Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Dead of Winter: A Crossroads Game» Forums » Variants

Subject: Reducing Chance of Betrayer rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pixxel Wizzard
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like DoW, but I think it's too easy for the betrayer to lay in the weeds until the end of the game. Betrayer in game almost always equals "everybody loses." The games where no one is a betrayer have been the most fun, by a long shot.

Therefore, I am considering adding 3 non-betrayer cards into the "secret objective" deck for each survivor instead of just 2. We still have a chance for a betrayer but the odds are a lot less and we see a lot less games where "everybody loses" because of the betrayer.

What do you think?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Ferrier
United States
Salem
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it would be fine, I like the idea that there might be a betrayer a lot more then actually having one. My main problem is when the betrayer can't win but tanks the game as there is no motivation for being the only one losing and it must feel like winning as every game I've played with a betrayer has done it this way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fsnam wrote:
My main problem is when the betrayer can't win but tanks the game as there is no motivation for being the only one losing

I think the choice of main objective affects this, too. In the ones which end as soon as enough food or medicine cards are collected, we see non-betrayers doing things to stall the end of the game (hoarding whatever it is that's being collected) because they haven't met their secret objective, which looks suspicious. We do have games where no one wins, but we also have games where the betrayer isn't the only one who loses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb Kester
United States
Ankeny
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The fewer chances of a betrayer means it'll be easier for the betrayer to win because you aren't expecting it.

But it also should mean fewer games that he's in. I think you're fine to do whatever variant. This is the opposite of the increasing chance of betrayal where we add 1.5cards per player (and yes we half half cards ).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Marley
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a very reasonable variant.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tristan Hall
England
Manchester
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
badge
LIFEFORM - LATE PLEDGE NOW!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pinkled5 wrote:
I like DoW, but I think it's too easy for the betrayer to lay in the weeds until the end of the game. Betrayer in game almost always equals "everybody loses." The games where no one is a betrayer have been the most fun, by a long shot.

Therefore, I am considering adding 3 non-betrayer cards into the "secret objective" deck for each survivor instead of just 2. We still have a chance for a betrayer but the odds are a lot less and we see a lot less games where "everybody loses" because of the betrayer.

What do you think?


Have you thought about trying the fully coop variant in the rules?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pixxel Wizzard
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ninjadorg wrote:


Have you thought about trying the fully coop variant in the rules?


To be honest, I do enjoy the co-op aspects of this game far more than the tension created by a possible betrayer. I would love to play pure co-op, but we have at least one player in our group that loves the betrayer element, and practically plays like the betrayer in every game whether he is or not!

At any rate, great suggestion and I may just do away with the betrayer card all together whenever possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know that the Co-Op variant in the rulebook states that in addition to there being no betrayer, players do not have secret objectives. But I wonder if playing with secret objectives would at least add a little bit of tension back in to the Co-Op variant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Ferrier
United States
Salem
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
I know that the Co-Op variant in the rulebook states that in addition to there being no betrayer, players do not have secret objectives. But I wonder if playing with secret objectives would at least add a little bit of tension back in to the Co-Op variant.
I think full coop might put me to sleep, also without the hidden goals there can be a tendency for someone to take over and try and run everything yuk
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pixxel Wizzard
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fsnam wrote:
randomlife wrote:
I know that the Co-Op variant in the rulebook states that in addition to there being no betrayer, players do not have secret objectives. But I wonder if playing with secret objectives would at least add a little bit of tension back in to the Co-Op variant.
I think full coop might put me to sleep, also without the hidden goals there can be a tendency for someone to take over and try and run everything yuk


MY PROPOSED CO-OP VARIANT

Use secret objectives but also use the regular side of the main objective, not the hardcore side.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pinkled5 wrote:
Use secret objectives but also use the regular side of the main objective, not the hardcore side.

Welllll... knowing there's no betrayer means that you have no reason not to give your fellow players everything they ask for. "You've already got three guns, and you want another? Sure, buddy!" It might turn out to be fun, but I think you'll find the no-secret-objectives, hardcore-mode more of a challenge, and more tense.

(Also, if you go this way, there may be a few of the secret objectives you need to take out--there's one where you win if there's no non-exiled betrayer.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xavier A. Perez
Argentina
Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires
CABA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can always go Hardcore WITH secret objectives.

It's what I did for my first play (misread the coop variant) and it worked pretty well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donny Behne
United States
Fate
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
www.punchboardmedia.com/geaux-gaming/
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds like you want to play Pandemic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Carson
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pinkled5 wrote:
fsnam wrote:
randomlife wrote:
I know that the Co-Op variant in the rulebook states that in addition to there being no betrayer, players do not have secret objectives. But I wonder if playing with secret objectives would at least add a little bit of tension back in to the Co-Op variant.
I think full coop might put me to sleep, also without the hidden goals there can be a tendency for someone to take over and try and run everything yuk


MY PROPOSED CO-OP VARIANT

Use secret objectives but also use the regular side of the main objective, not the hardcore side.

I predict you'll see many easy wins.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I still think you should try to keep your secret objectives secret, though. It's tempting in a complete co-op to just go around the table and state what all of your secret objectives are and then work together on them. One of the main reasons to keep your secret objectives secret in the regular game is because of the possible presence of a betrayer, so it seems like it would be fine to get rid of that requirement. But I think the game will be too easy that way.

So I think if you want to keep the game at least a little challenging, you should treat it more like Hanabi. Hanabi is cooperative, but there are communication restrictions -- otherwise it would be way too easy. Think of the secrecy of the goals as an added challenge: can you complete your secret objectives without hinting or telling anyone else what they are?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
randomlife wrote:
So I think if you want to keep the game at least a little challenging, you should treat it more like Hanabi. Hanabi is cooperative, but there are communication restrictions -- otherwise it would be way too easy. Think of the secrecy of the goals as an added challenge: can you complete your secret objectives without hinting or telling anyone else what they are?

Still sounds too easy (and therefore uninteresting), for the reason I gave in my previous post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David "Davy" Ashleydale
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, go hardcore.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.