One of the players suggested that the team leader should be able to pick the team and not include himself in it, so we decided to try that for one game. We were playing with 10 people. As we tried this out, I got the role of Merlin and immediately knew who all (except mordred) the bad guys were. The first team that the team leader picked was all good people and we passed the first quest. The next quest leader was on his left, and he was in the first quest, so logically we told him to pick that same team and add one person. And after we added that person, he was also good and we passed the quest. However, now the next quest leader was a bad guy, but because we are allowed to pick the team without the leader in it, we basically forced the bad guy to choose the previously same successful team without the quest leader (who was bad), because after all, if the bad guy didn't, then obviously that guy is bad or else why would they not pick the team that had no troubles? This strategy ended up in a 3-0 match, and the assassin didn't guess me correctly. So the good guys won quickly and easily.

We all thought that this rule seemed kinda weird, so I wanted to ask you guys who played more than us to explain this to me. Should the quest leader have to include himself? because if not, than the game could happen like what happened before.

  • As Percival in a small game, I once picked Merlin and Morgana as the starting team to try to sort them out.
    – ikegami
    Jan 5, 2015 at 7:00

2 Answers 2


It is legal to create a team that does not have you on it. It should be very rare though. Here's why:

The argument that the previous teams succeeded is not logically strong enough to force the leader to leave himself off the team. He could argue that the previous teams had a sleeper spy (which is not provable either way with the information public at the time) and replace one with himself.

Consider that a person can always make the argument that he trusts himself more than any other single person, and that argument is essentially irrefutable.

After all, if he is a resistance member, he knows with 100% certainty that he is a resistance member and should put himself on the team. Therefore, a resistance leader would need a very good explanation for why he would be excluding himself from the team he builds.

Since a spy should frequently act like a resistance member to be convincing, a spy leader also has a strong reason to put himself on the team and needs a good explanation to exclude himself.

In my opinion the third leader in your game played poorly in that situation. That player should have replaced one of the earlier team members, had some discussion about it, and put it for a vote.

  • Therefore, a resistance leader would need a very good explanation for why he would be excluding himself from the team he builds. Could you give an example of when a leader (ordinary good) should choose a team that he is not part of. I struggle to find even a single case where this would be the "rational" decision.
    – Explorer
    Oct 16, 2022 at 10:58

I've always played the leader can choose whatever team they want with themselves on it or not their choice. Sometimes people get convinced, or bullied not to put themselves on it because of the results of the previous round, or because everyone threatens to vote their team down if they are on it, but ultimately I think it should be up to the leader.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .