Jump to content

impulsivitea

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About impulsivitea

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lovely work you've done here with the painting, and great job with the rebasing! The clear bases are a definite improvement on the black slabs. Dexter Drake looks mighty fine, and those Nightgaunt look very slick as you say, top notch job there. I also love the red accents on the Lliogor! I like how each of your zombies is a slightly different shade, they all look great, but that distinction is especially nice Wendy is 10? The miniature definitely gives the wrong impression Thank you for sharing your process! You've gone into good depth which is so helpful, I've felt almost too scared to start mine and felt a bit lost with how to do it, so this is much appreciated as well ?
  2. Hi ? Thanks for your reply! There's a game almost ready to go over on BGG (link) - we're just voting on the scenario - if you're happy to play over there; if you'd rather play here and are happy to wait for a couple more players, that's cool too! Thank you for your interest ?
  3. Ahhh, thanks for finding those. I suppose then with the specific items needed for those conditions, it does change things a little. Though of course, as previously mentioned, how much it is effected varies wildly depending on the number of investigators; the points I mentioned are still something of an issue if you only have two investigators, which tends to be the likeliest case for a lot of people. That said, at the end of the day, there are still lots of circumstances (that I and others have mentioned) where the traitor insanity condition cards can end a game abruptly and/or lead to an unfulfilling game/conclusion for some players. For a decent number of people, tweaks like pklevine's are a welcome adjustment to an otherwise stellar game. Mansions of Madness 2e is a game with a lot of merits, but I think it's fair to say that there are places where improvements could have been made (I say this not just referring to the traitor cards; things like monster bases, deficiencies in the app and issues with scaling come to mind as things that people have mentioned having room for improvement) and it's been a good discussion about potentially one of those places. People are welcome to play the game as they choose, and it's no less valid to do so, especially since we're not discussing it as a competitive/tournament game (or at least I'm not). Wishing folks a lovely evening (timezone dependent) and pleasant future discussions! ?
  4. Hi! First off, I just want to say how lovely it has been to find such a thriving MoM forum! I only joined today and I have already really enjoyed interacting with other members. But on to the main item: I was wondering if - provided it is allowed here, please let me know if I have missed a pre-existing thread or rules here about this sort of thing - anyone would be interested in playing any play by post / play by forum games of Mansions of Madness 2e? To give an idea of how it would work, I will link here: https://boardgamegeek.com/forum/1997515/mansions-madness-second-edition/play-forum which has a handful that have been run previously. (You may notice I have also posted there.) A couple ground rules would be in effect: - Players need to have the game as card effects and such will not be posted. - There will be someone acting as 'Keeper' who interacts with the app as necessary, resolves investigator turns/rolls/etc, runs mythos turns, and updates the map accordingly. (I would be fulfilling this role!) Additionally, should things go well, there is the possibility of also running custom scenarios, if that's the sort of thing people are into. I'd really like to hear people's thoughts on this. Thanks, and have a lovely week! ?
  5. Just a quick note to say thank you for setting this up. It's really cool and I'm sure will prove valuable. I will try to remember to add to it after the next game(s) I play! ?
  6. No problem! You've done a phenomenal job with these, you deserve the praise. ? Of course! Who doesn't carry around a portable typewriter? (me. I've clearly been living my life incorrectly thus far ?)
  7. Think I covered this in my reply to gran_orco, but again, I think it comes down to how we each view a 'turn.' I am glad you are enjoying the discussion too! It's been really lovely having people who are as into game mechanics as I am to talk about them with ?
