Changes to Normal Games (update September 2022)

[mastina]

Like, I don't understand why these changes are being made.

Can I talk about this now and saw that even as a member of the NRG neither do I?

[mastina]

I think all games should be unique or put something interesting forward in some way. Having a "standard" setup doesn't mean that it can't be unique, or that it has to be uninteresting or anything. Most graylist roles are some sort of combination of existing whitelisted roles anyways - I can think of very few examples of a game deviating in any serious fashion from

entirely

basically normal.

Like, in the strict sense of the word it is a loss.

For the record, this is also my viewpoint and I did argue this backstage that mods should have increased freedom, but *shrug*. Is what it is.

[mastina]

And I applied over 3 weeks ago and got no response.

Did you send to Nexus?

If so, there's your explanation. Position changed power, Nexus went on vacation, and all that.

In the NRG forum, we actually have a thread where the listmod announces applications and yours wasn't posted there so I had no clue about it.

Also, I do agree with you on basically most of what you say. It's what I said, too, pretty much.

[mastina]

Atleast mandatory reviewing didn’t get cut

It almost was.

[mastina]

Quick question, has the MS wiki being updated to accommodate these new changes?

With the changes now official, the green light to start working on this has been given. Haven't had a chance to check how far it is yet, can give an update later.

[mastina]

It's worth considering that limiting setups also limits setup spec and fakeclaiming within games. More rigidity makes setup spec easier. It will also make for a less diverse meta, which is a bad thing imo.

And yeah, on that more personal note, Iambic Tetramafia would no longer be possible for two reasons-
1. PT cop is not a whitelist role.
2. Mandatory standardisation of role PMs would mean that the enabler would probably not be possible in the way it was done.

As an expansion of 1, I feel this is a really good example of an uncommon variant role the like of which will definitely suffer due to there no longer being a greylist. It's difficult to go through them all. That said, in light of me bringing this up I would hope PT cop will be considered for whitelist.

And to expand on 2, I think there are certain roles which can definitely benefit from a little fudge-factor on the standardisation. Modifiers like enabler and informed can probably benefit from customisation.

I also agree with this by the way.

[mastina]

While I agree that within the context of the new rules PT Cop should be whitelisted, I don't think the solution to people bringing up successful and/or popular graylist roles is to keep adding them to the whitelist. The graylist had a purpose to it. It allowed mods to experiment and test out new roles, and the 1-graylist role limit always made sure that it was an experiment done in relation to pre-existing roles. Without allowing experimentation, how will new roles be introduced, tested to make sure they're good, and added to the whitelist in the first place?

I also asked this question and I maintain the answer isn't that satisfying.

[mastina]

Was the answer something along the lines of

There are other queues still?

As one of the main detractors to that change.

I don't think I should be the one to state the reasoning because I would have an obvious bias; you probably want to hear the argument from an advocate of the change.

[mastina]

Especially one reviewer who I won't name by name, she approves way to many unbalanced games imo

You know the only other female member of the review team is Ether and she rarely reviews any more, right?

they might even ask you!

this happens?

I was invited to the NRG. I didn't apply. I'm not the only person who was invited to the NRG, either.

Can vouch for this; when we have someone we think has the skills, we're more than happy to scout them out.

Admittedly though, I've slacked off on suggestions, though that's been in part thanks to these changes being upcoming for quite some time and knowing that a new reviewer might not be accepted given that. (Otherwise I would have suggested both nsg and Mathdino among others.)

Why don’t we see how it goes rather than tearing it down before it starts?

With respect, Nexus, and this is a problem with mafiascum as a whole that applies to every aspect of it: We

say

this ("give it a chance"), and then later down the road when it's shown that the people who were raising concerns raised valid points (we give it a chance and it doesn't work)...nothing is done to change the system for various reasons and then nothing gets done.

This is a source of great discontent; I know for a fact this sentiment exists in a great number of active users because they've literally told me exactly this much before. They are upset, upset at essentially not being listened to and yes this is one of the reasons why there is an INCREDIBLE sentiment that there is a fundamental divide between mafiascum administration (the skittles team) and mafiascum users; they don't feel like their feedback is actually being welcomed. And I can understand why they feel that way.

