Mansions of Madness is a collaborative game. As was said earlier in the thread even if the card says "You win if X happens" it doesn't feel that way. Instead it feels like I've lost, because my goal at the start was to complete the investigation and the investigation isn't completed no matter what the card might be telling me.

Instead we've all had a bad experience because now the game is over instead of being complete.

The same applies to the one where you can't speak - now that player is left out of the game and them having to act out what they want to say just makes it so they don't want to play any more. Not being able to speak to persons in-game or cast spells fits that far better and is a lot like the "broken leg" card - it's having in-game effects instead of out of game effects.

3 minutes ago, totgeboren said:

This is a cooperative game, and the fun comes from trying to survive the horror together in a semi-rpg way. Winning on your own by making the other lose in a co-op generally feels like a loss for everyone for most people. If you can choose to ignore your insanity card, they become pointless since then most people will just ignore them.

Or, I know that a few of our games have ended in success, except for one person who was insane and needed say more evidence or something and thus failed.
That person, given the choice of making the investigation fail for everyone or fail only for them due to their insanity card, always elects to fail their own insanity.

This is exactly how we play. My card might say "You've lost because you didn't do X" but the app's telling me the game is completed and everyone else feels the game is completed. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win and not a loss regardless of what the card says.

3 hours ago, LabanShrewsbury said:

I have re-read their post and do not think this is their argument at all

It absolutely is and they're replying to a post to say specifically that. As I said before, use some abstract thought. Alright the card doesn't say the words specifically but the theme of what we're saying here is correct. I haven't got the card with me, but it still ends the game arbitrarily and that's the point that's being made here.

1 hour ago, totgeboren said:

And if you can read the cards as optional  , why could you not just ignore  the Mute-card  for example   

The Mute card doesn't change the win condition of the game, it states that you're not allowed to talk (presumably that just means not discussing game decisions). The other cards mentioned don't give you an instruction on how to act, they alter the the win condition of the game, so it's up to you if you try to win the game that way or not. It could be the case that you win accidentally , at the expense of everyone else's loss.

But as I say, I think the game could use a scoring system so you can gauge how well you finished - then some of the traitorous insanity cards may make more sense. A character went insane, and their insanity means you didn't win the game quite as well. Something like (Max Damage - Damage) + (Max Horror - Horror) + (10 points if you "won")... for each player. As a team you would "win better" if no-one goes insane.

Personally I play solo, so if I pick the Mute insanity, I just don't talk to the wife. Then I experience a completely different form of horror.

Discussing this with you is difficult because you do not respond to points, and you keep saying the same thing regardless of if the facts prove your comments to be incorrect.

6 hours ago, Taear said:

if the card says "You win if X happens" it doesn't feel that way. Instead it feels like I've lost, because my goal at the start was to complete the investigation and the investigation isn't completed no matter what the card might be telling me.

Instead we've all had a bad experience because now the game is over instead of being complete. 

You do not have to do X". I suggest that you do not do "X". If you do not do "X" and your fellow players complete the investigation, the investigation will actually be completed. This is point A. Please reply to this point.

6 hours ago, Taear said:

The same applies to the one where you can't speak - now that player is left out of the game and them having to act out what they want to say just makes it so they don't want to play any more.

It takes very little imagination to come up with ways that a player inflicted with this condition can be a productive and useful member of the investigation. Stating that they are left out of the game is just more hyperbole. I cannot comment on people you know not wanting to play after being inflicted with this condition. I have not played with anyone that feels that way.

6 hours ago, Taear said:

It absolutely is and they're replying to a post to say specifically that.

Really? Let us go back and look at the posts.

On 7/15/2018 at 10:01 AM, totgeboren said:

Some of the insanity cards have the same impact on the game as a "you die" injury card would have.

Lets say your intrepid gang snoops around for a few turns, then investigator X gets a mythos event which causes one damage. "No problem" one might say.
But then lets say the card drawn said; " Your investigator dies. The investigation is over, but due to your investigator being a good person, he/she goes to heaven which means you win! "

8 hours ago, totgeboren said:

First  off, not understanding a simplified metaphor made to highligh  t the issue reflects badly  on yo  u  ,

You are calling it a metaphor, taear is calling it an analogy, which is it? The answer is neither. And neither are needed if you create clear arguments based on events that can actually happen in the game, using in-game examples that include text from cards. I am still waiting for either of you to show an instance where drawing a card instantly ends a game.

And telling someone that something they are doing “reflects badly” on them based on your personal opinion seems very pointless.

8 hours ago, totgeboren said:

it  i  s be  t  te  r  t  o   a   r   g  u   e    against it rather than pret  ending it is to c  o  mplicated.    

I do not think anyone is pretending it is complicated. It does seem to show a lack of understanding of the rules, and an inability to make a logical argument based on facts.

8 hours ago, totgeboren said:

Secondly   , about not trying to fulfill the insanity card on purpose.
Sure, you might st  ar  t your turn with a knife in a space with exactly one other player,  but what's the point insanity if the player is allowed ignore their insanity card, i.e. fulfill their insanity win  co  nd  ition  ?           

Please restate this, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I am not trying to be difficult, and I will not use spelling or grammatical mistakes against you, but even correcting for those, this does not make sense. It appears you are saying “an investsgor that has a sanity condition (I assume you are referring to one in which the condition that needs to be met is to be in the same space as a second investigator, and also be in possession of a weapon) might end their turn in a space with exactly one other investigator, and a weapon (thereby meeting the requirements of their sanity condition)”, but this is where you lose me because next you say (and this is me paraphrasing in an attempt to make your statement easier to understand), “but what is the point of sanity conditions if it is up to the player to decide if they want to act on them?”

I do not want to assume your meaning because that would not be fair. I am not sure what the first fragment has to do with the second, but I will answer the second question.

One of the reasons sanity conditions are a part of the game is to let you know that something bad has happened. You have lost all of your sanity, and you have gone insane. You have basically lost the game once you lose all of your sanity, and that is what the card is telling you. You are not dead (you are half way there), but you have lost. You now have a choice, you can listen to the voices in your head and betray the team which salvages a win for you, or you can help your team complete the investigation, and lose on your own.

8 hours ago, totgeboren said:

If  you can choose to ignore your insanity card, they bec                             ome pointless since then most people will just ignore them.     

I want to make this point very clearly in case someone looking for rules clarification stumbles across this forum. You CANNOT ignore any card in the game. You ABSOLUTELY CAN decide to not fulfill your individual win requirement on the “traitor” cards we have been discussing. Doing so will cause you to lose the game.

And again, they are not pointless for the reasons stated above.

8 hours ago, totgeboren said:

And  if you  can read the cards as optional, why could you not just ignore t  he Mute-ca  rd for exam  pl  e?   

Nobody is saying you can read any card as optional. As someone else has already stated (I am typing on my phone so it is very difficult to scroll up to see who to give credit to) these are two completely different conditions. The card that does not alllw you to talk very clearly stayes that you the player are not allowed to talk. There is no discussion of your ability to win changing unless you meet certain requirements.

8 hours ago, totgeboren said:

I rewrote that card to disallow the 'Investigator' from interacting with persons and cast spells. The player is of course still allowed to speak! E  veryone  was very happy with   that fix      .    

I really dislike using cliches, but being that it is very appropriate, I will. You cannot fix something that is not broken.

It's pointless to try and discuss this with you because you cannot understand examples that are in any way abstract.

9 hours ago, LabanShrewsbury said:

Discussing this with you is difficult because you do not respond to points, and you keep saying the same thing regardless of if the facts prove your comments to be incorrect.

You do not have to do X". I suggest that you do not do "X". If you do not do "X" and your fellow players complete the investigation, the investigation will actually be completed. This is point A. Please reply to this point.

If you ignore the card, then the point of the thread - that the cards are stupid and bad - is entirely correct. What more do you want here?

3 hours ago, Taear said:

It's  pointless to try and discuss this with you because you canno  t  u  n  derstand examples that are in any way abstract.       

Why would you use an “abstract” example to make a point when all you need is a clear concise example. And none of your examples have been abstract. They have been illogical at best. Declaring that the sanity condition cards should be removed because they instantly end the game has had no basis in reality. If you are going to go on a forum to complain about an aspect of a game that someone put time and energy into to create the best experience they can, have the decency to craft a well thought out point with real examples. And if you do not understand the rules clearly, ask a question in the forum or contact Fantasy Flight.

4 hours ago, Taear said:

If you ignore       t  he card, then the point of the thread - that the cards are stupid and bad  - is entirely correct. What more do you want here?    

Am I the only person that sees the irony here? I think you may need to take the advice that you dole out so freely regarding abstract thought. I have at no time ever said that a card should be ignored. You are either not reading what I have read - which is lazy, not understanding it - which is not your fault, or ignoring it - which is a dangerous traight to have. I emphatically said you cannot ignore any card in the game. I will do it again here so that if anyone trying to learn the rules of the game stumbles across this discussion, they will not be confused. If you are playing the game as it is designed YOU CANNOT IGNORE ANY CARDS IN THE GAME. You do however have the option to NOT meet the win requirements of your sanity condition thereby losing the game. You cannot ignore the fact that you lose by not meeting the win requirement.

The rules regarding insanity state:

"An investigator’s Insane Condition might alter how that investigator wins and loses the game. In such a case, he may want to perform one or more actions that he would not otherwise want to perform."

The words "may want to" do not seem mandatory to me. Unless a specific card says the insane investigator "must" (or other word with same meaning) do something, the investigator would not have to take actions that result in them winning. They can choose to take one for the team and lose themselves (or not).

Ok. So if it is up to the player to act on the conditions of the insanity card as opposed to just a game mechanic that controls the investigator’s action (sometimes ending the game), when certain conditions exists, and everyone playing wants to see the investigation through to the end (and why would anyone 2+ hours into the game want otherwise), then what effect does insnity have? Aside from being the half-way point to elimination, if the system allows for the player to ignore the insanity effects, why bother having specific insanities?

Some players will want to win and screw the other players. It can keep the other players guessing; what will the insane player do?

If you want, just do what the other arkham files would do & have insanity result in that investigator's elimination (player as to run off to the sanitarium for a rest). But the uncertainty of how a player will act is interesting in a mythos game.

