Plurality VS Majority lim

[Radical Rat]

With the caveat that I haven't really played plurality games (maybe once or twice? It FEELS like I did at some point, but I couldn't point to an example unless you count Among Us), so don't have a lot of relevant practical experience...

I think majority is just better. It makes the deadline matter more, and forces scum to actually have to convince town to vote incorrectly, and also requires a town to develop some sort of unity to get anywhere.

Plurality does prevent accidental no lims, and no limming sucks, but to me it's a fair punishment for indecision, provided a grace period is granted for near-deadline replacements and such. If it isn't actually necessary to sway a majority to a cause, I think that incentivizes people to squat on vanity wagons more, and could lead to more individualistic playstyles becoming prevalent. My instinct would be that this also makes things more scumsided, because if Town is divided and doesn't have a strong motivation to unite, it's far easier for the scales to be tipped by a scum faction.

So, on paper at least, majority lims encourage better play and better balance, and I don't really want to see plurality become the norm.

Something that may be interesting in experimental games though would be a hybrid system akin to Town of Salem, where it takes a majority to decide on an elimination target, but it's followed by a plurality Yes/No vote with a shorter deadline to determine whether the elimination actually happens. I feel like this could either mitigate some of the issues with majority lims, could give people stuck on deadline compromise wagons a stronger chance at defending themselves, and offers a safety net to quickhammers. It could also just make everything worse. Either way, it'd be a fun experiment, but I don't think it should be adopted at a large scale.