Site meta

The main discussion point here is actually innovation.
Do you like changing up the game? Or is the same standard setups what you like to play?
How crazy do you like to get in the mechanics of the game? What roles do you think have an impact on the game positive or negative?
Talk to me about your opinion on innovations of the game meta and maybe include what you may like to see in upcoming games.

If I am understanding the thread correctly, this is more or less a conversation on preference of vanilla setups vs. thematic/special setups. The simple answer from me is that I enjoy all sorts of games regardless of whether they are very basic or very thematic, provided that the host puts in good thought towards the balance and focus of the setup. As such, while setup innovation is often a nice thing to see, it isn't something I see as necessary to have a fun game.

Now that I have given my opinion on that, my thoughts on what I see as "unfun" roles...

As I mentioned above, innovation isn't usually a massive concern for me when it comes to enjoying a setup. However, something that is important for me to really enjoy a setup is an emphasis on scumhunting as opposed to relying on night actions, which is obtainable in both vanilla and thematic setups. As such, some of the roles I think are worst for the game are the ones which punish good scumhunting...


Cult Leader (Faction Conversion): There are two major issues I see with conversion. Firstly, no matter how pro-town a player acts, they have the potential of getting converted during the following night. As such, you can't actually rely at all on a players post history since they could have previously been town but have recently been converted. This is terrible for scumhunting since it can easily punish you for having faith in your town reads, which is just bad. Secondly, switching alignments is typically not fun. Any work that you did as your previous alignment doesn't matter anymore, and you might even have to undo your leads that were on the right track due to your faction switch, which just sucks.


Jester: Some people might argue that this role is actually good for emphasizing scumhunting since you have the extra dimension of considering if that super scummy person is actually trying to get lynched. However, I would heavily disagree with this argument. While noob jesters might act like idiots and hope they get lynched as a result, good jesters will be much more subtle and simply attempt to mimic more minor scumtells and hope that the town picks up on it and tries to lynch them. As such, good jester play ends up punishing good scumhunting and just ends up being bad for the game. Expecting players to be able to determine that those subtle scumtells were actually intentional is just unrealistic.


Executioner: I just think this is a bad role except maybe in a super vanilla setup with little to no investigative roles to be claimed. If someone claims sheriff and says that player X is scum, it's unrealistic to expect the town to not believe the claim and lynch player X unless player X has a strong role claim. If player X has a strong role claim, it's incredibly unfun to play a role that is trying to get them lynched.


Suriviour/Amnesiac (Fuzzy win conditions): These roles can be fun to play. However, giving players conflicting win conditions of "win with the town" vs "win with the mafia" makes them too hard to balance to be fun to play with, since the result of the entire game can often be determined simply by which faction they choose to side with.


And now you know why I will generally exclude non-killing neutrals from my setups. Also, this is by no means meant to "shame" people who enjoy these types of neutrals in their games, just to explain why I don't enjoy playing against these roles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auckmid

If I am understanding the thread correctly, this is more or less a conversation on preference of vanilla setups vs. thematic/special setups. The simple answer from me is that I enjoy all sorts of games regardless of whether they are very basic or very thematic, provided that the host puts in good thought towards the balance and focus of the setup. As such, while setup innovation is often a nice thing to see, it isn't something I see as necessary to have a fun game.

Now that I have given my opinion on that, my thoughts on what I see as "unfun" roles...

As I mentioned above, innovation isn't usually a massive concern for me when it comes to enjoying a setup. However, something that is important for me to really enjoy a setup is an emphasis on scumhunting as opposed to relying on night actions, which is obtainable in both vanilla and thematic setups. As such, some of the roles I think are worst for the game are the ones which punish good scumhunting...


Cult Leader (Faction Conversion): There are two major issues I see with conversion. Firstly, no matter how pro-town a player acts, they have the potential of getting converted during the following night. As such, you can't actually rely at all on a players post history since they could have previously been town but have recently been converted. This is terrible for scumhunting since it can easily punish you for having faith in your town reads, which is just bad. Secondly, switching alignments is typically not fun. Any work that you did as your previous alignment doesn't matter anymore, and you might even have to undo your leads that were on the right track due to your faction switch, which just sucks.


