Fighting "he could be fool" as scorned

#101

Still no

1 Like
#102

by what metric

1 Like
#103

literally have heard zero arguments that fool is good

#104

H_Hjaisk is right more variety is good

Letā€™s make a neutral designed to make hjaisk lose. If she loses or isnā€™t in the game the neutral wins

1 Like
#105

Youre the one using metric to judge Its bad

#106

Yes itā€™s a bit different, but so was Revenant

Different is not good

1 Like
#107

Yes

With reasoning supporting it that has actual game design theory backing it

1 Like
#108

not ā€œitā€™s different so thatā€™s objectively good and funny lolā€

1 Like
#109

So revenant was bad because it was unbalanced that lead to them winning I havent seen it but I assume that was the case

#110

Which is the best argument Iā€™ve heard for it in years btw

1 Like
#111

How many people have you killed on your attempt to get rid of fools and jesters

#112

Zero but sometimes I wish

1 Like
#113

Revenant was bad because it destroyed the foundation of the game.

#114

Ok so less than me I see

1 Like
#115

Adds more WIFOM I like WIFOM Thats Why I want to see it

#116

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

#117

thatā€™s not a good mechanic in a game built on social deduction

Thatā€™s fun and fine and all in something built on it like MR

But if youā€™re 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.

2 Likes
#118

Also why we ditched alch

#119

You can still read someone as fool
And you have roles like prince to nightkill them early

#120

1: except if they arenā€™t being stupid you canā€™t with any consistency, as some BD will always be dumb and therefore they should ideally always be indistinguishable

2: except what if you donā€™t or theyā€™re another one of the idiots I mentioned before

2 Likes