Fool - Punishes you for reading behavior.
Not true. You can read Fools.
Sometimes⌠on the whole itâs impossible to distinguish a fool from a really bad player. Or an evil thatâs trying to look like a bad player to avoid execution. In the end with variations of people, really the only thing that can be distinguished no matter what, is working towards BDâs goals, and not working towards BDâs goals (with the occasional margain of error for actual BD that doesnât know how to play well).
Everything else is going to have large margains of error, as obviously everyone playing against BDâs interests will be using their own style. Fool is made to punish those who correctly read someone is working against bd, and uses the main tool that players are given to read it.
Just because you can often correctly guess someone is a fool because he seems to be trying to hard to be bad, doesnât change the fact that on the whole when you make that identification it still is a 50/50 shot.
2 Likes
itâs impossible to distinguish a fool from a really bad player. Or an evil thatâs trying to look like a bad player to avoid execution.
Or a BD who just sucks so bad heâs indistinguishable from evil. This problem is 100% about bad players, not fools.
1 Like
Fool is a crutch for bad players, itâs an awful concept from a game design standpoint.
Why reward people that canât actually perform feats of social manipulation in your social deduction game? The world may never know.
I think itâs mainly the fact you get punished for executing a non bd
That may be unfun for some people, and I donât know if you are against fool yourself, but the argument that âyou get punished for lynching evilâ is a complaint about semantics and doesnât mean fool discourages social deduction or punishes good play.
Fool is a crutch for bad players, itâs an awful concept from a game design standpoint.
How is Fool a crutch for bad players? See my previous point about the bad player problem not being specific to fool.
Why reward people that canât actually perform feats of social manipulation in your social deduction game?
Fool (and Scorned) have the single ability in the game that is most focused toward social manipulation ⌠trollbox.
I agree with orangeandblack and admit that Fool is a terrible class and should be eliminated from this game.
The only problem with fool is people not understanding the depth of his counter-intuitive social manipulation and deceit.
Why go through the work of trying to blend in when you can act scummy and buy time because people think youâre a Fool?
1 Like
Assuming youâre referring to this?
It may not be 50/50, but the fact that it is nonzero is enough.
1 Like
Everyoneâs arguments against fool boil down to literally nothing but âfool involves zero skillâ which isnât true, if it were the case then all evils could mindlessly act the fool and win but that would just result in a rapid BD victory
I donât know what youâre saying. But according to these peopleâs logic, you could put the best BD players in a lobby against the absolute worst evils and the evils would win simply by acting like fools
Iâm 100% sure weâre not claiming that
Although it is worth noting that Fool itself is super easy to win as
So your argument is not that itâs too easy to survive as evil acting like a fool, but rather that itâs too easy to get executed as fool acting like an evil? Or am I misunderstanding and itâs actually neither?
For the record, if we are really going to remove Fool from the game, I propose we do it during the day
It does both, actually.
Which is why the core foundation is so flawed.
Personally I am much more concerned about Fools winning by being slightly scummy, which any village idiot can do easily, alongside the fact that they are a non-BD role that the BD should be rewarded for lynching but are instead punished for, than I am about it being used as cover. However, the fact that that can work is merely further reason to completely axe it.
2 Likes