$20.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Mansions of Madness: Second Edition» Forums » General

Subject: Strategic use of the Insane condition rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
G Y
msg tools
Ran into a small dilemma while playing the other day.

Out of 8 max Sanity, I suffered 7 Horror, and I had the Paranoia face-up card that said "If you end your turn adjacent to another investigator, suffer 1 Horror." In other words, I could choose to go Insane.

Insanity causes a variety of problems (no spoilers please!) but one major effect is that it often changes your personal win condition. If I want to win the game, and it's more likely than not that I'll hit the Sanity threshold, then it seems to be in my best interest to go insane as soon as possible. That would give me more time to adjust to the new win condition, even though there's a chance I could go double-insane and lose the game for everyone.

It's like a prisoner's dilemma. If everyone does what I do, we risk a higher chance of losing, but if only I do it, then I stand to gain a whole lot more. I'm wondering how intentional this is. It sure does fit the game's dark theme.

Anyway, I chose to delay my Insanity that game (what a team player!), and it bit me in the butt. I eventually went insane anyway, and my Insanity win condition involved acquiring and holding onto 2 specific items. This proved difficult because the game was about 2 turns away from ending. I couldn't go fetch those items myself from Search tokens, so I tried to steal the items from fellow investigators. Of course, I failed. They also had the option to "burn" these items to add more successes to their roles. It sucked, because once the items were gone, there was nothing I could do.

(I'm definitely of the belief that there's no such thing as a "partial win." You win or lose according to the rules. There's no second place. Makes things more fun that way.)

Anyway, if I play again, I might "rush" Insanity by simply choosing not to use clues on Horror checks and such. That would give me the maximum time to plot a win. What do you think of that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drake Coker
United States
San Diego
California
flag msg tools
This is my tank for Combat Commander
mbmbmbmbmb
Intentionally seeking insanity from the game's beginning feels like it is not in the spirit of the game to me.

But, if you're close and expect to go insane, then letting it happen earlier seems legit to me.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Veggiesama wrote:

Anyway, if I play again, I might "rush" Insanity by simply choosing not to use clues on Horror checks and such. That would give me the maximum time to plot a win. What do you think of that?


I think that sounds like a terrible idea. Without spoiling any of the cards specifically, there plenty of Insanity variety between still needing to win as normal, giving an additional task on top of winning as normal, and straight up needing to sabotage the mission to win.

Given those three outcomes, "rushing" Insanity is not a good plan.

Insanity Type 1 (Win as normal): Let's say you get one of these cards. You rush to become Insane but effectively, you've wasted 8 of your "health" considering that reaching your Sanity threshold for a second time would cause you to be eliminated, giving your teammates only one more round to win before the game ends. Additionally, since you cannot share your Insanity condition with your teammates, they probably won't believe a single thing you're saying, since they'll be convinced you're trying to betray them. So all you've done is waste a bunch of your health and make the game harder for everyone.

Insanity Type 2 (Win as normal + extra task): Again, you run into the problem that you've basically halved your health pool (even worse if those Horror are face-up and have lasting, terrible effects). Sure, now you have more time to complete that extra task, but again, you've completely gimped your usefulness towards the mission and your teammates will continue to not trust you.

Insanity Type 3 (new win condition): So, this is the only good outcome for you if you meta-game; you rush to become insane and now, congratulations, you need to betray everyone. Personally, this doesn't sound very fun for the other people involved. I wouldn't want to play a cooperative game with someone who went Insane on purpose all so they'd have more time to "win" while the rest of us lose.

My advice; just play the game. It's meant to be an experience. Sometimes that means you get wounded, go insane, get mauled by monsters, or just straight up lose. And that's okay. I've played enough Eldritch Horror to accept that Arkham games are meant to be tough and a little chaotic. Just go with the chaos and have fun. Trying to meta-game it isn't going to add any enjoyment.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Licata
United States
Bel Air
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
For me personally this game isn't about winning or losing so going insane near the end wouldn't matter to me. I agree with Olvenskol above that if it matters to you and you look like you will go insane near the end and just want to get it over with to have a better chance of winning then I say go for it.

