Seamstress (Town Support)

[EgyptFalcon]

Role Name:
Seamstress

Role Alignment:
Town (Support)

Abilities:
- Choose two people each night to intertwine fates

Attributes:
- If one person receives an effect, so will the other
- Visits of one person will NOT be readjusted so that they visit both

Notifications:
- Players will not be notified if their fate was intertwined

Goal:
Lynch every criminal and evildoer

Win Conditions:
Wins with Town
Wins with Survivors
Must kill Mafia
Must kill Coven
Must kill Serial Killers
Must kill Arsonists
Must kill Werewolves
Must kill Vampires

Special Attributes:
Complete list of shared effects:
- Attacks, heals, roleblocks, frames, douses, hexes, poisons, hypnosis, witch/CL control

Investigator Results:
Sheriff - Your target is not suspicious.
Investigator - Your target could be a Escort, Consort, Transporter, or Seamstress.
Consigliere - Your target is quick to deft with a loom. They must be a Seamstress.

Additional Information:
Can be very useful to town by making one doctor heal two people at a time or one vigilante kill two people at a time but can cause some inner confusion for town as Seamstress is not as easily confirmable as Transporter.

Lore:

[goldtrotter]

This would be better as a Neutral role in my opinion, but otherwise I support the idea.

[EgyptFalcon]

This would be better as a Neutral role in my opinion, but otherwise I support the idea.

If it's Neutral it would still have to have a goal... it can't be killing because it can't kill and it can't really have the same goal as Witch because it can't discover evils as easily and immediately as Witch can. Survivor would kinda be meh. And if you were to make up some other goal I just don't see it fitting right into its current mechanics.

[goldtrotter]

This would be better as a Neutral role in my opinion, but otherwise I support the idea.

If it's Neutral it would still have to have a goal... it can't be killing because it can't kill and it can't really have the same goal as Witch because it can't discover evils as easily and immediately as Witch can. Survivor would kinda be meh. And if you were to make up some other goal I just don't see it fitting right into its current mechanics.

What could be done is making it Neutral Benign (honestly this alignment should be renamed to True Neutral), and allow it to win with everyone. Furthermore, give it the ability to be told the role of one of the people they selected. Either they would be told the role of the person selected in the first column of boxes, or they would be randomly given the role of somebody they clicked but would not know who is who. Giving them a role discovering ability would not be copying Witch because that is not Witch's core mechanic.

EDIT: And, like Witch, they can have temporary Basic Defense.

[EgyptFalcon]

This would be better as a Neutral role in my opinion, but otherwise I support the idea.

If it's Neutral it would still have to have a goal... it can't be killing because it can't kill and it can't really have the same goal as Witch because it can't discover evils as easily and immediately as Witch can. Survivor would kinda be meh. And if you were to make up some other goal I just don't see it fitting right into its current mechanics.

What could be done is making it Neutral Benign (honestly this alignment should be renamed to True Neutral), and allow it to win with everyone. Furthermore, give it the ability to be told the role of one of the people they selected. Either they would be told the role of the person selected in the first column of boxes, or they would be randomly given the role of somebody they clicked but would not know who is who. Giving them a role discovering ability would not be copying Witch because that is not Witch's core mechanic.

EDIT: And, like Witch, they can have temporary Basic Defense.

The mechanics have to lend themselves towards the goal. First, you tack on something completely unrelated to the core mechanic (learning exact roles) and then give it a survival objective that (as I said it would) doesn't fit with the original mechanics. It's about the same as making Transporter neutral -- you could do it, but you'd butcher the key idea of the role in the process.

And if you are making a Neutral role whose objective is survival and learns exact roles of people you are copying Witch to some degree whether you like it or not (and playing it would feel pretty similar).

[goldtrotter]

This would be better as a Neutral role in my opinion, but otherwise I support the idea.

If it's Neutral it would still have to have a goal... it can't be killing because it can't kill and it can't really have the same goal as Witch because it can't discover evils as easily and immediately as Witch can. Survivor would kinda be meh. And if you were to make up some other goal I just don't see it fitting right into its current mechanics.

What could be done is making it Neutral Benign (honestly this alignment should be renamed to True Neutral), and allow it to win with everyone. Furthermore, give it the ability to be told the role of one of the people they selected. Either they would be told the role of the person selected in the first column of boxes, or they would be randomly given the role of somebody they clicked but would not know who is who. Giving them a role discovering ability would not be copying Witch because that is not Witch's core mechanic.

