Skip to Content
 

Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

61 replies [Last post]
Wed, 11/12/2003 - 17:33
#31
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Scoring in Mystery in the Abbey

zaiga wrote:

However, [the scoring system in Mysetery of the Abbey] does not provide an alternative way of winning the game. The player who is ahead in points still needs to end the game by making a correct accusation. So, assuming that players play sensible and assuming players want to win, the game will always end with a correct accusation and the player who made this accusation will always win the game...

This means that, yes, revelations play a part in strategy, but, no, they do not provide an alternative way of winning, you still have to find out who is the culprit so that you can actually end the game.

In a game where the object is to determine who the killer is, I would say that "finding out who is the culprit so that you can actually end the game" a perfectly good game-end condition.

I think the confusion here stems from imposing an attempt at an alternate win condition onto this scoring system, which may or may not be intended.

Also, there's one more thing that's not being considered. All of these arguements assume that all players are very smart- so smart in fact that even if they themselves have not determined who the killer is, they know for a fact whish revelations are correct and which are incorrect, they know for a fact how much information each other player has gleaned from their questioning, and they know for a fact weather or not an accusation made will be correct and will end the game.

In practice I presume these facts will not be so obvious. Suppose a player believes they know the killer, looks at the scores and determines that a correct accusation will make him the winner, and therfore accuses someone. Now suppose they had overlooked something, or misunderstood a piece of information. The accusation turns out to be wrong, and that information alone may clue someone else in on the correct murderer.

Let me liken this to Puerto Rico for a moment... the first few times I played PR, we thought the scoring was open information. This led to long-ish games, with people counting and re-counting each other's score to determine if they should try and end the game or prolong it. When we found that the scoring was in fact supposed to be hidden, the game became very different, as we then had to make an educated guess about our score relative to other players'. And lo and behold, sometmes we were wrong. Sometimes people would end the game only to find that they had lost by 1 VP.

This analogy may not be perfect when applied to Mystery of the Abbey, as if you are correct in your accusation, then you know weather other peoples' revelations are right or not. The point is that when you hide some of the information, the game gets a lot more complex. In PR it's possible to track how many points each opponent has receieved from shipping, but somehow it still doesn't always happen.

- Seth

Top
Thu, 11/13/2003 - 10:52
#32
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

I started a discussion on this subject over at spielfrieks, and it generated mixed opinions -- on the one hand, Rick Thornquist, Mik Svellov, and Eric Hautemont (president of Days of Wonder, the publisher) all said that they've seen games where the correct accuser didn't win. On the other hand, Greg Alexnevikus (sp?) said he thinks the scoring system is broken. So, we have eminent people falling down on both sides on this one.

One response that interested me was a simple variant proposed by Matthew, who suggested adding a rule that when someone makes an accusation, everyone else circles the person they think is the culprit, and if the person making the accusation is correct, everyone who also had that culprit gets 1 point. I think this could nicely solve the problem zaiga sees with the scoring system.

-Jeff

Top
Thu, 11/13/2003 - 11:22
#33
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Both Rick's and Mik's answers surprised me. I don't want to take this discussion to spielfrieks, because I think it goes a bit too deep into gamedesign theory, but I do want to quote Rick's response here, so that we can discuss it.

Quote:

> One poster at bgdf has said that it doesn't work because the game
> can only end when a player makes the correct accusation, and no one
> would make the accusation unless it would win them the game.

That is only assuming that the player who makes the accusation knows
for sure who the culprit is. If there is any question, he could not
know whether the accusation would win the game or not.

I think that this a mistake that a lot of people (seem to) make. When you make a certain accusation, you might not be 100% sure if the accusation will be correct. However, if the accusation turns out to be correct you know that the game will end and what the final scoring will be (since all past revelations and accusations by all players are public knowledge).

So, assuming players are playing to win and assuming they are playing sensible, they will only make an accusation if it will win them the game, which means that making revelations is only at best a stalling technique, not an alternative way to win the game.

I think that Mik's, Rick's and Eric's responses just show that players do not always play to win or do not always play sensible. However, when people do play to win and play sensible, the scoring system breaks down for the purpose of providing an alternative way to win.