A good way to address flaws in the system is to when we can see the flaws in the system immediately provide feedback (preferably in the form of constructive criticism with healthy dosages of positive reinforcement of the good while acknowledging the needs-work/not-so-good). There's a reason we have the saying "strike while the iron is hot" and slothfulness is considered a sin.

Just pushing the points aside on "let's give it a chance" has, time and time again, on site been shown to produce an environment where...

...It then never gets revisited in spite of everyone knowing on some level it needs to be. Why it doesn't get revisited, I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely, but the fact is it's undeniable that by and large it DOESN'T get revisited.

As an example of what I feel is good to do instead, there was a new Newbie setup proposed. "Why don't we see how it goes" would have led to hundreds of games using that setup in spite of people raising valid concerns about the setup in question. Instead, the newbie setup design team listened to the feedback and made a newer setup which by and large people

are

happy with. And NOW,

with that

, we're in the "why don't we see how it goes" phase. (I mean, you can't please everyone, but the newer newbie setup pleases more people than the originally proposed one would have.)

I do agree with the sentiment; we can't dismiss ideas without trying them first. But we shouldn't refuse to make changes off of valid feedback because we're set on trying out a new system. Quite the opposite. When we are trying out a new system is

precisely

the time to receive and implement that feedback.

Would you consider the idea of taking "students" - people who want to become a normal reviewer or just get the experience of how to mod a balanced game without having to mod many game - who'd "job shadow" normal reviewers?

Maybe after a certain period of time has passed, the "students" could graduate into the position of a normal reviewer? Or maybe "graduate" into a "back up" reviewer and then graduate to "normal reviewer"?

This is actually something the new system is fairly conductive for and something to this nature would be a good way to get new blood in.

Were we to implement it, I imagine though that it'd be idea for the primary reviewer if they just instantly /pass the setup to have a rundown of the entire setup/game and explain it in detail and why they are passing it, so that the students can actually get a sense of the reasoning and logic behind the process. (Just an instant naked /pass doesn't tell the student anything other than "well guess the reviewer thought this setup was balanced, wonder why though?".)

[mastina]

I agree that reviews stall frequently due to non-presence of reviewers, in all departments. I think we should make it an unspoken rule that reviewers should constantly check threads for reviews they are a part of (once a day minimum)

Quite a few do especially since a relatively recent change was Nexus making it mandatory and sending out review-prods to people inactive for 48 hours.

[mastina]

I think standardised rulesets should be mandatory for new mods - if someone has successfully modded before and their ruleset has not been a problem, then let them keep it.

This would be something I'd endorse as well.

[mastina]

If you select a premade setup, the only input you get to choose is among the available premade game's sizes, or something to that effect.
E.g. if there's a premade 9p, 10p, 11p, 12p, 13p, and 13p game sizes, you get to choose which of those sizes.
You may or may not, if selecting the 13p, get to select which specific 13p; I'm not sure about that.

[mastina]

Ability-Immune has some precedence, in the form of splitting the Ninja role in half: a semi-common role (especially in Antihero-modded games as he seems to be rather fond of the role) is a Watcher-Immune Goon, or rarely, a Tracker-Immune Goon. So that sort of role-specific immunity may have a place in Normals, as long as it is immunity to

a specific role

, rather than a role type altogether. (Kill-immune holds a different connotation from vig-immune, for instance; investigation-immune holds a different connotation from cop-immune; etc.)

[mastina]

Umlaut's correct; they aren't synonymous, as different words convey different meanings.

[mastina]

vengeful should investigate positive to gunsmith, yes? if so that should be on the gunsmith wiki page. question is raised as well for detective, alien (ray gun pew pew), traffic analyst (idk?), babysitter (i..... dont suppose they are shooting the baby but they can kill), informed (what if the word "gun" is in the information? :0 :O :0 )

also raises the question as to whether vengeful and babysitter give positive results to psychologist.

