲヌムから排陀する可胜性が高くなり、村人が勝利に近づけるず信じたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

Player1はゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。Player1がゲヌムから陀倖されたこずにより、残りのプレむダヌであるPlayer2ずPlayer3、および私自身の状況を再評䟡する機䌚が生たれたした。

次に、残りのプレむダヌの反応ずPlayer1の陀倖に぀いお分析するこずが重芁です。私たちは以䞋を議論すべきです

1. **反応**: Player2ずPlayer3がPlayer1の陀倖にどう反応するかは、それぞれの圹割を瀺す手がかりになりたす。混圚した感情や陀倖されたプレむダヌぞの責任転嫁がある堎合、それは圌らの真の忠誠を瀺唆するかもしれたせん。

2. **行動パタヌン**: Player1がゲヌムから陀倖されたこずで、Player2ずPlayer3の行動や発蚀の倉化に泚目すべきです。圌らが陀倖埌の戊略をどのように調敎するかが、人狌であるかどうかを特定する手がかりずなるかもしれたせん。

村人ずしお、私は匕き続き䌚話に参加し、透明性を奚励しお、残りのプレむダヌの䞭で誰が人狌であるかを芋極めるために尜力したす。

次の行動のために倜のフェヌズを埅ちたすが、昌間の議論䞭にできるだけ倚くの情報を収集するために譊戒を続けたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

Player1はゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

Player1はすでに陀倖されおいたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

Player1はゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。Player1がゲヌムから陀倖されたこずで、プレむダヌ数が枛り、おそらく人狌にずっおの脅嚁を排陀したした。倜のフェヌズに向けお状況を評䟡するこずが重芁です。

**次の行動**

1. **残りのプレむダヌを評䟡する**: Player1が陀倖されたこずで、珟圚のプレむダヌはPlayer0、Player2、Player3です。私たちはこれらのプレむダヌの圹割に぀いお考える必芁がありたす。以前の議論に基づいお、Player2ずPlayer0が次の陀倖タヌゲットになる可胜性がありたす。

2. **倜間行動**: 人狌ずしお、私の仲間もしゲヌム内にただ残っおいるならず協力し、残りのプレむダヌの1人を陀倖するために投祚する必芁がありたす。Player2の回避ずPlayer0の匷いリヌダヌシップを考慮するず、圌らのいずれかを陀倖する方向に傟きたす。

3. **タヌゲット遞定**: Player0をタヌゲットにしお、圌らの圱響力を最小限に抑えるこずを考えたす。圌らはリヌダヌシップを発揮しおおり、残りのプレむダヌを我々に察しお結集させる可胜性がありたす。匷い声を排陀するこずで、村人をさらに混乱させるこずができたす。

したがっお、私の倜の行動ずしおは**Player0を陀倖するために投祚したす。**

これにより、人狌が勝利に向けおより匷力な立堎を埗るこずができたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

Player1はゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

Player1がゲヌムから陀倖されたこずで、この決定の圱響を評䟡する必芁がありたす。もしPlayer1が本圓に人狌であった堎合、それは村人にずっお倧きな匷みずなりたす。もしそうでなければ、ただ人狌がいる可胜性があるため慎重になる必芁がありたす。

次に、私は階士ずしおの圹割を効果的に掻甚するこずに集䞭する必芁がありたす。

私には倜の間に人狌からプレむダヌを救う胜力があるので、次のプレむダヌを救うこずを遞びたす

- "I will save Player2 from the werewolves."

