Last night I finished the 14th and final scenario. And lost. Again. This was the 7th or 8th scenario that I lost.

I suppose this final loss was expected. And perhaps deserved. Or perhaps not.

You see, I know I made some "learning mistakes" early on:

1) separating characters made them vulnerable to enemies, but keeping them together slowed progress to the point of threating out
2) exploring a tile carries the risk of opening up more tiles, so it's best to explore at the beginning of your turn
3) preparing too many successes reduces the overall success rate, but some of those cards reduce the need for successes (like Ready Defense)

Figuring out the sweet spots was part of the learning process. Unfortunately, by the time I learned those sweet spots, I was several missions (and losses) into the campaign, and it began to feel more and more that it was too late to turn things around. Maps seemed to get bigger, larger numbers of enemies slowed me down more, and each mission felt more like a struggle than a revelation. Whenever I lost, it felt inevitable (and no longer due to "mistakes" on my part), and whenever I won, it felt like I either got lucky, or somehow accidentally "cheated" without knowing it. Neither the wins nor the losses felt deserved. Only the battle maps seemed "fair", and won all of those easily (except for the first one, with its "surprise").

By the time I finished the campaign, I felt like the odds were always against me, not because the game designers were trying to challenge me to think differently, but because my heroes were underpowered, due to those early losses.

So I am wondering:

1) Is "failing forward" overrated... in the sense that failing missions leaves you underpowered, which increases the chance of failing... and so you end up hurtling toward the end stuck inside a great big ugly snowball of failure?

2) Do other fail-forward games (like Arkham Horror the Card Game) also result in a big ugly snowballs? Or do those games make it easier to recover from failure?

3) Do you wish Journeys in Middle Earth had some standalone/tutorial missions designed to teach players general strategies (like the trade-offs I mentions) *before* throwing them into a long (and, for some of us, failure-snowballing) campaign? Or would you prefer them to focus on creating more long campaigns?

4) If someone has lost a certain number of missions, do you recommend they restart the campaign? If so, what should be that "bail out" point?

5) Should Journeys in Middle Earth have a built-in "bail out" point (for example, if the player loses 3 of the first 5 missions, should the game force them to start over, thus saving them from the long 14-mission snowball)?

6) If someone is starting over, do you recommend they play with the same heroes (for me, Gimli and Elena) since they have learned their strengthts and weaknesses, or switch to different heroes (to give the game a fresh feel again)?

Any other tips for those of us who have experienced the big ugly snowball?

p.s. Aside from the snowball, I really enjoy this game!!!

23 hours ago, tripecac said:

1) Is "failing forward" overrated... in the sense that failing missions leaves you underpowered, which increases the chance of failing... and so you end up hurtling toward the end stuck inside a great big ugly snowball of failure?

It hurts somewhat but the game has been designed so that you most likely lose some scenarios. Also it allows different story routes depending on success and unsuccess in the future and that is really cool! You want to lose so that you see those alternate story paths!

Quote

2) Do other fail-forward games (like Arkham Horror the Card Game) also result in a big ugly snowballs? Or do those games make it easier to recover from failure?

Some scenarios give in AH extra XP for failure and so gives some extra oomph. Also extra time can give you extra XP because you did clean up more victory locations and kill more monsters. But normally losing will make next scenario much, much harder in AH. Much more harder than in Jime so far.

Quote

3) Do you wish Journeys in Middle Earth had some standalone/tutorial missions designed to teach players general strategies (like the trade-offs I mentions) *before* throwing them into a long (and, for some of us, failure-snowballing) campaign? Or would you prefer them to focus on creating more long campaigns?

Short adventures definitely. Playing guide not so much. Some people like to learn by doing everything by themselves. Some people come to read Gaming forums and ask advise. I think that that is better way of doing it. The Gaming mechanics themselves Are easy. How to play effectively is not and that is the best part of this and many other game!

Quote

4) If someone has lost a certain number of missions, do you recommend they restart the campaign? If so, what should be that "bail out" point?

I will always play to the bitter end... but on the other hand I have lost only few scenarios among Many Many scenarios. The normal mode is not very difficult, when you learn the game.

