Played my first game last night. Overall, it was a very enjoyable experience. However, as is traditional with the internets, I wish to discuss the two things we did NOT like, as opposed to the myriad of things we appreciated. One minor gripe, one major. Prepare for QQ!

I will preface this by saying: It's quite possible we missed something in the rules that would have "solved" either or both issues. If so, GREAT and thanks in advance.

1. Minor gripe. Picking up dropped items.

So Joe Diamond has a buttload of items. He is struck suddenly by Bugs Under my Skin (can't recall the exact name of the card), which results in him dropping pretty much everything in the Foyer. He's in the same space as Gloria, and Ashcan Pete is but one space away.

Now, according to the rulebook (if I'm not mistaken), if either Gloria or Pete wish to pick up anything that has been dropped, they must pick up everything. Collecting dropped items is subject to the normal rule for exploring, as seen on page 9 of the Rules of Play, 1st paragraph, 2nd column: "The player must take each of these cards and place it faceup next to his Character card (to mark that he is carrying it)." The result then is that, if Gloria wishes to pick up the lantern dropped by Joe, she's forced to pick up everything and wait until next turn to devote her action to dropping what she doesn't want. All players involved thought this was very silly. I can appreciate why it works that way for exploring a room with a face-down exploration deck ... but dropped cards (left face-up) ...?

It was quickly house ruled that players are permitted to choose which specific items to collect when "exploring" for cards that have been dropped. Thoughts?

2. Major gripe. Why don't monsters have to "evade"? This was a BIG point of contention.

*** BEWARE OF SPOILERS ***

We ended up with House Lynch 1A, resulting in Walter (a named Maniac) running amok. To win, the investigators had to kill Walter, a genuine badass rocking somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 wounds. He was accompanied by an entourage which included a second maniac and a zombie.

Long story short, the Keeper decided it was best to play hide and seek with Walter, running him away from investigators at every opportunity. This forced the intrepid team to give chase, which resulted in a ridiculous amount of horror checks along the way (each and every time Walter and his crew would slip by, escaping through a door, the team would follow, enter the new room; horror checks all 'round). Used in combination with several dark rooms, this effectively killed the game for the investigators as they became more and more frustrated with two things: The crazy amount of horror checks and (more importantly) Walter's ability to escape without consequence.

Numerous times, Walter and his buddies would move through our three investigators, exiting the door they had just entered. The investigator team was powerless to stop them, forced to step aside, allowing them to pass. The players were instantly annoyed that Walter was not subject to some form of evasion test, especially in a scenario where the death of a powerful named monster was their only chance for victory. Consider also that Walter is an axe-wielding maniac and it becomes more difficult to justify his running and hiding, as opposed to howling, charging and hacking.

On the same token, we had several situations where a monster would pop into a room, shout "Boo!" (causing a terror test), then exit. Joe Diamond, with a pair of pistols, was very irate that he was unable to take a pot shot as the monster turned to leave.

Can't say I blame him.

We intend to test run a house rule next game, which we are calling "Reactive Attacks". If the Keeper chooses to move a monster from a space shared with an investigator, the investigator is allowed one free attack with a weapon of their choosing (using the attack deck as normal). If the Keeper commands a monster (not sharing a space with an investigator) to exit a room containing an investigator, the investigator is allowed one free attack with a ranged weapon of their choosing (using the attack deck, assuming they have line of sight and a weapon with the necessary range). Reactive attacks are voluntary and need not be taken. Per Keeper turn, ONLY ONE reactive attack per investigator is permitted. We may add a negative modifier to this attack, to be determined after testing.

In our estimation, this will have numerous positive effects on the game.

• No more monster peek-a-boo unless willing to take a bullet.
• It would allow certain characters to make themselves useful in a situation where the Keeper wishes to ignore them. Joe went nuts and the Keeper wanted him alive; at least Joe would've been able to shoot a monster in the back as it snubbed him to pursue juicier meat in the next room. It also would've given Gloria a chance to karate chop a zombie in the hind quarter as it shuffled past in pursuit of Ashcan, as she is but a useless old woman with no spells and no items and no, the Keeper doesn't want to kill her as that would allow the players to introduce a new character with a Tommy gun (bad for Walter).
• It would introduce another level of strategy to movement. Suddenly, investigator placement is more important. The Keeper is still permitted to move monsters away, but only after considering the potential consequences of doing so. Also, the Keeper is now more aware of the weapons each investigator is carrying. I can "Boo!" a guy with no gun but maybe I avoid playing whack-a-mole with the shotgun toting professor.
• Most importantly, monsters would be more likely to act according to character. Once cornered, Walter would probably opt to stand and fight like a good psycho instead of triggered three reactive attacks each time he attempts to escape from the three pursuing investigators now blocking his only exit. The zombie would seriously consider eating Gloria, as she is the closest fresh meat and that's what zombies do.

