User blog comment:ProfessorArceus/A Raven's Guide to Reviewing Roles/@comment-26234016-20171121211612/@comment-32881402-20171122190416

Impact on the game is clearly your problem here. If a role has more impact on the game, the result will be that they're more fun to play as. All of that is subjective and, frankly, worthless, as impact on the game is involved in balance. If a Townie has little impact on the game, it is unbalanced because it does not do much for Town. If an NK ha little impact on the game, it is unbalanced because it will not be able to win. Those roles you mentioned are fun to Mark, but not to Alice. Unless this is a common complaint, it does not matter. Everything outside of theory must happen on a large scale.

The first time I played ToS, I was the old disguiser. It was horribly complicated and I hated it. I has no idea what I was doing and was probably reported for selecting players who weren't getting killed. So, I had a horrible first impression on the role and hated it. Though you have a completely different opinion.

Unoriginality comes in AFTER balance. Once a role is balanced, we take a look at originality. Is this at all different from the Serial Killer? What does this bring to the game? Rehashes can be good if they are balanced. Not many people find the Consigliere boring, but it's a rehash of the Investigator. BMG isn't going to implement the 'Assasin' who is the Serial Killer, but an NC.

If you look at originality before balance, there are consequences. If the role is unique but unbalanced, chances are it won't be fun. If a role is balanced but unique, the role will be more fun to play as. When we review, we try to take the merit from the role and immortalise it in a role idea or as a suggestion.



Thanks, though, I will address this topic in this thread. I've been rather busy lately and haven't had time to complete it.