Behind the Curtain #7: Balance
I've put an enormous amount of thought and time into the balancing of Clocktower. That isn't to say that it has been done perfectly, but huge amounts of the unseen work has been in this area, across all parts of the game.
There are currently 108 Townsfolk written, with more on the way. Ideally, Townsfolk should be balanced compared to other Townsfolk. They are not. Some of them get information that is better than others, or have powers that affect the game more than others. However, these differences are qualitative, not quantitative, so they are highly situation dependent. Where some games will have one character say "You get X" while another character says "You get 2X," Clocktower's abilities cannot be compared mathematically. Some Townsfolk are slightly better than others. There are only a few that are better than others in ALL circumstances though - the Artist, for example, gets better information than any other Townsfolk in the game, because they can duplicate most other Townsfolks' abilities for no penalty. Such characters are very rare, though. Consider the Chef vs the Clockmaker. In a one-minion game, the Clockmaker is better. In a two-minion game, the Chef is usually better. Characters are not balanced - they vary in power level - but no Townsfolk (apart from that pesky Artist) are flat-out better than other Townsfolk.
Outsiders don't really need to balance against other Outsiders, although that is a secondary consideration. Outsiders need to balance against the changed situation that an additional good player in the game creates. An Outsider that is added to the game creates an extra good vote, an extra player that the evil team needs to kill in order to win, and each Outsider comes with a hidden bonus - trustworthiness. If there is meant to be just one Outsider in a game, and that Outsider comes out publicly, the good team gets a huge bonus. So, an Outsider's ability needs to balance these three factors. Most Outsiders do this roughly, but it is hard to judge balance. Whilst a Butler has an effect on every game that they are in (they make voting for evil players harder), the Saint only has an effect on the game one time in ten. Generally speaking, I've found that Outsiders' abilities fall just short of balancing their benefit to the good team, but it's close.
Everything said about Townsfolk applies to Minions. Minions don't need to balance Townsfolk - Minions need to be balanced compared to other Minions. Some of them do wildly different things to others, so it is hugely context-dependent. One important thing to know about Minion power though is that unlike Townsfolk, Minions learning information is incredibly weak compared to Minions having power. The good team's strength is information, while the evil team's strength is the ability to make that information misleading, or to get the game to the final day quicker. A Minion that learns EVERYTHING (the Spy) isn't quite as powerful as a Minion that makes one lie seem believable (the Poisoner). Comparing Minion power is difficult.
Some Demons need to roughly be balanced compared to other Demons, but others don't. The usual template I use for Demon balance is "One kill per night, plus a little bonus." For example, the Imp kills once per night, but can swap themselves with a Minion. The Pukka kills once per night, but also poisons. The Vortox kills once per night, but also makes information false. This formula roughly works to create balanced games, and balance between Demons. Some Demons have a reverse formula: "One kill per night, plus something fantastic, plus something awful." For example, the Lil' Monsta kills once per night, plus brings in an extra minion ability & can swap who the Demon is (fantastic), but the Storyteller chooses who dies & no evil players get bluffs (awful). The Lleech kills once per night, and poisons a player & cannot die (fantastic), BUT dies when their host dies. Whilst the exact strength of these abilities can not be precisely determined, the formula roughly works.
Similarly, Demons that kill more than once per night also have a downside to balance them. The Shabaloth kills twice, but regurgitates. The Po, on the other hand, kills three times, but needs to have a night off to do so first (bringing their kill count to 1.5 per night... which conforms to the formula).
Travellers have been very tricky to balance. Since Travellers can be good or evil, the strength of their ability isn't the issue. The issue is - can a good team nullify that ability if they think the Traveller is evil? Can the evil team nullify that ability if a good Traveller is wrecking them? The rule that Travellers can be Exiled was designed specifically to balance Travellers. A good team that believes that an evil Traveller is using their ability unfairly can freely remove that power from the game. An evil team that is really suffering due to a good Traveller can get the Demon to kill them at night. It's not perfect, but it means that while Travellers can influence a game, they can't break the game. Travellers are not balanced compared to other Travellers. They are balanced with the in-built ability to remove them should they become unbalanced. Travellers ARE unbalanced... but either team can choose to rebalance them.