Maybe this will break the game, we don't know. However, the situation resulted in enough frustration and ill will that a heated discussion began immediately following the inevitable Keeper event card victory. Investigators are forced to roll for evasion, why are monsters free to escape without hindrance? Clearly, the problem was a product of our circumstances; House Lynch 1A, investigators forced to chase and engage a durable monster in a game where combat is not meant to be the focus. Add to that a Keeper more concerned with winning than with telling a good story and you've got a situation.

I'd appreciate any input from more experienced players. Better yet, please please please direct me to the page number and paragraph outlining a pertinent rule we've missed. I'd perfer that to a house rule any day!

Cheers!

It was also suggested by a player that reactive attacks be introduced ONLY when investigators are tasked with killing a specific monster or monsters, with said attacks being triggered ONLY by the designated target monster(s). In other words: Walter is placed, the objective is revealed; only then do reactive attacks come into play, and only Walter can be targeted in such a way.

I assume we'll test it both ways.

Deek said:

I believe that must is only for the flipped over cards you first explore in a room. Under "Drop Items" earlier:

"A player who later explores this room can pick up any dropped
cards (following all normal rules for exploring)." (p. 9)

1) As Dam said, I believe dropped items are not required to be picked up. Also, keep in mind that at the start of the Keeper's turn investigators in the same space my trade equipment ... so Gloria could pick up everything using her action,as long as shePete end in the same space she can give everything back to him.

2) I don't particularly like the idea of "reactive" attacks. There are a couple reasons, which I shall mention in relation to your post ...

No more monster peek-a-boo unless willing to take a bullet.

Monsters are supposed to be able to peek-a-boo. Generally, the monsters will be outnumbered. Horror checks don't kill off investigators,most investigators have a pretty good willpower.

It would allow certain characters to make themselves useful in a situation where the Keeper wishes to ignore them.

The investigator is already useful. Joe has a guncan use his action to shoot a monster.

It would introduce another level of strategy to movement. Suddenly, investigator placement is more important.

Perhaps. It also adds complexity, as well as (IMO) an unfair advantage to the investigators.

Most importantly, monsters would be more likely to act according to character.

The Keeper doesn't have to make Walter run away, by the way. Also, keep in mind that monsters can only move 2 spaces. Investigators can move 2 as well as attack. Unless the monster goes through a locked door (or uses the take sample action), there is no way for a monster to get away from the investigators. All his running away will do is trigger horror checks when the investigators go to his new location <shrug>.

Also, just because Walter is a "maniac" type monster, does not mean he is stupidunaware of his own mortality. It can be perfectly reasonable for Walter to realize he is outmatchedattempt to fleereturn later.

Personally, I think that reactive actions will unbalance the game. Some scenarios are more difficult for the investigator to win,some scenarios are more difficult for the Keeper to win. I suggest you play more scenarios.

dvang said:

I agree, for the most part. To be honest, I was the Keeper; I spent most of the post-game discussion defending the way it plays. However, I did begin to sympathize with the players. I believe the individual who suggested reactive attacks apply only to the target monster was onto something.

Walter appears. The card indicates that players must hunt and kill him to win the game. Walter becomes hunted.

When players are instructed to hunt a specific monster or monsters, the rules for reactive attacks are introduced. The hunted monster becomes the focus of the investigators efforts, generating reactive attacks as described above (only the hunted monster(s) generate reactive attacks). Investigators bent on the destruction of a monster would simply not allow it to walk past them unmolested, whereas other enemies would be allowed (if not outright encouraged) to leave.

Either way, it's something we will certainly play test. I think Lynch 1A left a bad taste for many, if only because it forces players into an aggressive mode that doesn't seem to play well; I'm hopeful other scenarios will turn people around.

Dropped Items are picked up in exactly the same way a room is explored for the first time:
All items are added to the investigator's inventory.

You did, however, as has been said already, forget that investigators can trade unlimited items.

This creates some major issues of planning. Say, a fighter, like Michael, drops his gun. He's still kinda useful with his bare fists, while Gloria on the other hand is pretty useless in combat unless she has a weapon. If there's a monster in Michael's space that caused him to his gun in the first place (by combat cards of because of Horror + Trauma), Michael could spend his action attacking the monster with his bare fists, while Gloria could pick up all of Michael's items, handing them back to him immediately afterwards.