Vengeful and detective both should have guns definitely; babysitter, if I understand the role, should as well; alien would only have one if jailkeepers did but we decided a long time ago that jailkeepers don't, so aliens don't; informed definitely doesn't; no clue on traffic analyst.

[mastina]

i think alien is independent from jailkeeper, considering vanilla cop has a gun but neapolitan doesnt

Uh, but Neapolitans should have guns?

If they don't, that feels like an oversight, because they are still meant to be the same type of role classification as a Vanilla Cop and a Rolecop (both of which have guns).

[mastina]

is the nrg gonna crank out some answers

We're conferring right now on the issue btw, so expect an official answer fairly soonish. (Don't know how much time implosion wants to give for feedback/opinions/discussion/etc.)

[mastina]

Multitasking roleblocker doctor. This role would be able to roleblock someone and protect someone, and could do both on the same night, either with the same or with different targets.

By the way, this has a role name already: Split Jailkeeper.

Which is exactly what the name implies; it splits the halves of the jailkeeper role and allows the user to both block and protect, but not requiring them to be the same target.

[mastina]

This thread mentions standardized rulesets and role PMs. The wiki page for normal games does not. I have no idea where to find them.

Are they standardized or not?

If I in for a normal game now, is all I need the set-up (since the other stuff is now standardized), or do I still need to include the OP, ruleset, role and result PMs?

My understanding is, we're aiming to get to that point, but because of the nature of the task being quite significant to hash out, needing to synchronize between two separate groups, and relatively speaking being fairly busy backstage, that we haven't gotten to the point where we can implement it.

So yes, you need to include OP, ruleset, roles, and result PMs...

for now

, but in the future that will change.

In other words, the

end goal

is that those won't be necessary, but we're not to the point where they're

currently

unnecessary.

[mastina]

At this point it looks like "jailkeeper" has been transition from a role to a concept

Not exactly wrong; it is a nifty reference point for discussing revisions to Normal Game Guidelines. It is the prototypical combination role.

[mastina]

Masonizer is almost impossible to balance around.

Ungated masonizer, sure, but a masonizer can easily be gated with a reasonable modifier--most likely, one-shot.

A one-shot masonizer is a stronger one-shot cop, confirming both the target and user as town rather than just the target.

That's significantly easier to balance around, yes?

[mastina]

It's still pretty difficult, but less so. There's still an absolutely huge swing if the Masonizer dies (or is forced to claim, allowing scum to shoot them overnight) before they can use their shot.

Same is true for a one-shot cop.

[mastina]

Has there been discussion of including the Personal modifier in the normal whitelist?

Uh, quite possibly?

[mastina]

I'm gonna go on a old tirade

I still think the Motion Detector should be broken down into its two halves as normal roles as well.

To be clear what I mean:

Motion Detector - Learns if any actions were performed by or on a player, but not what they were, or who else was involved.
Role1 - Learns if any actions were performed on a player, but not what they were, or who else was involved.
Role2 - Learns if any actions were performed by a player, but not what they were.

CFJ gave his opinion a while back and basically said they'd go unused and cited Follower's low usage as an example, but I personally hate Followers because categorizing abilities is fucking nonsense and awkward as fuck anyway. I think these would fill very specific niches where town is just slightly slightly underpowered. Role1 may be less useful, but I could absolutely use Role2 in multiple setups.

I mean, I advocated for Motion Detector = weaker variant of Watcher/Voyeur who only sees if someone has been visited or not, but not what actions were taken or who took them,
And for Reporter = weaker variant of Tracker/Follower who only sees if someone has acted or not, but not what actions they took or who they took them on.

I was overruled on that and to this day I remain bitter about it.

If I had my way nowadays though, it'd be:
Tracker: as-is, sees who the target player visits
Follower: as-is, sees what actions the target player takes
Reporter: sees if the target takes actions, but not what type
Watcher: as-is, sees any players targeting the target player
Voyeur: as-is, sees any actions targeting the target player
Motion Detector: sees if the target has any actions taken on them, but not what type
Some new role name (e.g. Action Detector): the current Motion Detector--sees if the target has any actions taken on them and/or if the target took any actions, but cannot differentiate between the two.