Fabled have been very difficult to balance. Each Fabled doesn't need to be balanced compared to other Fabled, they need to be balanced with themself. The addition of a Fabled character should not give either good or evil an advantage. Some Fabled do this by giving an advantage to both teams in different ways. Some Fabled do this by correcting a real-world imbalance. It is precisely for this reason that I recommend that Fabled ONLY ever be added to games when they are needed. Adding Fabled to games 'just for fun' will unbalance the game.
For example, adding a Sentinel to Trouble Brewing makes things more difficult for the good team. Not fair. Adding a Sentinel to a custom script with a known Outsider count will correct that game’s natural imbalance in favour of good, and bring it back to neutral.
The Revolutionary gives a HUGE bonus to the good team. Knowing for sure that two players are the same alignment is great. However, the Revolutionary is meant to be used for players with disabilities, young players, etc., who will often be less of a strategic powerhouse. So the character has a mechanical correction that helps rectify a social balance issue. The "register falsely once per game" also assists in bringing balance via the Storyteller. Fabled correct an imbalance, and should only be used to do so.
Good Character vs Evil Character Balance
This question will be a common one - Is the Empath more powerful than the Spy? Is the Virgin more powerful than the Poisoner? Generally speaking, the answer is "no". Evil characters are more powerful than good characters, because there are more good characters than evil characters, and evil can lose the game every day, whereas good can only lose on the final day. The balance between good and evil characters is completely wack. As it should be. The Washerwoman learns one character. The Spy learns all characters. But there are two evil characters and seven good characters, so it needs to balance out.
This is the big question: Is the good team balanced with the evil team? Given equal skill level, does each team have an equally likely chance of winning? This can only really be determined by statistics. Whilst it can happen that a salty player who just lost will blame the game, the stats tell a different story. Close to 600 recorded games of Trouble Brewing have given a ~1% margin for the win/loss rate between teams. Trouble Brewing is incredibly balanced. Across fewer recorded games, Bad Moon Rising had a slightly higher win rate for evil, and Sects & Violets had a slightly higher win rate for good - about 52% or 53% for the team ahead. However - since those stats were recorded, I beefed up the evil team in Sects & Violets by making the Vigormortis (or threat of the Vigormortis) much more powerful. Our Sects & Violets stats since then have balanced out a little more. BMR tends to be 50/50 for veterans, as new players don't quite understand good player strategy in this edition for at least their first few games.
During the first 3 or 4 years of running Trouble Brewing, I put an enormous amount of time and effort and attention into watching games, and seeing which team won, and why. The reason that I am always so focused (and stressed) when running games is not that the game itself is difficult to run, but instead because what I am mentally doing is watching the players and figuring out how to make the game more balanced from a design perspective. If a particular play seems extreme, I tinker with a character. If a player comments "this character is useless," I pay attention and redesign the character (if I agree with the criticism). For at least 18 months, the good vs evil win rate was about 70/30. Sometimes 80/20. I put a huge amount of work into strengthening the evil team, and rebalancing the good team, so that things were more fair. We got there, but it took literal years to do.
A common complaint is that particular setups of an edition are easier than others. Whilst this is true, I've not found them to be unfair to the point where I can make one team win. For example, having a setup where the Drunk and the Poisoner are both in play is certainly a more difficult challenge for the good team than one where the Spy and Butler are in play. I used to think that the setup choices that the Storyteller made could really unbalance the game, but I've been proved wrong by experience. There have been many times where I've run four or five Trouble Brewing games in a row for new players, and good has won the lot, and I've tried my absolute best to engineer an evil win... and just haven't been able to. Or vice versa. Sure, the Storyteller could deliberately wreck a game of S&V by telling the Savant "Evin is the Demon" and "one plus one equals three" for five days in a row... but somehow it still doesn't decide that game. And if it does, equating "I can deliberately wreck the game" with "I can accidentally unbalance the game" is being unfair towards the Storyteller.
I think Clocktower is a little too balanced in this area, but only slightly. The ideal is to have a game that is ‘easy to learn, hard to master’. Clocktower gets that mostly right. Whilst a team of evil veterans will usually trounce a team of good beginners, and a team of good veterans will usually trounce a team of evil beginners, it might not be ideal all the time. In chess, for example, the better player (by significant margin), will ALWAYS win. In Clocktower, that isn't the case. It is usually the case, but not always.
