Christian Letourneau
Canada
St-Lambert
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was thinking about the traitor mechanic and got to thinking that in a game where there seemed to be some competition for individual goals, how about throwing in a negative card in a check to give players something else to think about? Could this give you more latitude to try and complete your own goal? And this could have the added bonus to completely confuse a real traitor and maybe throw his plans out if he/she thought about staying hidden for a while still. Food for thought...

Edit: Removed reference to low card and modified title to make it more clear that this is not another "I can't meet my secret objective so should I tank the game" thread.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
Not sure what you mean by low. All that matters is the number of cards - there is no concept of "low" or "high".
Even one negative card is likely to make the crisis fail, as most players will assume the cards going in are positive until they have a reason to think otherwise.
Also, if you make it appear that there is a traitor in the game, your actions will be under even more scrutiny. That will do the opposite of giving you latitude. This is only a good idea if your goal seems impossible and you want to be exiled.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
Nope. As a non-betrayer I would never "spike" put a negative card in a crisis.

Why? Lowering morale is always bad for a loyal player. If you do not have your personal goal you need more time, lowering morale gives you less time. Also you are throwing away good resources that you or someone else might need.



Not helping with the main objective as loyal player? Yes this I would defiantly do if I don't have my personal goal done.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Letourneau
Canada
St-Lambert
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
MasterDinadan wrote:
Not sure what you mean by low. All that matters is the number of cards - there is no concept of "low" or "high".


Hmmm, I stand corrected. I was thinking BSG here for some reason.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Gutierrez
United States
Burbank
California
flag msg tools
badge
"A pilot's greatest virtue is to know when to run" -- "What's this, a joke?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
Well not knowing all the crisis cards or objective cards, I can say that there is at least one scenario where you MIGHT want to spike the crisis as a non traitor.

Hailstorm crisis (http://www.plaidhatgames.com/news/345)
And the masochist objective (http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1995186/dead-winter-crossroad...)

So knowing the game will can end soon (low morale), but also knowing that our objective will be successful (a wait out the clock like in the board to death video), I might want to spike the crisis to try and get wounds on my survivors if I'm not feeling confident rolling the exposure die and risking death (and a loss).

Do I think it is going to be a common occurrence? No way, I doubt there will even be that many more examples of objective crisis combos that will "work" this way.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JonnyRotten
United States
Montpelier
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
Just because I am interested in seeing the discussion (and I've seen this happen).

Let's say your secret objective is that there are 3 survivors removed from the game (dead). There are currently 0. The game is going to end this round or next.

A Crisis is up that would place zombies in a way that three survivors will die, if no one moves.

You are not the betrayer. Three survivors dieing will drop morale to 1.

What do you do?

Bonus question, you are not the last player for the turn, and if the next player moves, it will screw up this plan.

I love situations like this. :devil:
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis Schwarz
Germany
Siegen
NRW
flag msg tools
GLOOOOOOOOOOOOOMHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVEN!!!!!!!!!!!
badge
maybe on the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one....
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
eviljelloman wrote:
jgilmour wrote:
Just because I am interested in seeing the discussion (and I've seen this happen).

Let's say your secret objective is that there are 3 survivors removed from the game (dead). There are currently 0. The game is going to end this round or next.

A Crisis is up that would place zombies in a way that three survivors will die, if no one moves.

You are not the betrayer. Three survivors dieing will drop morale to 1.

What do you do?

Bonus question, you are not the last player for the turn, and if the next player moves, it will screw up this plan.

I love situations like this. devil


In both cases, I'd spike that crisis! Hardclaim.


So you would intentionally almost tank the game for all the players, even though you aren't a betrayer just to try to increase your odds to personally win ?!?!
(C'mon people, lets get this thread rolling devil )
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JonnyRotten
United States
Montpelier
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
=-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
King Maple
Estonia
Tallinn
Harjumaa
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
The one thing that Dead of Winter gets really wrong - especially weird considering how much they're 'borrowing' from Battlestar Galactica - is the crisis resolution. Galactica throws in wild 'destiny' cards to each skill check, so players can never be sure if they have enough supplied.

In Dead of Winter it becomes pretty obvious by half point of the game if you have a traitor or not. If all checks are easily passed, then there's no traitor and it's almost mechanical how you can solve your every other crisis check. Traitor is risking way too much if they don't act at all by half point of the game. And when they act, it is obvious that they act. There's no benefit of doubt at all.

