I've been musing,

Those of us who are committed players and purchase all the expansions would presumably be keen to see new scenarios (eg DLC ones) that utilize all or at least many components for a richer experience. However when a new box is produced really FFG need to make scenarios that really only focus the components supplied by that expansion and the base game. Does this make it quite frankly hard to get commitment to have 'big stories with all the bits' being generated? How could they market it? For instance is the creation of 'Awesome new campaign' for those who have at least 3 of the 4 expansions going to help them sell more units of card'nboards? Or is the commitment to build such a scenario too much of a loss leader? Anyone else see a way we can get all the bits dragged into games?

Having been down this road with D2e already, I understand the frustration.

For D2e (and apparently MoM2e), FFG has taken the road that they would prefer that their DLC content would require nothing more than the "base" game.

They finally did release some content for D2e which required the base game and one other expansion. It was pretty well received. Quite frankly, the hard core players of the game, that is the ones that purchase every expansion, want more of this, and tend to be the individuals that spend the most amount on their product.

I am still waiting for some DLC for D2e that would utilize everything that exists for the game. The quality and breadth of the dungeons that could be created would be amazing. In the past, FFG relied on their Quest Vault for users to create such content. Unfortunately, while this was fine for the physical game (although the Quest Vault has seemingly not been supported much over the past two years), it doesn't do much for DLC content delivery.

While I realize that we have the Valkyrie app created by BruceLGL, it just isn't the same thing as having FFG producing the content.

Now, I play a second board game (MoM2e) which is facing the exact same issues, with FFG behaving/approaching the issue the same way (or worse, as MoM2e doesn't even HAVE something similar to D2er's Quest Vault for custom content).

Unfortunately, I don't really see FFG's stance changing any, and that is quite unfortunate, as the app (and the scenarios created) are stunted by not utilizing the entire universe of equipment available.

I think they should find a compromise, and one that is a bit more than just adding monsters and cards from all expansions. Only tiles form many expansions are missing inside a single scenario, and i think the solution can be straightforward:

1) Create categories for tiles (kitchens, dining rooms, etc)

2) Make the app pick tiles from a certain category, and make sure it fits if the tiles have different size, but it is easy if they are all the same size within a category.

There can be many more ways to have more replayability, but the above can work for every map released and to be released.

To build up on that, there can be an scenario that creates a random map every time, using every tile you have available.

edit:

I think it is a bad idea for a map to exclusively require specific expansions, as it is rare that a player would have those exact expansions. I think that procedurally adding tiles from what you have available is the best compromise. There is valkyrie if you want a scenario using specific tiles.

12 hours ago, falveryn said:

I think they should find a compromise, and one that is a bit more than just adding monsters and cards from all expansions. Only tiles form many expansions are missing inside a single scenario, and i think the solution can be straightforward:

1) Create categories for tiles (kitchens, dining rooms, etc)

2) Make the app pick tiles from a certain category, and make sure it fits if the tiles have different size, but it is easy if they are all the same size within a category.

There can be many more ways to have more replayability, but the above can work for every map released and to be released.

To build up on that, there can be an scenario that creates a random map every time, using every tile you have available.

edit:

I think it is a bad idea for a map to exclusively require specific expansions, as it is rare that a player would have those exact expansions. I think that procedurally adding tiles from what you have available is the best compromise. There is valkyrie if you want a scenario using specific tiles.

The logic for that is probably too complex as the rooms aren't always the same size, don't have doors and stuff in the same locations and orientation would matter as well.

Scenarios that come with expansions should utilise those expansions. But with dlc they should be free to incorporate multiple with a notice saying "you need the following expansions" when you try to purchase it.

The broadest approach is "playable with core set, variable with expansions": Owning an expansion unlocks another map variation, along with altered narration to fit the tiles.

Of course that doesn't cover scenarios that are designed with a specific set of tiles in mind, like a crypt or museum or what have you. So if the story requires a medical lab, for example, you need to rely on that the DLC will boost sales of that particular expansion/tile set.

