User blog:Octometaknight/Another one of these 'role review guides' the kids have been talking about...

I'm sure you know by now that people like to review roles. Some people like to make guides on reviewing roles. So why do so many people have so many different guides to reviewing roles?

Easy; Reviewing roles is a lot like philosophy. There is no definitive, 'correct' answer. Everyone has their theories, and are entitled to them. We all struggle to find and create the perfect guide, the one that most effectively shows a role's viability in a civil and direct manner. But it's not that simple. We're all different, we have different ways of viewing issues.

So I guess I should show my view on this topic.

You'll find that my view on this topic is a lot like other people's. To understand how to critique a role, we first need to determine what makes a role good. Let's break down what I think makes a good role:

Purpose: This is the most important one because it stems into most of the other criteria. The role you make needs to serve a purpose of some kind; to have a stable, balanced, and fun effect on the game. Without a good purpose, a role is bad; no matter how much the role follows these next attributes.

(The Vampire Hunter's purpose is a shaky issue in that it only serves the purpose of countering a different role, but the power of the Vampire mostly justifies its existence. This is also why the Firefighter idea just really sucks.)

Uniqueness: A role isn't very fun if it's like another role, especially if it overshadows the purpose of another role. Being unique doesn't necessarily mean it can't have an ability or have similar attributes like another role, its purpose in a role is simply to not make another role obsolete or pointless. This is why we have things like Escort vs Consort but not Doctor vs SuperDoctor.

(I personally despise the Crusader because it overlaps a lot with the Bodyguard, and the relationship between the Jailor and the Vigilante because the Jailor's only downside difference is that it is a unique role.)

Relevance: A role's abilities and special attributes need to have at least some relevance to a role's goal; it needs to have some effect on the game in order for it to reach its goal. For example, a Neutral Benign role with the ability to heal someone and whose goal is to survive to the end of the game is bad simply because the ability to heal another does not help its chances to win by itself and therefore doesn't even need to use it. In contrast, the Survivor is able to protect itself from attacks by granting itself Basic defense; the ability is relevant because it has a direct effect that helps the Survivor... well, survive.

Power: Similar to Relevance, the power of a role also needs to be balanced to prevent it from winning too easily or not be able to at all. A Town role with the ability to instantly find all of the evil roles with no constraint is bad (not only because it destroys Uniqueness and Purpose but also) because it is too powerful with no drawbacks. However, with proper drawbacks, a powerful role can be made balanced. An excellent example is the Plaguebearer/Pestilence; the Pestilence is incredibly powerful and can easily destroy the entire town, but is cut with the drawback of needing to infect all other players before this power can be unleashed. Thus, it is a generally balanced role. This also applies, in reverse, to underpowered roles.

Consistency: No direct references to random number generation/chance when it comes to the game itself. Put simply, a role needs to have a consistent effect to be good; it can't have its ability change randomly every day, for example, because it messes with the game state. Things that are pre-determined before the game begins, such as an Executioner's target being randomized, are okay as long as they do not actively affect the target in question due to this random decision.

(The Coven expansion's Psychic is guilty of using random number generation during the game as part of its role.)

Now that role attributes are out of the way, let's look at how to *critique* a role.

To judge Purpose, imagine you were in the game playing as that role. Find a common situation where the role could make an impact on the game that is unlike another role's impact. If you can satisfy this criteria, the purpose of the role can be considered good.

To determine Uniqueness, think of a role in its most abstract possible form; for example, an Amnesiac serves the role purpose as a role that is able to choose its own alignment. A Vigilante serves the purpose as a town role that is able to kill a target at night directly. A Werewolf's purpose is to be a Neutral Killing role that can kill multiple people at night with the drawback of only being able to kill every other night. If the purpose of a role you're critiquing does not match the purpose of another role that already exists, the uniqueness of that role could be considered good.

To determine Relevance, go back to imagining you were playing as that role. Find a situation where - in pursuit of your goal - you would need to use your ability or take advantage of your special attributes. If you can find a common situation for the roles' abilities that pulls you further into the reach of victory, the relevance of the role's abilities and goals are synergized.

To find a balance in Power is difficult since it would require the role to actually be in the game. If a role's win rate is generally stable for its goal (usually below 50% and above 10% or so, or boosts their respective faction into these numbers), the role's power could be considered good.

Consistency is easy to measure; check for references on RNG or chance. If they are not present, the Consistency of the role is good.

If a role passes all of these tests, the role could be considered a good and well balanced role.

To write a serious review, make the role pass these tests. If a role is good, list why. If a role is bad, list the criteria in which it does not do well.

(I may often subtly reference a role similarity or a missed criterion as a joke in some of my reviews if I don't feel like writing a full one. Sorry about that.)

Generally, proper etiquette (manners) is in good spirit and can help the reciever of the review take it seriously and learn off of it, but it is not entirely necessary when writing a review. The only line between constructive and destructive criticism is that constructive tells why something can be improved (or not improved) while destructive implies something can be improved (or not improved) but does not provide any information on how (or why) to improve (or not improve) it.

("Your role sucks and it's really bad" is destructive; "Your role is too much like a Vigilante, give consider adding some drawbacks like not being able to shoot every other night" is constructive. Yes, even "Your role is too much like a Vigilante" is constructive because it provides a small tidbit on the road to improvement, to make it less like a Vigilante. "Your role is really good, I like it a lot" is destructive because it does not explain why the role does not need to be changed.)

My personal view is that all criticism is just that; criticism, even when it does not provide anything. When writing a review, it is good to consider how a person might recieve it and can take from it. Try your best to include as much useful information as possible, and make it as simple as possible to avoid confusion.

(I personally am an easily distracted person and will ignore unnecessarily long or clunky reviews even when the review provides useful information. No one likes reading half a book on how to improve their role.)

When recieving a review, take in the information provided that can help you improve your concept; everything else does not need to be considered. Do not reply angrily to a bad review, for you do not have control over what other people write. Take what is helpful; leave what is not. Reply to ask questions about a review, or to inform that you have changed something.

This concludes my babbling. If you have any questions or comments, write them below and I will respond to the best of my ability. Thank you for your time and I hope you will have recieved something useful from this.