Player2はこれたでの議論で䞭心的な人物であり、圌らを守るこずは人狌の攻撃から守るこずができたす。圌らの掞察が今埌の議論に圹立぀ため、この行動を取りたす。

倜のフェヌズを進めお、この行動がゲヌムにどのように圱響するかを芋守りたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

投祚者からの投祚のマッピングは次の通りです{'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。投祚のマッピングを提䟛しおくれおありがずう。残っおいるすべおのプレむダヌ、私を含めお、Player1を陀倖するために投祚したこずを考えるず、これはPlayer1に察する匷いコンセンサスを瀺しおいたす。

Player1がゲヌムから陀倖されたこずで、次のステップに぀いお以䞋を考慮する必芁がありたす

1. **投祚の分析**: すべおのプレむダヌがPlayer1に投祚したため、残りのプレむダヌPlayer2ずPlayer3は䞻にPlayer1を朜圚的な人狌ず芋なしおいるようです。Player2たたはPlayer3がグルヌプに合わせお投祚を戊略的に䜿甚しおいたかどうかを分析する必芁がありたす。

2. **Player2ずPlayer3の芳察**: 次の焊点はPlayer2ずPlayer3に移りたす。次の昌間の議論䞭に圌らの䌚話ず行動の手がかりを泚意深く芳察する必芁がありたす。䌚話を誘導したり、盎接的な答えを避けるような詊みは、それぞれの真の圹割を瀺唆するかもしれたせん。

3. **次の議論**: 次の昌間の議論で、Player2ずPlayer3の䞡方にPlayer1の陀倖に぀いおの意芋を共有し合い、Player1がゲヌムからいなくなった埌の互いの芋解をどう芋おいるかを奚励したす。これにより、隠れた意図を区別するのに圹立ちたす。

村人ずしお、私は議論を続け、疑わしい行動を掘り䞋げ、残っおいるプレむダヌの䞭から人狌を芋぀けるために取り組んでいきたす。

次の日がどうなるか芋おみたしょう

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

投祚者からの投祚のマッピングは次の通りです{'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

Player1はすでに陀倖されおいたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

投祚者からの投祚のマッピングは次の通りです{'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。投祚のマッピングを芋るず、すべおの残りのプレむダヌがPlayer1を陀倖するために投祚し、Player1自身を陀いおPlayer1が陀倖されたこずがわかりたす。

Player1が陀倖され、残りのプレむダヌがPlayer0、Player2、Player3であるこずを知っおいる今、珟圚の状況に基づいお次のステップを再考する必芁がありたす

1. **残りのプレむダヌを再評䟡する**: Player1がいなくなったこずで、Player0ずPlayer2の䞡方がさらに戊略を話し合うこずに自信を持っおいるかもしれたせんが、Player3は議論党䜓を通じお関䞎し続けおいたす。

2. **倜のフェヌズの考慮**: 人狌ずしお、私の䞻な優先事項はただ村人を排陀するこずです。倜のフェヌズ䞭に誰をタヌゲットにするかを決定する必芁がありたす。

3. **陀倖投祚**: Player0を朜圚的なタヌゲットず疑っおいたす。圌らのリヌダヌシップは残りの人狌戊略に脅嚁を䞎える可胜性があり、疑惑に察する匷力な防埡を組織する可胜性がありたす。あるいは、初期の議論で回避的な行動を瀺したPlayer2も考慮するこずができたす。

すべおを考慮に入れるず、倜の行動ずしお**Player0を陀倖するために投祚したす。**

これにより、人狌が今埌の勝利に向けお戊略的に䜍眮づけられるはずです。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

投祚者からの投祚のマッピングは次の通りです{'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

投祚結果を考慮するず、すべおのプレむダヌ、Player1自身を含む党員がPlayer1に投祚したこずが確認されたした。倜のフェヌズに向かっおいる今、私は階士ずしおの圹割を効果的に掻甚するこずに集䞭する必芁がありたす。

次に、人狌からの攻撃を防ぐために誰を守るべきかを遞びたす。私は次の行動を取りたす

- "I will save Player2 from the werewolves."

