Your roles game me an idea.
1 Town Gunsmith
3 Townies
Notes:
Scum PRs determined by random chance. NB - cop does not equal rolecop.
Pharmacist gets positive on docs.
Gunsmith gets positive on cops.
In post 5188, Whiskers wrote:Yeah, doesn't that make it even more townsided? Instead of being two PRs and only one of them is useful, you have two PRs and as few as one of them or as many as two of them are useful.
In post 5197, Shamrock wrote:Seems like any setup of that kind is going to be overly dependent on lucky guilties. You can never trust innocent results, so basically the whole setup's balance hinges on the investigators potentially getting guilties.
In post 5201, gorckat wrote:That doesn't seem fun for the Hunters and hard for the town...
Hunters act scummy and/or obfuscate until LYLO, shoot a dude, probably win.
If Hunters shoot both goons, does the town still win? In that case, halfway random lynching down to MYLO, no lynch and let the hunters sort it out.
In post 5203, gorckat wrote:So they are really Bulletproof Innocent Child 1-shot Dayvigs (change Hunter to Superhero ).
I don't think the goons should lose their kill if a townie gets shot.
In post 5206, LlamaFluff wrote:I dont like due to luck involved. It has the same flaw as AitP has in that someone can essentially claim scum D1 and win due to luck of a pick. I mean, I could technically go "Shoot X" first post as a hunter and I have a 22% win chance. Its not *high* but its possible.
I would say include hunters being able to win if they are alive when town achieves their win condition. Otherwise its just unfair to them.
In post 5208, gorckat wrote:Actually- mass claim day one, no lynch.
Either townies die at night...or they don't. Hunters win.
(Not that mass claiming a game with all townies means much, but you get the idea.)
There has to be something else to make it work.
In post 5210, Whiskers wrote:It's just very kingmakery. It's not fun to play as a VT in that setup. One (or in this case, two) player(s) are superhero-gods and everyone else is normal. It gives one (or in this case, two) person(s) a huge amount of power and town really can't do anything. It's based entirely around the Hunter role, and the whole game depends on him (them).
Like, what if PMysterious, or RapidCanyon, got into that game as VTs? What are they going to do? If they look bad, Hunters will shoot them, losing the game for the whole town.
It's just not fun.
Or at least, I wouldn't play it.
In post 5212, Whiskers wrote:And what if one of those players drew Hunter? "YOU MUST HATE JIGGLYPUFF! *PEW*!" and "I'M SO CAUGHT UP IN MY OWN READS THAT I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE! *PEW!*"
And-- okay, what if townwon, even? It wouldn'tfeellike a win, because I, the VT, wholly dependant on the Hunters to shoot correctly, don't play any real part in winning the game and don't feel rewarded when town wins.
Same with mafia. I imagine mafia playing this setup cowering in a corner and hoping the Hunters don't shoot them. If they win, it's not because they're clever or smart or lucky, it's because the Hunters shot wrong.
In post 5231, Whiskers wrote:Still, I like playing the lone wolf and the predator. I like to fool people, and I like to stay alive. I want more 3rd-party non-killing roles!