In post 3975, Not Known 15 wrote: In post 3974, Pink Ball wrote:Game swinged towards town because my role was a support one, but could've gone the other way.
I mean I describe a game as balanced when it's not swingy, but I wouldn't call it unbalanced/townsided either. Just swingy. We used the quest mechanic once, for example.
What about the treestump?
Either
- generates an unremovable IC at the cost of a town vote
or
- kills Mafia
Or the Restless Spirit(another unremovable IC)
Or the fact that scum had a really bad hand if town played mechanically well(regarding mechanics) which was not that difficult...(the removal of strongman would have been atrocious for scum even without so many scum dead early, and the quest mechanic was so openly scumsided that any half-decent town would have avoided it past Day 1)
Treestump is not an unremovable IC. I mean, it could be used that way, but people this days don't know how to play around an IC. They don't listen a player's opinion just because they're confirmed town. And the fact that they can't vote is, well.. Crucial. The restless spirit yeah that was very pro town but it never came to play.
The removal of strongman became atrocious because it was just me alive, but yes, that was the right mechanical choice from town. And the quest mechanic wasn't openly scumsided; we killed the player who recieved the treasure, the sabotage was the counterpart of the treasure and it never came to play 'cause that player died. And again, I was alone; with one active partner and Ali's role, Quests could've been a thing again later in the game, but we never knew what was the protown part of the quests.
As I said, I think it was swingy, but not townsided. You could repeat this setup and get a complete different game. If it was townsided, you would get a similar result everytime.
I like this setup, the mechanics were cool, it forced me to get better at game mechanics. If I were town I would've mostly ignored it, but as scum I was much more invested because of them.
"Your intentions are not defined by how things went, but how things could've gone." (Ball, 2019)