That, of course, needs the players to realize this and plan their turn accordingly. It ain't that hard, you don't have to be a master strategist to figure it out.

The fact that always all items are picked up just stresses the importance of planning ahead, not spending actions picking up, dropping, picking up stuff again.

Seriously, that's what a part of the game is about! There are only 15-20 turns, so every action counts. Let them feel the weight of their decisions. And if they realize that picking up a gun someone has dropped and left behind, running after him for 5 turns only to give it back might have not been the BEST of ideas, don't change the game to MAKE it a good idea. It wasn't.

Reactive actions: No. You're playing "Monsters vs. Humans". They are monsters. People have to roll freakin' Horror checks, making them go insane if they see them. You can't ambush them, you can't keep them at bay, you can only hope to survive their onslaught.
When one of my players starts crying why the monsters can move through this space and that lock, I'll start frying him on every occasion. And I'm a friendly keeper.

Rereading your story, however, I can't understand how the Keeper managed to move Walter through your group that often. He can only move Walter 2 squares per turn, provided he doesn't waste his threat on "Take Sample!" just to go one more step. This, combined with him moving "with his buddies", wastes TONS of threat and leaves the Keeper unable to hurt the investigators, while they can just move up 1 square (a distance even someone with a broken leg or being stunned can move! Provided that he really moved through your space, though) and attack Walter, just so he can escape again to be attacked again. This... makes no sense.

Wow. Ignore this. I forgot how bunko the quote functionality on the forum could be. I'll repost below.

"That, of course, needs the players to realize thisplan their turn accordingly. It ain't that hard, you don't have to be a master strategist to figure it out"

Sorry. Forcing an investigator to pick up every item that has been dropped is nonsensical, no matter how you slice it. Sure, it introduces an artificial level of complexity, allowing a player to showcase their rockin' time management skills, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

"Rereading your story, however, I can't understand how the Keeper managed to move Walter through your group that often. He can only move Walter 2 squares per turn, provided he doesn't waste his threat on "Take Sample!" just to go one more step. This, combined with him moving "with his buddies", wastes TONS of threatleaves the Keeper unable to hurt the investigators, while they can just move up 1 square (a distance even someone with a broken legbeing stunned can move! Provided that he really moved through your space, though)attack Walter, just so he can escape again to be attacked again. This... makes no sense."

Geez. Dude. I dunno. My "story" was an over-simplified, inaccurate summation of what went down; not a play-by-play. Sometimes I moved all three, but not always. I juggled them between two dark rooms, abusing the investigator's lack of a lantern (which had been dropped on the other side of the mansion by the unfortunate Professor, God rest his soul). I often took trauma/mythos cards, sprinkle in some use of Urges to stagger the investigators. I suppose it should be noted that I played Command Minion correctly; only once per turn per monster.

Regardless, the story isn't the point.

From the get-go, my players were annoyed that they were unable to react to monsters while investigators were forced to deal with evade checks. I suppose the lack of symmetry annoyed them, I dunno, but it didn't really detract from the game until Walter showed up. Now forced to actively hunt a monster in order to win, things took a bad turn. They didn't lose solely because they were unable to stop Walter from fleeing, there were plenty of other factors that contributed to their defeat, but it's certainly what they raged against once the game was over and I asked the inevitable question, "So, what'd you all think?

We played, I asked for first impressions, the players responded. I came here with the simple intention of gauging whether this was an unusual reaction and whether the suggestions born of an extended brainstorming session have any potential value.

I really hope MoM catches on with my group, I want my players to enjoy themselves moreso than anything. That said, as Keeper, I have a hard time juggling the urge to "win" and the desire to tell a decent story. They're almost mutually exclusive in my mind, which I suppose highlights an unpleasant aspect of my own not-so-nicety.

Likely, it was a perfect storm of circumstances mixed with the hunt/kill objective of Lynch 1A that resulted in player frustration. I hope to bring these guys back to the table to try additional scenarios. I will insist we attempt at least one new scenario before introducing rules that fundamentally alter the core game play. Ultimately, if and when we play test a reactive attack house rule, I hope it DOES break the game in favor of the investigators. This would highlight why the game plays the way it does, giving the players some perspective, which would be the ideal.