  8. Thanks for responding to my post! I will try to address the things you've mentioned, though bear with me, I am still figuring out how quotations work in this forum. I think I've got the hang of it now (I say, after spending twenty plus minutes editing this response, oops) Apologies if I missed something you said in your post, I read most of this thread in one go and tried to respond to the queries by going through each card individually. Just double checked the rules: "An investigator can place Fire in his space or an adjacent space by performing the set fire action." I haven't found where it states you need (a) specific item(s) to start fires? I will admit, I misremembered how fire spreads - one new space of fire per turn rather than one new space of fire per existing space of fire per turn. Which would make it a little easier, I suppose, though you'd need to have an investigator in the right place/chasing the fire-starter to keep putting the fire out (which is never a guaranteed success given you have to roll agility, whereas setting fire does not require a roll). Additionally, I am far more used to playing with 2/3 investigators. I suppose if you have 5 investigators it would be possible. But I think it's fair to say that the majority of games do not have all 5 investigators (eg. stats in pinned post show 2-investigator games are easily the most common) so while 5 is optimum and yeah, probably more doable, I was thinking more in the general sense, which would include games with 2/3 investigators. Unfortunately there is almost no scaling in this game, which is why I am taking into account the worst case scenario. I meant super easy in that you just have to end a turn in a space with one investigator, thus your next turn will automatically start in a space with an investigator. I refer to turn here being 'Investigator Phase' as that is how the app/people I know have distinguished it, rather than separate turns for each investigator. I guess if you do separate them, it is easier to avoid, but I was writing with that understanding of player turns. Ending a space with just 1 investigator is far more likely that 2 or 3 investigators, not just because most games do not have more investigators, as mentioned above, but also because as the investigators spread around the board, they are likely to be more separate, even if they are still very much in range of each other. A bladed weapon (or two) occurs in basically every game. With 1-2 players (which is the majority of my experience that I am speaking from, I will admit that) it's pretty darn likely you will have or end up with a bladed weapon. I guess in my experience it has not been difficult to meet the conditions of the card at all, and as such, I respectfully disagree with you on that front. As it happens, I have never ignored an insanity condition in any game I have played. In the games I have played, they have been compulsory or thereabouts, since choosing not to do them didn't seem like an option I guess? I mention this for context: I am speaking from experience of exclusively playing insanity conditions as written rather than ignoring them as you suggest. I am well aware you cannot use the attack action against other investigators. When I say mitigate the damage, I am referring to fixing mixed up puzzles (that another player can do if the others do not finish it in a single turn), putting out fires (because fires are of course inconvenient), stealing items and pushing investigators. Fair enough on the abruptly front, I checked that card after posting, but it can still very easily event in the other player(s) having to drop the investigation to mitigate the damage, as already mentioned. Again, with 5 players, as most things in this game seem to be, it becomes a lot easier, but with 2-3 investigators, it is very difficult to do much else that react to this stuff in your turns. I actually really like For The Greater Good for flavour, and I did mention in my post that it doesn't entirely count as a traitor condition as you are mostly playing the game as normal. This is the one I have the least issue with to be honest, but I was simply highlighting the drawbacks of the card (eg. dying before game end but not too late to ensure the investigation is completed can be hecking difficult if you've not played the scenario before). Plus again, a 2-3 investigator game is very different from a 4-5 investigator game. I already mentioned I don't ignore them, but you are right that I (and people I have played with) have been, at times, somewhat frustrated when a game ends (what we feel to be) prematurely or, perhaps more annoyingly, without a real narrative conclusion. (Even the lose conditions in the app have an epilogue of sorts. imo some of the frustration would be much lessened if there were, for example, alternate app endings depending on how you lost.) Re: LabanShrewsbury's posts over the course of this thread, there are definitely instances where it comes off as refusing to accept people's reasoning eg. this is not the game for you if you want to have workarounds. True, you can't be 100% sure of tone/intent on the internet, but that was what I was addressing, not the confusion over specific card functions. That's great that you have funny games with one of the players mute, but it's not for everyone, and it works better in some games than others. In addition, the card does not specify that it's specifically your character that cannot speak, and thus it can be read as the player needing to be quiet. If you think about it, the way you play could be considered a sort of workaround to some people due to the ambiguity of the card, which in a way just emphasises the idea that this game can be played with minor tweaks for player enjoyment. The way you suggest playing it does sound worthwhile though, I may well use it next time that card comes up! I think I've covered everything? (Sometimes I get a little overwhelmed at lots of text - which I realise is pretty hecking rich seeing how long my post was - hence I've broken it up into smaller chunks, but do let me know if I have missed anything or misunderstood what you meant.) I think it's fair to say our experiences playing this game have been a little different, which likely colours our opinions, but it has been fun discussing the intricacies of these conditions! You certainly mentioned a couple things I hadn't thought of, which is one of the reasons why I find discussions like these so interesting.
  9. These models looks fantastic! I particularly like how you've painted the Maniacs and the Cthonians but my favourites have got to be the Shoggoths. Your design and the one based on the concept art are both executed flawlessly, they look amazing. Oh, and the Hounds! So awesome, they genuinely look like they are glowing Totally get what you mean re: the witches, you've done a good job with the shadows though. The cthulhu you've painted is gorgeous. EDIT: I just re-read and realised you sculpted him and King in Yellow yourself?! That's incredible! Top notch job on the investigators too. I may have to use the images of those facial expressions as reaction images at some point, they are golden ? You have a real knack for the details on the investigators/people figures. Your Dunwich Horror is suitably horrifying and King in Yellow is just gorgeous Thank you so much for sharing these!