Many games have a runaway leader issue that creates an imbalance between the player who is winning and the players who aren't. This is typical of a lot of Euros. Basically, the player in the lead has access to more resources/tools/currency/etc. so therefore has more of an opportunity to increase their lead. Clocktower would have a runaway leader issue without dead votes. If dead votes didn’t exist, good players dying would mean that there are more evil votes, which inevitably leads to more goodies dying, and vice versa. Clocktower balances this out by having the dead players vote. Not only does it increase fun and participation, but it also balances the winning team with the losing team. Sure, it can get to the point where only evil players are alive - and if that happens, evil has played so brilliantly that they deserve the early win.
Some games have dominant strategies. Whenever a particular type of play is discovered, it can provably be (either using logic, or by habit) the best strategy. This means that anyone not using that strategy is either ignorant or deliberately misleading the group. At every point, if a dominant strategy was found for any particular character, with either team, I rewrote the character.
I can't prove that Clocktower has no dominant strategies. But what I can do is say in response "yes, but this other strategy works better if the situation is slightly different." For example, in response to hearing "Our group always kills the top four characters immediately," I can, and have, responded with "That will result in guaranteeing that more evil players are alive on the final day, so you are gaining information but losing voting power... and veteran players gain the benefit of knowing what to bluff as." In a game in Melbourne where the first thing the group said was "OK, all top-four characters please come out," I was the Demon and only 'revealed' that I was the Investigator on the final day, because "I know that one of the three alive players is a Minion, which is fantastic. If I'd said that on day one, I would have been killed. Not revealing I was top four until now has won us the game." The evil team won that game, on the basis of finding an exploit against what this group believed was a dominant strategy.
Some games can be won or lost on the roll of a die. These suffer from a feeling of helplessness amongst the players. Some games have no luck element involved at all. These games suffer from analysis paralysis, players always losing to those more experienced, and games being similar over time. The best games, in my opinion, have an element of both.
In Clocktower, it is possible for the good team to win by chance. They execute a player for fun, and lo and behold, it was the Demon and good wins. In order to figure out whether this would play a significant role in the balance of the game (nobody likes to lose by chance), I constructed some probability trees based on the likelihood of the Demon being killed for the various player numbers. I'm no expert, but I know how basic mathematical probability calculations work, and spent roughly 20 hours figuring this out. Assuming that:
One execution occurs each day
The good players choose one player to kill at random
The Demon kills once per night
...the likelihood of good winning simply by chance was about 45% to 55%, depending on player count. This may sound high, but it is pretty much exactly what is needed. What this means is that if the good team plays atrociously (ignoring their information, not using their abilities, executing randomly, etc.) and the evil team plays atrociously (not using their abilities, killing randomly, etc.) then both teams have a roughly equal chance of winning. In order to change this to a 70%, 80%, or 90% chance of winning, one team just needs to play better than the other. As a good player, Clocktower is NOT a game about using your abilities to find out for certain who the Demon is, then using social bullying to convince others to listen to you. Clocktower is a game about smart use of your abilities (or the abilities of others) to change that 50% likelihood of winning into an 80% likelihood of winning. If both good and evil play poorly, the odds are 50/50. If good plays well and evil plays poorly, good wins the vast majority of the time. If evil plays well and good plays poorly, evil wins the vast majority of the time. If both good and evil play well, it is back to 50/50. This is as it should be.
Deliberately Unfair Design Philosophy
My philosophy with Clocktower design has been to create a deliberately unfair situation. To use an extreme asymmetrical qualitative approach, as opposed to a quantitative approach.
Most games are symmetrical, or at least approximate symmetry by using quantitative or mathematical power levels of their components. For example, if team A gets a +1 to their stat, then team B gets a +1 to their stat, or if player A gets three +2s to their stat, then player B gets a +6 to theirs later on. In more modern editions of Dungeons & Dragons, the wizard class was converted to a class that has more and more imaginative ways to "do X damage over Y rounds" so that they are not overpowered by the fighter that also does "X damage over Y rounds", albeit by different methods. This is fine, if that is the kind of game that you want. It has the benefit of being able to easily balance. Is the Cleric too weak? Make their healing spells heal 8 points instead of 6. Is the Thief overpowered? Make their chance of hiding in shadows 85% instead of 90%. Then test. Easy peasy.
Qualitative differences are much, much harder to quantify (by definition). They are context dependent, and player dependent. For example, in the older versions of D&D, that wizard isn't doing "X damage every Y rounds" like the fighter, they are running and hiding as soon as combat starts. However, their "sleep" spell that was cast out of combat allowed the whole party to sneak past the guards completely. The strength of the wizard vs the strength of the fighter depends almost entirely on what the player does, when, and in what context. Even after all those factors are known, it is still difficult to judge.