EDIT: And, like Witch, they can have temporary Basic Defense.

The mechanics have to lend themselves towards the goal. First, you tack on something completely unrelated to the core mechanic (learning exact roles) and then give it a survival objective that (as I said it would) doesn't fit with the original mechanics. It's about the same as making Transporter neutral -- you could do it, but you'd butcher the key idea of the role in the process.

And if you are making a Neutral role whose objective is survival and learns exact roles of people you are copying Witch to some degree whether you like it or not (and playing it would feel pretty similar).

I am glad you brought up Transporter. I actually do think you should make it neutral, and let me explain. Roles like Transporter and Seamstress can have a potentially major effect without even being able to predict it. For example, Seamstress could intertwine two people's fates, and one of them could be visited by the Werewolf, meaning the Werewolf would rampage at two houses. This could potentially kill the entire town in one night, and the Seamstress would have guaranteed their loss without even knowing they would do so.

As for Transporter, the effect would not be as bad as that but they could get important roles killed such as the Mayor or Jailor, and generally screws with other town roles if they get transported. Here is another way to think of it. Imagine if Witch was made a Town role without the ability to discover roles. They would be witching blindly, and this could have major effects without them even knowing what they are doing. In real life, would you want a blind person to have abilities like the Transporter, Seamstress, or Witch?

EDIT: Another scenario you can compare this to is if the Mafia could not choose who to kill and it would be selected at random, with the possibility of them killing fellow Mafia.

The problem I have is not so much that they are acting blindly, though that is an issue, but that by doing so they can detriment their own chances of winning. So, if they are going to act blindly they should at least not be able to doom themselves to lose.

[EgyptFalcon]

It's the concept of negative utility. Since roles like Transporter, Veteran, Vigilante, and Crusader are so powerful, they must have the possibility of backfiring else they are too overpowered. In the Transporter's case it could mess with investigative results and/or make a Vigilante shoot a town. In Veteran's and Crusader's case they can kill Town, and in Vigilante's case he'll commit suicide if he shoots town. Escort and Jailor have elements of negative utility as well.

The thing is, if you're good at the game, you won't be doing anything blindly except maybe the first night. Transporters will be transporting potential targets with who they think is Mafia so that Mafia kills themselves. Or they'll be transporting a Mayor if there is no Bodyguard left. If there is poor communication with town, yes it could backfire, but that is what balances their power. Same thing for Seamstress -- they'll be intertwining people that likely have Doctors on them, coordinating with a Vigilante to kill two evils in one night, etc. Of course they could end up poisoning two people at once but that is what makes it balanced. (Also note that WW can't rampage at two houses -- Seamstress DOES NOT adjust visits, so it will only be the Powerful attack that will be transferred over rather than the rampaging visit)

Saying Seamstress is doing things blindly is like saying Vigilante is shooting blindly and thus should be Neutral. The Vigilante can't ever be 100% certain they are shooting evils, but they sure as hell aren't acting completely at random. If the Seamstress is worried they'll hurt town they don't have to do anything, just like Vigilante doesn't have to shoot every night. But the entire fun of the game lies in the fact that Town doesn't always know exactly what they're doing!

[goldtrotter]

It's the concept of negative utility. Since roles like Transporter, Veteran, Vigilante, and Crusader are so powerful, they must have the possibility of backfiring else they are too overpowered. In the Transporter's case it could mess with investigative results and/or make a Vigilante shoot a town. In Veteran's and Crusader's case they can kill Town, and in Vigilante's case he'll commit suicide if he shoots town. Escort and Jailor have elements of negative utility as well.

The thing is, if you're good at the game, you won't be doing anything blindly except maybe the first night. Transporters will be transporting potential targets with who they think is Mafia so that Mafia kills themselves. Or they'll be transporting a Mayor if there is no Bodyguard left. If there is poor communication with town, yes it could backfire, but that is what balances their power. Same thing for Seamstress -- they'll be intertwining people that likely have Doctors on them, coordinating with a Vigilante to kill two evils in one night, etc. Of course they could end up poisoning two people at once but that is what makes it balanced. (Also note that WW can't rampage at two houses -- Seamstress DOES NOT adjust visits, so it will only be the Powerful attack that will be transferred over rather than the rampaging visit)

Saying Seamstress is doing things blindly is like saying Vigilante is shooting blindly and thus should be Neutral. The Vigilante can't ever be 100% certain they are shooting evils, but they sure as hell aren't acting completely at random. If the Seamstress is worried they'll hurt town they don't have to do anything, just like Vigilante doesn't have to shoot every night. But the entire fun of the game lies in the fact that Town doesn't always know exactly what they're doing!