  10. This post is mostly in response to LabanShrewsbury, but of course everyone is free to read/discuss/comment/etc I will go through each traitor condition in the hope of explaining to you what people are trying to say here. If I am understanding correctly, there are effectively 2 options upon drawing an insanity condition: a) Choose not to do what the card says is your win condition b) Choose to do what the card says is your win condition Pyromania Drawn early game. a) Choose not to do it. You choose not to start any fires / make sure there are not more than 6. aka things you were probably going to be doing anyway. Effect on game: nonexistent b) Choose to do it. You start a bunch of fires. Other investigators either try to stop you, meaning that the entire game becomes a repetitive game of cat and mouse starting and extinguishing fires, and the story/mystery/investigation goes out the window, (which is what most people play the game for) OR other investigators leave you to it, fire spreads, game ends really early. OR of course, some amalgamation of the two which ends up being ultimately unfulfilling for most players since they cannot move on with the investigation nor successfully end the fire starting for good. Drawn late game. a) Choose not to do it. You don't start any new fires. You put out existing spreading fires, taking actions that could otherwise go to moving on the investigation. Players are annoyed since they have made progress and this massively screws their chances of finishing the game. Nobody wins or it feels like a hollow victory for fire-starter. b) Choose to do it. You start fires, or knowingly let them spread to 6 tiles. Investigators, like earlier, either try to put them out or leave them be. Game ends quickly one way or another as they are near the end of the game so limited turns are either spent putting out fires and not being able to finish the investigation or trying to complete investigation in time, losing to the fires just before win scenario (frustrating) or winning just before (insanity condition has little to no effect on game, except fire-starter is the only one who doesn't win) c) There are already 6 fires, which can realistically happen late game, since players tend to be concentrating on stopping the big bad/disrupting the ritual/whatever the win condition is. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, any hopes of finishing the game go out the window. Lots of players tend to feel cheated as they have made progress and it feels out of their control. One of the Thousand At any point during the game tbh a) Choose not to do it This is the only one where it kinda works out like some of the others in that you cannot end a turn with another investigator. But this can super easily end up having no effect on the game whatsoever or too much if it's in close quarters, like hallways and such, in which case game ends abruptly or becomes impossible to continue investigation b) Choose to do it Super easy. Game ends abruptly no matter how quickly you manage it. Hollow victory for traitor, lose for everyone else. c) You draw the card and already have a bladed weapon and sharing a space. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, etc. Crisis of Conscience At any point during game. a) Choose not to do it Literally no effect on game except you are the only one to lose if everyone else wins b) Choose to do it Super easy to end game abruptly. OR other investigators again spend all their turns trying to mitigate any damage you do and thus cannot continue investigation. For the Greater Good (I'm including here even though not sure how much it counts? Since for most of the game you are trying to complete the investigation) a) Choose not to do it/don't die at the right time No effect on game outcome except you are the only one to lose if everyone else wins. b) Choose to do it Try and die. Late game, might be nice flavour to die 'for the greater good' as opposed to for no reason, but next to no effect on game mechanically, OR you spend last turns walking into fire/letting things attack you/etc. either succeeding to die and not completing the investigation or failing and losing either way With the minor exception of choosing not to do One of the Thousand, which almost works out like a non traitor condition (except as a heightened claustrophobia/paranoia condition that risks ending the game on accident), the traitor insanity conditions either have zero effect on the game (largely by choosing not to do them, which questions why they have them in the first place*) or too much effect on the game, ending the game abruptly or making continuing the investigation next to impossible. We all know the game is meant to be difficult, but lots of people play for the challenge, and even a lose condition has a narrative conclusion in the app which helps even a loss feel like a satisfactory game, instead of an abrupt game end or doing away with the investigation altogether (which can also be repetitive/boring). Everyone has different things they enjoy, of course, but you seem to refuse to accept people's reasoning as to why they don't like these cards. In this post I have tried to explain why this is. You don't have to agree, but please try to understand instead of dismissing their concerns, which you have done a lot of in this thread. I mean no disrespect, but people have explained this already, I am only going into such close detail to help you understand. This doesn't have to be an argument. *A lot of people enjoy the insanity conditions as an additional challenge whilst continuing the investigation rather than a flat game over (with no narrative conclusion) or dismissing the investigation itself to mitigate the damage of the traitor. If you have the option of choosing not to do the insanity card, it is a valid question as to why have it in the first place? People tend to do the insanity cards as that is the consequence of losing their sanity points. Choosing not to do them sort of defeats the point of having them there in almost every instance. As an additional note, conditions like "You cannot speak" rather than "You cannot speak in game" can ruin it for some people. Playing games is a very social experience for a lot of people; not everyone wants to end up playing charades, and if they don't want to do this (which is 100% okay, it's meant to be fun, it's not for everyone) they do risk getting left out because they cannot speak, which sucks. You can choose not to do it of course, but again, why then have the card. Saying that not following certain things in game means it's the wrong game for people dismisses a lot of the reason people are playing it in the first case. Lots of people like the game a lot, hence why they are coming up with these minor workarounds in order to continue playing the game they love without having to deal with the little things that ruin it for them. Just like when people play a video game with a mod or two, it doesn't mean they don't like the base game (otherwise they wouldn't be playing it) they are just slightly altering it to tailor it to their own enjoyment. And enjoying yourself is the whole reason you play games in the first place. Have a great week everyone! ?
×
×
  • Create New...