Fire can result in immediate elimination if there are too many fires when the investigator goes insane and picks the pyromaniac card. Maybe the first time that happens it is a bad surprise, but that means that the group has to keep the number of fires under control, particularly if someone is on their way to becoming insane -- just one more chore.

Tempus_37,

I wanted to reply to your post (this is in response to your post from yesterday, I believe you have posted today as well) because you clearly took time craft a well thought out response, and you also helped me by using actual card text. I really appreciate that.

This is where the confusion lies. The card states that if at the begging of the turn of the player inflicted with the sanity condition certain requirements are met, the game ends. Since the players can choose the order in which they play their turn, I would suggest that you never let a player inflicted with a sanity condition go first.

This can definitely be problematic. As I stated above you should have at least one turn for the investigators that are not “inflicted” to try to get to the area that is on fire and attempt to extinguish enough spaces so that the win requirements of Pyromania are not met.

For people that enjoy bringing an RPG element to the game this can bring up the age old dilemma of “player knowledge” vs “character knowledge”. I think we can agree that understanding this aspect (the sanity conditions) of the game is not easy to say the least. Couple that with the fact that the first time you play the game, you will not be familiar with the sanity conditions, and therefore will not be "on the look out" for suspicious activity. But there is nothing keeping an "inflicted" player from electing to go last, and telling their teammates that it might be a good idea to start putting out fires. Or yelling a warning to "stay away from me!" For players that have played a few times, it could simply be that "you have been around the block" a few times, and know what to look for in your partners.

On 7/20/2018 at 8:19 AM, Tempus_37 said:

Will this happen again? it's possible, but unlikely. Did it suck? You betcha! We actually had a pretty good chance at winning that game.

I admire the positivity in the face of adversity!

On 7/20/2018 at 8:19 AM, Tempus_37 said:

You betcha!

You must be from Minnesota! Hopefully see you at Arkham Nights!

3 hours ago, twm47099 said:

The rules regarding insanity state:

"An investigator’s Insane Condition might alter how that investigator wins and loses the game. In such a case, he may want to perform one or more actions that he would not otherwise want to perform."

Thank you twm47099, that is very helpful. We could have used that days ago. ?

3 hours ago, Tempus_37 said:

Ok. So if it is up to the player to act on the conditions of the insanity card as opposed to just a game mechanic that controls the investigator’s action (sometimes ending the game), when certain conditions exists, and everyone playing wants to see the investigation through to the end (and why would anyone 2+ hours into the game want otherwise), then what effect does insnity have? Aside from being the half-way point to elimination, if the system allows for the player to ignore the insanity effects, why bother having specific insanities?

I would prefer we use a word other than "ignore" when we discuss this option, but I will tell you why I think they are in the game, and an important aspect of it. Once you have lost all of your sanity I believe (some of) the sanity condition cards are basically saying "okay, you are insane. You lose the game unless you are willing to do 'X'". Having to draw that card is a very bad thing, and the game is trying to tell you as much. When I draw a sanity condition like Pyromania I do my best to ensure that there are never six spaces containing fire, which basically means I try to lose. If the game ends with my partners successfully completing the investigation, it alway bothers me that I lost. I know it also bothers some of them as well. We feel as if we did not do our best, and that makes us want to play again.

3 hours ago, twm47099 said:

Fire can result in immediate elimination if there are too many fires when the investigator goes insane and picks the pyromaniac card.

I am completely nitpicking here, and I am sure you know this and it is simply a semantics thing, but to my knowledge there is not a card that causes "immediate elimination". The group of investigators (minus the one that is "inflicted") should have at least one turn to attempt to put out enough fire to ensure the win condition of Pyromania is not met.

I almost do not want to mention this here, but last year at Arkham Nights, two friends of mine asked one of the game developers about the sanity condition cards in an attempt to double check that the information we had received was accurate, and to also make sure there were not any special circumstances with which we should be aware. The game developer confirmed the rule clarification was accurate, but then added that when they draw a sanity condition, they always stop talking to make the other players think that they are "inflicted" with Forbidden Words. That would drive me crazy.

On 7/21/2018 at 6:09 AM, LabanShrewsbury said:

1.) You are calling it a metaphor, taear is calling it an analogy, which is it? The answer is neither. And neither are needed if you create clear a  rguments based on events that can actually happen in the game, using in-game examples that include text from cards. I am still waiting for either of you to show an insta  nce where drawing a card instantly ends a game.

2.) I want to make this point very clearly in case someone looking for rules clarification stumbles across this forum. You CANNOT ignore any card in the game. You ABSOLUTELY CAN decide to not fulfill your individual win requirement on the “traitor” cards we have been discussing. Doing so will cause you to lose the game.

3.) I really dislike using cliches, but being that it is very appropriate, I will. You cannot fix something that is not br  oken.

1.) Take your pick, a metaphor is a simplified example, an analogy shows a logical equivalence, so my example was more of an analogy, though I had originally intended it to be a metaphor. ?
You refute the examples of negative impact on gameplay given by stating that no one has to try and fulfill their win-condition. The problem many have with this is that it is counter-intuitive to how games normally work. People go in to games expecting the rules to explain how to win. i.e. the win-condition is what ones strives to achieve. Not going for the win is something you might do when playing games against kids, not when playing co-op with your mates.

