by open setups you mean the exact opposite, closed role setups

this was already brought up to lucid and he doesnt seem on track to care

oh actually admirer isnt coded that way and it can turn up to have admirers and no killers. thats another case id agree with.


anyways if its a separate option then ig its not bad but its not really a necessary idea imo things are pretty good as they are

Again to be clear, I'm not saying this should apply for all games or be coded into the roles themselves (like admirer). These are options when creating a setup that allow the host to balance things out if they want to. Nobody has to use them.

the only one i could to some degree agree to do this with is thulu/cult but not even that tbh.

disagreed with all the others.

just make a setup and remove tree or celeb or other variants of cop and add mortician and snoop and good luck

taurarius says

can we really call it sandbox if we don't have the chance of crier, celeb, and tree all arguing over who gets the claims?

Nobody has to use these ideas. They just give the host more power in deciding which roles should or should not coexist.

can we really call it sandbox if we don't have the chance of crier, celeb, and tree all arguing over who gets the claims?

The above is the important part, to balance out roles like cult, celeb etc.

This might be harder to implement, but one sub-idea is to allow limits on roles, so that [less than/more than/exactly] x number of y faction should be z role(s).

e.g.

* Exactly 1 town should be cop/insane cop/lazy cop.
* More than 2 town should be villager.
* Less than 3 players of any faction should be vigil/killer/clockmaker/sniper/hitman/etc.