[mastina]

Speaking of BG I recall once being told BG is a redirection of a kill onto the user, does that mean it shouldn’t be normal? FYI this is a joke but if we want to get serious about it I don’t mind.

Bodyguard took a long time to figure out a Normal standard of; that version you're talking about was one of the actually used variants on the role and role resolution (it existed, and commonly so!), but when we blacklisted redirection roles from Normals, we went through the process of normalizing Bodyguards

not

working that way.

[mastina]

Oh yuck thanks for the correction. I'll probably stay out of large normals then

You won't run into unannounced multiball with the likely exception of serial killers (which aren't really multiball).

[mastina]

I would like to put forth the role modifier if Fragile - dies if targeted by an ability or if it uses an ability.

That sounds so unfun to play...

That version sounds terrible, yes.
The version of Fragile which *I* am familiar with, where they die if targeted during the night (but not if they act) feels like it could maybe have room for existence tho. It would exist as a similar modifier to ascetic/macho in that the holder of the modifier as

I

am familiar with it, would want to avoid being targeted by actions.

For that matter, the inverse of "using this role will kill you" has existing precedence as well--not in Normals, mind you, but onsite in the form of roles like suicide bomber.

Basically, separating those two into two halves feels like it has design potential; together, not so much.

[mastina]

Just realized that PT cop doesn't show as having a gun to gunsmith
That's kinda lol tbh

It should???
A PT Cop is in the same family of investigative role as all the roles Gunsmith gets a guilty on and even has 'cop' in its title, so...it should have a gun?

[mastina]

It should probably be a mod call imo not a site call.

[mastina]

Roles I'd personally want to see discussed for Normality:

Reporter

(checks if someone acted or not),

Inspector

(checks if someone was targeted or not),

Superstar

(allows your role (as a Role Cop sees it) to be revealed),

Strongman as a modifier

(makes an action unblockable),

Modifier Cop

(learns what modifiers apply to someone),

[modifier]-Finder

([role]-Finder with a modifier e.g. 1-shot-Finder or Loyal-Finder),

Security Guard

(lets someone know who targeted them besides you - basically a reverse Watcher),

Visionary

(lets someone know what targeted them besides you - basically a reverse Voyeur).

Alternate role names I want to see discussed:

Mailman >

Messenger

Strongman >

Juggernaut

Probably won't be normal but I can wish:

Moonlight Dancer

(can reveal that they are a Moonlight Dancer once every phase)

For the record, I can get behind all of these. Messenger as an alt name for Mailman (allow them both as synonymous, similar to how Nurse and Backup Doctor and Deputy and Backup Cop are synonymous for the same role), no issue with adding an alt name for Strongman (tho this one I don't know), extra Action Investigation roles (I've been wanting to see the separation of the current motion detector into two separate roles for ages now), etc.

All of these I can see as being Normal.
(I removed the redirections you wanted as redirection is inherently not Normal.)

[mastina]

I doubt that redirection of any kind will ever be normal.

Bodyguard is a redirection role.

Actually, it's not.

Bodyguard isn't "redirects the scum kill onto themselves", so much as it is, "Protects from a kill and if the player protected was targeted for a kill, dies".

That might seem like the same thing, but it's not. The scum kill is still targeting the original player. A tracker tracking the scum doesn't see the scum target the bodyguard (that'd be how a redirect would work), the tracker sees the scum target their nightkill target. A watcher watching the bodyguard doesn't see the scum killing the bodyguard when the bg protects successfully (which is how a redirect would work); a watcher watching the bodyguard's target will see both the bodyguard and the scum who targeted the bg's target with a nightkill.

Bodyguards basically act as a form of pseudo-Weak/Frail (I don't think there's an actual modifier for "if scum target your target, you die"; the only role with that sort of mechanic is a Hider) Doctor, with a touch of Hider mixed in, in that they die if they successfully protect their target, but it's exactly that, a protection action that kills them, rather than a redirection action.