2.) Again, defending odd win-conditions by saying "no one needs to try and win the game" is something of a cop out. In most games the game-play win condition is perfectly aligned with the emotional win condition. Winning is supposed to make you happy. Many insanity cards create situations where it is simply not fun to win the game, or at least it's more fun to lose. That might not be a problem for you, but it is a broken mechanic for many.

3.) How many here have said they dislike how many of the insanity cards affect the game, and how many have supported you? This is why one uses a team of test-players, not just one. You might have no issues with it, but it seems like most other play groups have. Therefor the mechanism seems factually broken, because the point of games is to have fun, and the cards in many cases seriously diminishes that fun, and not just for the player who drew the card, but for the entire group.

And I think this is the issue I at least have with your objections presented in this thread. A few people have essentially said: "My group isn't having fun when using these cards", and it feels like your response is that the cards are fun, and they are wrong.
What I want is for the game win-condition to be aligned with the emotional win-condition. I should always have an emotional drive to try and win, so mechanisms that misalign those conditions are bad in my opinion.

p.s. Thanks for overlooking my sometimes confused grammar in the previous post, English isn't my first language and I was tired when writing. d.s.

7 hours ago, totgeboren said:

And I think this is the issue I at least have with your objections presented in this thread. A few people have essentially said: "My group isn't having fun when using these cards", and it feels like your response is that the cards are fun, and they are wrong.
What I want is for the game win-condition to be aligned with the emotional win-condition. I should always have an emotional drive to try and win, so mechanisms that misalign those conditions are bad in my opinion.

Thank you for saying exactly what I would have done.

If the cards give you the option to ignore them then like I said before the topic of this post - that they're better ignored - is pretty fulfilled isn't it? And if there's someone in your game group who just goes "Okay I win now" during a co-op game and just ends it when it's plain that everyone else doesn't enjoy it then why are you still playing with them?

On 7/19/2018 at 8:46 AM, Taear said:

We ignore the insanity effects almost entirely. And the reason behind that is that they're really boring. There's a difference between your insanity going up and then dying because of it and "I landed in a spot and due to a specific random thing now the game is over". Just like in the analogy totgeboren made, it's like getting an injury card that says "you die".

I don’t think the traitor insanity cards are like getting an injury card that says ”you die” or anything even remotely like that. Getting some amount of damage cards or insanity cards is inevitable. Getting wounded or going insane is not. A fire starting is possibly inevitable, sane investigators ignoring it is a choice. Bladed weapons spawning is probably inevitable, allowing yourself to be alone with another currently sane investigator carrying one while they have some insanity cards is a choice.

I think it’s clear that the existence of those cards is intended to drive prior-to-insanity behavior of the investigators. I know my group makes a point of not letting fires go out of control, making sure people split up when certain weapons or spells appear, etc.

I can certainly appreciate that first time players may not read the text on every card prior to play, or even if they do, they’re not going to remember everything or digest the implications of Pyromania or One Of The Thousand. But for experienced players, accounting for the possibility of these prior to insanity is key.

Also it should be really uncommon that these cards are instant losses, right? If someone goes insane during the mythos phase, that person shouldn’t be allowed to go first. If they can start fires / have a bladed weapon / spell, they should be asked to drop them as a sign of good faith.

I do get that it can chafe to lose a game “early” but MoM is so much about the theme that I can’t imagine losing these cards since they drive so much gameplay and behavior before and after people go insane.

On 7/21/2018 at 4:09 PM, Tempus_37 said:

Ok. So if it is up to the player to act on the conditions of the insanity card as opposed to just a game mechanic that controls the investigator’s action (sometimes ending the game), when certain conditions exists, and everyone playing wants to see the investigation through to the end (and why would anyone 2+ hours into the game want otherwise ), then what effect does insnity have? Aside from being the half-way point to elimination, if the system allows for the player to ignore the insanity effects, why bother having specific insanities?

I’m playing MoM because I like the mythos and the possibility that the investigators can go mad and wreak havoc on the mystery. There are myriad cooperative games that have no potential traitor condition. I enjoy many of them. I’d play one of them if I didn’t want to deal with the possibility that someone could start backstabbing. I don’t understand what 2+ hours has to do with it. I’ve played 10+ hour games of something like Twilight Imperium where a broken non-binding deal at the last possible second swung the game. That’s part of the fun and if I didn’t want to deal with that I’d play a different game entirely.

I don’t mean for that to come off snarky. Again I do understand why a loss like this can feel bad. But to me it’s part of the “contract” of playing the game. “You mean to say we could get 90% of the way of the way through the mystery, get a bad break on a mythos phase, and sneak defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory?” “Yup, that’s Mansions.” “Sounds great to me.”

This post is mostly in response to LabanShrewsbury , but of course everyone is free to read/discuss/comment/etc

I will go through each traitor condition in the hope of explaining to you what people are trying to say here.

If I am understanding correctly, there are effectively 2 options upon drawing an insanity condition:

a) Choose not to do what the card says is your win condition
b) Choose to do what the card says is your win condition

Pyromania

Drawn early game.
a) Choose not to do it.
You choose not to start any fires / make sure there are not more than 6. aka things you were probably going to be doing anyway. Effect on game: nonexistent
b) Choose to do it.
You start a bunch of fires. Other investigators either try to stop you, meaning that the entire game becomes a repetitive game of cat and mouse starting and extinguishing fires, and the story/mystery/investigation goes out the window, (which is what most people play the game for)
OR other investigators leave you to it, fire spreads, game ends really early.
OR of course, some amalgamation of the two which ends up being ultimately unfulfilling for most players since they cannot move on with the investigation nor successfully end the fire starting for good.

