The bold is a narrow way to interpret the effects of adding PRs to a setup. The players who get randed PRs are given an opportunity to showcase a different set of skills, but, more importantly, so is everyone else. VTs, at worst, can showcase the same skills they could in Mountainous. At best, they can showcase those skills, and their skills playing around PRs. An extreme example of this would be Cop cover in a Cop 13er. It's important for VTs to maintain cover as to not out the Cop by process of elimination. Maintaining good Cop cover, and understanding when to break cover or call out someone else's bad cover, are all skills. They're all meaningful decisions added into the game because of the addition of a PR.
Originally Posted by Makaze
The worst part of adding PRs is that not everyone gets to be a PR, but the worst part of not having them is that no one gets to be. Conversely, the worst part about role madness is that everyone gets a role. You sort of have to pick your poison on this front. I think having a setup with a small number roles is the best mix of things: it lets players largely ignore PRs if they're VT, it allows players that want to leverage being VT in a game with PRs, and it allows players to show what they can do with PRs they get. Wolves get to show off their PR hunting skills. Everyone still has a chance to shine, but they just get to shine in different ways.
Imagine that it's getting close to EOD, and there's a player who looks like the clear lynch, and suddenly they claim PR. Uh oh, what does everyone do? How does the village react? How do wolves?j "Wolves got $#@!ed because they happened to push the PR." Suck it up buttercup. Show me what you can do when things don't go your way. Adapt. Overcome adversity. I'm sure you could come up with plenty of examples like this where PRs allow unexpected things to happen, and games can get flipped on their heads out of nowhere, and this is a very good thing in a competitive environment. What's better, seeing someone win because everything went their way, or seeing someone win when things definitely didn't go their way and they won anyway. I greatly prefer the latter.
Lastly, saying that Mountainous is somehow a better Champs format because the one time it was run it seemed to be pretty balanced seems a bit of a stretch. The sample size of Champs that seasons is what? 15 games? IIRC, the seasons that have had setups with PRs haven't been heavily skewed towards town's favor, and Mountainous isn't particularly known for being a town-sided setup. Mountainous being more balanced is the opposite of what you'd expect which means there's likely other factors at play affecting the outcomes. The fact that that season was more balanced likely has a lot more to do with the players that were playing that season, and how the games were randed rather than the setup having some kind of magical golden balance when it's the Champs format.