Mansions of madness

VonTush wrote: I keep wondering if I'm playing the same game as everyone else when I read the negative comments. MoM is still one of my favorite games ever. But that said I've only played as the keeper, but none of the investigators have ever complained about the game and in fact one of them went out and bought a copy for himself.

You *are* playing the same game as me--but you're both apparently playing the keeper. I think that as a solo or 2-player game it's probably outstanding. With 5 around the table it felt a bit too much like a game on rails. Everyone went off to all corners of the map to uncover stuff; if we triggered some sort of badness, folks regrouped and dealt with it. The puzzles felt like a time-sink rather than an integral part of the game. As an investigator, I felt like I needed to devote about 10% of my attention to the game--ok, puzzle here, monster there, clue obviously in one of these two unexplored places. Someone with a gun please go draw that big @#$@#$@#4 monster away from the door so we can get in and see if it's there. It felt to me more than a bit like Last Night On Earth with a significantly greater rules overhead and half the pace.

The keeper, on the other hand, had a lot of shit to do and most of it seemed like it was pretty entertaining. The investigators seem to play a completely reactive game (at least I didn't see any good way to force the action along, but that might just be me), which is something I think can be automated.

I think it's probably a very good game for casual gamers [in the investigator roles], but I felt like I could have been playing an entirely different game on the side and not lost the thread at all in the MoM game.

Like the way Frank reworked things and ended up highlighting that Runebound--another game I thought was terrible with more than 2 at the table--had a very good solo game at its core, I think MoM has that same sort of vibe going for it.

That may be why the game has been successful with my group. They're more light/casual gamers, but to their credit I've had good success with Chaos in the Old World and Merchants and Marauders with them. My goal when playing the keeper has always to shoestring the investigators but not to cut their Achilles.

Also I tried to keep them guessing by popping/spawning stuff that might not help me in the long run to achieve my goal, but made the investigators try to figure out what exactly is going on. That caused a lot of in game discussion with them as they debated on where next to head or what to do. To me it seemed like they always felt like there was more stuff to do than they were able to.

Overall I guess what kept me engaged as a keeper was trying to work out how to F with them rather than how I need to maximize everything for me to win.

On average I've play with three or four investigators (I can't recall playing with only two) so my experience is that it scales well. But then again as the keeper I start setting up for the later game stuff and leave the investigators relatively alone for the first turn or two with the occasional screwing with them.

VonTush wrote: On average I've play with three or four investigators (I can't recall playing with only two) so my experience is that it scales well. But then again as the keeper I start setting up for the later game stuff and leave the investigators relatively alone for the first turn or two with the occasional screwing with them.

I think for the casual gamer, it's WAY easier to get into the investigator role and generally be immersed in the whole B-movie vibe of the game. That's a very good thing (and why I love LNoE--shut off brain and pile up every d6 in the house next to the beer mugs). Most folks in my crowd [almost all wargamers of one stripe or another with a general love for AT on the side] are the sort that can look at the map and quickly run the numbers and board geometerly (for things like line of sight) in their head to maximize actions while minimizing keeper response capabilities and thus sort of dictate play, either by word or deed, throughout. Even after we barred the complete "NO! YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG IF YOU DON'T GO ONE SQUARE LEFT FIRST!!!!1111oneoneone" folks from games like this, even the most easy-going in our crowd often breaks down the board on the fly and looks for "min/max" opportunities, and the more guys you have like that, the less interesting the game becomes (at least for me).

(This is exactly the sort of shit that made me utterly hate Descent and Doom after a half-dozen plays--until I pulled down the solo rules off the Geek and found that they're pretty cool when treated more like videogames than board games.)

Yeah...I could see that as killing a game like MoM.
Maybe a bunch of beer before the game would slow those "thinkers" down!

I've only played Mansions a few times, but it seemed like the scenarios were so completely unforgiving that the investigators need to min-max just to have a chance at winning.

I think the feel of the game is great. You don't know what's gonna happen, you definitely don't want to take damage as that can be very bad, and as the keeper you can play some fun cards that can tell great small stories. And that the story is so linear is more of a nuisance than a real problem. But the fact that investigators can't really do anything besides enter a room, that they can't really prepare for anything, makes it seem pointless. Or, so it felt when we played the first scenario.

Also, as I wrote above, uncontrollable urges is a shitty card.

There have been a few rulings/changes/errata/reprints on Uncontrollable Urges. So keep that in mind and make sure you're using the most up to date.

Thinking about it, it is very much a reactionary game for the investigators as mentioned earlier. They don't know what they're preparing for. But of course if they did know what they were preparing for wouldn't they be called clairvoyants?

In other words, the investigators are just that...Investigators, people going into the unknown, exploring and trying to piece together what is happening. That is the point of the game I suppose. But that isn't for everyone.

I'm using the new card, but I just think the idea of two literally two steps forward, one back is stupid. Or at least in scenario one it was.

And I get that it makes sense they can't prepare a lot. But since combat is quite simple it simply means that you rarely make a choice about anything. I guess that more monsters will make a difference, and that is also part of the reason for this thread. I want to like the game and I want other players to like it too.