If you're going to "balance" things by giving the investigators a "reactive attack" then you should probably balance things the other way: allow the monsters to make an attack at any point during their move phase. At the moment, the only way you can attack with a monster is to move into an investigators spacethen leave it there until the Keeper's next turn. That's actually quite a penalty on any situation in which you're attempting to kill the investigators, especially coupled with the fact that no monsters have ranged attacks.

So, no, my general opinion would be that things should not be changed by giving the investigators reactive options, they already have enough advantages: ranged weapons, special abilitiesspells (that they choose when to use, no dictated by a combat card getting "special attack" text),being able to choose from move-move-attackmove-attack-moveattack-move-move each action.

- "I forgot how bunko the quote functionality on the forum could be."

Hah, yeah, I know that one

- "Sure, it introduces an artificial level of complexity, allowing a player to showcase their rockin' time management skills, but that doesn't make it any less stupid."

Why can't they shoot through doors or windows? I'd say shooting through doors should at least be possible, if not give a bonus on aiming, representing the restrained movement when coming through the door... But no, they can't.

Why can they carry a bazillion weapons, unless their back is broken? Seriously? I'd enforce a 1 weapon, 1 equipment at all times, unless they have a backpack or something.

And most of all: Why can't my monsters dodge too?
I spent two rounds with 3 Zombies beating on a single survivor with 2 HP (that means that 1 hit = kill) IN THE DARK, he had all Skill Points spent and a Dexterity of 7. What happens? He survives, because he carries the Luck Of The Dumb with him. Dex roll, no damage. Dex roll, no damage. Dex roll, he can move a field. WHYYY?
Why can't there be more "Oh, nice, you dodged the BIG impact of the attack but you still get damage" from humanoid monsters? And, more than that: Why can't my monsters use stupid luck to dodge too? "Oh, Shotgun on the same space? Potential 6 + whatever the combat card says damage? Ah, I'll dodge that one. There you go, no damage!"

There is a reason that Monsters and Investigators play completely different. Yeah, there was a moment of "Is there an Attack of Opportunity when the monster leaves my space?" in my game too, because most of my players have a D&D background. I said "No", and that was it. They dealt with the fact that they and the Keeper play completely different and that's that.
Trying to argue, so the investigators get even more possibilities (selecting which items to pick up, reacting to Monsters movement, etc.) is imho wrong and either bloats the game or breaks it.

"My "story" was an over-simplified, inaccurate summation of what went down; not a play-by-play."

I guessed that much, yeah. But what I tried to show was: If Walter moves the max. distance every turn, he'll never deal damage to the investigators - okay, he doesn't HAVE to, but this removes the biggest problem the players have to deal with in the entire game! - while being attacked each turn as soon as they catch up. It's not like running away as a Monster keeps him out of harm's way for the rest of the game, since the investigators are at least as fast, with the potential to "run", to be 50% faster than a Monster. They *will* catch up.
Now, the FAQs says that Walter has to appear within 2 spaces from the investigators, so from turn #1 after appearing they'll attack him. (That's another advantage on the investigators side: they react to events faster than the Keeper can!) If they don't waste time exploring, waiting, swapping items,... there shouldn't be any problem with keeping up, unless their legs are broken, which makes the syringe *that* much more important. Sure, they might have to evade other monsters that try to slow them down or deal with them quickly enough - but it's not like the Keeper can spawn any more monsters at that time into the story.

I dunno, I don't see why a monster that does nothing except running away is any problem to a group of organized players. Why did they have problems beating on a running monster? Care to explain how the last turns of this game were spent, because I guess I'm missing something there.

CraggleRock said:

That Sir, Is WRONG. Moving monsters usually happens on 3) Keeper Action Step. 4) The monster attack Step comes after step 3, meaning that moved monsters can attack.

I hope this will make the game more easier for the Keeper.

Good Gaming

DEEK, ELBI I get serious headaches by reading your posts guys . Maybe next time you should pick up Call of Cthulhu ROLEPLAYING Game and have a go with that? Since boardgames can only do so MUCH about things that are best adressed in RPGs. Personally I love the CoC RPG game, one of my favourites.

Just an advice, have a good tinkering with the rules and good gaming.

"So, no, my general opinion would be that things should not be changed by giving the investigators reactive options, they already have enough advantages:"

I agree. I'm glad I posted the notion, though, as the combined responses have given me the level-headed ammunition I need for next time. I played Devil's advocate following the first game; at least now I can pick up where I left off with more confidence, better able to explain the less intuitive aspects of the rule set to a group of players who demand an explanation when something doesn't make sense.