[mastina]

Echoing this from The "I need this role to be defined somewhere" thread:

Defining some "Combined Goon X" combos here - which will also allow them to be on Serial Killers:

Enforcer - A role that roleblocks as it performs a factional kill (Combined Goon Roleblocker)
Squelcher - A role that rolestops as it performs a factional kill (Combined Goon Rolestopper)
Vaporizer - A role that uses alien ability as it performs a factional kill (Combined Goon Alien)
Wraith - A role that commutes as it performs a factional kill (Combined Goon Commuter)

I'd like to point out that any role which rolestops/aliens the target would, strictly speaking, prevent the kill from going through--so a Vaporizer/Squelcher could not actually kill their target when using the factional nightkill.

[mastina]

can we alias

Alien

to

Abductor

to help differentiate the faction and the role?

I'm opposed to this because the role name predates the faction name. Alien was a role before the Alien faction existed.

Also Alien as a faction is (mostly*) not Normal.

*(It

could

be done I believe because I believe it isn't a strict rule that multiball factions must be called 'mafia' and 'werewolves', but I could be mistaken. But, even if I'm not and it can technically be done through flavor, I would not recommend it.)

[mastina]

(For the record I stand by my comments in the review thread: even if the wording

says

a Backup can inherit their role upon a Backup's death, that's NOT Normal to me. The wiki can/should be updated to fit with the standard; the standard should not be changed to fit with the wiki.)

[mastina]

A Nurse is considered to have the base role of Doctor I think (which would mean a Doctor-Finder gets a positive result (is a Doctor) on a Nurse and a Gunsmith gets a negative result (has no gun) on a Mafia Nurse)

I don't see a reason why Backups backing up backups isn't Normal other than "that interaction is counter-intuitive." and "The NRG didn't think about that interaction.", and the easiest fix for that would make the modifier refer to itself.

Imo, backups should get a note saying "Backups can activate other Backups of the same base role." (or can't, if the role is changed to specifically exclude Backups).

There's nothing that would make me outright say "dual Backups are not Normal", let alone "dual Backups are outside of potential Normal design space" (the latter would mean that Provoked, a proposal to simplify the dual Backup, isn't Normal). However, I'm not averse to complexity in Normals and dual Backups are a form of deceptive complexity. (if that interaction is

confusing

, that isn't Normal to me as it violates the principle of "Roles should be able to be understood without difficulty.")

I don't have coherent thoughts here except,
"I VERY strongly and vehemently disagree with all of this".

[mastina]

wait, you actually think a backup cop isn't a cop?

Until they inherit the role: no, I do not think of a backup cop as a cop.

I would honestly take "backup cops return gunless to a gunsmith and negative to a cop-finder" over "backup cops can become a cop from the death of a backup cop".

Dead serious on that.

[mastina]

wait, you actually think a backup cop isn't a cop?

Until they inherit the role: no, I do not think of a backup cop as a cop.

I would honestly take "backup cops return gunless to a gunsmith and negative to a cop-finder" over "backup cops can become a cop from the death of a backup cop".

Dead serious on that.

This, to me, goes back to the spirit of what a backup is.

A backup is meant to be a replacement to the original role that died.

Now, the original role which dies might have different modifiers from the backup. A 1x backup cop, compared to say, a nonconsecutive cop. This might be more complicated than the original intention of a deputy, but to me still falls within the spirit of what a backup should be: a role that is nothing, until the original version dies.

There is a

reason

that the article for Named Townies mentions Deputies/Nurses without their base role being present: because a backup of a role, like a backup cop, was intended originally to not be that role. A Named Townie is precisely that: a power role that has no actual power and so is effectively a vanilla townie in all but name. A backup without the original role being present, was originally intended to function in this way.

While I realize that we later had deputies show up as guilties to gunsmiths, this was mostly because the flavor for what roles showed up to a gunsmith was arbitrary--there was a time when bodyguards showed up as having a gun, in spite of bodyguards being unable to kill. Some gunsmiths even got guilties on jailkeepers, because some jailkeepers have the flavor of being cops of a prison.