I'm thinking about houseruling this somewhat, but haven't figured out how exactly just yet.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JonnyRotten
United States
Montpelier
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
Slashdoctor wrote:
The one thing that Dead of Winter gets really wrong - especially weird considering how much they're 'borrowing' from Battlestar Galactica - is the crisis resolution. Galactica throws in wild 'destiny' cards to each skill check, so players can never be sure if they have enough supplied.

In Dead of Winter it becomes pretty obvious by half point of the game if you have a traitor or not. If all checks are easily passed, then there's no traitor and it's almost mechanical how you can solve your every other crisis check. Traitor is risking way too much if they don't act at all by half point of the game. And when they act, it is obvious that they act. There's no benefit of doubt at all.

I'm thinking about houseruling this somewhat, but haven't figured out how exactly just yet.


Give it a chance first.

Usually the traitor does not need to start throwing Crisis' early. One well placed one towards the end can be all they need.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent
Netherlands
Arnhem
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
jgilmour wrote:

Usually the traitor does not need to start throwing Crisis' early. One well placed one towards the end can be all they need.

And there are so many other ways for a traitor to get the morale down. Even not contributing when they can, is already risky for the group objective.


I'm trying to plan gamenights for three consective weekends hoping Dead of Winter will arrive soon...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Would you throw a negative card in crisis check as a NON-betrayer?
One big change from BSG is that each card is really valuable. In BSG you draw new cards on your turn. In DoW you only get new cards if you search, and there is a limited supply of each card in the game.

DoW has a lot fewer crisises then BSG. You will have 4-6 crisis in a complete game of DoW. You might have 4-6 crisis per turn in BSG. A DoW traitor only needs to spike 1-2 crisis to win.

Edit: if he is playing well.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Resistance is broken because you don't throw random cards into the mission. You know every fail card came from a player, so it is impossible for spies to remain hidden if they are playing to win!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reddish22
United States
Nampa
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
the Yellow Sign?
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MasterDinadan wrote:
The Resistance is broken because you don't throw random cards into the mission. You know every fail card came from a player, so it is impossible for spies to remain hidden if they are playing to win!


Spoken like a true spy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let me amend my original post. I would spike a crisis if it would directly help with my personal objective. So the example Jon gave I would consider a spike, but I can see this only coming up once in a 100 games. But it would be very rare.

1) crisis helps my personal goal. Only few crisises help a few goals, as far as I can tell.

2) it is near the end of the game.

3) the group has not agreed to my suggestion that we let this crisis go.

It is better, for a loyal player, that a crisis to fail with no cards then to spike a crisis others have put cards into.

For a traitor the best crisis fail is one where the group is one card short with no spikes! In a five player game this wastes 4 cards.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan M
Canada
Regina
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure what the point of this would be. If you are not a traitor, then contibuting a negative card would not only screw the group over, but it would likely result in negative consequences that everyone must deal with. Depending on what your personal goal is, that would likely make completing any goal that much harder.

Seems like it would be smarter to just pretend you don't have the cards needed and contribute nothing. Somebody else may then pick up the slack. And if they don't then you would have negative consequences anyway. But to me, there is a pretty big difference between the group failing to complete a task because they don't have the cards (legitimately or not) and because they THOUGHT they completed the task but somebody threw a negative card in the pile unexpectdely.

So I really don't know why a non-traitor would make such a move. What would be the benefit? You would be better off just holding onto that extra card than throwing it away and probably guaranteeing a failed round.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan M
Canada
Regina
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jgilmour wrote:
Just because I am interested in seeing the discussion (and I've seen this happen).

Let's say your secret objective is that there are 3 survivors removed from the game (dead). There are currently 0. The game is going to end this round or next.

A Crisis is up that would place zombies in a way that three survivors will die, if no one moves.

You are not the betrayer. Three survivors dieing will drop morale to 1.

What do you do?

Bonus question, you are not the last player for the turn, and if the next player moves, it will screw up this plan.

I love situations like this. devil


Hm. Is this is something that could legitimately happen, then I would seriously considering tossing a negative card into the pile.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin West
United States
Woodford
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jgilmour wrote:
Just because I am interested in seeing the discussion (and I've seen this happen).

Let's say your secret objective is that there are 3 survivors removed from the game (dead). There are currently 0. The game is going to end this round or next.

A Crisis is up that would place zombies in a way that three survivors will die, if no one moves.

You are not the betrayer. Three survivors dieing will drop morale to 1.

What do you do?

Bonus question, you are not the last player for the turn, and if the next player moves, it will screw up this plan.

I love situations like this. devil


are there personal objectives like this for nonbetrayers? that seems like a bad design decision if you can be a "good guy" and want to kill off your friends in the colony?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Letourneau
Canada
St-Lambert
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mools wrote:
I'm not sure what the point of this would be. If you are not a traitor, then contibuting a negative card would not only screw the group over, but it would likely result in negative consequences that everyone must deal with. Depending on what your personal goal is, that would likely make completing any goal that much harder.


