Still no
by what metric
literally have heard zero arguments that fool is good
H_Hjaisk is right more variety is good
Letās make a neutral designed to make hjaisk lose. If she loses or isnāt in the game the neutral wins
Youre the one using metric to judge Its bad
Yes itās a bit different, but so was Revenant
Different is not good
Yes
With reasoning supporting it that has actual game design theory backing it
not āitās different so thatās objectively good and funny lolā
So revenant was bad because it was unbalanced that lead to them winning I havent seen it but I assume that was the case
Which is the best argument Iāve heard for it in years btw
How many people have you killed on your attempt to get rid of fools and jesters
Zero but sometimes I wish
Revenant was bad because it destroyed the foundation of the game.
Ok so less than me I see
Adds more WIFOM I like WIFOM Thats Why I want to see it
No it was bad because I literally got to spam nonsense
It was hurtful because I wanted to try that game and it was like sit down
thatās not a good mechanic in a game built on social deduction
Thatās fun and fine and all in something built on it like MR
But if youāre trying to get people to learn to read others, including a class that makes reads inherently unreliable is unbelievably stupid. It counteracts the entire point of the game.
Also why we ditched alch
You can still read someone as fool
And you have roles like prince to nightkill them early
1: except if they arenāt being stupid you canāt with any consistency, as some BD will always be dumb and therefore they should ideally always be indistinguishable
2: except what if you donāt or theyāre another one of the idiots I mentioned before