However you should not try to go insane from the beginning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Ronda
United States
flag msg tools
There is only one Insanity card that says strictly "you win when the investigation ends without completing." It actually is pretty easy to do by killing your own investigator with reckless evades and stuff like that, especially trying from the very start to kill your guy off. So the baseline success rate for the "solo, aggressive, competitive win" strategy is 1/12. There's another two solo win cards that are easy, but only after acquiring a certain type of item (amounts to luck). So that's it, <1/4 chance to win with a purely competitive strategy. That's not counting how you are accelerating your own investigator's death, which means that you have even less time to find those required items and complete the objective. This lessens your chances of winning competitively by a good amount below 1/4.

If you don't think you can win at least 25% of the time by playing well, either you or your group is plain bad at the game. I mean, it's not a hard game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milan Mašát
Czech Republic
Praha
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rondaa wrote:
There is only one Insanity card that says strictly "you win when the investigation ends without completing." It actually is pretty easy to do by killing your own investigator with reckless evades and stuff like that, especially trying from the very start to kill your guy off. So the baseline success rate for the "solo, aggressive, competitive win" strategy is 1/12. There's another two solo win cards that are easy, but only after acquiring a certain type of item (amounts to luck). So that's it, <1/4 chance to win with a purely competitive strategy. That's not counting how you are accelerating your own investigator's death, which means that you have even less time to find those required items and complete the objective. This lessens your chances of winning competitively by a good amount below 1/4.

If you don't think you can win at least 25% of the time by playing well, either you or your group is plain bad at the game. I mean, it's not a hard game.

If you die you lost. You have to be alive to win, even with this card.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milan Mašát
Czech Republic
Praha
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BreadRising wrote:
Veggiesama wrote:

Anyway, if I play again, I might "rush" Insanity by simply choosing not to use clues on Horror checks and such. That would give me the maximum time to plot a win. What do you think of that?


I think that sounds like a terrible idea.
...

You rush to become Insane but effectively, you've wasted 8 of your "health" ...


I think OP was talking about situation when he was just 1 sanity away from threshold. I think that he should go for insanity.
In my game I postponed it as long as possible, gaining the "go directly against others" insanity 1,5 round before end of the game being unable to stop investigation fulfilling. If I went mad sooner, I will just have some chance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Vodnyk wrote:
rondaa wrote:
There is only one Insanity card that says strictly "you win when the investigation ends without completing." It actually is pretty easy to do by killing your own investigator with reckless evades and stuff like that, especially trying from the very start to kill your guy off. So the baseline success rate for the "solo, aggressive, competitive win" strategy is 1/12. There's another two solo win cards that are easy, but only after acquiring a certain type of item (amounts to luck). So that's it, <1/4 chance to win with a purely competitive strategy. That's not counting how you are accelerating your own investigator's death, which means that you have even less time to find those required items and complete the objective. This lessens your chances of winning competitively by a good amount below 1/4.

If you don't think you can win at least 25% of the time by playing well, either you or your group is plain bad at the game. I mean, it's not a hard game.

If you die you lost. You have to be alive to win, even with this card.


Can you quote the rule that says that? I'm not sure that's true.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milan Mašát
Czech Republic
Praha
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
Vodnyk wrote:

If you die you lost. You have to be alive to win, even with this card.


Can you quote the rule that says that? I'm not sure that's true.


You are right I did not remembered this rule properly:
Rules wrote:

When an investigator is eliminated, he drops all of his possessions in
his space, then he removes his figure from the board.
1) An eliminated investigator does not take a turn or perform actions
during the investigator phase.
2) An eliminated investigator does not win the game when the
investigation is complete
unless an effect states otherwise.
3) When an investigator is eliminated, the remaining investigators
lose the game
at the end of the next investigator phase.
4) If all investigators are eliminated, the game ends immediately,
and all investigators lose the game.

I just drop "when the investigation is complete" from part 2)
But reading it again opened a HUGE can of worms - according to 3) the dead player did not lose. All the other did but he not. And since the investigation is not over he did not lose because of 2) and if anyone survived, he did not lose because of 4).
So if you do not want to lose, just die before the game ended unsuccessfully.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
This thread demonstrates perfectly why I regard the Insanity conditions as totally unthematic and inappropriate. I don't think for a minute the designer intended the kind of gaming of the system people are talking about here.

