Gameroom discussion: Overpowered roles and game balance

[Andres]

I agree with your sentiments Andres; that said I wasn't suggesting imposing rules on people.

I know. But discussions like these could go into that direction. My post was a pre-emptive strike

I was saying if the host wanted to attract a wider range of players, they could say before the game that there's no Joker role in the game. Or, they could leave it a mystery. But let's say my particular taste is, I won't play in a game with Joker roles. Without that assurance I might not sign up, because I'm an overly cautious person.

There was a Joker role in "The Incredible Story of King Wahaha"; it was still a fun game, imo.

Anyway, I'm on your side with defending a game host's integrity. This discussion largely arises from the highly disapproving reaction the Shyster role got from the recent Capo IV game, wherein people really really wanted me dead and they were upset that they couldn't make it happen. Although it should be noted that if the whole town showed up to vote on that round where the shyster was blocked, or one of the active voting townies voted against me instead of with me, I would be dead, and therefore blaming it all on the Shyster seems... odd.

The way I understood is that town lost because too many people couldn't resist the Dark Side. Why was the Shyster not killed or lynched? Surely, if enough people would play town, they would be able to penetrate through defenses. And weren't you elected Director time after time, meaning you didn't need protection at night so that all protection could be used on the Shyster. Or was the Shyster elected Director? Anyway, the unbeatable team consisted of Pizza, the Shyster and some henchmen, right? If everybody would have turned against the all too powerful getting Pizza and his Shyster, you wouldn't have won. Jeez, in a game with 100+ players, it should be perfectly possible to take out two players, no matter how powerful their roles are. All that was needed was combining forces against you.