Drawn late game.
a) Choose not to do it.
You don't start any new fires. You put out existing spreading fires, taking actions that could otherwise go to moving on the investigation. Players are annoyed since they have made progress and this massively screws their chances of finishing the game. Nobody wins or it feels like a hollow victory for fire-starter.
b) Choose to do it.
You start fires, or knowingly let them spread to 6 tiles. Investigators, like earlier, either try to put them out or leave them be. Game ends quickly one way or another as they are near the end of the game so limited turns are either spent putting out fires and not being able to finish the investigation or trying to complete investigation in time, losing to the fires just before win scenario (frustrating) or winning just before (insanity condition has little to no effect on game, except fire-starter is the only one who doesn't win)
c) There are already 6 fires, which can realistically happen late game, since players tend to be concentrating on stopping the big bad/disrupting the ritual/whatever the win condition is. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, any hopes of finishing the game go out the window. Lots of players tend to feel cheated as they have made progress and it feels out of their control.

One of the Thousand

At any point during the game tbh
a) Choose not to do it
This is the only one where it kinda works out like some of the others in that you cannot end a turn with another investigator. But this can super easily end up having no effect on the game whatsoever or too much if it's in close quarters, like hallways and such, in which case game ends abruptly or becomes impossible to continue investigation
b) Choose to do it
Super easy. Game ends abruptly no matter how quickly you manage it. Hollow victory for traitor, lose for everyone else.
c) You draw the card and already have a bladed weapon and sharing a space. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, etc.

Crisis of Conscience

At any point during game.
a) Choose not to do it
Literally no effect on game except you are the only one to lose if everyone else wins
b) Choose to do it
Super easy to end game abruptly. OR other investigators again spend all their turns trying to mitigate any damage you do and thus cannot continue investigation.

For the Greater Good (I'm including here even though not sure how much it counts? Since for most of the game you are trying to complete the investigation)

a) Choose not to do it/don't die at the right time
No effect on game outcome except you are the only one to lose if everyone else wins.
b) Choose to do it
Try and die. Late game, might be nice flavour to die 'for the greater good' as opposed to for no reason, but next to no effect on game mechanically, OR you spend last turns walking into fire/letting things attack you/etc. either succeeding to die and not completing the investigation or failing and losing either way

With the minor exception of choosing not to do One of the Thousand, which almost works out like a non traitor condition (except as a heightened claustrophobia/paranoia condition that risks ending the game on accident), the traitor insanity conditions either have zero effect on the game (largely by choosing not to do them, which questions why they have them in the first place*) or too much effect on the game, ending the game abruptly or making continuing the investigation next to impossible.

We all know the game is meant to be difficult, but lots of people play for the challenge, and even a lose condition has a narrative conclusion in the app which helps even a loss feel like a satisfactory game, instead of an abrupt game end or doing away with the investigation altogether (which can also be repetitive/boring).

Everyone has different things they enjoy, of course, but you seem to refuse to accept people's reasoning as to why they don't like these cards. In this post I have tried to explain why this is. You don't have to agree, but please try to understand instead of dismissing their concerns, which you have done a lot of in this thread. I mean no disrespect, but people have explained this already, I am only going into such close detail to help you understand. This doesn't have to be an argument.

*A lot of people enjoy the insanity conditions as an additional challenge whilst continuing the investigation rather than a flat game over (with no narrative conclusion) or dismissing the investigation itself to mitigate the damage of the traitor. If you have the option of choosing not to do the insanity card, it is a valid question as to why have it in the first place? People tend to do the insanity cards as that is the consequence of losing their sanity points. Choosing not to do them sort of defeats the point of having them there in almost every instance.

As an additional note, conditions like "You cannot speak" rather than "You cannot speak in game" can ruin it for some people. Playing games is a very social experience for a lot of people; not everyone wants to end up playing charades, and if they don't want to do this (which is 100% okay, it's meant to be fun, it's not for everyone) they do risk getting left out because they cannot speak, which sucks. You can choose not to do it of course, but again, why then have the card.

Saying that not following certain things in game means it's the wrong game for people dismisses a lot of the reason people are playing it in the first case. Lots of people like the game a lot, hence why they are coming up with these minor workarounds in order to continue playing the game they love without having to deal with the little things that ruin it for them. Just like when people play a video game with a mod or two, it doesn't mean they don't like the base game (otherwise they wouldn't be playing it) they are just slightly altering it to tailor it to their own enjoyment. And enjoying yourself is the whole reason you play games in the first place.

Have a great week everyone!

?

Impulsivitea, I think that you should read my previous message about what can you do to challenge these sanity cards (if you support my English, ? ). In most cases you have said that the game ends abruptly, or you have been a little excessive with the resolution of the cards. As we choose to do what the card says everytime, I will skip a) (although we want to win, we try to win the rest of players, too).