Jester: Some people might argue that this role is actually good for emphasizing scumhunting since you have the extra dimension of considering if that super scummy person is actually trying to get lynched. However, I would heavily disagree with this argument. While noob jesters might act like idiots and hope they get lynched as a result, good jesters will be much more subtle and simply attempt to mimic more minor scumtells and hope that the town picks up on it and tries to lynch them. As such, good jester play ends up punishing good scumhunting and just ends up being bad for the game. Expecting players to be able to determine that those subtle scumtells were actually intentional is just unrealistic.


Executioner: I just think this is a bad role except maybe in a super vanilla setup with little to no investigative roles to be claimed. If someone claims sheriff and says that player X is scum, it's unrealistic to expect the town to not believe the claim and lynch player X unless player X has a strong role claim. If player X has a strong role claim, it's incredibly unfun to play a role that is trying to get them lynched.


Suriviour/Amnesiac (Fuzzy win conditions): These roles can be fun to play. However, giving players conflicting win conditions of "win with the town" vs "win with the mafia" makes them too hard to balance to be fun to play with, since the result of the entire game can often be determined simply by which faction they choose to side with.


And now you know why I will generally exclude non-killing neutrals from my setups. Also, this is by no means meant to "shame" people who enjoy these types of neutrals in their games, just to explain why I don't enjoy playing against these roles.

---

Great explanations, the players who beg for cult and jester x10 in the mod every game should read this

As a player that doesn't play FMs pretty much anymore, Apo has always loved special setups with unique game mechanics. This includes day/night events and role actions. Even some RP is cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apocist

As a player that doesn't play FMs pretty much anymore, Apo has always loved special setups with unique game mechanics. This includes day/night events and role actions. Even some RP is cool.

---

This. Along with Hidden Setups, which I'm starting to find fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrlander

This. Along with Hidden Setups, which I'm starting to find fascinating.

---

#3 IS GONNA BE GOOD, I THINK I GOT IT DOWN PACT GUYS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrlander

This. Along with Hidden Setups, which I'm starting to find fascinating.

---

I actually created a nice hidden setup, but i'm afraid I may be banned from hosting it =D. One I think you would highly enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blinkskater

I actually created a nice hidden setup, but i'm afraid I may be banned from hosting it =D. One I think you would highly enjoy.

---

please chill out

I'm really looking forward to them. Feeling lost in the lack of knowledge has suddenly become one of my kinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cryptonic

please chill out

---

I'm very chill why what's up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrlander

I'm really looking forward to them. Feeling lost in the lack of knowledge has suddenly become one of my kinks.

---

it's because hidden setups are true host sadism. and you're just a simple masochist ♥

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gyrlander

I'm really looking forward to them. Feeling lost in the lack of knowledge has suddenly become one of my kinks.

---

Oh baby? =D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blinkskater

Oh baby? =D

---

Can you take me into the world of the Hidden setups and their intrigue for hosts and players?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auckmid

If I am understanding the thread correctly, this is more or less a conversation on preference of vanilla setups vs. thematic/special setups. The simple answer from me is that I enjoy all sorts of games regardless of whether they are very basic or very thematic, provided that the host puts in good thought towards the balance and focus of the setup. As such, while setup innovation is often a nice thing to see, it isn't something I see as necessary to have a fun game.

Now that I have given my opinion on that, my thoughts on what I see as "unfun" roles...

As I mentioned above, innovation isn't usually a massive concern for me when it comes to enjoying a setup. However, something that is important for me to really enjoy a setup is an emphasis on scumhunting as opposed to relying on night actions, which is obtainable in both vanilla and thematic setups. As such, some of the roles I think are worst for the game are the ones which punish good scumhunting...


Cult Leader (Faction Conversion): There are two major issues I see with conversion. Firstly, no matter how pro-town a player acts, they have the potential of getting converted during the following night. As such, you can't actually rely at all on a players post history since they could have previously been town but have recently been converted. This is terrible for scumhunting since it can easily punish you for having faith in your town reads, which is just bad. Secondly, switching alignments is typically not fun. Any work that you did as your previous alignment doesn't matter anymore, and you might even have to undo your leads that were on the right track due to your faction switch, which just sucks.