Yes, negative utility is an important element to make the town not overpowered. However, risk/benefit analysis is a useful instrument here. The benefits and risks should be about equal if measured on a scale. In my opinion, Transporter and Seamstress, left unchanged as Town Support, have risks outweighing the benefits too much. I like the concept of these roles however. So what could be done is, either both of them could be made neutral, or perhaps some limit could be imposed on them. Two ideas for imposing limits are Transporter/Seamstress can only use their abilities on a full moon, or they can only use their abilities a maximum of three times. For Vigilante specifically, the risks slightly outweigh the benefits because of suicide (one could make the case for them losing an extra bullet instead), but it is only slightly so it is not super important to change.

[EgyptFalcon]

It's the concept of negative utility. Since roles like Transporter, Veteran, Vigilante, and Crusader are so powerful, they must have the possibility of backfiring else they are too overpowered. In the Transporter's case it could mess with investigative results and/or make a Vigilante shoot a town. In Veteran's and Crusader's case they can kill Town, and in Vigilante's case he'll commit suicide if he shoots town. Escort and Jailor have elements of negative utility as well.

The thing is, if you're good at the game, you won't be doing anything blindly except maybe the first night. Transporters will be transporting potential targets with who they think is Mafia so that Mafia kills themselves. Or they'll be transporting a Mayor if there is no Bodyguard left. If there is poor communication with town, yes it could backfire, but that is what balances their power. Same thing for Seamstress -- they'll be intertwining people that likely have Doctors on them, coordinating with a Vigilante to kill two evils in one night, etc. Of course they could end up poisoning two people at once but that is what makes it balanced. (Also note that WW can't rampage at two houses -- Seamstress DOES NOT adjust visits, so it will only be the Powerful attack that will be transferred over rather than the rampaging visit)

Saying Seamstress is doing things blindly is like saying Vigilante is shooting blindly and thus should be Neutral. The Vigilante can't ever be 100% certain they are shooting evils, but they sure as hell aren't acting completely at random. If the Seamstress is worried they'll hurt town they don't have to do anything, just like Vigilante doesn't have to shoot every night. But the entire fun of the game lies in the fact that Town doesn't always know exactly what they're doing!

Yes, negative utility is an important element to make the town not overpowered. However, risk/benefit analysis is a useful instrument here. The benefits and risks should be about equal if measured on a scale. In my opinion, Transporter and Seamstress, left unchanged as Town Support, have risks outweighing the benefits too much. I like the concept of these roles however. So what could be done is, either both of them could be made neutral, or perhaps some limit could be imposed on them. Two ideas for imposing limits are Transporter/Seamstress can only use their abilities on a full moon, or they can only use their abilities a maximum of three times. For Vigilante specifically, the risks slightly outweigh the benefits because of suicide (one could make the case for them losing an extra bullet instead), but it is only slightly so it is not super important to change.

I'm confused. Are you saying Transporter is underpowered? What? It's an easily confirmable role that can kill Mafia and make and otherwise losing endgame into a 50/50 coin toss. It's a top tier role. And Vigilante is a VERY IMPORTANT town role to get rid of obvious Jesters and clear evils. You can completely carry as Vigilante so I don't see how the risks outweigh the benefits. If transporting was more risky than the benefits then no one would transport. But quite the contrary, transporting is extremely powerful which is why doing it every night is even better. If it were as risky as you say, then people would CHOOSE not to transport and limiting the number of uses makes no sense.

I think going back to the example of Vigilante is best. If you are shooting randomly then yes, the risk of suicide outweighs the benefit of killing potential evils. But there are MANY scenarios where you are 95% certain your target is evil and thus shooting them (and confirming yourself) greatly outweighs the small risk of suicide. The reason Vigilante only has 3 bullets is because killing for town is VERY POWERFUL, not because it is risky.

[goldtrotter]

It's the concept of negative utility. Since roles like Transporter, Veteran, Vigilante, and Crusader are so powerful, they must have the possibility of backfiring else they are too overpowered. In the Transporter's case it could mess with investigative results and/or make a Vigilante shoot a town. In Veteran's and Crusader's case they can kill Town, and in Vigilante's case he'll commit suicide if he shoots town. Escort and Jailor have elements of negative utility as well.

