here's what chatgpt thinks (dunno if that helps, but it sounds reasonable enough to share *shrug*):

Here are some thoughts and potential issues with the proposed setup:

1. Pace and Stalemates
• No direct eliminations means the game could become a prolonged stalemate. Since investigated players stick around to talk, the threat of eventual silence or removal from the game is never realized. Instead, everyone gradually becomes a “stump.”
• The endgame might boil down to a small number of voters who haven’t been investigated yet, while a large group of stumps spectates and influences discussions. This could lead to analysis paralysis, with players hesitant to finalize an election.
• Without forced night phases or kills, tension and momentum might wane. The game risks getting stuck if players repeatedly investigate but never achieve consensus on a Pope.

2. Information Overload and Dynamics of Investigation
• When someone is investigated, their alignment is revealed. This is a huge amount of public information over time. Eventually, the table may fill with known roles (especially known Catholics), which reduces uncertainty.
• Because stumps remain to influence discussion, the usual town advantage from confirmed townies might become quite strong. Confirmed townies, while powerless to vote, can guide the remaining voters. This might actually tilt the balance heavily towards the Catholic side if the Reformers aren’t careful.
• On the flip side, known Reformers who have been investigated will have no trust whatsoever and can only rely on sowing confusion through WIFOM. The question is whether that confusion alone can outmatch the clear trust that confirmed Catholics will enjoy.

3. Balance Concerns
• Typically, a standard mountainous 7v2 (9 players total) setup is considered somewhat balanced for a normal mafia game with kills—because the scum have killing power and nights to coordinate, and the town can make investigative deductions each day.
• In this setup, the Reformers (scum) have no direct method to eliminate confirmed Catholics. That puts them at a significant disadvantage once a few investigations have occurred. They rely entirely on social manipulation.
• A 6v3 ratio might compensate somewhat, giving scum one additional member. But is one more Reformer enough? They need to steer the election of the Pope toward a Reformer without having their entire team exposed. If the Catholics systematically investigate suspicious players, scum could be mostly outed, leaving a cluster of confirmed Catholics who, even if they can’t vote, can use their known alignment to push the election toward a Catholic.
• If it’s easy for Catholics to confirm enough of their own, they can create a stable “block” of influence. Meanwhile, the Reformers must work twice as hard to cast doubt on everyone. Increasing scum count helps, but maybe not enough. The no-death/no-removal factor might encourage larger scum teams or a special mechanism that benefits scum information-wise.

4. Consensus Requirement and Social Bottleneck
• Unanimity for electing the Pope is a high bar—especially if most players, including scum, remain alive and able to talk. To finalize a Pope, every single remaining voter must agree. That means the game’s end condition might be hard to reach until many players are stumpified and trust clusters emerge.
• This unanimous requirement might result in a near-endless cycle of investigating naysayers until only those who support the chosen Pope are left voting. This could end up favoring the faction that can unite behind a candidate more easily—likely the Catholics, since they start with a majority.
• In a scenario where Catholics are careful, they can investigate until they confirm a town candidate and have mostly known town stumps advising the few remaining voters. Reformers will struggle to prevent the final lockstep without a credible way to break consensus.

5. Roles and Impact
• Introducing roles that allow anonymous messaging or limited extra communication might not drastically shift balance, but it could create confusion and strategic layers. For example, a Messenger role on each side that can pass anonymous notes might allow the Reformers to create misdirection or the Catholics to coordinate behind the scenes.
• However, this kind of role might also lengthen the decision-making process or breed paranoia, which can go either way in terms of balance.
• Avoid roles that confirm alignments without going through the investigation process. That would short-circuit the primary mechanic of the game. Keep roles subtle if used at all—something like once-per-phase anonymous notes might be okay.
• Another option: a role that can silently “mark” a player, causing their dirty laundry reveal to be more or less damning, or to slightly alter how their trust level is perceived. But complexity might not help. Simpler is likely better, given the unusual nature of the setup.

6. Psychological and Engagement Factors
• Since eliminated players remain in the game as stumps, you might worry about player engagement. Some players might become bored or disengaged once they lose the ability to vote, even if they can still talk. This could create an imbalance in the quality of play over time.
• The setup places a heavy emphasis on open communication and persuasion. If players aren’t highly engaged and skilled at social deduction, the Reformers might have an uphill battle without the usual mafia toolkit of killing or blocking.

Summary of Concerns
• Balance: 6 Catholics vs 3 Reformers might still favor Catholics due to the heavy information flow and the gradual creation of a large, confirmed “town voice.”
• Length and Complexity: The unanimous decision and stumplification mechanic might drag the game out.
• Inertia: Lack of night kills or other forced change could lead to stalemates or slow progress.
• Roles: If introduced, roles should be subtle and not disrupt the core mechanic of investigate-to-confirm identities. A Messenger role seems harmless enough, but might not fix any core issues.

Potential Tweaks:
• Consider a smaller player list or a different ratio to give Reformers a better chance. Perhaps 5 Catholics vs 3 Reformers might be more tense.
• Allow for a timed mechanic (like after X number of investigations, a forced decision must be reached) to avoid endless stalemates.
• Keep roles minimal or purely communicative, so as not to derail the delicate balance.

In conclusion, the concept is intriguing and creative, but the main risks are prolonged stalemates, a tilt in balance towards the Catholics due to easier accumulation of trustworthy stumps, and potential for player fatigue. If you move forward, consider careful adjustment of the ratio, or introduce a small mechanism to ensure the game progresses toward a conclusion.