My approach with Clocktower was to move completely away from the "+1, -1" design philosophy, and instead create characters that were wildly, qualitatively different. Even completely unfair. Instead of creating a character and thinking "Oh wow. THAT is unfair, better not," I let the character stay as is, and created MORE unfair characters on the opposing team. For example, the Empath is unfair. Knowing that both your neighbors are good is very unfair. Knowing both your neighbors are evil is INCREDIBLY unfair! So... I created the Poisoner. Holy heck, the Poisoner is unfair. Making someone's information false, without them knowing? Every night? That is crazy-unfair. The Saint is unfair. You lose the game if nobody trusts you. Ouch, that's unfair. The Librarian is unfair... you know who the Saint is, so you know not to execute them, and they trust you in return. The Fortune Teller is unfair. Knowing which player is the Demon is everything you need to know to win (particularly if the red herring is dead). So, the Imp is unfair by changing players as soon as the Fortune Teller is onto them.
The design philosophy of Clocktower was not to create a fair game, in the sense that the abilities of one team could be weighed against the abilities of the other. The design philosophy was to create a game where every player has an ability that is very powerful, even to the point of unfairness, but that the opposing team also has abilities approaching the overpowered. This way, maximum agency is given to the players. The abilities don't win the game. The players don't win the game. The players win the game by using their abilities well. As you can imagine, this approach means that balancing things is incredibly difficult, takes a long time, and can only be achieved by a personal judgement on what is balanced and what isn't, because it cannot be judged by mathematical analysis.
What this does mean, though, is that due to player skill or blind luck, it sometimes seems that a game can be won or lost due to a character ability. It is usually not a single character or player that won, but a hidden web of interaction that resulted in a single player taking the lead. For example, whilst a Demon player may complain that they lost due to the Slayer "being overpowered" because they won the game on day two and the Demon did "nothing wrong," what that player is missing is that the Slayer talked to the Washerwoman and Librarian to learn who not to target, got protection from the Monk, bluffed as the Ravenkeeper, and convinced the Poisoner to poison the Fortune Teller and not the Slayer. The Slayer worked for their victory, and won fairly, even though it seems like the character, and therefore the game, is unbalanced.
Most characters have an 'entry level' power that is medium. This means that if the player does nothing, they still gain some benefit from the ability. For example, an Empath that takes no initiative still learns valuable information. A Virgin that says nothing can still contribute to the team by accidentally getting nominated. Most characters have this 'surface level' power that is useful, but not game-breaking. When talking about issues of balance, this is particularly relevant for beginner players. For example, the Undertaker may seem underpowered to new players because the Demon always kills them early. The Ravenkeeper may seem underpowered because it is "just luck" if the Ravenkeeper gets killed by the Demon or not. In this sense, both the Undertaker and Ravenkeeper are underpowered in terms of their "entry level" power. The Fortune Teller has high entry level power. Even a new player can get game-winning information by dumb luck. So, the criticism that these characters are unbalanced is true - the Fortune Teller is more powerful at the entry level than the Undertaker or Ravenkeeper. Games that have one over the other will be unbalanced in certain situations.
Clocktower has been criticised for characters being unbalanced. What this is usually referring to is their entry power. A new player sees the Spy ability and freaks out. Then they become the Spy, and realise how difficult it actually is to play. Someone else loses to the Mastermind and cries foul. Then they become the Mastermind and really struggle to get their power to work. An experienced player who always blurts out that they are the Ravenkeeper on day one, and chooses dead players when they do get killed by the Demon, will look at the Fortune Teller or Mayor and talk about "balance issues." When they become the Fortune Teller and lose their minds trying to figure out the red herring, or become the Mayor and see how difficult it is to convince two evil players not to vote, it becomes a different story.
Each character has a different 'ceiling power'. This term represents how powerful a character can possibly be when in the hands of a veteran who is really in exploit-mode. Ceiling power is higher than entry power. The question is "how much?" Some characters have a low entry power, but a very high ceiling power. For example, the Artist has a low entry power because most players will use the Artist to ask "Am I the Artist?" or "Is this player evil?". The standard use of the character is under-powered. However, a veteran can use the Artist to ask "Is the Demon Dave, Jim, Sally, Achmed, or Joan?" after the Demon has been confirmed to be a Fang Gu. This information (whether a yes or no) will win the game for good. An Undertaker can bluff as the Soldier for 7 days straight, then come out with all their information on the final day. Both the Undertaker and Artist have a low entry level power, but a high ceiling power.
Conversely, some characters have a high entry power, but a ceiling power that is more or less the same. For example, a Clockmaker gets fantastic information, but there aren't a whole lot of ways that the player can abuse that information to wreck the evil team. Sure, they can choose whether to reveal their info or sit on it, but either way will not have a massive difference between them. Or the Poppy Grower - they really screw the evil team early on. Sure, the Poppy Grower can extend this by staying alive as long as possible, but the damage done won't be catastrophically different than dying on the second or third night.
Ceiling power isn't necessarily about passive vs active abilities, although there is some crossover. For example, the Goblin is quite a passive ability. The entry power is quite low - in the hands of a new player, or in a player that doesn't want to put in the effort, it is quite low. It could even help the good team by letting them know who the Minion is. But in the hands of a skilled veteran, the game is won by a single player. This character has a devastating ceiling power.
Clocktower has been criticised for being unbalanced due to characters having ‘exploits’. While I disagree that there are exploits (if there are, they become jinxes for the Djinn to fix), there is a certain level of unbalance between what different characters are capable of doing. Different players can make a character do wildly different things, and this can seem to be unbalanced. If it actually is unbalanced, it becomes a jinx. More often than not though, what people are witnessing is a cunning player using their ability to the full, while the opposing team does nothing to counter it. In such situations, what a player has done has required them to use their intelligence to unbalance the game in their favour. This is perfectly fine. This is just another term for 'winning'.
You can consider Outsiders to have a ‘floor power’ instead - a level of awful unfairness that represents their maximum unhelpfulness. The Butler has a small amount of entry level unhelpfulness, but a floor level that isn't much lower. The Saint has no entry level unhelpfulness at all, but an extreme floor level.
This is much more tricky. Some characters have a level of power that changes radically based on the setup, on what the Storyteller tells the player, or other pieces of luck. I think that this is a valid criticism, although I'm mostly happy with the way things work in the official editions.
For example, the Marionette is extremely powerful in a setup where the player's information is unfalsifiable. If the Marionette thinks that they are the Noble, and reveals that 1 of 3 players are evil. In this case, the Marionette is spreading false information with conviction, and the Demon can bring them on-side at any point. The Marionette here has a medium-to-high power ceiling. However, if the Marionette thinks that they are the Washerwoman, then the Marionette is either useless, or actively hurting their own team by hinting that they are the Marionette. So, the Marionette character has a low entry power, a high ceiling power, and a highly random power fluctuation. If the right script is built around the Marionette, it's balanced. If the Marionette is put into the wrong edition, it is extremely unbalanced.
The Chef would be the opposite. The Chef has a medium entry power - no matter what happens, the Chef is useful, but not crucial. No matter what edition you build, the Chef will be more or less balanced.
In official editions (so far Trouble Brewing, Bad Moon Rising, and Sects & Violets), you do occasionally get a setup that seems unbalanced. The classic example is the Empath sitting next to two evil players. I agree that this seems unbalanced. The good news is that (for the official editions), when these situations occur, either the team that you think has no chance of winning wins, or they at least put up a ruddy good fight. It is extremely rare to see a character's power ceiling (or floor, if considering Outsiders) fluctuate so wildly that the game is won or lost due to the ability itself, and not due to the player's skill in reacting to that situation.
It can happen in official editions, but it's rare. When Storytellers create their own scripts though, this is more of an issue. In this situation, balance is a question that needs to be answered. Put a Diplomat and a Poisoner together? Ouch. Put a Minstrel and Legion together? Evil will be working for their meal. However, certain character combinations being unbalanced, whilst an issue, tends to create fun games. Clocktower is designed so that players are never in a no-win situation. There is never a time where you have to sit there and wait out the clock because you know you've already lost. I hate that in other games, so Clocktower was designed so that never happens. If a particular character combination or Grimoire setup does unbalance a custom-made game, experience has shown that it is those games that are the most fun and most memorable. Yes, balance is an issue in custom games as some character combinations create huge power fluctuations. I wish it wasn't. The good news is that the process of figuring it out is usually a fun one and if it ever gets to the level of an actual exploit, it gets jinxed.