The thing is, if you're good at the game, you won't be doing anything blindly except maybe the first night. Transporters will be transporting potential targets with who they think is Mafia so that Mafia kills themselves. Or they'll be transporting a Mayor if there is no Bodyguard left. If there is poor communication with town, yes it could backfire, but that is what balances their power. Same thing for Seamstress -- they'll be intertwining people that likely have Doctors on them, coordinating with a Vigilante to kill two evils in one night, etc. Of course they could end up poisoning two people at once but that is what makes it balanced. (Also note that WW can't rampage at two houses -- Seamstress DOES NOT adjust visits, so it will only be the Powerful attack that will be transferred over rather than the rampaging visit)

Saying Seamstress is doing things blindly is like saying Vigilante is shooting blindly and thus should be Neutral. The Vigilante can't ever be 100% certain they are shooting evils, but they sure as hell aren't acting completely at random. If the Seamstress is worried they'll hurt town they don't have to do anything, just like Vigilante doesn't have to shoot every night. But the entire fun of the game lies in the fact that Town doesn't always know exactly what they're doing!

Yes, negative utility is an important element to make the town not overpowered. However, risk/benefit analysis is a useful instrument here. The benefits and risks should be about equal if measured on a scale. In my opinion, Transporter and Seamstress, left unchanged as Town Support, have risks outweighing the benefits too much. I like the concept of these roles however. So what could be done is, either both of them could be made neutral, or perhaps some limit could be imposed on them. Two ideas for imposing limits are Transporter/Seamstress can only use their abilities on a full moon, or they can only use their abilities a maximum of three times. For Vigilante specifically, the risks slightly outweigh the benefits because of suicide (one could make the case for them losing an extra bullet instead), but it is only slightly so it is not super important to change.

I'm confused. Are you saying Transporter is underpowered? What? It's an easily confirmable role that can kill Mafia and make and otherwise losing endgame into a 50/50 coin toss. It's a top tier role. And Vigilante is a VERY IMPORTANT town role to get rid of obvious Jesters and clear evils. You can completely carry as Vigilante so I don't see how the risks outweigh the benefits. If transporting was more risky than the benefits then no one would transport. But quite the contrary, transporting is extremely powerful which is why doing it every night is even better. If it were as risky as you say, then people would CHOOSE not to transport and limiting the number of uses makes no sense.

I think going back to the example of Vigilante is best. If you are shooting randomly then yes, the risk of suicide outweighs the benefit of killing potential evils. But there are MANY scenarios where you are 95% certain your target is evil and thus shooting them (and confirming yourself) greatly outweighs the small risk of suicide. The reason Vigilante only has 3 bullets is because killing for town is VERY POWERFUL, not because it is risky.

Transporter is neither underpowered nor overpowered. When you evaluate the raw ability, Transporter appears to be a balanced role. However, the problem is not in its power level, it is the effect of its ability. Also, the reason people transport despite the risks outweighing the benefits is because they don't want to sit around doing nothing at night. If Vigilante could kill every night like a Serial Killer players would be a lot less conservative. Also, the risks of Vigilante only slightly outweigh the benefits because of the suicide IF you random shoot, but if you make a calculated decision the benefits outweigh the risks, so we agree on this point. I do not think transporting is this way because there are many, many more factors at play. You can transport the Jailor with yourself for example, but the mafia might have intended to target you and end up killing the Jailor.

How about Seamstress though? What do you think of imposing a full moon or 3 maximum limit on it?

[EgyptFalcon]

Transporter is neither underpowered nor overpowered. When you evaluate the raw ability, Transporter appears to be a balanced role. However, the problem is not in its power level, it is the effect of its ability. Also, the reason people transport despite the risks outweighing the benefits is because they don't want to sit around doing nothing at night. If Vigilante could kill every night like a Serial Killer players would be a lot less conservative. Also, the risks of Vigilante only slightly outweigh the benefits because of the suicide IF you random shoot, but if you make a calculated decision the benefits outweigh the risks, so we agree on this point. I do not think transporting is this way because there are many, many more factors at play. You can transport the Jailor with yourself for example, but the mafia might have intended to target you and end up killing the Jailor.

