Mizzytastic's Large Normal Review, October 2020

[Ircher]

Role Watcher gets role names, instead of player names. It's listed as normal on the wiki but if that's inaccurate I'm happy to change it been as if it's not normal it's also not necessary for the initial design idea I had

This is my understanding of the role as well.
---
Re: Universal Backup and Activated IC : I don't think I've seen that combination before, but your interpretation of the interaction seems reasonable. At the same time though, I feel the opposite interaction is also reasonable as Activated doesn't really seem to be a persistent effect. Take an Activated Bulletproof for instance. When they use their ability, they are bulletproof on that night, but on subsequent nights, they aren't bulletproof. A person who inherits Activated Bulletproof (without restrictions) can certainly activate it on a following night. The thing that makes activated IC a bit different is that further activations have no real effect. I think I personally lean towards the latter in that the inherited activated IC not being immediately revealed.
---
Another thing to be wary of with Universal Backups: If multiple roles die in a night, a choice needs to be made as to which role is inherited. The traditional choice according to the wiki is the mafia factional kill is prioritized; the main thing is to make a choice now during the review phase so the setup is deterministic.

[Ircher]

Also, in my experience, X-Shot Ninja and X-Shot Strongman are activated roles; that is, the user has to specify the exact night they wish to use their power. I'm not sure the passive "use when first relevant" variant is normal.

[Ircher]

I don't think you have to specify anything special in the role pm regarding the UB inheritance order. You just need to know how you are going to resolve it (rather than doing so randomly which is abnormal) and of course if someone asks.

[Ircher]

The setup looks okay to me; it might be a bit townsided based on comparisons to previously run large normals of a similar size. (Particularly, I'd say town has a lot of moderately strong/strong roles here. That said, mafia has some decent power as well.) If I were to make any changes, it would likely be weakening town some rather than strengthening the other factions. Maybe make the rolestopper X-Shot or some form of any-night-specific.

[Ircher]

Don't use "lynch": In solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement the site is moving away from using the words "lynch" and "hang". If you are unsure of an alternative I suggest elimination, elim, E-1, ELo, MELo etc.

While I support this change and idea, I don't think it is actually a good idea to include this in your rules. The main thing I see is that it may cause the opposite effect of what it intends; namely, it reminds people about the l-word, and some people may regard it as a challenge. At the very least, I would drop the Black Lives Matter part as I think some people will feel antagonized by that. (Note: I am not commenting on whether or not they *should* feel that way, just what I think may happen in practice.)

Claiming mafia: Part of paraphrasing mod communications is claiming roles. Claiming to be part of an anti-town faction is ok. Claiming your team mates, real or faked, is not.

This is a personal opinion; it is by no means something you have to change. Anyway, personally, I am not a fan of this rule mainly because people like to do this kind of thing in jest. Some people will also unintentionally break this rule, especially since this rule is not prominently featured. (I would at least recommend moving it to the top section or at least right below the keep it civil rule.) There is also the issue of those people who just flat out don't read the rules at all; they too may unintentionally break it. I vastly prefer to keep it as a "it's allowed so long as I can tell you are not game-throwing". I guess that could be abused to try to "confirm" oneself, but in practice, I have never had any issue with my version of this rule.
---
You also have the information about submission of night actions twice: under night-time in the deadlines section and under night actions in the game actions section. It is okay to have them both, but it is not really that important, so I would advise getting rid of one instance.

Town: You win when all threats to the town are dead.

While this win condition is acceptable in mini normals, this win condition does not work in a large, especially in a large that has a serial killer. The correct version is "Town: You win when all threats to the town are dead and at least one town-aligned player is still alive."

Mafia: You win when all players not aligned with you are dead, or nothing can prevent that from happening.

Likewise, this one needs to be adjusted as well to include the "and at least one mafia-aligned player is still alive" part.

Should I include a sample win con/role pm for a vanilla sk or just leave it unless someone asks? Alternatively should I just make a generic anti-town win con?

I think this is optional though maybe Flavor Leaf would think differently. I wouldn't go with a generic one because I am pretty sure the serial killer version is slightly different in that they do not have to be alive to win.

And been as you also seemed ameanable to this, the ability for the odd-nights version. Is odd-nights still ok? I still think I prefer it if it is an option to 2-shot. Maybe mix both and make it Nights 1,3,5 only?

(That's for Flavor Leaf to decide, but personally, I think odd night is okay.)
---
Also a general comment for the role pms: I prefer the approach of making it explicit that a player's action can fail. For instance, for the rolestopper, I prefer writing it like this: "Twice during the game, you may

attempt to

visit a player at night to protect them. All other actions targeting that player will be blocked." (I don't include the underline; that's for you to see the change I made compared to your wording.)

Win conditions in all the role pms need to be fixed accordingly to the above note.
---

You are a Town Lazy Roleblocker

Each day you may talk in the game thread and vote on who to eliminate.

Each night you may visit a player to block them. Any actions they take will be blocked. Your action will fail if there is only one player left alive who is not a member of the town.

I would be explicit and note that the action fails if there is only one player left alive who is not a member of the town

at the beginning of the night

.

If protectives target the bulletproof the order I am using to resolve is Rolestopper (prevents all active) -> Bulletproof (prevents 1 passive) -> Doctor (prevents 1 active)

I'm pretty sure this isn't a typical resolution; that is, it is typically Rolestopper --> Doctor --> Bulletproof, but at the same time, I think this is acceptable so long as you are consistent.

[Ircher]

I hadn't thought about that "attempt to" phrasing and I like it but I'm concerned someone could look at my previous game and try and make an inference about the set up from it. Is that a problem?

Don't really think so. Most people don't do that kind of research, and really, if a player makes that inference, they do so at their own peril. I would have made the suggestion regardless of whether this setup had the possibility of actions failing.