When we normalized gunsmith interactions, the deputy made the cut as 'has a gun' for flavor reasons, and when we standardized that deputy and backup cop are synonymous rather than two different roles (this was, by the way, not universal back in the day), the rules were similarly updated.

So I am dead serious about it. I'd rather lose the gunsmith-guilty (which was always arbitrary) than allow backup-inherited-from-a-backup (which goes against the spirit of the role).

Backups might be listed as a modifier because of an evolution of standardization of roles, but forcing contrived/convoluted "backup cop can become a cop upon the death of a backup cop" strays away from what the spirit of a Backup Role

is

. A Backup Role without the original role present is a Named Townie. This includes if there are multiple of the same backup role in a game. A Backup Role is still not the original role even with the original role present, until the death of the original role.

(I realize JOATs are more complicated tho. JOATs have always been somewhat...complex, in terms of interactions.)

[mastina]

Hey, this got unstickied but I'm pretty sure that it needs to be a sticky.

[mastina]

Redacting JoAT abilities doesn't seem Normal to me but I think it has precedent (I still don't think it should be Normal).

My feelings.

Revealing JOAT abilities is, imo, how the role

should

function.

Players should not be denied that information.

If a rolecop rolecops a JOAT they should see what the JOAT flips as, but the JOAT in my opinion shouldn't flip as just JOAT; they should flip as JOAT (abilities). The latter is what I always use in games I design/mod, so is my preference.

[mastina]

(Sidenote, I still find it weird how roleblocks do have the inconsistency between what they do to an x-shot role, and what they do to a role that'd be seen by any action-investigating role.

If a roleblocker prevents the action from being taken, logically, an x-shot role should retain their shot, but not be seen visiting by action-investigation roles. Think of this like a vigilante with a single bullet, if they're knocked out in their house before they can visit, logically they should still have that bullet since they were unconscious and thus, never pulled the trigger.

If a roleblocker causes the action taken to fail, then logically, the x-shot role should lose their shot, because they attempted the action unsuccessfully. They should thus also show up to an action-investigation role.
Back to the vigilante, this would be a situation where the vig visits the target and takes the shot, but something like a misfire causes it to fail. Defective bullet, missed the target due to being distracted, etc.

But by Normal standards, we have half of one and half of the other, in spite of the logical inconsistency of having a shot disappear in spite of no visit.


I understand the reason WHY we have it that way; we don't want X-shot roles to know that they were explicitly roleblocked by telling them that they have their shot still; we don't want to leave an X-shot role not knowing how many shots they have left; we don't want to have the role visit but have their action fail.
These three things are evolved, but now expected, standards. It was considered too much information to let x-shot roles know that they had been blocked; it was considered too little/bastard to leave the X-shot roles not knowing how many shots they have. So the only option was making the shots be consumed regardless.
And at some point, roles visiting in spite of being blocked got deemed not normal.

But by semantics, it still makes no sense, dammit.
It's imo still the best standard to use, but logically by wording it's inconsistent as fuck.)

[mastina]

Reporter and Inspector weren't my ideas, though Inspector might be an original name for the binary Watcher. Reporter however is an old name for what used to be a historical role, my proposal was for it to be the name of the binary Tracker. mastina is actually the first person to mention the Reporter in this thread specifically.

Yes because the name Reporter was in use for the role that we just whitelisted back in the time when the NRG was still new; the role is that old. It only didn't get whitelisted because there were other roles that used the name Reporter (including what we now consider Criers and Messengers among others), in spite of Reporter by far being most commonly "sees if visiting, but not to who or what".

I've been advocating for Reporter to be whitelisted as the role was most commonly known to be for basically the entire time I've been in the NRG and it's about damn time it got through. (Still kinda bitter that motion detector isn't "sees visits, but not who or what" because that's what the role originally was before I got overruled in the NRG to create the role that did both what a MD and Reporter do under the name MD. Butyeah, historically, Motion Detector originally was the weakest version of watcher/voyeur, and reporter was the weakest version of tracker/follower. The archaic not-as-widely-used usage of other roles with the name of reporter kept it from being whitelisted, and motion detector was bastardized to be a combination of both roles instead.)