"Trying to argue, so the investigators get even more possibilities (selecting which items to pick up, reacting to Monsters movement, etc.) is imho wrongeither bloats the gamebreaks it."

Ugh. The door thing came up. That sparked a mid-game discussion. I resolved it by saying, "Doors are always considered to be closed,windows are always considered to have some drapeblindwhatever. Deal with it." We moved on. There were complaints in general about the combat feeling too loose. We shrugged, kept going. Several other small niggles cropped up as the game progressed, most of which I was able to dismiss or justify.

Then we had the drop/pick up thing. By the time we reached this, I think all of their good will was gone.

PLAYER: "You mean I have to pick up everything?

ME: "Uh. Yes. According to the rules here on page 9 ..."

PLAYER: "But all I want is the book."

ME: "Um."

PLAYER: "So ... I have to wait til' next turn to use my action to everything I don't want?"

ME: *nods*

PLAYER: "WHY?"

Honestly, I just couldn't justify it. I had spent the entire game to that point whipping up reasons for why things were the way things were, more often than not I could tie each rule to a somewhat reasonable, logical thematic. Not this one. This plays like a heavy-handed attempt by the designer to slow down the investigators and burn actions for purposes of the Almighty Balance. I had flexed my game master muscle one time too many with a "Let's move on." I hit a wall with this one. I'm not sure I'll be able to reverse the home rule decision without risking a coup; I'm not sure I even want to.

"I dunno, I don't see why a monster that does nothing except running away is any problem to a group of organized players. Why did they have problems beating on a running monster? Care to explain how the last turns of this game were spent, because I guess I'm missing something there."

You're not missing anything. The investigators were in a bad way by the time Walter showed. The Prof had died (effectively losing their lantern) Gloria had just appeared, at which point she immediately lost her spell and had no teeth in combat what-so-ever. They managed to get her a gun at one point, but even then she was pants shooting in the dark. That left two. Joe Diamond was teetering on the brink of bonkers with more sanity trauma cards than Charlie Sheen. He had trouble with doors, he was scared of other investigators, he failed horror checks on anything but a 1-2, bugs on his skin, other stuff I can't recall; just ... a mess. Every time he entered a room, he was rolling checks for monsters and investigators. He went bonkers. I had a few nice insanity cards that made him problematic for his group, just lucky for me. Then there were the physical trauma cards. I made sure to eliminate one threat entirely by turning Joe into a simpering, limping mess, then keeping him alive. Pete was the only solid hitter they had left; I mitigated him with darkness, evade checks, well-timed Uncontrollable Urges. He managed a few hits in on Walter, but ultimately he'd be Urged elsewhere while Walter put distance between them and sat pretty in the dark with what remained of his massive pool of 18 health.

Plus, you gotta keep in mind, this was our first game. They weren't the most organized lot and I've convinced them to play again on this basis alone. "C'mon guys, it was your first game. You'll do better next time!" I'm not trying to paint my gaming group as a bunch of spoiled whiners, but for whatever reason this game rubbed them the wrong way on more than one occasion. I generally don't discuss house rules that tinker with fundamental play after only one game, but this was a heated QQ session. I think they really wanted to like it, and were disappointed.

As I've said, it wasn't Walter's ability to escape unhindered that cost the investigators the game. It was a reoccurring annoyance, an issue that cropped up the first time a monster moved through an investigator's space unharmed. Walter managed to slip by them once or twice in similar fashion (I used the word "numerous" in my original post, a bit of hyperbole to be sure), I think it ended up being the straw that broke the camels back in combination with the other oddities you've mentioned (doors, windows, dropping/collecting, combat inconsistencies, etc). For whatever reason, it was the one aspect of the game they focused on with venom when the game wrapped up.

Even if they WERE granted reactive attacks of opportunity, I don't believe the Investigators would have beaten Walter. The deck was well and truly stacked against them by that point. But, it would have been one less thing, one less oddity to justify from a logical, thematic perspective; obviously something my group takes very seriously.

It could be that MoM is simply not a game for my group, which is too bad. Too many concessions being made in favor of balance. I suppose they were expecting 70% RPG, 30% board game and it went the other way. I hope that's not the case, I believe the game has a ton of potential. They've agreed to play at least one more scenario (though they're "not chomping at the bit" unquote), so I've got my fingers crossed.

Any suggestions? If you had to pick The Scenario, the one your players enjoy the most, which would you choose? I really need this next session to be a good'un, I'd rather not risk it on a random scenario sight unseen.