The emphasis of the game from start to finish should be on the investigation, not this sort of meta-gaming. It's totally wrong for the style of game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
High Flying Bird wrote:
This thread demonstrates perfectly why I regard the Insanity conditions as totally unthematic and inappropriate. I don't think for a minute the designer intended the kind of gaming of the system people are talking about here.

The emphasis of the game from start to finish should be on the investigation, not this sort of meta-gaming. It's totally wrong for the style of game.


You mean intentionally putting yourself half way to losing just for the very slim chance that you might draw one of the few Insanities that might allow you to win without the other investigators?

Most games can be "gamed" with ridiculous strategies. It doesn't mean they're good strategies.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean L
United Kingdom
Coventry
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Vodnyk wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
Vodnyk wrote:

If you die you lost. You have to be alive to win, even with this card.


Can you quote the rule that says that? I'm not sure that's true.


You are right I did not remembered this rule properly:
Rules wrote:

When an investigator is eliminated, he drops all of his possessions in
his space, then he removes his figure from the board.
1) An eliminated investigator does not take a turn or perform actions
during the investigator phase.
2) An eliminated investigator does not win the game when the
investigation is complete
unless an effect states otherwise.
3) When an investigator is eliminated, the remaining investigators
lose the game
at the end of the next investigator phase.
4) If all investigators are eliminated, the game ends immediately,
and all investigators lose the game.

I just drop "when the investigation is complete" from part 2)
But reading it again opened a HUGE can of worms - according to 3) the dead player did not lose. All the other did but he not. And since the investigation is not over he did not lose because of 2) and if anyone survived, he did not lose because of 4).
So if you do not want to lose, just die before the game ended unsuccessfully.


But it also states quite clearly that you don't win. Given no "draw" state is defined, I'd interpret "not win" as "lose".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:
This thread demonstrates perfectly why I regard the Insanity conditions as totally unthematic and inappropriate. I don't think for a minute the designer intended the kind of gaming of the system people are talking about here.

The emphasis of the game from start to finish should be on the investigation, not this sort of meta-gaming. It's totally wrong for the style of game.


You mean intentionally putting yourself half way to losing just for the very slim chance that you might draw one of the few Insanities that might allow you to win without the other investigators?

Most games can be "gamed" with ridiculous strategies. It doesn't mean they're good strategies.


Sure, but the fault is with the designer if she adds a mechanic that can disrupt the theme and spirit of the game.

And no, I'm not talking specifically about the 'strategy' the OP discussed but the very fact it's even a subject. The fact that there is a mechanic in the game that can take the game away from its core focus on the investigation of the mystery is a mistake, in my opinion.

Winning should be absolutely tied to completing the investigation. Players' strategy should revolve around the mystery (even if the strategy is slightly 'bent' by an Insanity condition it should still revolve around the mystery, not detract or distract from it) not other meta-gaming considerations.

There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
High Flying Bird wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:
This thread demonstrates perfectly why I regard the Insanity conditions as totally unthematic and inappropriate. I don't think for a minute the designer intended the kind of gaming of the system people are talking about here.

The emphasis of the game from start to finish should be on the investigation, not this sort of meta-gaming. It's totally wrong for the style of game.


You mean intentionally putting yourself half way to losing just for the very slim chance that you might draw one of the few Insanities that might allow you to win without the other investigators?

Most games can be "gamed" with ridiculous strategies. It doesn't mean they're good strategies.


Sure, but the fault is with the designer if she adds a mechanic that can disrupt the theme and spirit of the game.

And no, I'm not talking specifically about the 'strategy' the OP discussed but the very fact it's even a subject. The fact that there is a mechanic in the game that can take the game away from its core focus on the investigation of the mystery is a mistake, in my opinion.

Winning should be absolutely tied to completing the investigation. Players' strategy should revolve around the mystery (even if the strategy is slightly 'bent' by an Insanity condition it should still revolve around the mystery, not detract or distract from it) not other meta-gaming considerations.

There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.


No, that's nonsense. You're simply pulling that "rule" of bad game design out of thin air. As I said, plenty of games can allow for players to consider bad strategies before the game, but that doesn't make them bad games, and players will be inclined not to behave that way precisely because they're bad strategies.