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

Pyromania

Drawn early game.
b) Choose to do it.
You start a bunch of fires. Other investigators either try to stop you, meaning that the entire game becomes a repetitive game of cat and mouse starting and extinguishing fires, and the story/mystery/investigation goes out the window, (which is what most people play the game for)
(...)

Drawn late game.
b) Choose to do it.
You start fires , or knowingly let them spread to 6 tiles. Investigators, like earlier, either try to put them out or leave them be. Game ends quickly one way or another as they are near the end of the game (...)
c) There are already 6 fires, which can realistically happen late game, since players tend to be concentrating on stopping the big bad/disrupting the ritual/whatever the win condition is. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, any hopes of finishing the game go out the window. Lots of players tend to feel cheated as they have made progress and it feels out of their control.

First af all, did you take into account that you cannot start a fire if you do not have an item that allows it? If a player is going to be insane, we do not let him to have a blade weapon, nor an item to make fire. Does he already have one? Steal it. It is not so difficult. In our games, we did't experimented your results. We are 4 vs 1. It is not so easy to start a fire as you suggest. If there is fire on the board, it is not a good idea to let the fire to spread out so much. You are going to have problems, even without this card in play. You said it, the game is ending. The game can end abruptly for whichever reason, not only the fire.

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

One of the Thousand

b) Choose to do it
Super easy. Game ends abruptly no matter how quickly you manage it. Hollow victory for traitor, lose for everyone else.
c) You draw the card and already have a bladed weapon and sharing a space. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, etc.

Super easy???? The winning condition MUST be triggered at the START of your turn, NOT DURING it. He must be exactly with ONE more investigator. Not 2, or 3. Just ONE investigator and the insane one. And you must have a bladed weapon (see previous point). So, can you explain me how can you see it so super easy if you play the last in the round because nobody lets you to play first? Even so, you must be exactly with one more investigator at the start of your turn. Iy you draw the card during your turn, you do not win immediately, you must wait until the start of your next turn. I think that you are so frustrated with these cards that you are just ignoring them, instead of facing them. It's very difficult to met the conditions of this card.

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

Crisis of Conscience

b) Choose to do it
Super easy to end game abruptly. OR other investigators again spend all their turns trying to mitigate any damage you do and thus cannot continue investigation.

Just in case: the attack action can be used only against monsters. You cannot use it against investigators. The insane investigator can try to push other investigators, spread fires, close doors, steal weapons, undo puzzles... Super easy? Abruptly? If you think so... Not easy for us. Absolutely not.

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

For the Greater Good (I'm including here even though not sure how much it counts? Since for most of the game you are trying to complete the investigation)

b) Choose to do it
Try and die. Late game, might be nice flavour to die 'for the greater good' as opposed to for no reason, but next to no effect on game mechanically, OR you spend last turns walking into fire/letting things attack you/etc. either succeeding to die and not completing the investigation or failing and losing either way

You win IF you die AND the investigation has been complete. I drew this card last time I played. I helped my partners to complete the investigation. In fact, I fighted with the big end monster hand to hand while the other players fired their pistols. I sacrificed for them. The monster didn't attack them because it was focused on me. When I died beacuse my wounds, the monster was nearly to die. They killed it, everybody wins ! What is the problem?

You only need to die at the right moment, just before the investigation ends.

My first impression (maybe I am wrong) is that you are very frustrated with the cards, so you do not understand them, or you are not trying to do anything to face them .

You can ignore them for your fun, but I do not agree at all that these cards end abruptly the game.

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

Everyone has different things they enjoy, of course, but you seem to refuse to accept people's reasoning as to why they don't like these cards 

I think that LabanShrewsbury is not refusing your reasoning, but your explanation about what cards do.

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

As an additional note, conditions like "You cannot speak" rather than "You cannot speak in game" can ruin it for some people. Playing games is a very social experience for a lot of people

You will be surprised with the games that I have played where you cannot speak. And they are extremely funny! You must play this card as "your investigator cannot speak" (NOT your player). For example, you cannot share strategies, ideas or intentions as "give me the dagger" (although you can make gestures, like we do). But your player still can tell jokes, laugh at a situation or move, or speak about the weather. I do not see why it ceases to be a social experience.

Have a nice day!

2 hours ago, impulsivitea said:

You draw   the card and already have a bladed weapon and sharing  a space  . Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop  it,

Just to pick one of your examples that jumped out for One of a Thousand... the game ends at the start of your turn. If you've just drawn the card, it's not the start of your turn. If it happens during the Mythos phase, then the other investigators can have their turns before you. That's not abrupt, and there is a way to stop it.

I am really enjoying this conversation! ?

I am not able to reply in a meaningful way at the moment but it has been fun reading the responses!

Thanks for responding to my post! I will try to address the things you've mentioned, though bear with me, I am still figuring out how quotations work in this forum. I think I've got the hang of it now (I say, after spending twenty plus minutes editing this response, oops)

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

Impulsivitea, I think that you should read my previous message about what can you do to challenge these sanity cards (if you support my English, ? ).