How about Seamstress though? What do you think of imposing a full moon or 3 maximum limit on it?

Now you confuse me more. If the risks of intertwining fates outweigh the potential benefits in most cases, what is the point of any limits? Are you saying players are too stupid (or too bored) to know when the risks outweigh the benefits and have to be forced into limiting their risky behavior?

[Bodhrak]

However, the problem is not in its power level, it is the effect of its ability. Also, the reason people transport despite the risks outweighing the benefits is because they don't want to sit around doing nothing at night. If Vigilante could kill every night like a Serial Killer players would be a lot less conservative. Also, the risks of Vigilante only slightly outweigh the benefits because of the suicide IF you random shoot, but if you make a calculated decision the benefits outweigh the risks, so we agree on this point.

Bad players will be bad players.
You don't want to know the amount of times i have seen a vigilante willingly shoot a Jailor or BG, because they "were silent" for a day or didn't immediately claim or because the Vig simply was "bored" and random shot N2.
Or the amount of times a trans either ran into a confirmed vet or made vig shoot town or confused TI to the point of them mislynching.
But that doesn't make these roles bad inherently.

With the seemstress it would be similar.
Early on you would either not use the ability or use it on someone asking for TP/LO to somewhat confirm yourself to a potential LO and to duplicate a potential heal.
Later on (preferably when you know there are no Doctors) you can link a sus target with a confirmed town to potentially kill the sus target.
Or (when you know there is no witch) you can ask for a vig to get a doublekill on sus players.
Similar to Escort or Trans it has the potential to turn an almost lost game into a win, but in order to do so it needs a competent players that can scumread and communicate.

Btw what would the interaction with BG/immune roles be?
Let's say you link players 1 + 2. 1 get's attacked, but is protected by a BG/immune. WIll player 2 also be attacked? I'd think yes.
What if you link a BG with someone and the BG dies guarding. Will the other player also count as "attacked". I'd think no.

[EgyptFalcon]

However, the problem is not in its power level, it is the effect of its ability. Also, the reason people transport despite the risks outweighing the benefits is because they don't want to sit around doing nothing at night. If Vigilante could kill every night like a Serial Killer players would be a lot less conservative. Also, the risks of Vigilante only slightly outweigh the benefits because of the suicide IF you random shoot, but if you make a calculated decision the benefits outweigh the risks, so we agree on this point.

Bad players will be bad players.
You don't want to know the amount of times i have seen a vigilante willingly shoot a Jailor or BG, because they "were silent" for a day or didn't immediately claim or because the Vig simply was "bored" and random shot N2.
Or the amount of times a trans either ran into a confirmed vet or made vig shoot town or confused TI to the point of them mislynching.
But that doesn't make these roles bad inherently.

With the seemstress it would be similar.
Early on you would either not use the ability or use it on someone asking for TP/LO to somewhat confirm yourself to a potential LO and to duplicate a potential heal.
Later on (preferably when you know there are no Doctors) you can link a sus target with a confirmed town to potentially kill the sus target.
Or (when you know there is no witch) you can ask for a vig to get a doublekill on sus players.
Similar to Escort or Trans it has the potential to turn an almost lost game into a win, but in order to do so it needs a competent players that can scumread and communicate.

Btw what would the interaction with BG/immune roles be?
Let's say you link players 1 + 2. 1 get's attacked, but is protected by a BG/immune. WIll player 2 also be attacked? I'd think yes.
What if you link a BG with someone and the BG dies guarding. Will the other player also count as "attacked". I'd think no.

Thank you. You are more eloquent than I.

As for BG interactions, I see it as more of BG just dying rather than them receiving an attack (although Doc can heal BG which I think is a broken role interaction) so no, both shouldn't receive the "BG kys attack." Same goes for the Vigi dying of guilt. Also note that heals are shared by intertwines, but not protections. This way you can't have two traps from one trapper and you can't have BG and Crusader give protection to two people.

[Yosh1123]

If a Mayor is intertwined with someone and the Doctor heals the non-Mayor player, would the Doctor heal the revealed Mayor?

[EgyptFalcon]

If a Mayor is intertwined with someone and the Doctor heals the non-Mayor player, would the Doctor heal the revealed Mayor?

Very good question! My counter question is can a doctor heal a revealed Mayor if they are transported with the Doctor's target? If so, then it's fair for Seamstress to allow this to happen. If not, then Seamstress shouldn't be able to intertwine a revealed Mayor.