Well for one you could try and convince the group that there might be a traitor and you can't afford to have the crisis resolve so that the group contributes over the number of cards required just to be safe. Or you could use the opportunity when the group is trying to achieve the bonus cards effect of over contributing to a crisis to put the negative card in. The "fake traitor move" can be done at certain times without much risk to the group. So the question remains whether, given that it can be done without much risk to the group, there are situations where this would prove useful for a non-betrayer player. Jonny gave us an example where it could actually be useful to tank the crisis check.

What about situations where you don't need or want to tank the check? I could conceive for example that let's say early to mid-game, you somehow become absolutely convinced that there is a traitor around the table. No matter what you do or say, you are not able to convince the group who are not being careful enough such as by not putting additional cards in an important check, just in case. I could see a non-betrayer making the fake traitor move after that important check to wake the group up. Now the fake traitor might be wrong, but that's another story. I can just imagine the discussions and inquisition around the table at game end when no traitor is revealed and there was a negative card in a check.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon M
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
“Games give you a chance to excel, and if you're playing in good company you don't even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game.” ― Gary Gygax
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
westcl2 wrote:
jgilmour wrote:
Just because I am interested in seeing the discussion (and I've seen this happen).

Let's say your secret objective is that there are 3 survivors removed from the game (dead). There are currently 0. The game is going to end this round or next.

A Crisis is up that would place zombies in a way that three survivors will die, if no one moves.

You are not the betrayer. Three survivors dieing will drop morale to 1.

What do you do?

Bonus question, you are not the last player for the turn, and if the next player moves, it will screw up this plan.

I love situations like this. devil


are there personal objectives like this for nonbetrayers? that seems like a bad design decision if you can be a "good guy" and want to kill off your friends in the colony?


Yup. Its no worse than hoarding medicine that people need to heal frostbite wounds that will kill them, or letting the morale plummet because you don't want to give up resource X to pass a crisis.

It actually frees up cards and actions for that player that would otherwise be spent on a "collect X,Y,& Z" type goal.

It works.

Edit: Thematically, you may be a good guy, but those GUYS are just sowing dissent and this group needs to stick together. One group of twenty survivors is better than two groups of ten. Seventeen survivors isn't quite as good as twenty, but its still better than two groups of ten.

Or, I was saving that last Twinkie, and those wastes of space stole it. They'll get whats coming to them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin West
United States
Woodford
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Duguayduguay wrote:
Mools wrote:
I'm not sure what the point of this would be. If you are not a traitor, then contibuting a negative card would not only screw the group over, but it would likely result in negative consequences that everyone must deal with. Depending on what your personal goal is, that would likely make completing any goal that much harder.


Well for one you could try and convince the group that there might be a traitor and you can't afford to have the crisis resolve so that the group contributes over the number of cards required just to be safe. Or you could use the opportunity when the group is trying to achieve the bonus cards effect of over contributing to a crisis to put the negative card in. The "fake traitor move" can be done at certain times without much risk to the group. So the question remains whether, given that it can be done without much risk to the group, there are situations where this would prove useful for a non-betrayer player. Jonny gave us an example where it could actually be useful to tank the crisis check.

What about situations where you don't need or want to tank the check? I could conceive for example that let's say early to mid-game, you somehow become absolutely convinced that there is a traitor around the table. No matter what you do or say, you are not able to convince the group who are not being careful enough such as by not putting additional cards in an important check, just in case. I could see a non-betrayer making the fake traitor move after that important check to wake the group up. Now the fake traitor might be wrong, but that's another story. I can just imagine the discussions and inquisition around the table at game end when no traitor is revealed and there was a negative card in a check.


thats some meta paranoia if you are acting overtly as a traitor to make the group believe there is a traitor. It seems a bit dumb to tank an otherwise successful crisis to make people think someone is a traitor when there may or may not even be one at all.....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Letourneau
Canada
St-Lambert
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
westcl2 wrote:
Duguayduguay wrote:
Mools wrote:
I'm not sure what the point of this would be. If you are not a traitor, then contibuting a negative card would not only screw the group over, but it would likely result in negative consequences that everyone must deal with. Depending on what your personal goal is, that would likely make completing any goal that much harder.


