'Best Friends'

[Kublai Khan]

If that's true, where's the harm in allowing Best Friends in the place of Masons? o_O

Dunno.

Write a compelling argument to N and the

Norwegian Rap Gang

Normal Review Group and they might change the rules.

[Titus]

You could get there by calling them 1-shot masons, meaning there mason expires after Day 1.

[BROseidon]

I don't think the communication part of it is "that much more powerful" enough than just knowing each other's alignments, unless you give masons daytalk as the norm (which is a bad idea). For a 'nerfed mason' I much prefer friendly neighbor. This just feels like a double friendly neighbor, or maybe "slightly less powerful mason" but I don't know when I'd ever say "I'd prefer to just have best friends over masons".

Yeah, masons without day talk are a lot less powerful than masons with day talk. It's a huge power differential.

[Wake1]

I believe 'Best Friends' is an acceptable replacement for Masons, and I have a few reasons for it.

• 'Best Friends' don't have any sort of communication.

• Unlike Masons, 'BFs' can only post in-thread, so if they try to hint to each other they could be killed by Scum.

Is there really any good reason to not allow Best Friends to be used in Normal games instead of Masons, besides the fact that they haven't been white-listed for Normal games? What is the reason for not allowing it? Why, please?

[Wake1]

If that's true, where's the harm in allowing Best Friends in the place of Masons? o_O

Case in point.

It does not make real sense.

As for the communication aspect of Masons, it makes Masons stronger than Best Friends. In the hands of competent and active Masons, they become even stronger. It's a variable upside.

[Bicephalous Bob]

Normal, under the current definition, means often-used.

There are tons of roles that would suit normal play better than many of the whitelisted roles, but I doubt they'll be normalized any time soon.

[Wake1]

Normal, under the current definition, means often-used.

There are tons of roles that would suit normal play better than many of the whitelisted roles, but I doubt they'll be normalized any time soon.

If they truly are better, they should be allowed, so that more mods used them.

'Best Friends' is a decent addition to Normal Games. They should be allowed, instead of waiting for people to catch up.

If they're Normalized I'll likely incorporate them into my games, and it's possible other mods will, too.

[T S O]

Reading this thread has made me interested in the idea of Odd-and-Even Night Masonic-type roles. I would give the Odd-Night Mason access to the PT n1, and give the Even-Night Mason access n2, but I would have the Even-Night Mason without access n1, and as I'd let the Even-Night Mason in n2, I'd simultaneously lock the Odd-Night Mason out. This would create a Mailman-type dynamic where each player would get the thoughts of the other on the previous Day, ideally in depth, but would have to wait a Day to get that information.

This would be rather unwieldy for the Masons, which is kinda the point of the role, but they would probably attempt to break it early on by claiming in-thread publicly. To counteract this, I would not give each Mason the playername of the other, only the information that one and only one Mason existed in the game alongside them. It's still possible for them to softclaim and break it, I guess, but they run the risk of being caught by scum if they do that, as it would be rather difficult to be subtle about this.

It's essentially nerfed Masons, I guess, but somewhat different.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I vote yes.

[PokerFace]

Masons > Best Friends > Neighbors

Confirmed > Night talk

[vonflare]

Masons > Best Friends > Innocent Child > Friendly Neighbour > Neighbours