[goldtrotter]

Are you saying players are too stupid (or too bored) to know when the risks outweigh the benefits and have to be forced into limiting their risky behavior?

Kind of. The argument to be made for limiting Transporter and Seamstress is a similar argument people make for reworking the Arsonist. Sure, the highly skilled minority could have a high Arsonist win rate, but because the less skilled majority has an extremely low win rate, reworking it is justified. Same concept applies here but in reverse. Because playing the roles of Transporter or Seamstress would require much more skill, because it could potentially screw things up majorly, limits should be imposed on them due to the less skilled majority. I also think both Transporter and Seamstress should be unique roles.

[EgyptFalcon]

Are you saying players are too stupid (or too bored) to know when the risks outweigh the benefits and have to be forced into limiting their risky behavior?

Kind of. The argument to be made for limiting Transporter and Seamstress is a similar argument people make for reworking the Arsonist. Sure, the highly skilled minority could have a high Arsonist win rate, but because the less skilled majority has an extremely low win rate, reworking it is justified. Same concept applies here but in reverse. Because playing the roles of Transporter or Seamstress would require much more skill, because it could potentially screw things up majorly, limits should be imposed on them due to the less skilled majority. I also think both Transporter and Seamstress should be unique roles.

First of all, you shouldn't make a role unique unless you absolutely have to. That's because unique roles are inherently more confirmable and suck away claim space like no other. However, Transporter is already easily confirmable and the existence of simultaneous Transporters makes things confusing as hell. On the other hand, with the existence of Hypnotist, I'd say it would be remiss to make Transporter or Seamstress unique.

There are plenty of Town roles that hold a lot of power, that when played incorrectly, can spiral Town into its doom. But ultimately that's just how this game works and attempting to neuter the roles won't help anything.

[Kombinator1991]

Minor alteration. Transporter, and jailor are immune to the effect.
Transporter would be a clear mess. Who they get transed with.
Jailor chooses target at day, and not night. Having jailor execute 2 people would be kinde tough. Also jailed person is immune to pretty much everything except jailor's execution.

Otherwise it wouldn't be bad.

[EgyptFalcon]

Minor alteration. Transporter, and jailor are immune to the effect.
Transporter would be a clear mess. Who they get transed with.
Jailor chooses target at day, and not night. Having jailor execute 2 people would be kinde tough. Also jailed person is immune to pretty much everything except jailor's execution.

Otherwise it wouldn't be bad.

Yeah, the complete list of shared effects is under Special Attributes (I didn't know where else to put it).

- Attacks, heals, roleblocks, frames, douses, hexes, poisons, hypnosis, witch/CL control

And although the Transporter and Jailor themselves aren't immune to the effect, being jailed and being transported aren't intertwined. Also, intertwining someone jailed fails just as Transporter fails if they try to transport someone in jail.

[goldtrotter]

Are you saying players are too stupid (or too bored) to know when the risks outweigh the benefits and have to be forced into limiting their risky behavior?

Kind of. The argument to be made for limiting Transporter and Seamstress is a similar argument people make for reworking the Arsonist. Sure, the highly skilled minority could have a high Arsonist win rate, but because the less skilled majority has an extremely low win rate, reworking it is justified. Same concept applies here but in reverse. Because playing the roles of Transporter or Seamstress would require much more skill, because it could potentially screw things up majorly, limits should be imposed on them due to the less skilled majority. I also think both Transporter and Seamstress should be unique roles.

First of all, you shouldn't make a role unique unless you absolutely have to. That's because unique roles are inherently more confirmable and suck away claim space like no other. However, Transporter is already easily confirmable and the existence of simultaneous Transporters makes things confusing as hell. On the other hand, with the existence of Hypnotist, I'd say it would be remiss to make Transporter or Seamstress unique.

There are plenty of Town roles that hold a lot of power, that when played incorrectly, can spiral Town into its doom. But ultimately that's just how this game works and attempting to neuter the roles won't help anything.

Can you elaborate on your point about "plenty of Town roles that hold a lot of power, that when played incorrectly, can spiral Town into its doom"? Most importantly what roles?

But while I see what you are saying about unique roles, the negative potential of Transporter and Seamstress are doubled for each time a duplicate of them shows up. Multiple Transporters are even more likely to screw things up for town, and the chances are already that they will just mess up things for town since most people on the list are townies. As for Seamstress, to demonstrate the potential here I will give an admittedly unlikely scenario, however the point will be made.

