Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
74 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Mansions of Madness: Second Edition» Forums » Rules

Subject: Insanity: turn order rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nicklas Lundkvist
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
Yesterday we were five people playing the first scenario, the one with Mr. Vanderbilt, and by chance three of us got the Insanity condition pretty much at the same time.
Thus a strange situation arose:
All three of us that had gone insane all of a sudden found ourselves being, because of the Insanity, very picky and choosy about what order in which players took their turns.

Having the label "Insane" of course lead the players who hadn't gone Insane to be very suspicious towards us and they didn't want to meet our demands and simply said "Nope, I'm not buying your sneaky and insane ideas". Understandable.

For short second I thought to myself that this was indeed the point with getting Insanity - that the other players will distrust you and you will become left outside of the group. However, when you have an alternative win condition it's pretty much impossible if the other players can simply vote and say "Nah, we came to an agreement that you will take your turn first, because you are Insane and we want to see your action first so we can avoid you or clean up after you" or "You seem to want to take your turn first, but you are Insane, so of course we vote that you'll take your turn last instead".
It very quickly stops being interesting and just becomes silly, to say the least.

We debated taking the turns in a clockwise order - nope, wouldn't work. It becomes to too static.
We had already tried democratic votes - people almost play a cat and mouse game of just avoiding the insane players. Insane players gets voted down.
Randomization - the best of the alternatives, but also completely changes the gameplay since you're usually able to freely choose the turn order. So the game goes from being free and open, to all of a sudden having to trust the group's fate to dice rolling. None of us enjoyed this either


Now that I'm writing it here, it doesn't sound too bad, I even fool myself a bit to go back to my initial thought that Insanity is supposed to be like this. BUT it is a fact that yesterday, five grown up people with medium to high board game experience didn't know how to solve the situation, and we were honestly frustrated.
Having a game with free decisions is nice, but there must exist a set of overriding rules that take place if certain requirements are met.

My question is: is there a rule somewhere that we all just missed even though reading the rules and Googling that tells you how to take turns in case players can not agree because of an in-game condition?
Havs you been in similiar situations?

Cheers /N
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julia
msg tools
We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
badge
Amor, sola lex
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say it's a conflict, so, Investigators as a group decide. Considering that Insane investigators are not part of the group (or at least this is what for me means having different victory conditions), the sane Investigators should decide.

In any case, it seems to me that the effects of Insanity are actually working: I'd hardly expect a group of 5 with 3 Insane guys working as the perfect commando

The real question should be: how much bad luck did you have to score 3 Insane in the easiest scenario? I'd have loved to see such a game!

(sorry for the final frustration tho, boardgames should be a fun moment in the day)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
Don't the rules cover this?

Page 2 of the Rules Reference.
Quote:
Conflicts
During the game, some game effects may lead to conflicts within the
game or between the investigators.
* It is possible that investigators have differing intentions and goals.
If this prevents investigators from reaching a decision as a group,
the decision is determined by an investigator chosen at random.

You don't get to vote on it. If you don't all agree, then it becomes a random selection. (I'm thinking on turn order here).
13 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
Scarlet Witch wrote:
Investigators as a group decide. Considering that Insane investigators are not part of the group (or at least this is what for me means having different victory conditions), the sane Investigators should decide.

That's an interesting take on the situation.

Could you refer to the rules to back this up. I'm willing to believe it might be true but so far I haven't noticed anything that support this view.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julia
msg tools
We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
badge
Amor, sola lex
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xris wrote:
Scarlet Witch wrote:
Investigators as a group decide. Considering that Insane investigators are not part of the group (or at least this is what for me means having different victory conditions), the sane Investigators should decide.

That's an interesting take on the situation.

Could you refer to the rules to back this up. I'm willing to believe it might be true but so far I haven't noticed anything that support this view.


Nah, sorry, I forgot about the specific rules about resolving randomly the conflict. Not that I like those, but yes, they cover the situation. Also just found another bug in the Rules Reference: the Winning & Losing section lists as related topic "Insane", but there is no such an entry in the Ref Guide, Insane is listed under "Damage & Horror"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicklas Lundkvist
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
Wow, I feel a bit ashamed to have missed that part. You are indeed correct.
I can't really imagine how our game would have played out if we were to follow this rule, as it could really mess things up. But it is after all exactly what I was asking for - an overriding rule. And I feel happy to have learnt that one exists after all, it'll make future games easier hopefully.
Thank you very much!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicklas Lundkvist
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
Scarlet Witch wrote:
I'd say it's a conflict, so, Investigators as a group decide. Considering that Insane investigators are not part of the group (or at least this is what for me means having different victory conditions), the sane Investigators should decide


I also find this interesting, but I also want to argue that an insane person is the least likely to follow orders (get voted down) and would rather be a wild card not caring about agreed upon actions. Therefore an insane person should be able to take his/her turn anytime he/she wants.