It's funny, I almost lost Battlestar Galactica in a similar fashion. Terrible first game. Thank goodness the second session was brilliant.

A quick note.

Based off of your last post Deek, it sounded like you had multiple mental trauma cards on Joe Diamond, there is a limit of one mentalone physical trauma on a single investigator. If you add further trauma cards you must discard the one of the same type already on the investigator.

Deek,

From what I'm reading it sounds like your players felt that the Keeper had a real unfair advantage in the rules. I think in your situation I would pull out scenario 1 again so that they have familiarity with what you can do and choose Objective 1C, which I have found to be harder to pull off (depending on the group of investigators).

EDIT: Wow, spelling bad

"A quick note.

Based off of your last post Deek, it sounded like you had multiple mental trauma cards on Joe Diamond, there is a limit of one mental one physical trauma on a single investigator. If you add further trauma cards you must discard the one of the same type already on the investigator."

Hoooooooly sh-t.

I am so incredibly happy you pointed that out. Now I can say, "Guys! You had a rough time because I accidentally cheated."

Me forum and reading comprehension.

"From what I'm reading it sounds like your players felt that the Keeper had a real unfair advantage in the rules. I think in your situation I would pull out scenario 1 again so that they have familiarity with what you can dochoose Objective 1C, which I have found to be harder to pull off (depending on the group of investigators)."

I don't think it was so much that the Keeper had an unfair advantage; as had been said, the players have quite a few advantages compared to the Keeper and his crew. Admittedly, my piling on multiple trauma cards might have been a little off-putting (though they never once complained about it). I think it was more a matter of my players running out of good will with regard to balance trumping theme.

"We're supposed to kill him, he's walking right past us! Why are we not allowed to take a swing?! We have to roll for evasion, shouldn't that be a two-way street??"

One could attempt to explain it in terms of monsters being preternaturally fast, but that doesn't play so well with zombies and human maniacs. It's just one of those things, it is the way to is. Balance wins. They were mildly irritated at first, but they let it go and had a genuinely good time. Once they actually had to hunt and kill Walter, though, it became frustrating. One guys summed it up as saying, "As soon as we're forced to kill a specific monster, the rules need to change." It only happened a few times, wherein Walter escaped while the investigators stood by with thumbs in arse, but that was all it took to rile them up and it did feel a little cheesy from the Keeper point-of-view. I'm hoping a scenario that doesn't end with "Kill this Monster to Win" will prove more agreeable.

EDIT: Why does this forum hate "and", "or" and periods?

Mal Reynolds said:

Sorry. Please feel free not to read them. Thanks for the suggestion.

Re: Mal Reynolds

"That Sir, Is WRONG. Moving monsters usually happens on 3) Keeper Action Step. 4) The monster attack Step comes after step 3, meaning that moved monsters can attack. "

This Sir, while true, is exactly what CraggleRock said.
What CraggleRock said was, that if the Keeper wants to attack with a monster

1. the monster has to move into the investigator's space
2. stay there until the next turn

What you say, is

1. the monster has to move into the investigator's space
2. then the action phase ends
3. and the monster can attack
4. and it has to stay there until the next turn, since the movement phase is over.

Sounds astonishingly familiar!


"DEEK, ELBI I get serious headaches by reading your posts guys . Maybe next time you should pick up Call of Cthulhu ROLEPLAYING Game and have a go with that? Since boardgames can only do so MUCH about things that are best adressed in RPGs. Personally I love the CoC RPG game, one of my favourites.

Just an advice, have a good tinkering with the rules and good gaming."

First of all: Feel free to follow Deek's advice.

Second: Wow, great hint.
Where did I try to introduce role playing into this thread? No where.
What I did, and what I do, is trying to unwrap the net of rules and why they work the way they do.
That is exactly what happens in discussions about board games and not roleplaying games, because THERE I'd say "eff that, rules are not worth as much as the story that is to be told". Here? Follow the rules. Understand why they exist. Etc.

Re: Deek

Ah, I'm kinda starting to see the problem. Your players just wanted to cry about everything and by the time some issues we're talking about here showed up, they actually disliked the game, no matter what would've happened. At least your posts remind me of a (pen and paper) group I had once that I never played with again. Just crying about *every* rule that was somehow against whatever they wanted to do - yeah, at first they were bent, then broken and then I ended the session and went home, because GOD, they annoyed me
Disclaimer: When one member left and we played another edition of the same RPG, no whining occured. Probably they just got the "Flow" running, crying about everything. I don't know, it was just... well, I started wondering whether the rules are dumb too and tried to tinker with them for a short while.