The expansion symbols should come in handy to declare when something is needed or will add to a scenario.

6 hours ago, neosmagus said:

The logic for that is probably too complex as the rooms aren't always the same size, don't have doors and stuff in the same locations and orientation would matter as well.

Scenarios that come with expansions should utilise those expansions. But with dlc they should be free to incorporate multiple with a notice saying "you need the following expansions" when you try to purchase it.

-I know how to program, and it is straightforward. Take a look at RimWorld, they incorporated a grammar-based design for procedural bases, that is exactly the same as making mansions with different room sizes or orientations if they aren't squared.

-The wall/door placement are irrelevant, or maybe you haven't played the game, because the game incorporates wall and door tokens, and all the time you are changing the door and wall placements in every scenario.

-Scenarios requiring multiple expansions won't sell as much, because it is increasingly harder that people have those exact same expansions. In an ideal world, we would have almost any scenario imaginable, but for FFG it may not make sense to make such a niche scenario that only a fraction of potential DLC buyers would buy. Too much cost for little sales. That is why valkyrie would help people with more scenarios in that regard. Also, that wouldn't exclude using many expansions, only requiring them, as Aelita and I mention. It is the best compromise both for FFG's bottom line (which they won't compromise on) and for us (which we have valkyrie anyways in the worst case scenario).

1 hour ago, falveryn said:

-The wall/door placement are irrelevant [...]

This is true from a technical standpoint, but from a designer's perspective (player's really), furstlig you want to keep the wall/door tile count at the lowest necessary that is possible to keep the game flow lean. A room tile may have been deliberately chosen for this purpose, among others. If an algorithm (as opposed to a manual design decision) increases the rate appearance/usage of plaster-on tiles, the user experience has changed substantially enough to make calls about it.

Secondly, There's also an upper physical limit to how many of these pieces can be placed on the board.

Thirdly, how should the algorithm prioritize which room gets what in such a case where all pieces are used? Quality wise, it might be better to leave that to human judgement. Granted, this is a fringe case.

There's also the manual labour of constructing narrative room descriptions that are relevant to the scenario in question to take into consideration.

On 29/6/2017 at 6:31 AM, Jake Weaver said:

I've been musing,

Those of us who are committed players and purchase all the expansions would presumably be keen to see new scenarios (eg DLC ones) that utilize all or at least many components for a richer experience. However when a new box is produced really FFG need to make scenarios that really only focus the components supplied by that expansion and the base game. Does this make it quite frankly hard to get commitment to have 'big stories with all the bits' being generated? How could they market it? For instance is the creation of 'Awesome new campaign' for those who have at least 3 of the 4 expansions going to help them sell more units of card'nboards? Or is the commitment to build such a scenario too much of a loss leader? Anyone else see a way we can get all the bits dragged into games?

There are elements from all expansions that are used in the new ones. For example, I'm sure I used a Poison Mist (from Beyond the Thresholds exp) when testing Cult of the Departed. But there are countless similar examples I can easily offer. It's true, we don't have a campaign game (yet, I hope), but the different expansions actually merge a lot better with Mansions that with any other FFG-released boardgame: this also means that when a new expansion is released, you can replay older scenarios because now different monsters and spells and conditions can be found even in the scenarios contained in the core set.

I do hope, however, that they will consider implementing campaign play. In some ways, we have a sort of campaign play already running, considering that some scenarios are long enough to need a couple of evenings to be played thoroughly

FFG could commit to both options, either in the same scenario, or as sepearates - but it would take them actually committing to the product, something they are not doing!

On 6/30/2017 at 11:43 AM, Aelitafrommars said:

This is true from a technical standpoint, but from a designer's perspective (player's really), furstlig you want to keep the wall/door tile count at the lowest necessary that is possible to keep the game flow lean. A room tile may have been deliberately chosen for this purpose, among others. If an algorithm (as opposed to a manual design decision) increases the rate appearance/usage of plaster-on tiles, the user experience has changed substantially enough to make calls about it.