The bigger issue with balance in custom games is Storytellers not using the Sentinel, the Spirit Of Ivory, the Fibbin, or Duchess when they need to. A game with a known Outsider count and no Sentinel is crushing for the evil team. A game with three extra evil players and no Spirit Of Ivory is crushing for the good team. Games with no Fibbin and no possibility for drunkenness or poisoning can feel very unfair to the evil players - and it is. A game with no information and no Duchess can feel unfair to the good team... which it isn't, but it certainly feels that way.
A lot has been said about the Storyteller’s power to unbalance a game. I think the only way that the Storyteller can unbalance a game is if they make a doozy of a mistake, or deliberately try to wreck a game.
If the ST shows the Mayor to the Washerwoman, then the Ravenkeeper learns the Mayor is the Mayor, and the Empath tells the group that the Mayor is good, and the Fortune Teller tells the group that the Mayor is not the Demon, and when the Demon attacks the Mayor on the final night, the Storyteller kills the Poisoner... yep. That is pretty unbalanced. A malicious storyteller can wreck a game, and that is no fun for anyone.
Or if the Storyteller tells the Savant information that can confirm the Demon, like saying "Jeremy is the Demon. Sarah is the Mutant," then Jill claims to be the Mutant and is executed, that is really unbalanced. That's a rookie Storyteller mistake, and it does happen.
What I've seen though, is that if the Storyteller is generally helping the evil team bluff, and just trying to run a good game, things are balanced. When they get unbalanced, it's because one team is playing very well. This is exactly as it should be.
Public Opinion vs Actual Importance
I take it as a compliment when the public narrative is that a particular character or rule is unbalanced. This means that the character initially appears very powerful, but clever play means that it can be combated. Or that a character appears very underpowered, but clever play means that the character is actually quite powerful. What this means is that the appearance of a character does not match their real strength. Their real strength lies in the cunning of the player. This, to me, speaks to good game design, because it means that beginners trust the character abilities to win the game for them, while the veterans are challenged to come up with more subtle strategies.
A good example of this is the Spy. I'm not fussed by all the hoo-haa about the Spy being "unbalanced" because they see the Grimoire. The initial reactions to the Spy are universal bewilderment and shock - the subtext being that it is an unbalanced character and that I am a silly designer for creating it. However, knowing everything isn't that helpful for an evil player, so I actually gave the Spy another ability to make up for their weak "know everything" ability - to register as good. The argument that the Spy is unbalanced can simply be countered with the stats. The Spy's individual win-rate of below 50% gives it one of the lower win rates of the four Trouble Brewing minions. And Trouble Brewing has a 50/50 win rate.
When you look deeper into the game mechanics, and what are the crucial factors in what determines a victory or a loss, surface criticisms lose their weight. Yep, the Spy SEEMS unbalanced, but can you use that information to win the game? Sure, the Saint SEEMS unbalanced, but will it actually lose the game that often?
Different characters have qualitatively different abilities, different entry level power, different ceiling power, and rely heavily on player skill and context. The worst way to determine whether a character is unbalanced or not is to listen to the complaints of a salty player who just lost a game in which that character played a crucial role in their defeat. The best way to determine whether a character is unbalanced or not is to be the Storyteller in games with that character, and watch the struggles, victories, and shifting power & influence that character has in a real sense. A lot of criticism about a character being "broken" or "unbalanced" comes from people who have not yet played the game, people who have played once or twice and are reading up on expansion roles without context, or from players who just lost a game.
Legitimate criticism of unbalance is sometimes on the mark, of course. If someone points out an exploit, I'll close it via a rewrite or a jinx. If someone points out a difference in balance or power, they may be correct, but it should also be seen in light of the above points.
Balance has been a huge consideration for me as a designer. However, it is not number one. Fun is more important. Accessibility is more important. Sometimes, some characters slip through the balance cracks because they are so fantastically fun. Sometimes balance is just a matter of opinion, as the players themselves determine what is and isn't fair.
For example, the original Savant was only allowed to vote once per game. It was more balanced, but not as fun and certainly not as accessible. The original Fortune Teller had no red herring. The rules of Clocktower have been refined many times over several years of development. Some characters have had over 20 versions. The purpose of each refinement is to create more fun, to encourage engagement and creativity, and to have balance more as the watchword rather than the goal. Balance will necessarily be ‘about right’ and can never be ‘perfectly right’ without sacrificing fun, engagement, and creativity.
The Pandemonium Institute
