The Thing: Infection at Outpost 31 Review

can i play as the dog?

Josh Look wrote:

charlest wrote: I guess I don't understand how you get past this problem.

Everyone puts their cards in. Captain looks at the cards when deciding if they should get rid of one. Captain randomly chooses a person who contributed - "What did you put in?"

If the captain does this every single time, the traitors eventually will be teased out. I'm not even talking about sabotage but just a player throwing in the wrong card that doesn't help is problematic and easily discerned if the captain does this.



Concerning an outed infected - certainly there's a few moments where you can influence things. But once you're outed in a high player count game, you spend 75-90% of the game just watching. You no longer take part in the group conversations and you have nothing mechanically to do. It's excruciatingly dull.

We do most of our discussion before we even decide who’s in on the mission. We get everyone to state exactly what they’re putting in. This way, the entire group knows what should be in there. If it doesn’t add up, we start asking questions.

I think the difference is knowing where those moments are where you can do it and cause some confusion. Like I say in the review, you really do see a skill set develop that belongs to this game sand this game only. Unfortunately you need to push through some flawed plays to get there.

I don't mean to belabor the point or drag this out, but if you ask everyone what they're putting in ahead of time, how is it possible to effectively hamper as an imitation? Clearly the one item that's off indicates the person that lied?

It felt like it desperately needed a destiny deck mechanism where a random card or two were added in.

charlest wrote:

Josh Look wrote:

charlest wrote: I guess I don't understand how you get past this problem.

Everyone puts their cards in. Captain looks at the cards when deciding if they should get rid of one. Captain randomly chooses a person who contributed - "What did you put in?"

If the captain does this every single time, the traitors eventually will be teased out. I'm not even talking about sabotage but just a player throwing in the wrong card that doesn't help is problematic and easily discerned if the captain does this.



Concerning an outed infected - certainly there's a few moments where you can influence things. But once you're outed in a high player count game, you spend 75-90% of the game just watching. You no longer take part in the group conversations and you have nothing mechanically to do. It's excruciatingly dull.

We do most of our discussion before we even decide who’s in on the mission. We get everyone to state exactly what they’re putting in. This way, the entire group knows what should be in there. If it doesn’t add up, we start asking questions.

I think the difference is knowing where those moments are where you can do it and cause some confusion. Like I say in the review, you really do see a skill set develop that belongs to this game sand this game only. Unfortunately you need to push through some flawed plays to get there.

I don't mean to belabor the point or drag this out, but if you ask everyone what they're putting in ahead of time, how is it possible to effectively hamper as an imitation? Clearly the one item that's off indicates the person that lied?

It felt like it desperately needed a destiny deck mechanism where a random card or two were added in.

You won’t be able to every time, nor should be trying to do so. There are missions that require very specific named items, like the ones that are “Draw X number of cards and if (this item) appears, you pass. Those are easy. If you need to draw a knife, let’s say, everyone on the mission is going to want to put a knife in. So don’t but say that you will. In other cases, you can pipe up and say that you’ll put in an item that someone already said they would add. For example, we’re looking to roll as many dice as possible on a test. I say, “Well, I don’t have a shotgun (which adds 2), but I do have a knife (+1).” You, and Infected players says, “I also have a knife.” You’ve now set it up for me to take the fall with a sabotage card or even a Petri dish (which doesn’t add any dice). Of course, we’ll both be suspect, but there’s tons of opportunity in this game to play it cool that you’ll be able to earn some trust back. The game really sings playing it like this, but this is also why you need a big group. Less bodies for you to hide behind, even with 5 players. I’m thoroughly convinced that this is how the game was meant to be played, it doesn’t really work any other way.

That being said, one of the earlier games playing it like this lead to a situation where we could only bring 3 people on the mission. I was captain, we needed a big dice roll. I picked two people, both who told me they had shotguns. Best I had was a knife. I get the cards, look them over and there’s my knife alongside a Petri dish and a Sabotage. Gee, wonder who the Infected players are. The game was mercifully short after that, but that was the game where we learned that if you’re going to pull some shit like that, best to do it in a bigger crew. You also need a level of trust as an Infected player that someone else at the table will do the heavy lifting from time to time.

The components look nice, especially the board. I hope that house rules can save this game.

Shellhead wrote: The components look nice, especially the board. I hope that house rules can save this game.

You do not need house rules.

Very good review, Josh. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

SuperflyTNT wrote: Seems like I’d rather play Dark Moon or Battlestar based on this.

I agree. While reading this, I kept thinking to myself "Is this better than 'BSG Express'?"

The player count seems to make that a firm 'No', despite wanting to explore a game in the setting of the thing.

It's hard enough to get five players for BSG Express, and it's less dependant on the perrenual problem that so many otherwise good games have of "The right group of players".

Those are the unicorns of the gaming world, it seems.

Depending on the circumstances, I find reading tells to be too easy or too hard. If it's a pickup game at a convention, I'm not likely to pick up on tells from a single game. But if it's a close friend, it might be really easy. When I used to play BSG regularly, I learned to initially ignore my own mid-game loyalty card and instead scan the rest of the players as they looked at their loyalty cards. Sometimes it was very obvious who just became a Cylon.

Appreciated the discussion on the checks, thanks.

Shellhead wrote: Depending on the circumstances, I find reading tells to be too easy or too hard. If it's a pickup game at a convention, I'm not likely to pick up on tells from a single game. But if it's a close friend, it might be really easy. When I used to play BSG regularly, I learned to initially ignore my own mid-game loyalty card and instead scan the rest of the players as they looked at their loyalty cards. Sometimes it was very obvious who just became a Cylon.

That’s a skill, I don’t think I would ever fault a game of that, and I would fault you, either. I’d rather the other players adapt and grow from game to game than change the game itself.

Personally, that’s kind of where I’m at with
board gaming. I’d rather play Euro games or games that build and/or reward a skill and leave the more narrative gaming for D&D or some other RPG.