Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Deception: Murder in Hong Kong» Forums » Variants

Subject: High Player Count House Rule rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark Schmidt
msg tools
I was surprised to read that at high player counts, the evidence and murder weapon cards aren't reduced. If you have 12 players, each with 8 cards in front of them, that sounds like information overload. How about a variant where at 12 players, each person has 2 of each?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryucoo
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
It's not a house rule - if you want to increase / decrease difficulty the rules state you can increase / reduce the number of cards in play.

Two of each, in my view, would be ridiculous however.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Lobkowicz
United States
High Ridge
Missouri
flag msg tools
publisher
You could be playing.
badge
Which came first, the phoenix or the flame?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
watersilver wrote:
I was surprised to read that at high player counts, the evidence and murder weapon cards aren't reduced. If you have 12 players, each with 8 cards in front of them, that sounds like information overload. How about a variant where at 12 players, each person has 2 of each?


Every additional player adds an additional chance to solve the crime. The increased card counts give the murderer more places to hide.

Playing with 2 cards each will almost certainly lead to the murderer being caught incredibly frequently.

Good clues from the Forensic Scientist should help narrow down the field pretty quickly even with a lot of cards out there.

Of course, you can tweak and enjoy however your group prefers - but I recommend you give it a shot as indicated in the rules before trying a variant.

Enjoy the game!

-Josh
Grey Fox Games
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryucoo
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
There should be a massive flashing sign on every page of BGG that reads “play the f#£& game before you start trying to change the rules”.
8 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dizz
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
Ryucoo wrote:
There should be a massive flashing sign on every page of BGG that reads “play the f#£& game before you start trying to change the rules”.

This.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryucoo wrote:
There should be a massive flashing sign on every page of BGG that reads “play the f#£& game before you start trying to change the rules”.

I do not completely agree. There are weird design choices or balance issues that are obvious from the get-go. If you are somewhat experienced with board games you can spot them even before playing a game. (granted, most of the time it is almost impossible to see all the nuances of a game beforehand). And when there is a lot of discussion about a specific aspect, I don't see the issue with playing a game with house rules right from the start.
With Desception I played the first game with 2x5 cards each and ruled that the FS drew the LoC randomly. The murderer was found regardlessly but I thought it was more interesting.
And we already established that changing the number of cards is not a house rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryucoo
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Anduin wrote:
Ryucoo wrote:
There should be a massive flashing sign on every page of BGG that reads “play the f#£& game before you start trying to change the rules”.

I do not completely agree. There are weird design choices or balance issues that are obvious from the get-go. If you are somewhat experienced with board games you can spot them even before playing a game. (granted, most of the time it is almost impossible to see all the nuances of a game beforehand). And when there is a lot of discussion about a specific aspect, I don't see the issue with playing a game with house rules right from the start.
With Desception I played the first game with 2x5 cards each and ruled that the FS drew the LoC randomly. The murderer was found regardlessly but I thought it was more interesting.
And we already established that changing the number of cards is not a house rule.


Wholeheartedly disagree. You skim-reading the rules for 5 minutes is no way comparable to a designer building a game over months/years, tweaking game elements, having it playtested by hundreds of people, having it checked, counter-checked, re-tested and evaluated before release. You may get an understanding of the rules but you can't possibly play through the game perfectly in your head to witness every nuance of the game and appreciate why a rule is in place or why the game is set up the way it is. I'd even argue that you still wouldn't be able to after one or even two plays.

I mean if you think you can, knock yourself out obviously! But judging by your suggestion here, I don't believe that's the case.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryucoo wrote:
Wholeheartedly disagree. You skim-reading the rules for 5 minutes is no way comparable to a designer building a game over months/years, tweaking game elements, having it playtested by hundreds of people, having it checked, counter-checked, re-tested and evaluated before release. You may get an understanding of the rules but you can't possibly play through the game perfectly in your head to witness every nuance of the game and appreciate why a rule is in place or why the game is set up the way it is. I'd even argue that you still wouldn't be able to after one or even two plays.

I mean if you think you can, knock yourself out obviously! But judging by your suggestion here, I don't believe that's the case.

first: don't assume I "skim" rules only for 5 minutes. There is a reason why I have the microbatch "rules addict" on my profile.
second: there are way too many games out there that even in a published state are far from "checked, counter-checked, re-tested and evaluated". Some even don't care about providing sufficient rules at all. See the scoring rules of Concept that go along the lines of "well, it's more fun to not score anyways but feel free to use ours or do whatever you want".

Same goes with Mansions of Madness first edition for example where I'd strongly advice anyone to never play the game like it is written in the rulebook and implement the important minimal changes in order to not give your group a bad experience already in the first game.

There are also some inconsistencies with the Deception rules from the get-go. I just point to the weird "murderer goes last in third round auto-win" situation, if you play the game RAW.
So yes, if you know what you are doing, I see no issue with implementing houserules from the beginning. There is usually a reason why in the forum discussions come up about certain issues of games that are apparent when hundreds of people play the game. And no kind of playtesting can get rid of them. (even though some more would help)
Sid Meiers Civilization, for example. Some Civs like the Arabs are incredibly overpowered, and the whole community agrees on that. They were even adjusted by FFG via Errata after a while. Why not change the abilities BEFORE you play with them? I don't want to spoil a whole 3 hours just to find out "jepp... overpowered... we should change that ability". For this luxury, I don't have gamenights often enough.