Jester: Some people might argue that this role is actually good for emphasizing scumhunting since you have the extra dimension of considering if that super scummy person is actually trying to get lynched. However, I would heavily disagree with this argument. While noob jesters might act like idiots and hope they get lynched as a result, good jesters will be much more subtle and simply attempt to mimic more minor scumtells and hope that the town picks up on it and tries to lynch them. As such, good jester play ends up punishing good scumhunting and just ends up being bad for the game. Expecting players to be able to determine that those subtle scumtells were actually intentional is just unrealistic.


Executioner: I just think this is a bad role except maybe in a super vanilla setup with little to no investigative roles to be claimed. If someone claims sheriff and says that player X is scum, it's unrealistic to expect the town to not believe the claim and lynch player X unless player X has a strong role claim. If player X has a strong role claim, it's incredibly unfun to play a role that is trying to get them lynched.


Suriviour/Amnesiac (Fuzzy win conditions): These roles can be fun to play. However, giving players conflicting win conditions of "win with the town" vs "win with the mafia" makes them too hard to balance to be fun to play with, since the result of the entire game can often be determined simply by which faction they choose to side with.


And now you know why I will generally exclude non-killing neutrals from my setups. Also, this is by no means meant to "shame" people who enjoy these types of neutrals in their games, just to explain why I don't enjoy playing against these roles.

---

I second this.

I'd also like to add Blackmailer and Ventriloquist to the list of anti-fun roles. Of the two, blackmailer is the bigger offender because it manages to be anti fun for both the target and the blackmailer itself depending on the particular rules/implementation by the host, whereas Ventriloquist is always at least enjoyable for the Ventriloquist player, but regardless, the main issue with both roles is that they create this weird limbo for the target where they're not actually dead, but also not able to actually participate in the game, which sucks.

Another role I dislike is the bodyguard. It's not exactly anti-fun in the way that the above roles are, but it still kind of sucks to play as because your role's entire purpose is to die and unlike jester, it isn't granted a win just for for doing so. So you have to choose between trying to use your action successfully at night, or staying alive to prolong your presence/contribution in day chat.

posting so i remember to come back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerik

I second this.

I'd also like to add Blackmailer and Ventriloquist to the list of anti-fun roles. Of the two, blackmailer is the bigger offender because it manages to be anti fun for both the target and the blackmailer itself depending on the particular rules/implementation by the host, whereas Ventriloquist is always at least enjoyable for the Ventriloquist player, but regardless, the main issue with both roles is that they create this weird limbo for the target where they're not actually dead, but also not able to actually participate in the game, which sucks.

Another role I dislike is the bodyguard. It's not exactly anti-fun in the way that the above roles are, but it still kind of sucks to play as because your role's entire purpose is to die and unlike jester, it isn't granted a win just for for doing so. So you have to choose between trying to use your action successfully at night, or staying alive to prolong your presence/contribution in day chat.

---

The feels when as bodyguard you take out one of the main killing roles n1 and then sit there and watch as the town loses anyway. Those games do really suck yea

hello Priest Gray

I am 100% agreeing with Auckmid there. Cult should just not exist, usually.


Personally, I love hidden setups, I think they add a very interesting twist to games. Especially when they are roleplay-heavy and that it's well done.

That being said, I am for adding MORE standard setups, not hidden, not crazy, just with normal roles, some small twists... It's what is needed for people to get better at the game itself. Plus, it's fun to have to rely only on your scum hunting skills to win (here talking about "mountainous" setups, nightless without any kill or special role).

While I agree with a lot of Auckmid's post (esp the cult part), a large part of the post comes with the assumption that the game these roles exist in is a semi standard setup. I think executioner/survivor/jester - esqued roles can work well in specialized setups that have thought carefully about the ramifications of their presence.

To be clear, the post I made was in reference to site meta. Role conversion, jester, executioner and fuzzy win cons can be enjoyable sometimes in special setups. I just don't think that they should be a significant part of site meta.