If you don't like the Insanities, that's fine, but don't try to justify your dislike of them in any kind of objective sense by invoking a completely fallacious argument.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:
This thread demonstrates perfectly why I regard the Insanity conditions as totally unthematic and inappropriate. I don't think for a minute the designer intended the kind of gaming of the system people are talking about here.

The emphasis of the game from start to finish should be on the investigation, not this sort of meta-gaming. It's totally wrong for the style of game.


You mean intentionally putting yourself half way to losing just for the very slim chance that you might draw one of the few Insanities that might allow you to win without the other investigators?

Most games can be "gamed" with ridiculous strategies. It doesn't mean they're good strategies.


Sure, but the fault is with the designer if she adds a mechanic that can disrupt the theme and spirit of the game.

And no, I'm not talking specifically about the 'strategy' the OP discussed but the very fact it's even a subject. The fact that there is a mechanic in the game that can take the game away from its core focus on the investigation of the mystery is a mistake, in my opinion.

Winning should be absolutely tied to completing the investigation. Players' strategy should revolve around the mystery (even if the strategy is slightly 'bent' by an Insanity condition it should still revolve around the mystery, not detract or distract from it) not other meta-gaming considerations.

There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.


No, that's nonsense. You're simply pulling that "rule" of bad game design out of thin air. As I said, plenty of games can allow for players to consider bad strategies before the game, but that doesn't make them bad games, and players will be inclined not to behave that way precisely because they're bad strategies.

If you don't like the Insanities, that's fine, but don't try to justify your dislike of them in any kind of objective sense by invoking a completely fallacious argument.


I'm not claiming to refer to any kind of game design 'rule'. That's your own melodramatic addition to what I said. IN MY OPINION (and it's incredibly inane that I even have to point out the self-evident fact that this is my subjective opinion, and not objective truth) its bad design to incorporate an element that detracts or distracts from the central concept and spirit of the game. I can see that you might disagree with that and want to offer a counter-argument - be my guest. But I can't see why you should get quite so offended by it?

You're still slightly missing my point by the way, although it's more than likely my fault for not expressing myself well enough. I am not referring to the 'bad strategies' being discussed, but more generally that there is mechanic in this game that has nothing whatsoever to do with investigating the mystery and can indeed even make the victory conditions nothing to do with the mystery. The fact that it's possible for the game to reach a point where investigating the mystery is no longer relevant to the players is a bad design decision... self-evidently my opinion (and so tedious I have to type that).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean L
United Kingdom
Coventry
West Midlands
flag msg tools
High Flying Bird wrote:


There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.


I'd agree but I would change that to "the average player". There will always be players that come up with strategies which effectively bypass the entire game. The job of the designer is to make sure those strategies are clearly ineffective. Otherwise you have to design out every stupid thing any player might do. One person suggested the idea, everyone else explained why it's a bad strategy.

One strategy I have for Mansions is just to constantly move your investigator back and forth between two squares, every turn, doing nothing else. Ignore the investigation along with every other gameplay mechanic. Just go back and forth.

I've been able to think about this strategy, and it doesn't contradict the rules. Is that bad design, or am I just an idiot?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Filpus
United States
Bellevue
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've seen enough confusion about the Insane conditions that I sent a question to FFG via the rules form: (spoilers for C----- -- C--------- and F-------- W----)

Spoiler (click to reveal)
A few questions about Insanities that have cropped up on BGG recently:

1. Does Forbidden Words mean that the player cannot speak? Does it prevent their investigator from interacting with Person tokens?

2. Does an investigator with Crisis of Conscience win only when the app says "The investigation is not complete", or when some other effect causes the game to end? (e.g. investigator elimination, other Insane conditions)

3. Can an investigator with Crisis of Conscience win after being eliminated?

Thanks in advance,
Greg
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Deano2099 wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:


There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.


I'd agree but I would change that to "the average player". There will always be players that come up with strategies which effectively bypass the entire game. The job of the designer is to make sure those strategies are clearly ineffective. Otherwise you have to design out every stupid thing any player might do. One person suggested the idea, everyone else explained why it's a bad strategy.