I read a lot of threads in the rules fora. And I read a lot about the Deception issue that the murderer gets caught too often. It is apparent that the game was playtested in an environment where this was not the case and the designers and developers thought that they had to give the FS an advantage by choosing the LoC. The community disagrees. My group disagrees. That's why I didn't play with RAW once.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dizz
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
What does it mean to play it "with RAW?"
And what's inconsistent about the murderer being last causing an auto-win condition?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryucoo
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Anduin wrote:
Ryucoo wrote:
Wholeheartedly disagree. You skim-reading the rules for 5 minutes is no way comparable to a designer building a game over months/years, tweaking game elements, having it playtested by hundreds of people, having it checked, counter-checked, re-tested and evaluated before release. You may get an understanding of the rules but you can't possibly play through the game perfectly in your head to witness every nuance of the game and appreciate why a rule is in place or why the game is set up the way it is. I'd even argue that you still wouldn't be able to after one or even two plays.

I mean if you think you can, knock yourself out obviously! But judging by your suggestion here, I don't believe that's the case.

first: don't assume I "skim" rules only for 5 minutes. There is a reason why I have the microbatch "rules addict" on my profile.
second: there are way too many games out there that even in a published state are far from "checked, counter-checked, re-tested and evaluated". Some even don't care about providing sufficient rules at all. See the scoring rules of Concept that go along the lines of "well, it's more fun to not score anyways but feel free to use ours or do whatever you want".

Same goes with Mansions of Madness first edition for example where I'd strongly advice anyone to never play the game like it is written in the rulebook and implement the important minimal changes in order to not give your group a bad experience already in the first game.

There are also some inconsistencies with the Deception rules from the get-go. I just point to the weird "murderer goes last in third round auto-win" situation, if you play the game RAW.
So yes, if you know what you are doing, I see no issue with implementing houserules from the beginning. There is usually a reason why in the forum discussions come up about certain issues of games that are apparent when hundreds of people play the game. And no kind of playtesting can get rid of them. (even though some more would help)
Sid Meiers Civilization, for example. Some Civs like the Arabs are incredibly overpowered, and the whole community agrees on that. They were even adjusted by FFG via Errata after a while. Why not change the abilities BEFORE you play with them? I don't want to spoil a whole 3 hours just to find out "jepp... overpowered... we should change that ability". For this luxury, I don't have gamenights often enough.

I read a lot of threads in the rules fora. And I read a lot about the Deception issue that the murderer gets caught too often. It is apparent that the game was playtested in an environment where this was not the case and the designers and developers thought that they had to give the FS an advantage by choosing the LoC. The community disagrees. My group disagrees. That's why I didn't play with RAW once.


1) Oh cool, which university did you graduate from to earn such a prestigious award?

2) lol, not many that would get Dice Tower seal’s of excellence, universal critical praise and about 6k of 8k rating above a 7. This isn’t your mate Dave spending 2 minutes drawing moustaches on the court cards in a standard deck and calling it ‘Faceweasel’. I think you’d be safe flapping your eyes at the stats for a nanosecond and assuming a game rated so highly and with such a large audience has probably been playtested a little.

3) Yeah, but you don’t know what you are doing and you’ve quite clearly proven yourself wrong that you have this innate ability to rescue otherwise busted games with your magic house-rule wand - 2 cards of each type per player is a car-crash of an idea and I can’t imagine anyone who has played the game suggesting such a thing.

4) Lol, you’ve read the murder gets caught too often and your idea is to REDUCE the number of cards? That’s like turning up to a house fire with MORE fire.

Fora is the plural for forum? Nice, I did not know that. While we are learning words and stuff – Dizz: RAW is an acronym for Rules As Written. Which, in this game, are totes fine despite matey here claiming the whole community disagrees.

Summary: dude, you change what you want and I hope it makes you love the game more. I'm just arguing that people should do more than read the rules or play it once before they start trying to change a game, which is kinda how you worded your OP. If only for them to enjoy the experience more rather than get bogged down fiddling around with stuff they don't yet understand. No offence intended.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryucoo wrote:
No offence intended.

yeah, I don't think thats true... and please don't call me "dude" or "matey".
I will not continue to discuss anything with you here anymore. But please at least be aware of one thing: I never suggested anything like "2 cards of each type" or to reduce the number of cards. That was a suggestion of the OP. I did not start this thread.
Have a nice day.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryucoo
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Anduin wrote:
Ryucoo wrote:
No offence intended.

yeah, I don't think thats true... and please don't call me "dude" or "matey".
I will not continue to discuss anything with you here anymore. But please at least be aware of one thing: I never suggested anything like "2 cards of each type" or to reduce the number of cards. That was a suggestion of the OP. I did not start this thread.
Have a nice day.


You too, hon xx
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brodie
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryucoo wrote:
Anduin wrote:
Ryucoo wrote:
No offence intended.

yeah, I don't think thats true... and please don't call me "dude" or "matey".
I will not continue to discuss anything with you here anymore. But please at least be aware of one thing: I never suggested anything like "2 cards of each type" or to reduce the number of cards. That was a suggestion of the OP. I did not start this thread.
Have a nice day.


You too, hon xx

That dude needs to relax.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryucoo
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Brodie17 wrote:
Ryucoo wrote:
Anduin wrote:
Ryucoo wrote:
No offence intended.

yeah, I don't think thats true... and please don't call me "dude" or "matey".
I will not continue to discuss anything with you here anymore. But please at least be aware of one thing: I never suggested anything like "2 cards of each type" or to reduce the number of cards. That was a suggestion of the OP. I did not start this thread.
Have a nice day.


You too, hon xx

That dude needs to relax.


Yeah, he needs to chill out and read some f&£# rules
 
 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.