Apologies if I missed something you said in your post, I read most of this thread in one go and tried to respond to the queries by going through each card individually.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

First of all, did you take into account that you cannot start a fire if you do not have an item that allows it? If a player is going to be insane, we do not let him to have a blade weapon, nor an item to make fire. Does he already have one? Steal it. It is not so difficult. In our games, we did't experimented your results. We are 4 vs 1. It is not so easy to start a fire as you suggest. If there is fire on the board, it is not a good idea to let the fire to spread out so much. You are going to have problems, even without this card in play. You said it, the game is ending. The game can end abruptly for whichever reason, not only the fire.

Just double checked the rules: "An investigator can place Fire in his space or an adjacent space by performing the set fire action." I haven't found where it states you need (a) specific item(s) to start fires?

I will admit, I misremembered how fire spreads - one new space of fire per turn rather than one new space of fire per existing space of fire per turn. Which would make it a little easier, I suppose, though you'd need to have an investigator in the right place/chasing the fire-starter to keep putting the fire out (which is never a guaranteed success given you have to roll agility, whereas setting fire does not require a roll). Additionally, I am far more used to playing with 2/3 investigators. I suppose if you have 5 investigators it would be possible. But I think it's fair to say that the majority of games do not have all 5 investigators (eg. stats in pinned post show 2-investigator games are easily the most common) so while 5 is optimum and yeah, probably more doable, I was thinking more in the general sense, which would include games with 2/3 investigators. Unfortunately there is almost no scaling in this game, which is why I am taking into account the worst case scenario.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

Super easy???? The winning condition MUST be triggered at the START of your turn, NOT DURING it. He must be exactly with ONE more investigator. Not 2, or 3. Just ONE investigator and the insane one. And you must have a bladed weapon (see previous point). So, can you explain me how can you see it so super easy if you play the last in the round because nobody lets you to play first? Even so, you must be exactly with one more investigator at the start of your turn. If you draw the card during your turn, you do not win immediately, you must wait until the start of your next turn. [...] It's very difficult to meet the conditions of this card.

I meant super easy in that you just have to end a turn in a space with one investigator, thus your next turn will automatically start in a space with an investigator. I refer to turn here being 'Investigator Phase' as that is how the app/people I know have distinguished it, rather than separate turns for each investigator. I guess if you do separate them, it is easier to avoid, but I was writing with that understanding of player turns.

Ending a space with just 1 investigator is far more likely that 2 or 3 investigators, not just because most games do not have more investigators, as mentioned above, but also because as the investigators spread around the board, they are likely to be more separate, even if they are still very much in range of each other. A bladed weapon (or two) occurs in basically every game. With 1-2 players (which is the majority of my experience that I am speaking from, I will admit that) it's pretty darn likely you will have or end up with a bladed weapon.

I guess in my experience it has not been difficult to meet the conditions of the card at all, and as such, I respectfully disagree with you on that front.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

I think that you are so frustrated with these cards that you are just ignoring them, instead of facing them. [...]

As it happens, I have never ignored an insanity condition in any game I have played. In the games I have played, they have been compulsory or thereabouts, since choosing not to do them didn't seem like an option I guess? I mention this for context: I am speaking from experience of exclusively playing insanity conditions as written rather than ignoring them as you suggest.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

Did you know that the attack action can be used against monsters? You cannot use it against investigators. The insane investigator can try to push other investigators, spread fires, close doors. Super easy? Abruptly? If you think so... Not easy for us. Absolutely not.

I am well aware you cannot use the attack action against other investigators. When I say mitigate the damage, I am referring to fixing mixed up puzzles (that another player can do if the others do not finish it in a single turn), putting out fires (because fires are of course inconvenient), stealing items and pushing investigators.

Fair enough on the abruptly front, I checked that card after posting, but it can still very easily event in the other player(s) having to drop the investigation to mitigate the damage, as already mentioned. Again, with 5 players, as most things in this game seem to be, it becomes a lot easier, but with 2-3 investigators, it is very difficult to do much else that react to this stuff in your turns.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

You win IF you die AND the investigation has been complete. I drew this card last time I played. I helped my partners to complete the investigation. In fact, I fighted with the big end monster hand to hand while the other players fired their pistols. I sacrificed for them. The monster didn't attack them because it was focused on me. When I died because my wounds, the monster was nearly to die. They killed it, everybody wins ! What is the problem?

You only need to die at the right moment, just before the investigation ends.

I actually really like For The Greater Good for flavour, and I did mention in my post that it doesn't entirely count as a traitor condition as you are mostly playing the game as normal. This is the one I have the least issue with to be honest, but I was simply highlighting the drawbacks of the card (eg. dying before game end but not too late to ensure the investigation is completed can be hecking difficult if you've not played the scenario before). Plus again, a 2-3 investigator game is very different from a 4-5 investigator game.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

My first impression (maybe I am wrong) is that you are very frustrated with the cards, so you do not understand them, or you are not trying to do anything to face them .

I already mentioned I don't ignore them, but you are right that I (and people I have played with) have been, at times, somewhat frustrated when a game ends (what we feel to be) prematurely or, perhaps more annoyingly, without a real narrative conclusion. (Even the lose conditions in the app have an epilogue of sorts. imo some of the frustration would be much lessened if there were, for example, alternate app endings depending on how you lost.)

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

I think that LabanShrewsbury is not refusing your reasoning, but your explanation about what cards do.