Also, someone PM'ed me about this issue and said that another reason to make an non-game winning accusation is to maximize your score, but that would lead to exactly the kingmaker situation that I described with my much maligned example.

Matthew's variant is interesting and I'm sure there are may other ways to fix the scoring system or make it more interesting too, which is great, but it is not what I'm looking for in this discussion.

- Rene Wiersma

Top
Thu, 11/13/2003 - 13:44
#34
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

(Just a note that the Matthew who responded there wasn't this Matthew... there are at least 4 active Matthews on SF. :))

-- Matthew Frederick

Top
Tue, 11/18/2003 - 03:23
#35
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Finally played Mystery of the Abbey

Well, tonight I finally played the game- it came via fed ex on Friday which made me happy, but there was noone to play it with until tonight.

I took the game over to my ex-roomate Tyler's house. Tyler's roomates are Duncan and Jacob (who I'll often call Stirler), looking for a good 4-player intro to this game. To give you an idea of the people who I play games with, here's a little synopsis:

Tyler: Tricky and cunning. Even when he's not bluffing, Tyler is in some way bluffing. He loves mind games, and therefore excels at games which involve Diplomacy where he gets to get inside peoples' heads and convince them of things. Tyler's also very good at finding loopholes and exploits in rules, so I consider him a valuable resource in playtesting... the trick is to corner him into playing a game, which isn't always easy.

Stirler: Jacob is probably the smartest (or most analytical) of the group. He always performed the best at Magic tournaments- attending many Pro Tours- so he obviously is doing something right. The good thing about him as a playtester (in addition to being good at stuff) is that he'll really put himself into the game, even if he doesn't enjoy it too much. He'll play to win and he will keep at it until the gae is over.

Duncan: I don't know too muh about Duncan, really. He likes games, and I get the feeling he gets more intot he theme of the game than the rest of us.

Seth: That's me :) I never know where to place myself. I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I tend to be bad at sticking to a long term strategy, so I am better at games where I can be tactical and continually re-think my strategy as the game goes on. I hate that by the way...

Ok, so tonight Duncan was more interested in Dark Ages of Camelot, but Stirler had a date who decided to try it, so it was Brother Ty, Brother Stirler, Sister Megan, and I. None of us had visited the Abbey before. (Evidently that's how all the session reports for this game begin).

The rules were learned quickly and understood by all. We had no real rules issues all game, which is always a plus. We played with all the cards and all the rules that applied to 4 people, although afterwards it was suggested that we play with X Suspect cards face-up from the beginning of the game, where X is the number of players. I think it might be as good or better just to turn the "Parlor" suspect cards face-up (and then not draw them if you go there). Note: we also decided that the benefit for going to the Parlor after the suspect cards are gone is that your question is answered in secret (only you get to see the card 'revealed' by the quetionee)... otherwise why go there!

Right from the outset, Brother Jaffee spent turns 3 and 4 in Penance- I never have been good at moving my turn counter :/ It was evident that each of us were struggling to figure out a system to keep track of all the information being tossed around. It was also evident that we were looking for good lines of questioning, and in some cases floundering a bit. My questions were terrible, especially the one where I left out an adjective, and got a completely useless response.

Early in the game, several players stole cards from me, so I headed for the Library in search of a card which I hoped would be "so good as to be unfair" (that's my definition of "broken"). I was rewarded by the immediate draw of 3 Scriptorium books (Ancestral Recall!)- 2 to keep and use later, and one to use right away. The latter teleported me to the Crypt where I picked up a Crypt card (Time Walk). A strong turn to say the least, but hardly game breaking. Or maybe that's just because I dug myself a hole in the beginning.

The Scriptorium cards were OK... one forced an answer from a Monk who takes a Vow of Silence (some fast talking (rhetoric) I guess tricks them into spilling their guts without even asking a question in return). the other wasn't as useful, it sends another player to the Chapel after you question them. I used both of these prematurely and to little avail.

