“if possible first choosing from the Roles that have not been assigned”

hrm. not sure what to think of this. Could create odd situations where someone idles, people already know stuff about their role, but now a new player will likely get the same role because its free. But it does help ensure most roles will get used whereas if we just assigned roles randomly we’d double up far more often.

Clucky’s concern is valid. We can either allow doubling up of roles or we need so many of them that we’ll never have to reassign a role. I’d be fine with either, for the record.

It could be argued that technically it was assigned, even though the player it was assigned to is no longer an Amnesiac. I’ll change it slightly if people don’t like that argument, though.

Changing the wording to “should” would allow for me to bend the rule if such scenarios appear.

I feel like “If a number or other game variable is selected “at random” or “randomly” from a range of possible values, its value shall always be taken from a uniform probability distribution over the entire range of possible values” doesn’t really leave you with a choice in the matter. Could maybe even argue the whole “if possible first choosing from the Roles that have not been assigned.” is relevant

might need to reword the whole thing to make it clear what happens

I agree with naught that even if a player leaves, the value that was at one point assigned to him “has been assigned”. I agree with Clucky that the whole thing needs to be reworded.

This looks fine to me. It’s not replacing the random selection with a non-random selection, it’s overriding the set of values that are being selected from.

since the edge cases where a player has idled are unlikely to crop up any time soon; we can fix this later and start playing now.

Agree with Kevan.

cov