Re: LabanShrewsbury's posts over the course of this thread, there are definitely instances where it comes off as refusing to accept people's reasoning eg. this is not the game for you if you want to have workarounds. True, you can't be 100% sure of tone/intent on the internet, but that was what I was addressing, not the confusion over specific card functions.

1 hour ago, gran_orco said:

You will be surprised with the games that I have played where you cannot speak. And they are extremely funny! You must play this card as "your investigator cannot speak" (NOT your player). For example, you cannot share strategies, ideas or intentions as "give me the dagger" (although you can make gestures, like we do). But your player still can tell jokes, laugh at a situation or move, or speak about the weather. I do not see why it ceases to be a social experience.

That's great that you have funny games with one of the players mute, but it's not for everyone, and it works better in some games than others. In addition, the card does not specify that it's specifically your character that cannot speak, and thus it can be read as the player needing to be quiet. If you think about it, the way you play could be considered a sort of workaround to some people due to the ambiguity of the card, which in a way just emphasises the idea that this game can be played with minor tweaks for player enjoyment. The way you suggest playing it does sound worthwhile though, I may well use it next time that card comes up!

I think I've covered everything? (Sometimes I get a little overwhelmed at lots of text - which I realise is pretty hecking rich seeing how long my post was - hence I've broken it up into smaller chunks, but do let me know if I have missed anything or misunderstood what you meant.) I think it's fair to say our experiences playing this game have been a little different, which likely colours our opinions, but it has been fun discussing the intricacies of these conditions! You certainly mentioned a couple things I hadn't thought of, which is one of the reasons why I find discussions like these so interesting.

51 minutes ago, icabod said:

Just to pick one of your examples that jumped out for One of a Thousa  nd... the game ends at  the start of yo  ur turn. If you've just drawn the card, it's not the start of your t  urn. If it happens during the Mythos phase, then the other investigators can have their turns before you. That's not abrupt, and ther  e is a way to stop it.

Think I covered this in my reply to gran_orco, but again, I think it comes down to how we each view a 'turn.'

25 minutes ago, LabanShrewsbury said:

I am really enjoying this conversation! ?

I am not able to reply in a meaningful way at the moment but it has been fun reading the responses!

I am glad you are enjoying the discussion too! It's been really lovely having people who are as into game mechanics as I am to talk about them with ?

On Fri Jul 20 2018 at 11:36 AM, Taear said:

40 minutes ago, impulsivitea said:

I think it comes down to how we each view a 'turn.'

I agree - I think that some view a "turn" as being the start of the investigators phase (which it is for solo play). The Rules Reference defines "Turn" as:

Quote

Turn

During the investigator phase, investigators take turns in the order of their choice.

- During an investigator's turn, he may perform up to two actions of his choice.

So the rules define each investigator as having a separate turn in the investigation phase.

While thinking about this, I thought of one mechanic that would help to alleviate knife "ownership". If you don't trust an investigator, you could move into their space (half of your move action), steal their knife, then move out (the other half of your move action). I don't know which insanity they have, but it could be worth the risk.

Of course, this all relies on some agreement about in which order the players take their turns. It's down to choice. If you "rotate" the turns each time, then yes you could end up with the insanity player causing an abrupt halt to the game. If you pick at random (dice-roll? rock-paper-scissors?), again it could abruptly end the game. If you as a group make an agreement, then you can save the game.

I didn't spot anything in the rules about what happens if there's a disagreement about turn order. In LOTR LCG (which I also play... solo (cry cry)), the decision of the "first player" is final if there is a standoff, and the first player token changes each round. Sounds like it could be a good mechanic to adopt in a multi-player MoM game.

page 16: Set Fire Action. An investigator can perform this action only if he has a Light Source.

Page18: Turn. During the investigator phase, investigators take turns in the order of their choice. During an investigator's turn , he may perform up to two actions.

See conflicts (page 2), to resolve disputes. The decision of the turn order can be determined by an investigator chosen at random.

Ahhh, thanks for finding those. I suppose then with the specific items needed for those conditions, it does change things a little. Though of course, as previously mentioned, how much it is effected varies wildly depending on the number of investigators; the points I mentioned are still something of an issue if you only have two investigators, which tends to be the likeliest case for a lot of people.

That said, at the end of the day, there are still lots of circumstances (that I and others have mentioned) where the traitor insanity condition cards can end a game abruptly and/or lead to an unfulfilling game/conclusion for some players. For a decent number of people, tweaks like pklevine 's are a welcome adjustment to an otherwise stellar game. Mansions of Madness 2e is a game with a lot of merits, but I think it's fair to say that there are places where improvements could have been made (I say this not just referring to the traitor cards; things like monster bases, deficiencies in the app and issues with scaling come to mind as things that people have mentioned having room for improvement) and it's been a good discussion about potentially one of those places. People are welcome to play the game as they choose, and it's no less valid to do so, especially since we're not discussing it as a competitive/tournament game (or at least I'm not).

Wishing folks a lovely evening (timezone dependent) and pleasant future discussions!

?

Some more food for thought. Some of these Insane conditions require a certain number of players. My photo below shows them lined up in rows of 1+, 2,+ and 3+. This is all of them from all currently released products.

(With regards to Pyromania and One of the Thousand, as they keep getting mentioned the most, they should only appear in games of 3 or more players).