Secondly, There's also an upper physical limit to how many of these pieces can be placed on the board.

Thirdly, how should the algorithm prioritize which room gets what in such a case where all pieces are used? Quality wise, it might be better to leave that to human judgement. Granted, this is a fringe case.

There's also the manual labour of constructing narrative room descriptions that are relevant to the scenario in question to take into consideration.

1) It seems like it was not a consideration, otherwise we would have doorless rooms with doored explore tokens, as that would minimize complexity. If that was a consideration, then it is poorly executed as the mentioned solution is the best. The game as it is right now consumes a lot of time placing walls, and placing explores over every door.

2) They can always include more wall tokens in an expansion the same as the clue tokens or any other token, because there is always a bit of space remaining with the tiles. The game will know how many walls remain, because they know how many come with each product. It wouldn't add any overhead to the app devs, the framework is already there.

3) Game might remove existing rooms to retrieve walls, like in an BtT scenario. Considering it is a fringe case, and that it is already implemented, it is viable.

4) The very minimum is creating categories for each room type, as to maintain descriptions constant. All the small kitchens in a category so any can be pulled, etc. Right now the amount per category is low, but i can see it increasing as more expansions come. Also note that using the same sized rooms of the same type limits the options a lot, but would be the easiest to implement. Ideally, you'd have procedurally created ones. Grammar based creation sounds fancy but it is very simple, and the core of what every programmer does: divide and conquer. In this case, the available space is what you divide and use, not the other more intuitive way around that would be using tiles from a pool and fit them to an available space, which is what appears most are thinking, and yeah that would be harder to make. But using and dividing available space and then assigning them to tiles leads to a more simple solution.

If in a few years FFG doesn't make it and Valkyrie doesn't implement it, I may do it.

> If in a few years FFG doesn't make it and Valkyrie doesn't implement it, I may do it.

I was avoiding this topic because I didn't have the energy to go into why it won't work in enough detail to avoid an argument. I have considered it for Valkyrie, because it makes the most sense in that setting where the hand made content is less available and/or lower quality, and personally scripting something is generally easier for me. I looked into several ways do to this and concluded that none of them were particularly helpful. Random monsters/searching/rooms only makes sense for a tactical crawler with no story (beyond what you get in delve), and this system is just not set up for it. The exception could be the 'its all a strange dream' plot device but that is cheap and will still lead to an inferior play experience.

7 hours ago, BruceLGL said:

> If in a few years FFG doesn't make it and Valkyrie doesn't implement it, I may do it.

I was avoiding this topic because I didn't have the energy to go into why it won't work in enough detail to avoid an argument. I have considered it for Valkyrie, because it makes the most sense in that setting where the hand made content is less available and/or lower quality, and personally scripting something is generally easier for me. I looked into several ways do to this and concluded that none of them were particularly helpful. Random monsters/searching/rooms only makes sense for a tactical crawler with no story (beyond what you get in delve), and this system is just not set up for it. The exception could be the 'its all a strange dream' plot device but that is cheap and will still lead to an inferior play experience.

i have a couple ideas, and i still think they can have narrative coherence. The mechanic just has to be tightly integrated to the narrative, and even the official app has some stuff that is randomized, like random culprits. From that angle, many more procedural things can be implemented, not only tiles. It is about thinking a story that would adapt that mechanic (fully procedural tiles), not that mechanic to be patched into any random scenario.

Edit: The Descent app has an scenario called The Delve, which incrementally adds based on expansions you have. If it has been done, it is likely something like that could be done in mansions.

I think the suggestion with alternate maps being unlocked by having the expansions is the best option so far. So each expansion or DLC scenario has 2-3 versions of the map (using core set and that expansions tiles), with more being unlocked with certain other expansions.

This would avoid the DLC scenarios requiring having any expansions, but still having more variation with more expansions. Because, I agree that for all the tons of tiles the game has (if you also own the two figue and tile sets) much of it seems to be very rarely used.