After the first mass, we were all required to make a revelation by the Event card. Having eliminated nearly all of the templars after the first two or three turns, and not seeing or hearing anything of the Franciscan monks, I guessed that the killer was Franciscan. You never can trust those browncoats anyway. Other revelations were "Fat", "Unhooded", and "Father" or something... they were all merely guesses at that point.

After some mediocre deduction, I decided that I still thought the killer was franciscan, and Tyler had a lot of Brothers in hand, so I tried to nail down how many of his Brothers were Franciscan... turns out th answer was 2, and when I found out what one of them was I took a pot shot with the other one (I felt like Ty had about all the Brothers in his hand)... of course I was wrong and put my piece at the Chapel for pennance. Tyler also made a guess and was also wrong, so he joined me. After Mass however, we completely forgot that ty and I should miss our next turn. I recommend perhaps putting the piece in a proe position, and on your turn just stand it up and say "done". A lot can happn between an incorrect accusation and your next turn.

After a little more information (and misinformation) exchanged hands, I guessed the other franciscan Brother, and was again proven worng. By this time I should have known better, as suspicion had been cast on one of the Franciscan Fathers- who turned out to be the murderer.

Ty, Jake, and Megan all figured this out, and while I was off in the Chapel paying Pennance, they raced to the Chapter Hall... Tyler, thinking that a correct accusation wouldn't win him the game (I think he misadded the scores), made a revalation. Jacob made the correct accusation one turn before Megan would have. His accusation, alon with a correct and an incorrect revelation won him the game with 5 points. Tyler finished with either 2 or -1 (I forget if his early revelation was correct)- either way a correct accusation instead of the correct revelation would have won for him. Megan had -1 point for an unfortunate guess for that early revelation. I ended with -2 points, which could have been more like +2 if I simply didn't make those ill advised accusations.

All in all the game was allright, and most of us decided we'd at least play it again (Megan didn't enjoy it). I knew ahead of time that it would be the kind of game I'd have to play several times before even formulating an opinion on it.

I think I like the idea of some face-up cards at the outset... at least till we get a grasp of what we're doing. Also, the rules seem to say that the Bell begins on the (1) and moves to the (2) right away... this doesn't make a lot of sense and also doesn't really allow enough movement before having to return for Mass, so we played it as the bell moves ONTO (1) on the first turn- each player gets 4 turns before Mass is called.

Summary: Pretty fun, somewhat intriguing... will have to play some more before I make a real decision, but at least I feel like I WANT to play some more and make that opinion!

- Seth

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 05:42
#36
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Great review Seth, thanks for letting us know who your game went.

Mystery of the Abbey was also played at our gaming night this time. Although I requested it, I didn't play it, but I was curious to other player's reactions.

Most of them enjoyed the game, but the ending of the game was unsatisfying, someone even called it "an anticlimax". Everyone had it narrowed down to a few suspects, then someone asked a certain question that gave everyone some extra information and suddenly everyone knew who the murderer was. The player who was able to reach the accusation room the first was able to win the game.

Only one revelation was made during the game. The general consensus was that it was not worth the effort and the risk of making a revelation (it costs time to go to the revelation room and you also give away information and there is a possibility that you are wrong anyway).

This is almost an exact copy of the events that happened during my own playing of the game, so in that sense this confirms what I already thought: that the scoring system of the game does not do what it is supposed to do and that the ending of the game is flawed. This is really a shame, because the game could have been so much better had some basic game theory regarding the endgame been taken into account by the designer.

- Rene Wiersma

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 07:32
#37
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

zaiga wrote:
Great review Seth, thanks for letting us know how your game went.

My sentiments exactly. Excellent piece.
zaiga wrote:
The player who was able to reach the accusation room the first was able to win the game.
...
Only one revelation was made during the game.

Well exactly. If no-one has made a revelation, then the correct accuser is likely to win.
zaiga wrote:
The general consensus was that it was not worth the effort and the risk of making a revelation (it costs time to go to the revelation room and you also give away information and there is a possibility that you are wrong anyway).

Are not the last two points contradictory? One of the reasons the "revelation" aspect is there is precisely because of that.
zaiga wrote:

This is really a shame, because the game could have been so much better had some basic game theory regarding the endgame been taken into account by the designer.