Anyways, we got the answer now, but there are obviously different ways this could have worked
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
Narstrand wrote:
Wow, I feel a bit ashamed to have missed that part. You are indeed correct.
I can't really imagine how our game would have played out if we were to follow this rule, as it could really mess things up. But it is after all exactly what I was asking for - an overriding rule. And I feel happy to have learnt that one exists after all, it'll make future games easier hopefully.

What I don't like about the rule on page 2 is that you randomly select an Investigator and that Investigator makes the choice.

I would prefer that a random choice be made from those available. Maybe there are situations where this isn't practical?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicklas Lundkvist
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
The more I think about this rule, the more I feel that it's kinda unspecific.
"makes the choice" it says, but as in our case there were at least four different wishes between the players. So, we should randomly have selected one of us, but what does that person get to decide? Would he/she decide who goes first and then we apply the rule again and randomly choose a new player that chooses who goes second. Or would the first person choose the whole turn order for all players?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicklas Lundkvist
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
By the way, Julia, yes it was an interesting game. With three Insane people, one Injured and the fifth trying to finish the game pretty much by himself, it was weird and humorous
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julia
msg tools
We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
badge
Amor, sola lex
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Narstrand wrote:
By the way, Julia, yes it was an interesting game. With three Insane people, one Injured and the fifth trying to finish the game pretty much by himself, it was weird and humorous


Happy to hear that, Nicklas
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Narstrand wrote:
The more I think about this rule, the more I feel that it's kinda unspecific.
"makes the choice" it says, but as in our case there were at least four different wishes between the players. So, we should randomly have selected one of us, but what does that person get to decide? Would he/she decide who goes first and then we apply the rule again and randomly choose a new player that chooses who goes second. Or would the first person choose the whole turn order for all players?


It means that, if the investigators can't decide what to do, then you randomly choose a player and that player decides what to do until there is no longer a conflict.

In the situation you describe, you would randomly choose a player to decide who went first. That player would then take their turn (no longer a conflict). It may be that deciding who goes first resolves all the issues for the remainder of the round, in which case you just carry on playing as normal. Otherwise, once you reach another conflict, you randomly determine a player again and repeat as necessary.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicklas Lundkvist
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
wrote:
It means that, if the investigators can't decide what to do, then you randomly choose a player and that player decides what to do until there is no longer a conflict.

In the situation you describe, you would randomly choose a player to decide who went first. That player would then take their turn (no longer a conflict). It may be that deciding who goes first resolves all the issues for the remainder of the round, in which case you just carry on playing as normal. Otherwise, once you reach another conflict, you randomly determine a player again and repeat as necessary.


Thank you
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Seachrist
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Related question, and I'm sorry if I couldn't find the answer in the rules:

If an insane person is "eliminated", does the group still only get one more Investigator phase, or is the insane victim exempt from this rule? I was speculating based on Julia's observation that they're not really part of the group.

This has an interesting feel similar to Dead of Winter for me. In that game, however, the traitor not only has their own agenda, but they can be ferreted out and dealt with through a banishment mechanic. Banishing the wrong person results in a loss of the precious game commodity of "Morale" but banishing the traitor does not lower morale.

I wondered if the loss of an insane character was similarly advantageous in MoM2.

If they DO still count against the loss condition, I'm curious how often the investigators lose because of the lunatic in their midst. Conversely, I'm interested in how often the insane person actually meets their goal. It's a fairly important point because the odds of winning DoW are quite low if an experienced player is playing the betrayer. There's just too many ways to sabotage the group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If an insane investigator dies, the investigation still ends at the end of the next Investigator Phase (and the other investigators will typically lose, baring other Insanity effects).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
Rykaar wrote:
If an insane person is "eliminated", does the group still only get one more Investigator phase, or is the insane victim exempt from this rule? I was speculating based on Julia's observation that they're not really part of the group.

But Julia has already stated that her observation that they're not really part of the group was not the case.

Nowhere in the rules does it support this notion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Seachrist
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Chris.

Time will tell about my last questions regarding likelihood and ratio of insane investigator wins. I'm really excited to find out either way! I play my first solo game today (if life quits mugging me this weekend) and my first group game Wednesday. I think in both cases we're going to run the first scenario. I look forward to seeing which of us gets fitted for straightjackets...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xris wrote:
Rykaar wrote:
If an insane person is "eliminated", does the group still only get one more Investigator phase, or is the insane victim exempt from this rule? I was speculating based on Julia's observation that they're not really part of the group.