[mastina]

(p.s. Announcing's wiki page implies you can modify factional kills with Announcing - modified factional kills are something that needs to be looked at closely for Normality imo -

especially

if they deny use of an unmodified factional kill)

That's because there was a time when they could be.

To explain, this is a syntax thing.

There's a syntax difference between [Modifier] Mafia [Role],
And Mafia [Modifier] Role.

In the case of modifiers like Announcing/Simple, Announcing/Simple Mafia [Role] would, as a formatting thing, mean that the mafia performing their factional kill is subject to the modifier. There have been Normal Games run where this was the case. It is...inadvisable, to say the least, to have this formatting as it is incredibly unfun for the mafia, bad for balance, basically just sucks. But it

was

a valid wording, and so, games were run with it. (I would never pass a game with it now regardless of legality tho, because the alternative is the only viable form imo.)

In contrast, Mafia Announcing/Simple [Role] would, as the formatting suggests, apply the modifier to just the role, not the mafia's factional power. This is what should always be done because fuck having the mafia's kill be subject to a modifier meant for a role, that is a mistake that should never have been allowed to happen (and any part I played in allowing it, I am ashamed of).

[mastina]

The lack of a specific role is a feature, not a flaw.

If a follower sees a mafia kill, then it's a killing action; if a follower sees a vig kill, then it's a killing action.

If followers saw the specific action, then following mafia would be 'used a mafia kill', versus 'used a vig ability'. Which would elevate the role in power to effectively be a cop.

It gives more room for fakeclaims that can plausibly be used. If a follower follows a mafia role, they get the general type but not specific role, allowing for the mafia to theoretically get counterplay by claiming any role in that type. There's a huge difference between a mafia claiming a roleblock (actual role) and a mafia claiming a different killstop action for instance (say, Alien). The mafia should have that freedom.

[mastina]

(Granted I admit this is mostly a theory thing, since pragmatically speaking, if a mafiate is tracked to the kill by an action investigation role beit tracker or follower, chances are the mafiate can't fakeclaim their way out of being eliminated since most town players will see the guilty as a guilty. But the mafia should still be given the

theoretical

ability to counterplay the role, even if in practice they're never allowed to. The mafia claiming vig when there's no second kill might be eliminated 98% of the time, but we should still allow the 2% to exist where they smoothtalk their way out of it and convince the town.)

[mastina]

yeah, my motivation for suggesting follower-type roles to see specific actions is to make follower-type roles simpler and more intuitive

the power boost that change would make would be massive however

For the record I think they are fine as-is.

[mastina]

I'm not sure the reasoning for Rolestopper being considered to be a blocking instead of a protective ability on the NAR ladder - A rolestopper protects a player from all abilities. There might be action resolution reasons for it but Rolestopper is a protective role to me.

That'd go back to how rolestoppers used to be defined as roleblocking everyone who targeted their target, basically. Rolestoppers cause every action targeting the player they select to fail; roleblockers cause every action the targeted player takes to fail.

At least that was the justification at the time. (We had a whole debacle about whether players would be seen visiting a rolestopped target a couple years back, but rolestopper being a roleblock-type role predates us having made that interaction more clear. Prior to a couple years ago, rolestoppers could genuinely cause a player visiting their target to not be seen visiting by a tracker/follower. A la, roleblockers.)

[mastina]

If your manipulative role causes actions

performed

by a player to fail, it is a Blocking role.

Maybe I didn't word it right; I meant that a rolestopper traditionally

did

this.

It caused actions performed by a player targeting the rolestopper's target to fail.

This is different from a doctor in that a doctor causes one specific type of action to not succeed--a killing player still attempts the kill, but is foiled by the doctor.
A killing player attempting the kill on a rolestopper used to work more like as if they were roleblocked.

Not sure how to convey it better.

Granted, again, was an old standard that has since been shifted, so you're not gonna see me defend the current way, but is background for how it ended up the current way.