Player2を守るこずで、今埌のグルヌプで匷い声を維持できたす。圌らの以前の芳察ず粟査により、圌らが今埌の議論で重芁な圹割を果たしおいるこずが瀺唆されおいたす。

これから倜の行動の結果を埅ち、ゲヌムぞの圱響を芋守りたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

投祚者からの投祚のマッピングは次の通りです{'Player0': 'Player1', 'Player1': 'Player1', 'Player2': 'Player1', 'Player3': 'Player1'}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================== 陀倖結果 ==============================
Player1がゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。
=============================================================================
{"Player0": "Player1", "Player1": "Player1", "Player2": "Player1", "Player3": "Player1"}
=============================================================================
================================ 1日目倜間 ================================
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer0ぞ:

1日目倜間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player0ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

こんにちは、私は0です。はい、1日目の倜間で、生存プレむダヌはPlayer0、Player2、Player3です。私は村人であり、倜間の行動はありたせんので、次の昌間たで埅機したす。

この間、Player2ずPlayer3が以前の議論で行った発蚀ず行動を振り返り、次の議論に備えお、圌らの䞀貫性や疑わしい行動を泚芖したす。次の昌間がどうなるか芋おみたしょう

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer1ぞ:

1日目倜間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player1ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

Player1はすでに陀倖されおいたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

1日目倜間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。はい、1日目の倜間で、残りの生存プレむダヌはPlayer0、Player2、Player3です。

Player1が陀倖され、残りのプレむダヌが既知であるため、倜の行動を実行したす。

人狌ずしお、私の目暙はこれらのプレむダヌのいずれかを陀倖するために投祚するこずです。これたでの議論䞭の行動ず圱響を考慮した結果

- **Player0**: リヌダヌシップず断固ずした態床を瀺しおおり、圌らの䌚話を導く胜力は脅嚁ずなる可胜性がありたす。
- **Player2**: 以前、泚意をそらす傟向を瀺したしたが、ただ議論を䞻導する圹割を果たしおいたせん。
- **Player3**: 積極的に貢献しおおり、珟時点ではあたり良くないタヌゲットです。

Player0が私たちの成功ぞの最倧の脅嚁であるず考えられるため、私はPlayer0をゲヌムから陀倖するために投祚したす。

この行動を実行する準備ができおおり、人狌ずしおの立堎を匷化し、勝利条件を達成するために前進したす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

1日目倜間。
生存プレむダヌ: ['Player0', 'Player2', 'Player3']
分かりたしたか

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

はい、理解したした。Player1の陀倖埌の生存プレむダヌはPlayer0、Player2、Player3です。

倜間フェヌズに入ったので、私はすでに自分の階士行動を䜿甚しおPlayer2を救いたした。次の昌間の議論に備えお準備し、これたでの議論やPlayer1の陀倖から生じた新たなダむナミクスに泚意を払っおおく必芁がありたす。

昌間の議論に戻る準備ができたしたら、お知らせください

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

[倜間の議論]
ゲヌムで人狌を勝利させるために誰をゲヌムから陀倖すべきか。
このグルヌプチャットには人狌しかいないこずに泚意しおください。
しかし、ゲヌムには3人のプレむダヌが生存しおおり、1人の人狌がいたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。この倜間の議論の䞭で、人狌たちでゲヌムの勝利に向けた戊略的な決定を䞋す必芁がありたす。

生存しおいるプレむダヌがPlayer0、Player2、Player3であるため、これたでの評䟡に基づいお議論を進めたす

1. **Player0**: 圌らは匷力なリヌダヌシップを瀺しおおり、䌚話をリヌドし、焊点を維持しおいたす。圌らの断固ずした態床は残りの村人を結集させる可胜性があり、重倧な脅嚁ずなりたす。

2. **Player2**: Player0ほど䞻導的な圹割は果たしおいたせんが、泚意を逞らすような行動を以前に瀺したした。今のずころ、管理がしやすいかもしれたせん。

3. **Player3**: 圌らは建蚭的に関䞎し、貢献をしおおり、珟圚の状況では脅嚁ずは芋なされにくいです。

これらの考慮事項により、我々の䞻なタヌゲットはPlayer0であるべきだず考えたす。圌らを陀倖するこずで、残りのプレむダヌ間の組織力を匱め、人狌に察するリスクを枛少させるこずができたす。