So imagine all 3 Random Town are Seamstresses. The Vigilante shoots the Sheriff N2. Seamstress 1 intertwines fates between the Sheriff and the Retributionist. Seamstress 2 intertwines fates between the Retributionist and the Jailor. Seamstress 3 intertwines fates between the Jailor and the Doctor. Because of the 3 Seamstresses, the Vigilante has gotten 5 townies killed, themself from the inevitable suicide and the 4 townies they shot. Now imagine if in addition to this role not being unique, the ability is unlimited.

[EgyptFalcon]

Can you elaborate on your point about "plenty of Town roles that hold a lot of power, that when played incorrectly, can spiral Town into its doom"? Most importantly what roles?

But while I see what you are saying about unique roles, the negative potential of Transporter and Seamstress are doubled for each time a duplicate of them shows up. Multiple Transporters are even more likely to screw things up for town, and the chances are already that they will just mess up things for town since most people on the list are townies. As for Seamstress, to demonstrate the potential here I will give an admittedly unlikely scenario, however the point will be made.

So imagine all 3 Random Town are Seamstresses. The Vigilante shoots the Sheriff N2. Seamstress 1 intertwines fates between the Sheriff and the Retributionist. Seamstress 2 intertwines fates between the Retributionist and the Jailor. Seamstress 3 intertwines fates between the Jailor and the Doctor. Because of the 3 Seamstresses, the Vigilante has gotten 5 townies killed, themself from the inevitable suicide and the 4 townies they shot. Now imagine if in addition to this role not being unique, the ability is unlimited.

Or imagine a scenario where Vigilante shoots Mafioso, Seamstress intertwines Mafioso with RM1, another Seamstress intertwines RM1 with RM2. Both scenarios yours and mine are ricidulously unlikely, but in order for yours to happen the Seamstresses would have to be almost actively coordinating to throw the game.

Roles that can make town go horribly wrong -- a Jailor that jails confirmed Town and executes Town, a Mayor that reveals but votes up the wrong people, a Vigilante that shoots a confirmed Town, a Retributionist that doesn't revive, a Veteran "baiting" with TP/LO on me, and as previously mentioned, a Transporter that swaps a Vigilante's target. The only reason I'd consider putting limits on a role is so they can't actively gamethrow, but it's almost patronizing to your players to give them a powerful role and then take it away because they might misuse it. The only scenario where a Seamstress has net negative utility is if the player behind the controls is really, really bad, or actively throwing, just as it would be for Transporter, Vigilante, Jailor, Mayor, etc.

[goldtrotter]

Can you elaborate on your point about "plenty of Town roles that hold a lot of power, that when played incorrectly, can spiral Town into its doom"? Most importantly what roles?

But while I see what you are saying about unique roles, the negative potential of Transporter and Seamstress are doubled for each time a duplicate of them shows up. Multiple Transporters are even more likely to screw things up for town, and the chances are already that they will just mess up things for town since most people on the list are townies. As for Seamstress, to demonstrate the potential here I will give an admittedly unlikely scenario, however the point will be made.

So imagine all 3 Random Town are Seamstresses. The Vigilante shoots the Sheriff N2. Seamstress 1 intertwines fates between the Sheriff and the Retributionist. Seamstress 2 intertwines fates between the Retributionist and the Jailor. Seamstress 3 intertwines fates between the Jailor and the Doctor. Because of the 3 Seamstresses, the Vigilante has gotten 5 townies killed, themself from the inevitable suicide and the 4 townies they shot. Now imagine if in addition to this role not being unique, the ability is unlimited.

Or imagine a scenario where Vigilante shoots Mafioso, Seamstress intertwines Mafioso with RM1, another Seamstress intertwines RM1 with RM2. Both scenarios yours and mine are ricidulously unlikely, but in order for yours to happen the Seamstresses would have to be almost actively coordinating to throw the game.

Roles that can make town go horribly wrong -- a Jailor that jails confirmed Town and executes Town, a Mayor that reveals but votes up the wrong people, a Vigilante that shoots a confirmed Town, a Retributionist that doesn't revive, a Veteran "baiting" with TP/LO on me, and as previously mentioned, a Transporter that swaps a Vigilante's target. The only reason I'd consider putting limits on a role is so they can't actively gamethrow, but it's almost patronizing to your players to give them a powerful role and then take it away because they might misuse it. The only scenario where a Seamstress has net negative utility is if the player behind the controls is really, really bad, or actively throwing, just as it would be for Transporter, Vigilante, Jailor, Mayor, etc.