Quote

5) Should Journeys in Middle Earth have a built-in "bail out" point (for example, if the player loses 3 of the first 5 missions, should the game force them to start over, thus saving them from the long 14-mission snowball)?

That depends on the story!

Quote

6) If someone is starting over, do you recommend they play with the same heroes (for me, Gimli and Elena) since they have learned their strengthts and weaknesses, or switch to different heroes (to give the game a fresh feel again)?

It depends. I personally like to change characters, but on the other hand I rarely lose in these games so learning curve is not too high to me. But after saying that. To most people is best to play two or three first scenarios to learn to play the game. And then restart by using those same characters, maybe planning how to multiclass them. The game gets easier if you have optimal role for battle maps and another optimal role for the journey map!

There is normally more fighting in battle map and there is not so much room to maneuver. In journey map you have to move a lot and maybe fight Little bit less. Different roles suits better to each situation!

Quote

Any other tips for those of us who have experienced the big ugly snowball?

Calculate the time you have left. Learn your character weakness and strong points. Use character combos to their fullest. And take your time to learn your character.

this game is good in the second and third playthrough Also!

Quote

p.s. Aside from the snowball, I really enjoy this game!!!

Yeah! I like it too. Not my favorite game, but definitely among those easy and quick games that I can play along my friends with very Little "how to play" instructions to get it running smoothly. Rules Are simple, the game play is not and that is a good mark in my book. I have some good games in my collection that Are good, but are really hard to teach and learn to new people and because of that those games rarely get played and most of the time just collect dust...

2 hours ago, tripecac said:

1) Is "failing forward" overrated... in the sense that f  a  iling missions leaves you underpowered, which increases the chance of failing... and so you end up hurtling toward the end stuck inside a great big ugly snowball of failure? 

2) Do other fail-forward games (like Arkham Horror the Card Game) also result in a big ugly snowballs? Or do those games make it easier to recover from failure?

 3) Do you wish Journeys in Middle Earth had some standalone/tutorial missions designed to teach players general strategies (like the trade-offs I mentions) *before* throwing them into a long (and, for some of us, failure-snowballing) campaign? Or would you prefer them to focus on creating more long campaigns?

4) If someone has lost a certain number of missions, do you recommend they restart the campaign? If so, what should be that "bail out" point?

5) Should Journeys in Middle Earth have a built-in "bail out" point (for example, if the player loses 3 of the first 5 missions, should the game force them to start over, thus saving them from the long 14-mission snowball)?

6) If someone is starting over, do you recommend they play with the same heroes (for me, Gimli and Elena) since they have learned their strengthts and weaknesses, or switch to different heroes (to give the game a fresh feel again)?

1. Somewhat. I think people value the extra Lore from pushing the time limit more than the downhill battle you have from staying ahead of the curve too much.

2. I haven't played any others, so can't comment.

3. No. Well, the ability to play individual adventures would be awesome (even though you lose the customization aspect), but not necessarily for the teaching side of things.

4. Never say die!

5. Knowing the fanbase, that would not be received well AT ALL .

6. It depends on the Heroes!

6 hours ago, tripecac said:

Last night I finished the 14th and final scenario. And lost. Again. This was the 7th or 8th scenario that I lost.

Interesting. My next game will be the 12th, and the app assures me this is the final game, win or lose. I guess there really is some variation with the choices you make, considering you apparently will have played two more scenarios.

I also have a fairly dismal record, I'm 3-8. But I've won two out of the last three, so I'm optimistic. I'm hoping to win the last one, but that may well be a delusion. I feel like I'm getting a better feel for what the right decisions are though. This is the first game like this I've played, so I consider the whole campaign a trial run.

A lot of the games came down to the last turn, and could have gone either way. Either I ran out of time as I was about to complete the quest or one of my characters got killed. Considering how close many of these games have been really makes me impressed with the game design.

I notice a lot of the decisions you make in this game are a two edged sword. You might gain something, but you risk something else.

Lore gives you the armor and weapons upgrades, so I can see why that's valued. But again, there's that balance between trying to complete the quest and searching around for extra items.