Let's get to the specific issues:

- Doors: Actually, that's (at least in my and my groups opinion) easy to understand: Doors tend to be smaller than rooms, so if you stand in, i.e. your kitchen, you won't see the whole living room. You see part of it, but if there's someone who SEES you aiming at him inside, he might as well dodge. Remember, you don't stand at the door but in the middle of the room, really screwing your line of sight.

- Picking up stuff: Okay, there seems to be a major misunderstanding there. They need to learn that every equipment card that is left on the floor, is BAD.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, one of your players dropped everything. Another wanted to pick up ONE of these items, but not the others. Why would he want to leave the rest on the floor, if he can trade items as a free action?
They really need to appreciate the free Trading action at the beginning of the Keeper's turn. This lets them bypass a LOT of dropping and even "picking up" actions - have one guy explore every room while the others fend of the monsters, after a couple of turns he stops by at their location and offers weapons and equipment.
Imho, from the player's perspective, this ability is awesome. I've never seen an action based game where trading is a free action! So many possibilities. "I failed the melee roll again, next turn you're gonna give it a try. Maybe you suck less at combat than me!" Or every time someone finds a Tome - there are a few characters who can really use spell, the others would just drop the item? No way! Carry them around until you meet the caster somewhere!

Besides, as previously said, there is no limit to carrying items. Why would they *not* want to take an item with them?
At worst, it does NOTHING, because they just carry it around.
At best they pick it up so someone else doesn't have to!
Win-Win Situation, really.

- Problems with Walter: Ah, okay, group of three. Yeah, this is something that isn't balanced at all - Walter starts with a set amount of HP and behaves the same whether there's a group of 4 investigators or a single one... While a group of three investigators shouldn't be that much behind a group of four, of course there's a hit missing each turn, lowering their chance of success :-/
With him running away successfully, this seems to be an issue that just came up because, by that time, your players were annoyed too much. Really, the "running away" shouldn't have been that much of a problem. Of course, if they effectively already said "**** that, this game is stupid", it appears that much harder to them...

- Harvey, the investigator: From what I've gathered, Harvey is a *bad* investigator. He can solve puzzles a bit better than others and... errr... that's it. He sucks at combat if he carries the artefact, or dies horribly within two rounds if he doesn't. Gloria is another story, since she can, AT LEAST, search for clues with her special once-a-game-ability. Which brings us to...

- Every advantage used: Did your investigators use every ability they had?
+ Did they spend ALL their Skill Points? Every SP left at the end of the game (+ every SP left on dead investigators) is a resource they didn't spend, which made the game that much more difficult for them.
+ Once per Game abilities might've been overlooked. Those can really save lives (or end them) or shorten the search for a specific item drastically.
Especially those characters that can look at cards! My player, who gave Joe Diamond the ability "once per game, when exploring, gain 3 Skill Points", never used it! I don't know WHY, but after the game he said that next time he'll use it ASAP.
+ Character builds differ greatly. Now that they know which stats they need, they might look at the "starting equipment" differently.
Okay, so Pete with the guitar has +1 Str and +2 Dex, but look at the possibilities that Duke offers! Pete could have a permanent +2 Str and +2 Dex OR give him to a player who is stuck in combat with a shotgun for MASS destruction! Additionally, they can trade and item per turn for up to two spaces! Find key, send Duke to the guy in front of the closed gate, open gate, BAM, save a whole turn to run there!

There's a lot of depth that players will eventually figure out.
Of course they fail the first time. We all do!

Mal Reynolds said:

I think you misunderstood what I meant: yes, the monster attack step comes next after the Action step, but if you wanted to attack an investigator, that means the monster is sat in that given space until the next Keeper turn, as it has no option to move after it has attacked.

Elbi said:

True enough. Like I said, it was a perfect storm of crap + annoyance/indignation with certain rules + the investigator win condition of the specific scenario that resulted in player QQ. I'm sure there were plenty of missed opportunities to use skill points, special abilities, etc. Assuming I can bring them all back for several more scenarios, I'm hoping the game will open up.

I mentioned to one of my players that I misplayed the trauma cards, stacking multiple cards of each type on a single investigator. He shrugged and said, "That didn't bother me, really."