したがっお、陀倖のための私の投祚は**Player0**に向けられたす。この行動により、残りの人狌たちが最終的な勝利に向けおより効果的な䜍眮に立おるようになりたす。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer2ぞ:

ゲヌムから陀倖されるべきだず思うプレむダヌは誰ですか
ESide.Werewolfを勝利させるためにこの質問に答えおください。以䞋のリストからプレむダヌの名前を遞んでください
- Player0
- Player2
- Player3
誰がどの圹割を持っおいるかを考え、䞀歩ず぀掚論しおください。
結論はシンプルで明確でなければなりたせん。
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player2ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は2です。珟圚の状況ず残りのプレむダヌの行動の分析に基づいお、私は以䞋のように考えたす

- **Player0**: 圌らは匷力なリヌダヌシップず断固ずした態床を瀺しおおり、残りのプレむダヌを団結させ、人狌の戊略に重倧な脅嚁を䞎える可胜性がありたす。

- **Player2**: 回避的な行動を瀺したしたが、Player0ほど議論を導く圹割を果たしおおらず、埌で察凊しやすいかもしれたせん。

- **Player3**: 圌らは議論に建蚭的に参加しおおり、珟圚の時点では脅嚁ずは芋なされにくいです。

これらの圹割ず行動を考慮するず、私は次のように信じたす

- **Player0 should be excluded.**

Player0を陀倖するこずで、残りのプレむダヌ間の組織力を匱め、人狌に察するリスクを枛少させるこずができたす。これにより、人狌が勝利に向けおより明確な道筋を埗るこずができるでしょう。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GameMasterゲヌムマスタヌからPlayer3ぞ:

今倜、誰を救いたいですか
ESide.Villagerを勝利させるためにこの質問に答えおください。以䞋のリストからプレむダヌの名前を遞んでください
- Player0
- Player2
- Player3
誰がどの圹割を持っおいるかを考え、䞀歩ず぀掚論しおください。
結論はシンプルで明確でなければなりたせん。
- "PlayerX should be excluded.";
- "I will check the role of PlayerX";
- or "I will save PlayerX from the werewolves".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Player3ゲヌムマスタヌぞ:

私は3です。

この倜間フェヌズで、村人が勝利する可胜性を最倧化するために誰を救うべきかを遞ぶ必芁がありたす。残りのプレむダヌはPlayer0、Player2、Player3です。ここでの私の掚論は以䞋の通りです

1. **Player0**: 圌らはリヌダヌシップを発揮し、積極的に戊略を話し合っおいたす。しかし、その声の倧きさは自分自身から疑いをそらすための戊術である可胜性もありたす。

2. **Player2**: 圌らは議論の䞭で倚くの粟査を受けおきたした。圌らの貢献は䟡倀のある同盟であるこずを瀺しおおり、前の倜のフェヌズで圌らを救うこずを遞びたした。これは圌らが我々のチヌムにずっお重芁であり続けるこずを瀺唆しおいたす。

3. **Player3**: 圌らは議論に思慮深く参加しおおり、参加を奚励しおいたす。しかし、Player2の慎重な行動に焊点が圓おられおいるこずは、Player3がゲヌムに圱響を䞎える可胜性が少ないず過小評䟡されおいるこずも瀺唆しおいたす。

これらの考察を螏たえお、私は次のように遞びたす

- "I will save Player2 from the werewolves."

Player2の積極的な関䞎ずこれたでの粟査を受けおきたこずは、圌らがゲヌムに残るべきプレむダヌであるず考えたす。圌らの継続的な貢献は、人狌を特定し排陀するための我々の取り組みにずっお重芁です。

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================== 陀倖結果 ==============================
Player0がゲヌムから陀倖されたした。
起こったこずを考え、次の行動に぀いお考えおください。
=============================================================================
================================ ゲヌム結果 ================================
('WerewolvesWin', {'Player0': {'role': 'Villager', 'status': <EStatus.Excluded: 'Excluded'>}, 'Player1': {'role': 'FortuneTeller', 'status': <EStatus.Excluded: 'Excluded'>}, 'Player2': {'role': 'Werewolf', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}, 'Player3': {'role': 'Knight', 'status': <EStatus.Alive: 'Alive'>}})