But Julia has already stated that her observation that they're not really part of the group was not the case.

Nowhere in the rules does it support this notion.


Correct - Julia's statement was incorrect (sorry, Julia).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Seachrist
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
xris wrote:
Rykaar wrote:
If an insane person is "eliminated", does the group still only get one more Investigator phase, or is the insane victim exempt from this rule? I was speculating based on Julia's observation that they're not really part of the group.

But Julia has already stated that her observation that they're not really part of the group was not the case.

Nowhere in the rules does it support this notion.


Nope, the rules don't. But Julia's "notion" is still quite valid: the insane investigators can have their own agenda as the ONLY way they can win. Doesn't seem very group-minded.

I realize mechanically the correct reading has already been given here, but in a game that has strong roleplaying elements, being shackled by rigid mechanics can pull you out of the immersion to remind you you're still playing a game within a framework of rules. Please don't misunderstand my comment as a harsh criticism of the game. It's more of an observation about a limit on the potential experience.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
Rykaar wrote:
xris wrote:
Rykaar wrote:
If an insane person is "eliminated", does the group still only get one more Investigator phase, or is the insane victim exempt from this rule? I was speculating based on Julia's observation that they're not really part of the group.

But Julia has already stated that her observation that they're not really part of the group was not the case.

Nowhere in the rules does it support this notion.


Nope, the rules don't. But Julia's "notion" is still quite valid: the insane investigators can have their own agenda as the ONLY way they can win. Doesn't seem very group-minded.

I realize mechanically the correct reading has already been given here, but in a game that has strong roleplaying elements, being shackled by rigid mechanics can pull you out of the immersion to remind you you're still playing a game within a framework of rules. Please don't misunderstand my comment as a harsh criticism of the game. It's more of an observation about a limit on the potential experience.

Well, I would like to add a comment that Julia made which I fully agree with. Play how you want, but be clear when answering rules questions that it's a house-rule.

Scarlet Witch wrote:
Please, very important point: we are all free to houserule the game like we want, but answering with houserules, or interpretations, without making it clear it's a houserule, or an interpretation, could generate false knowledge in those reading these forums and willing to play the game as it was designed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julia
msg tools
We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
badge
Amor, sola lex
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
Correct - Julia's statement was incorrect (sorry, Julia).


No need to be sorry, I was wrong, period
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd vote random too. Roll off!!!

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rykaar wrote:
xris wrote:
Rykaar wrote:
If an insane person is "eliminated", does the group still only get one more Investigator phase, or is the insane victim exempt from this rule? I was speculating based on Julia's observation that they're not really part of the group.

But Julia has already stated that her observation that they're not really part of the group was not the case.

Nowhere in the rules does it support this notion.


Nope, the rules don't. But Julia's "notion" is still quite valid: the insane investigators can have their own agenda as the ONLY way they can win. Doesn't seem very group-minded.

I realize mechanically the correct reading has already been given here, but in a game that has strong roleplaying elements, being shackled by rigid mechanics can pull you out of the immersion to remind you you're still playing a game within a framework of rules. Please don't misunderstand my comment as a harsh criticism of the game. It's more of an observation about a limit on the potential experience.


Don't think of the investigator turning "evil" or "traitor" - they're still your friend, they've just gone crazy due to everything that's going on around you (and you're close to cracking yourself). If they are killed, it's still a major blow to you and your morale, so you lose.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gandalf White
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
xris wrote:
Don't the rules cover this?

Page 2 of the Rules Reference.
Quote:
Conflicts
During the game, some game effects may lead to conflicts within the
game or between the investigators.
* It is possible that investigators have differing intentions and goals.
If this prevents investigators from reaching a decision as a group,
the decision is determined by an investigator chosen at random.

You don't get to vote on it. If you don't all agree, then it becomes a random selection. (I'm thinking on turn order here).

You are not entirely correct here. It's not a random selection as per above example. You don't random determine the order but rather randomly choose an investigator who is deciding on the order for everyone in that turn in its entirety.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
okkoo wrote:
xris wrote:
Don't the rules cover this?

Page 2 of the Rules Reference.
Quote:
Conflicts
During the game, some game effects may lead to conflicts within the
game or between the investigators.
* It is possible that investigators have differing intentions and goals.
If this prevents investigators from reaching a decision as a group,
the decision is determined by an investigator chosen at random.

You don't get to vote on it. If you don't all agree, then it becomes a random selection. (I'm thinking on turn order here).

You are not entirely correct here. It's not a random selection as per above example. You don't random determine the order but rather randomly choose an investigator who is deciding on the order for everyone in that turn in its entirety.


They don't decide for everyone in that turn. They just decide who will go next.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  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.