One strategy I have for Mansions is just to constantly move your investigator back and forth between two squares, every turn, doing nothing else. Ignore the investigation along with every other gameplay mechanic. Just go back and forth.

I've been able to think about this strategy, and it doesn't contradict the rules. Is that bad design, or am I just an idiot?


Exactly. Additionally, there are many other things in the game that detract from the investigation. The conditions, for instance. They, like the Insanities, are just obstacles that the investigators have to deal with in the course of the investigation. They don't detract from it - they are part of it. Everything in the game is part of what goes towards making up the investigation as a whole.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milan Mašát
Czech Republic
Praha
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I do not recommend to go insane asap, but it is better for a player to get insane if he is on the brink.
Next time I will be at lase sanity, I will not fight and burn clues on not going insane(if is is not like 2 rounds to the end of game), because I will probably go insane anyway and I will have less time to solve the insanity conditions.
And I am not even talking about pyromania, but even the other, minor insanites, like collect XY things. It is just better to get it now, than 2 rounds later and with clues burned on horror rolls.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Deano2099 wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:


There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.


I'd agree but I would change that to "the average player". There will always be players that come up with strategies which effectively bypass the entire game. The job of the designer is to make sure those strategies are clearly ineffective. Otherwise you have to design out every stupid thing any player might do. One person suggested the idea, everyone else explained why it's a bad strategy.

One strategy I have for Mansions is just to constantly move your investigator back and forth between two squares, every turn, doing nothing else. Ignore the investigation along with every other gameplay mechanic. Just go back and forth.

I've been able to think about this strategy, and it doesn't contradict the rules. Is that bad design, or am I just an idiot?


That is definitely my line of thinking. Game designers shouldn't have to supplement or sacrifice game elements/mechanics just because there is a fringe subset of players that will forego traditional playing to try and intentionally break the game. You can do your best to make sure those strategies are poor decisions or at least "unfun" in the vain of playing the game normally, but you can't undo your entire vision for the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Y
msg tools
BreadRising wrote:
Insanity Type 1 (Win as normal), Insanity Type 2 (Win as normal + extra task), Insanity Type 3 (new win condition)


I've played the game a few times, went insane twice so far, and only encountered type 2 and type 3. I have no idea what the ratio of each type looks like in comparison to the others. Regardless, what unites types 2 and 3 is that they add additional hurdles to winning the game for that player. The earlier you know those conditions, the more likely you'll be able to complete them. That's meta-gaming but only in the weakest sense.

You also mention intentionally halving my Sanity pool. That's not what I said at all. Instead, I was thinking of being on-the-brink. The accumulation of Horror is inevitable. At 6-7 Horror out of 8 Sanity, it makes no sense to wait 2-3 turns if I have the ability to just get it over with. The worst possible outcome is to go insane on the last turn of the game, because with new objectives laid down on me, I have no way to complete them before the game ends.

BreadRising wrote:
Trying to meta-game it isn't going to add any enjoyment.


Meta-gaming a win is better than getting cheated out of a win by the game because of an arbitrary condition card.

rondaa wrote:
So the baseline success rate for the "solo, aggressive, competitive win" strategy is 1/12. There's another two solo win cards that are easy, but only after acquiring a certain type of item (amounts to luck). So that's it, <1/4 chance to win with a purely competitive strategy.

If you don't think you can win at least 25% of the time by playing well, either you or your group is plain bad at the game. I mean, it's not a hard game.


I'm not arguing for a purely competitive strategy. I'm saying that if I'm on the brink of insanity, I might as well push myself over so that I can adjust my gameplay to my new win objective before it's too late. From a design standpoint, that seems unintuitive, unintentional, and undesirable in most cases.

Also, don't be an ass.

High Flying Bird wrote:
Winning should be absolutely tied to completing the investigation. Players' strategy should revolve around the mystery (even if the strategy is slightly 'bent' by an Insanity condition it should still revolve around the mystery, not detract or distract from it) not other meta-gaming considerations.

There is something wrong in the design if it allows players to even think about a pre-game strategy that doesn't involve trying to complete the investigation... and that 'wrong' factor is the Insanity conditions.