Well for one you could try and convince the group that there might be a traitor and you can't afford to have the crisis resolve so that the group contributes over the number of cards required just to be safe. Or you could use the opportunity when the group is trying to achieve the bonus cards effect of over contributing to a crisis to put the negative card in. The "fake traitor move" can be done at certain times without much risk to the group. So the question remains whether, given that it can be done without much risk to the group, there are situations where this would prove useful for a non-betrayer player. Jonny gave us an example where it could actually be useful to tank the crisis check.

What about situations where you don't need or want to tank the check? I could conceive for example that let's say early to mid-game, you somehow become absolutely convinced that there is a traitor around the table. No matter what you do or say, you are not able to convince the group who are not being careful enough such as by not putting additional cards in an important check, just in case. I could see a non-betrayer making the fake traitor move after that important check to wake the group up. Now the fake traitor might be wrong, but that's another story. I can just imagine the discussions and inquisition around the table at game end when no traitor is revealed and there was a negative card in a check.


thats some meta paranoia if you are acting overtly as a traitor to make the group believe there is a traitor. It seems a bit dumb to tank an otherwise successful crisis to make people think someone is a traitor when there may or may not even be one at all.....


You misread what I said. I specifically gave that example in the context where you would put a negative card in the check that would not or would have very little chance to tank that check...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin West
United States
Woodford
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
so your chances of survival in this post apocalyptic world is made better by killing off half your community? Not specifically the traitor, but just as likely that lady/guy who has strong survival skills/knowledge

just seems like shotty design, not saying the personal missions should be everyone hug and cuddle w/ extra food or something. but deliberately trying to kill off the others does not increase your survival chances unless you/they are inherently bad
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin West
United States
Woodford
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
eviljelloman wrote:
westcl2 wrote:
so your chances of survival in this post apocalyptic world is made better by killing off half your community? Not specifically the traitor, but just as likely that lady/guy who has strong survival skills/knowledge

just seems like shotty design, not saying the personal missions should be everyone hug and cuddle w/ extra food or something. but deliberately trying to kill off the others does not increase your survival chances unless you/they are inherently bad


Why does it have to be black and white? Why can't there be shades of gray? Maybe your character is both bad and good.

This is not a Euro cube pusher, this is a game of people who've suffered deep psychological trauma. The characters' motivations are not always going to be rational, carefully trying to optimize the efficiency of an engine - they are screwed up people living in a screwed up world. Some might be genuine heroes, and some might be the kind of people who want to live in a colony solely because they like to see that colony suffer. Stop thinking of the colony as the "good guys".

Have you EVER watched a halfway decent zombie movie or tv show? There are few people who are simply "good".

Also, from a game design standpoint, the design is in no way shoddy. One of the points of this game, from a gameplay perspective is to generate opportunities for conflict between players. The gray areas of conflicting goals do a damn good job of doing that.


To be frank, I find your use of the word "shotty [sic]" to describe the design of a game you haven't even played to be pretty offensive. This game has had literally thousands of playtests, from a diverse pool of players, and the designer has been incredibly engaged with the community. Calling his design "shoddy" without ever touching it is disrespectful to both him and the community who have helped refine this game.


so obviously you're sensitive to a differing opinion, so i'll just let this thread go. have a good time fake betraying or whatever it is you're advocating.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Earl Zombie
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
westcl2 wrote:
jgilmour wrote:
Just because I am interested in seeing the discussion (and I've seen this happen).

Let's say your secret objective is that there are 3 survivors removed from the game (dead). There are currently 0. The game is going to end this round or next.

A Crisis is up that would place zombies in a way that three survivors will die, if no one moves.

You are not the betrayer. Three survivors dieing will drop morale to 1.

What do you do?

Bonus question, you are not the last player for the turn, and if the next player moves, it will screw up this plan.


I love situations like this. devil



are there personal objectives like this for nonbetrayers? that seems like a bad design decision if you can be a "good guy" and want to kill off your friends in the colony?


I feel like this is the strong suit of the game. The difficulty is the fact that the objectives are counter productive to the group objective. You secret objective is a flaw in your character. I can't give up my medicine for Timmy's frostbite, I need it. If you didn't have to make calls like that this game would be every other zombie game during on your shelf, and not on your table. One of my favorite plays of this game, my objective was to have 3 characters die, revenge I believe it is called. I had to keep morale high to pull it off, every character that dies is a morale loss, so I had to keep that in mind through the whole game. I also didnt want to get exiled so I had to make it look like an accident, till the end. I acted last the game was all wrapped up. The farmer was at the grocery store, I moved my doctor in, and called the zombies in to kill us both.
"You may not remember me from before all this Farmer Brown, but I remember you and what you did, but the colony will be better off with out a man like you" Bam! Group win, I win, fun story telling. Awsome.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.