Those roles you listed already have limits though, except for Veteran and Transporter, and if introduced as is, Seamstress.

* Jailor executes confirmed Town and loses all their executions.

* Mayor votes up the wrong people. The limitation here is more social. TP will probably go on somebody else, or they may even be dispatched by town via lynching or town killing if it is bad enough.

* Vigilante shoots confirmed Town and commits suicide.

* As for Retributionist, them not reviving won't be guaranteed to doom the game but it can in scenarios where town's voting majority is being threatened. This is basically a question of should the Retributionist revive early on or wait for a more important role to die?

* The Veteran doesn't have a limit but it is difficult to come up with one. I had come up with the idea that like Vigilante, the Veteran could be prevented from alerting night 1, but on the forum thread I suggested that someone made the point that the alert night 1 strategy would probably just transfer to night 2 if this happened. Alerting N1, at first glance seems to be mathematically superior but it actually isn't. And Veteran baiting in a way that attracts evils and repels town is nearly impossible, either it will repel both sides or attract both sides. But anyway I will be going into more detail about the Veteran in another thread.

Also, a Transporter randomly transporting every night actually has a high chance of messing with Town without the Transporter even knowing it.

* They can change investigative results and it may be difficult to figure out what has happened.
* They can make it look like somebody visited someone they did not visit or make it look like someone was visited by people they were not actually visited by.
* They can frame townies and make them look suspicious to the Sheriff.

In all the above cases, it would be better for nobody to have been transported that night because there is no way those 3 things can be used to help town.

* They can change the target of a Vigilante, Bodyguard, Doctor, Crusader, Trapper, Escort, and another Transporter.

However, in order to do this to benefit town, the Transporter first has to predict who those roles will visit, which is not easy to do unless it has been explicitly stated, and they must know who they are changing the target to, which is also not easy unless the new target is a confirmed townie or confirmed evil. In any other scenario, they are flying blind.

And since people transport every night, and on most nights they probably will be flying blind, this is why I say the risk of transporting outweighs the benefits.

A similar thing applies to Seamstress. They have to be able to predict what will happen to their target, and they have to be sure that it is a good idea to apply the same effect to somebody else. This is not easy, and if you intertwine fates nightly, like Transporter you will probably be flying blind most of the nights, which is why it looks to me, intertwining fates nightly is more risky then the potential benefits.

Me proposing these extreme scenarios is just one way of demonstrating this point, which is why simply saying the scenario is unlikely is missing the point.

[goldtrotter]

That's why I say they should be made unique roles and given limits, to balance the risk out more. Or like I said earlier be made neutral so they don't jeopardize their own chances of winning.

[Bodhrak]

Roles that can make town go horribly wrong -- a Jailor that jails confirmed Town and executes Town, a Mayor that reveals but votes up the wrong people, a Vigilante that shoots a confirmed Town, a Retributionist that doesn't revive, a Veteran "baiting" with TP/LO on me, and as previously mentioned, a Transporter that swaps a Vigilante's target.

A BG being on the target Vig shoots.
An Escort roleblocking the same townie all game
Crusader. In general. Also has no limit.

Often it takes just one or two players either leaving or making a bad decision for their faction to lose.

Also all these limitations have a reason.
Vig commits suicide because a witch could use him to ravage town.
Jailor loses executions to keep players from just random-executing and having success with it.
BG dies because the 1 for 1 trade in addition to protection is positive for town.

[EgyptFalcon]

The only night Transporter flies blind is night 1. After that they should know what they are doing. You seem to think that either you are acting completely at random or with complete certainty. On the contrary, many good plays originate from educated guesses and determining expected value from probabilities. Investigative results are quickly corrected when people claim transed. Also let me repeat why transporting yourself night 1 is calculably beneficial: If evils attack you, they now have an increased chance of attacking other evils. If evils attack the person you transed with, they were going to kill a Town either way. And even if it has negative utility, simply the act of transporting can confirm yourself which is absolutely positive.

Evils won't kill a Mayor that is mislynching and falsely accusing left and right.

If we both can come up with a hypothetical scenario in either extreme I don't see what yours accomplishes.