Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Mansions of Madness» Forums » General

Subject: New player where to start? Revised Scenarios? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kevin Goodman
Canada
Ottawa
flag msg tools
I have just bought Mansions of Madness and having read some of the postings here I'm getting the impression that I'll have the best experience by:

(1) replacing the default scenarios with the community revisions (bleached_lizard) and

(2) using the exploration tokens

(3) Universal head summary sheets

Any other thoughts/advice?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberta Yang
msg tools
1) The "fully revised" scenarios generally make much more extensive changes than necessary, often drastically changing the tone of the scenario in the process. While you could play with them, something is lost in doing so. In particular, Scenario 1: The Fall of House Lynch really doesn't need revision at all, and is an excellent scenario as written. The fully revised changes to it, like tossing in Raise Dead, practically turn it into a completely different scenario. In general, though, I think you'd be okay playing with them, and I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to play Classroom Curses straight out of the rulebook.

2) Exploration tokens are contested. I don't like them because seeing the cards on the board is one of the only advantages the investigators have, and removing them makes exploration essentially random. (Except insofar as investigators can metagame and guess that dead-ends are more likely to have locks/obstacles, which is probably even worse.) In general, exploration tokens are probably better for atmosphere but worse for gameplay.

It's worth noting that the revised scenarios and exploration tokens are designed for opposite purposes. Most scenarios (Classroom Curse excepted) are fine the first time you play them, and it's only after that that the problems become obvious and the scenario can't be played again. Exploration tokens, conversely, only have an effect the first time you play the scenario, because after that you can remember where the locks and obstacles were.

3) ...I don't know what these are.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugh G. Rection
United States
La Mesa
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
salty53 wrote:
3) ...I don't know what these are.


The best damn game summary materials ever!

Headless Hollow site

Made by BGG user:

Universal Head
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
Professional creative visual communication: www.universalhead.com
badge
Game summaries and reference sheets: www.headlesshollow.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
flag msg tools
The statement below is false.
badge
The statement above is correct.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
(1) I haven't found a need to replace the scenarios with the revised ones yet. I guess once you've played every scenario (including the POD ones) at least once, things will get repetitive and the imbalances will start to bother you. Myself, I play the game for the experience and less for having a perfectly balanced competition, and the experience with the scenarios as written has been great so far for me.

(2) I don't know what these are, but if they introduce more randomness and water down the story, I don't want them. The story is what this game is all about.

(3) Ah, those are awesome. Rather complete and always great-looking. The only issue is that they are on one hand so extensive that quickly looking something up in them tends to be not as fast as I wish, while they on the other hand are so condensed that the clarifications I might be looking for aren't on them anyway. Also, there's often no updates when a game gets expansions, making them useless after all. But they're great for a rules refresher before a game, or as a cheat sheet while explaining the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Presley
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Play through the first three scenarios (Fall of House Lynch, Inner Sanctum, Blood Ties) at least before you start looking at revisions. These scenarios are really good, and once you're familiar with the game you'll know what you want to get out of it in the way of changes.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Goodman
Canada
Ottawa
flag msg tools
Thanks for the replies everyone, I had the distinct impression from reading forum posts here that there were serious flaws that needed fixing. Roberta some of your comments in particular. Thanks for clarifying.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicola Zee
United Kingdom
Amersham
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ZyronEnder wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone, I had the distinct impression from reading forum posts here that there were serious flaws that needed fixing. Roberta some of your comments in particular. Thanks for clarifying.

The main issue is that some of the objectives in the scenarios are (in practical terms) unwinnable by the investigators. One objective results in instant death within a very short number of turns. This may upset your players.

Either play nicely as the keeper - or just play with players who are so heavily into Lovecraft that unavoidable doom is just to be expected and adds to the atmosphere.

[Edit]
P.S. I also don't use the full fix as I think it changes too much. I have replaced the unbalanced scenarios and use my own house rules to boost the chance the investigators will win.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberta Yang
msg tools
I think some revision is good (though I still wouldn't advise it for a first play), but the "Fully Revised" scenarios go too far.

The Fall of House Lynch doesn't need to be change at all. The Inner Sanctum just has one problematic Keeper Action and a couple problems with certain Objectives. Blood Ties just has one problematic Keeper Action (which doesn't even become an issue in normal play) and one objective that needs fixing. They're fine scenarios on the whole; they don't need extensive reconstruction. Even the Green-Eyed Boy, while horribly unbalanced, at least gives a fine first couple of "experience" plays; I'm fine with 1/5 scenarios having limited replay value (and I don't think the "Fully Revised" version improves it very much).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicola Zee
United Kingdom
Amersham
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
salty53 wrote:
I think some revision is good (though I still wouldn't advise it for a first play), but the "Fully Revised" scenarios go too far.

The Fall of House Lynch doesn't need to be change at all. The Inner Sanctum just has one problematic Keeper Action and a couple problems with certain Objectives. Blood Ties just has one problematic Keeper Action (which doesn't even become an issue in normal play) and one objective that needs fixing. They're fine scenarios on the whole; they don't need extensive reconstruction. Even the Green-Eyed Boy, while horribly unbalanced, at least gives a fine first couple of "experience" plays; I'm fine with 1/5 scenarios having limited replay value (and I don't think the "Fully Revised" version improves it very much).


I agree the "Fully Revised" scenarios go too far. It would be nice to just have a set of minimum changes to the very small number of objectives and Keeper Action cards that need fixing in the first 3 scenarios. My advice is stick to the first 3 scenarios and then if you like them buy FA and House of Fears.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Universal Head
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
Professional creative visual communication: www.universalhead.com
badge
Game summaries and reference sheets: www.headlesshollow.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
haslo wrote:
Also, there's often no updates when a game gets expansions, making them useless after all. But they're great for a rules refresher before a game, or as a cheat sheet while explaining the game.


Thanks for the kind words, but I have to call you on this one. Most of my sheets are keep up to date - as you can tell by the version numbers - and very often expansion rules get included in updates. The only time I don't add expansion rules is when I don't enjoy the game - ergo, I don't spend my money on the expansion(s).

One thing I don't add are pages of FAQ clarifications - I'll add errata, but not the pages of clarifications which I often find are pretty unnecessary for all but the most pedantic anyway. My summaries are just summaries - but they're intended as not only 'refreshers' but also complete enough so you'll never have to go back to the rulebook.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Gloor
Switzerland
Ostermundigen
Bern
flag msg tools
The statement below is false.
badge
The statement above is correct.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UniversalHead wrote:
haslo wrote:
Also, there's often no updates when a game gets expansions, making them useless after all. But they're great for a rules refresher before a game, or as a cheat sheet while explaining the game.

Thanks for the kind words, but I have to call you on this one. Most of my sheets are keep up to date - as you can tell by the version numbers - and very often expansion rules get included in updates. The only time I don't add expansion rules is when I don't enjoy the game - ergo, I don't spend my money on the expansion(s).

Guess I was just unlucky once or twice then Or maybe even only impatient, and looked for updates for expansions before you had made them, and didn't bother to look a few weeks later.

So, sorry!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Universal Head
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
Professional creative visual communication: www.universalhead.com
badge
Game summaries and reference sheets: www.headlesshollow.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No worries. As much as I'd love to get every expansion for every one of the 180+ summaries I have done that has one, I have to confine myself to the games I'll play!
4 
 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.