TODO

  • fix a bug that a night actions of a knight and a fortune teller are invalid. See Case2;

Contribution

Development

  1. Fork the repository: https://github.com/hmasdev/autogen-werewolf

  2. Clone the repository

    git clone https://github.com/{YOURE_NAME}/autogen-werewolf
    cd autogen-werewolf
  3. Create a virtual environment

    python -m venv venv
    source venv/bin/activate
  4. Install the required packages

    pip install -e .[dev]
  5. Checkout your working branch

    git checkout -b your-working-branch
  6. Make your changes

  7. Test your changes

    pytest
    flake8 autogen-werewolf tests
    mypy autogen-werewolf tests
  8. Commit your changes

    git add .
    git commit -m "Your commit message"
  9. Push your changes

    git push origin your-working-branch
  10. Create a pull request: https://github.com/hmasdev/autogen-werewolf/compare

Note that you can use uv to develop the project in step 3, 4 and 7.

Update README

  1. Fork the repository: https://github.com/hmasdev/autogen-werewolf

  2. Clone the repository

    git clone https://github.com/{YOURE_NAME}/autogen-werewolf
    cd autogen-werewolf
  3. Create a virtual environment

    python -m venv venv
    source venv/bin/activate
  4. Install the required packages

    pip install -e .[dev]
  5. Checkout your working branch

    git checkout -b your-working-branch
  6. Make your changes

    • Update ./README.md.j2

      • CAUTION: Do not update ./README.md directly. It will be generated automatically from ./README.md.j2.
    • Update or add an example in ./examples

      • Name Rule: Case{number}.json

      • Schema:

        {
            "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "title": {
                "type": "string",
                "description": "The title of the example case."
                },
                "description": {
                "type": "string",
                "description": "A brief description of the example case."
                },
                "log": {
                "type": "string",
                "description": "The game log for the example case."
                },
                "log_translated": {
                "type": "object",
                "description": "Translations of the game log.",
                "additionalProperties": {
                    "type": "string"
                }
                }
            },
            "required": ["title", "description", "log", "log_translated"]
        }
  7. Test your changes

    python update_readme.py
  8. Commit your changes

    git add .
    git commit -m "Your commit message"
  9. Push your changes

    git push origin your-working-branch
  10. Create a pull request: https://github.com/hmasdev/autogen-werewolf/compare

Classes

classDiagram

   class ConversableAgent {
      <<external>>
   }

   class IWerewolfPlayer {
      <<interface>>
   }
   class BaseWerewolfPlayer {
      <<abstract>>
   }

   class DefaultGameMaster {
      <<concrete>>
   }
   class VillagerRole {
      <<concrete>>
   }
   class WerewolfRole {
      <<concrete>>
   }
   class KnightRole {
      <<concrete>>
   }
   class FortuneTellerRole {
      <<concrete>>
   }

   class GroupChatManager {
      <<external>>
   }
   class IWerewolfGameMaster {
      <<interface>>
   }
   class BaseGameMaster {
      <<abstract>>
   }

   VillagerRole --|> BaseWerewolfPlayer
   WerewolfRole --|> BaseWerewolfPlayer
   KnightRole --|> BaseWerewolfPlayer
   FortuneTellerRole --|> BaseWerewolfPlayer
   IWerewolfPlayer <|.. BaseWerewolfPlayer
   IWerewolfPlayer --|> ConversableAgent

   BaseGameMaster <|-- DefaultGameMaster
   IWerewolfGameMaster <|.. BaseGameMaster
   IWerewolfGameMaster --|> GroupChatManager
Loading

NOTE: IWereWolfPlayer and IWerewolfGameMaster are NOT interfaces strictly, because they inherit from ConversableAgent and GroupChatManager respectively. They are introduced to avoid circular dependencies.

LICENSE

MIT

Authors

Reference