Town of Salem Game Forums

What do you guys think about Survivors, Executioners that won, Witches that have to decide between an Arsonist or a Mafia victory...etc?
Are they good?
Are they awful?


Do they belong in this game?



I'm curious to know because I always felt that, to an extent, kingmakers were an intentional part of the game.

I don't like kingmaking because the game should be about skill, not who one person thinks should win. In kingmaking situations, I think that the faction that autowins should be NK>Mafia>Town. If a faction that has a lower chance of winning gets to that point, they deserve to win. Sort of like how if an SK manages to kill everyone but the Godfather, they get the win.

The main problem is that autoavoiding kingmaking scenarios would prevent maf from tricking the kingmaker into siding with him by claiming NK. This is an important part of a game about deception.

Joacgroso wrote:The main problem is that autoavoiding kingmaking scenarios would prevent maf from tricking the kingmaker into siding with him by claiming NK. This is an important part of a game about deception.

Exactly. Kingmaking should still be a thing.

Joacgroso wrote:The main problem is that autoavoiding kingmaking scenarios would prevent maf from tricking the kingmaker into siding with him by claiming NK. This is an important part of a game about deception.

Joac has hit the nail right on the head. Kingmaking is the ultimate test of deception and persuasion. Being able to convince unallied neutrals (NE and NB) or players who can no longer win themselves (e.g., Town player in Town v. Maf V. SK) to side with you is an important ability in a game like this. And while some players use arbitrary methods to decide kingmakers (such as awarding the win to a particular faction with a low winrate simply for the sake of such), the ability of the players to lie and manipulate to earn trust and gain allies is a fundamental part of the game.

The problem is that some kingmakers make up their mind beforehand, and you can't lie and deceive your way around it. What if someone prefers the name "Jesus Bourne" to "Red Fish" and thus gives the win to the former player? That's totally within their right as a kingmaker. Are the number of games where a kingmaker makes up their mind like this, or where they make it up before the kingmaking scenario insignificant?

HereThereEverywhere wrote:The problem is that some kingmakers make up their mind beforehand, and you can't lie and deceive your way around it. What if someone prefers the name "Jesus Bourne" to "Red Fish" and thus gives the win to the former player? That's totally within their right as a kingmaker. Are the number of games where a kingmaker makes up their mind like this, or where they make it up before the kingmaking scenario insignificant?

From my personal experiences, they usually range from not-caring, and voting a random person to giving the lower-winning side the win.


I have never really seen an instance where a kingmaker choose someone over someone else's name as the reason for giving them the win, but I am almost certain that the scenario isn't unheard of. Perhaps the number isn't that significant.

That's why I added the other part, the part where a kingmaker makes their mind before the situation even happens. Maybe Larry is the SK and Barry is the Vigilante, and Carry is the Survivor who hates Larry because of how he plays. Can't lie your way out of that. Or maybe Barry was confirmed as Vigilante, and Carry likes that role so Barry gets the win. Even if the number of these doesn't sound huge to you, that doesn't mean they're really all that uncommon. Without keeping track of this sort of thing in kingmaking scenarios, discounting it isn't really an option imo.

To be fair, if you let a Kingmaker live long enough, it's your own fault if you don't get awarded the win. No matter their reasoning. It's a risk you take when you leave a King maker alive.

aibuko wrote:To be fair, if you let a Kingmaker live long enough, it's your own fault if you don't get awarded the win. No matter their reasoning. It's a risk you take when you leave a King maker alive.

Some roles, like NK can't win without kingmakers. And what if the mafia has only 1 member left? They have no choice but letting the kingmaker live.

HereThereEverywhere wrote:The problem is that some kingmakers make up their mind beforehand, and you can't lie and deceive your way around it. What if someone prefers the name "Jesus Bourne" to "Red Fish" and thus gives the win to the former player? That's totally within their right as a kingmaker. Are the number of games where a kingmaker makes up their mind like this, or where they make it up before the kingmaking scenario insignificant?

I actually was in a situation with a kingmaker and he asked us who our favorite musician was to decide. I picked Frank Sinatra.

glhf3 wrote:

HereThereEverywhere wrote:The problem is that some kingmakers make up their mind beforehand, and you can't lie and deceive your way around it. What if someone prefers the name "Jesus Bourne" to "Red Fish" and thus gives the win to the former player? That's totally within their right as a kingmaker. Are the number of games where a kingmaker makes up their mind like this, or where they make it up before the kingmaking scenario insignificant?

I actually was in a situation with a kingmaker and he asked us who our favorite musician was to decide. I picked Frank Sinatra.

And who won?

No hard and fast answer, is there? I mean, there are some cases when the deserving faction is clearly screwed over by it e.g. Town is massively overpowered from the start but SK manages to cut them down to one, only to lose because Executioner decides "more people win" with Town.

Having said that, there will be scenarios where the "harder" role doesn't deserve the win. I remember one particular game when Werewolf got a lucky break and ended up in a 1 v 1 v 1 with Survivor and Townie. Survivor, as you can imagine, was leaning towards helping the Werewolf. However, rather than being magnanimous in victory and thanking the Survivor for helping him, Werewolf put on what was one of the worst shows of bad sportsmanship I have ever seen in the game. Gloating, insulting the dead and the other Townie and yelling at the Survivor that he HAD support Werewolf or else he would report for "gamethrowing". Survivor still nearly lynched the other Townie, but got sick of the Werewolf's toxic attitude and put him up. Basically screamed at the two of them, whining that it was his "first win" as Werewolf and threatening Survivor with a report if he voted Guilty (who understandably ignored this threat). By this point, everyone in death chat (including the Mafia) cheered the Survivor at the end of the match and ignored the incredibly salty Werewolf.

On balance, I say keep kingmaking. Neither option guarantees that the most deserving player will always win, but in kingmaking I believe the majority of the time the more deserving role will win and it adds a nice bit of tension to the game by providing roles like Godfather a chance to recover the win vs Serial Killer. If you always have the game decide who wins based on the roles difficulty, I say it will end up with more unfair outcomes than the alternative. Furthermore, the difficult of a role changes depending on the game mode and the Role List. Sure in Classic and Ranked there's a clearly defined hierarchy of difficulty, but in Custom and All Any it could be a very different story.

I think they're sexist. Why not a queen maker!? Or a nonbinary maker!?

Ok, in all seriousness:

alex1234321 wrote:I don't like kingmaking because the game should be about skill, not who one person thinks should win. In kingmaking situations, I think that the faction that autowins should be NK>Mafia>Town. If a faction that has a lower chance of winning gets to that point, they deserve to win. Sort of like how if an SK manages to kill everyone but the Godfather, they get the win.

Yes, this is a game of skill, but just handing out free wins isn't exactly skill, is it? In my opinion, if you can convince a kingmaker to side with you, you've earned the win. Not unlike the Jury System in Survivor: if you can convince 7-10 people who you voted out to give you a million dollars, you win.