The drop/collect thing was a very specific circumstance. Joe moved into a space with Gloria to trade a specific item, with every intention of going their separate ways in the turn following the trade. He was hit with Bugs and dropped everything. Keeper turn. Blah blah blah. Kicking off the next player turn, Gloria wanted the one item and was willing to spend her action to collect it, then move-move. Instead, I told the player he had to collect EVERYTHING if he wanted the item, or wait for Joe to pick it all up and then trade in the subsequent Keeper turn. Of course, this resulted in much wrinkling of noses. It still seems silly even to me, in retrospect.

Hmm. And here I thought Walter started off with +6 health per investigator? Going from memory, but that's what I recall.

The bottom line is, they felt it was dumb that Walter could move past them without triggering some form of reactive attack of opportunity. They were able to accept that other monsters could do so, as (in holding with the character/theme of the game) the investigators were more than happy to allow those monsters to leave. In most circumstances, given the choice between combat and watching a monster walk away, Gloria would prefer to stand stalk still and pretend to be a decorative lamp, hoping the maniac/zombie would keep on keepin' on. In the case of Walter, though, wherein the investigators HAD to kill him to win, it stopped making sense to them. By that point, I suppose one could blame their overall couldn't-give-a-f*k attitude, but I believe they'd still call bullpoop on that mechanic, even if they had won.

Thanks for the detailed response, Elbi.

I have to agree - if Characters have to evade or take damage to pass by a monster then monsters should have to evade characters or take damge to pass by them. Otherwise, your just penalizing the characters and giving an advantage to the monsters. The problem is that the monsters dont have a DEX to do any type of EVASION check. The way its done now - its just assuming that the characters are AVOIDing the monsters and letting them pass. Since they cant do DEX Checks, one could say that any monster that wants to pass a character must stop in the space with the character first before moving onward - monsters can only move two spaces anyhow - this would just change movement to one space at a time if there is a line of characters trying to stop them. This would, of course, create horror checks as well for those getting in the way. Just my thoughts....

Falantrius said:

The balance is that monsters can only move if/when the keeper pays threat to move them.

My players were able to justify it when dealing with "normal" monsters. Opinions soured only when Walter the target win condition appeared. If applied to all monsters all the time, I'm almost positive attacks of opportunity would skew the balance to the point of game breaking in favor of investigators, but I could see it being less disruptive when applied only to monsters designated as must-kill targets as part of a scenario.

"Kill the cultists" would result in cultists generating attacks of opportunity. Meanwhile, all the other gribblies on the board would continue moving freely past investigators, as the players are more than happy to see them leave (makes killing the cultists easier). Whether this results in a free attack using the appropriate deck or the monster simply stopping as the investigators block their progress, both are reasonable suggestions. Stopping the target monster in it's tracks would be streamlined and less disruptive to balance, as free attacks would likely be overpowered in favor of the investigators.

Block: Players may choose to block a monster entering an investigators space, immediately ending the monsters movement, but only if the monster has been designated as a target (to be killed or otherwise) for purposes of the current scenario.

Something like that.

I think your players want a different sort of experience than what Mansions of Madness offers. That doesn't mean the game is broken, and it doesn't mean your players are wrong either. A lot of arguments your players use are what my groups calls "simulationist" arguments. That is, if the game rules simulate reality (or a modified reality with magic and monsters), and if something would happen in reality, they seem to want the rules to reflect that. As you've pointed out, this game doesn't do that -- it sacrifices some of that for the sake of simpler rules, keeping a mood of monsters not playing on the same level as the investigators, and, yes, some degree of play balance.

While I personally don't have a problem with that, I think there's nothing wrong with introducing some house rules when the game design goals don't match up with what your gaming group wants. Allowing the players to choose not to pick up some items that have been dropped doesn't break the game or even change it significantly. (Perhaps there are some cursed objects in some scenarios that that rule forces them to pick up. I don't know.) Allowing attacks of opportunity does change it slightly, so perhaps it's best if you keep that to monsters being hunted on the objective card. (It will change the feel of the game somewhat, but if it is a change that your players like, go for it.)

I think the emphasis of this game is on theme and feel, not on accurate mechanics, so if your group wants better simulation in the mechanics, nobody is going to stop you from making house rules. Just keep in mind that this doesn't mean the game is broken or wrong either. It's just not the game's focus.

You can also see if other games would interest your group more. Perhaps they would like Descent? -- more mechanics, directly killing monsters instead of one side or another running away, etc... (Or maybe they would like Earth Reborn, if I am allowed to mention a non-FFG game here. It's really good at the simulationist combat, and even comes with zombies.) Still, I would try this game with a few house rules again...