Maybe, only if you believe the game should be purely co-op. Rather, I'd argue that the game is trying to be "meta-cooperative" in the same way Dead of Winter is. Investigators work together toward a common goal while trying to fulfill their own individual goals. What DoW does right is tell you the sub-goal right at the beginning of the game. What MoM 2nd Edition does wrong is wait until at least halfway through until you possibly get a sub-goal. Also, that sub-goal has a chance of conflicting with the main goal, which means all your previous work was counter-productive. DoW doesn't really suffer from this because there's no period of not knowing your objective.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
Veggiesama wrote:
BreadRising wrote:
Insanity Type 1 (Win as normal), Insanity Type 2 (Win as normal + extra task), Insanity Type 3 (new win condition)


I've played the game a few times, went insane twice so far, and only encountered type 2 and type 3. I have no idea what the ratio of each type looks like in comparison to the others. Regardless, what unites types 2 and 3 is that they add additional hurdles to winning the game for that player. The earlier you know those conditions, the more likely you'll be able to complete them. That's meta-gaming but only in the weakest sense.


I've had more type 1 and 2 show up than type 3: out of 16 investigator-plays, 7 have gone insane, and of those only 1 was "you no longer win or lose with the team." But I'm also intentionally not reading the insanity cards because the surprise is half the fun.

That said, it IS meta gaming of a sort that is generally frowned upon by my play group, so while it might be amusing if you did it once as a "what the hell" sort of thing, we would probably choose to invite other players for future games if that was the type of attitude that was brought to the table. I don't by any means intend any insult: it is a play style that means that (as you say) the game may have a rough spot for you as a player. But it's definitely something that differentiates gameplay styles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Milan Mašát
Czech Republic
Praha
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jsciv wrote:
Veggiesama wrote:
BreadRising wrote:
Insanity Type 1 (Win as normal), Insanity Type 2 (Win as normal + extra task), Insanity Type 3 (new win condition)


I've played the game a few times, went insane twice so far, and only encountered type 2 and type 3. I have no idea what the ratio of each type looks like in comparison to the others. Regardless, what unites types 2 and 3 is that they add additional hurdles to winning the game for that player. The earlier you know those conditions, the more likely you'll be able to complete them. That's meta-gaming but only in the weakest sense.


I've had more type 1 and 2 show up than type 3: out of 16 investigator-plays, 7 have gone insane, and of those only 1 was "you no longer win or lose with the team." But I'm also intentionally not reading the insanity cards because the surprise is half the fun.

That said, it IS meta gaming of a sort that is generally frowned upon by my play group, so while it might be amusing if you did it once as a "what the hell" sort of thing, we would probably choose to invite other players for future games if that was the type of attitude that was brought to the table. I don't by any means intend any insult: it is a play style that means that (as you say) the game may have a rough spot for you as a player. But it's definitely something that differentiates gameplay styles.

It is mainly psychological. If you are doing your best, being great addition to the team and got 2 rounds before the end of game randomly a card that says "you lost" it is really hard so swallow. So thanks to your effort everybody won, except you.
And you can at least had a chance to win, if you did not used all that clues on horror checks and just got mad 2 rounds earlier and spend those clues on pursuing your goal.
That is my personal experience. I am not the player who need to win at all cost, but this is something I still have hard time with.
So in you group it is frowned upon a guy who does not want to lose and did not enjoy a loss when everybody else won? I hope I just did not understand your post well enough.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Y
msg tools
I agree with the psychology factor that Vodnyk describes. Having the win ripped from your fingers in the last few turns sucks. It's like you've been playing one game for a few hours, then all of a sudden your big brother says, "NO! We are going to play MY game now."

Eldritch Horror and Arkham Horror can also feel pretty shitty when some random chaos disrupts your chances, BUT the difference is you experience that shittiness as a group. It's kind of fun in a twisted way. Camaraderie in Co-Misery, or better known as Misery Loves Company. MoM 2nd Ed chooses to single you out for that random chaos loss in the form of the Insanity Condition, and you have to privately experience that sense of loss.

So, to avoid losing, if you're almost certainly going insane, then you should take the plunge and go insane, if the option presents itself. Simple as that.

There's another post floating around about alternatives and house rules regarding Insanity, and I would encourage anyone with ideas to contribute.
 
 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.