Faldutti's games all show a keen understanding of game theory (ask anyone who has been in a game of Citadels and not actually had a turn ;)) - and I don't think this one is an exception. But, as has been observed, this one is more about the experience than the result, which is probably why it divides people so much.

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 08:30
#38
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Scurra wrote:

Are not the last two points contradictory? One of the reasons the "revelation" aspect is there is precisely because of that.

No, I don't think these points are contradictory. You make a revelation based on assumptions, which you hope are right, but you can never be 100% sure which might be a reason not to make a revelation. I'm not saying that player's are right not to make revelations, this is just observing what happened in the game.

Also, making a revelation gives opponents information on what you think is right. "Hmm, John thinks it's a Benedictine, in that case it's probably Father Bruno. Let's try to find out if that is true". This in itself is not a bad mechanic, it could even be nice way to introduce some bluffing.

However, I think a more important reason not to make revelations is the fact that it costs a turn, a turn that could have been used to gather some more information or try to get a useful card.

Quote:

Well exactly. If no-one has made a revelation, then the correct accuser is likely to win.

Since you need at least 3 correct revelations to beat a correct accusation and making a revelation costs a lot of time, there is little incentive to go and make a lot of revelations. At least in yesterday's game no one was willing to invest that time to make a revelation (except once). These are all practical considerations, I'm not even talking about the conclusions I've drawn after theoretical analysis of the scoring system (which I think still hold true)

It's the sum of all these factors that doesn't motivate players to make revelations.

Quote:

Faidutti's games all show a keen understanding of game theory (ask anyone who has been in a game of Citadels and not actually had a turn ) - and I don't think this one is an exception. But, as has been observed, this one is more about the experience than the result, which is probably why it divides people so much.

Sure, but I'm arguing that the game could have had a better scoring system, one that makes sense. In that case the game would both have been a great experience and have a more satisfying endgame. That's a win-win situation, right?

- Rene Wiersma

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 09:09
#39
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

zaiga wrote:

This is almost an exact copy of the events that happened during my own playing of the game, so in that sense this confirms what I already thought: that the scoring system of the game does not do what it is supposed to do and that the ending of the game is flawed. This is really a shame, because the game could have been so much better had some basic game theory regarding the endgame been taken into account by the designer.

I'm really sorry to keep prolonging this discussion, because it really doesn't matter, but I just find this last paragraph to be a bit...well...obnoxious, for lack of a better word. You're making what I consider to be a mildly serious rebuke of a pretty well-respected designer. Mystery of the Abbey, it seems to me, is reflective of a very different style of games than what you seem to personally enjoy. But to say it reflects ignorance of basic game theory, after you've played it just once, seems patently absurd to me.

Tell you what. Why don't you (or I) send an email to Mr. Faidutti and tell him that we're having a discussion about the scoring system for Mystery of the Abbey and ask if he'd be interested in participating, either here or at spielfrieks. My strong suspicion is that there are subtleties and nuances that your analysis, borne of inexperience, is failing to account for. I know, I know, you've analyzed the game theoretically and found it wanting. But for you to say "what a shame, it could have been so much of a better game" without really having played much is like me saying, after playing Formula De just once, "I won in my first playing, therefore the game is too easy, obviously it's too luck-dependent."

I don't mind you saying that you believe there to be flaws in the scoring system, but to impugn the designer, and to do so with only one playing under your belt, suggests to me that you are granting yourself "game guru" status, and I'm afraid I'm not yet prepared to grant you that! (although I'll admit that the two games of yours that I've seen do sound very good!)

Do you have any interest in trying to involve Mr. Faidutti in the discussion?
I'd be happy to initiate the conversation with him...

-Jeff

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 09:20
#40
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

jwarrend wrote:
Do you have any interest in trying to involve Mr. Faidutti in the discussion?
I'd be happy to initiate the conversation with him...

Sure, go ahead. I'd love to discuss game theory with any well-known gamedesigner!

-Rene Wiersma

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 10:03
#41
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

I already heard back from Mr. Faidutti. Here's the revelant portion:

Jeff:

>We posted a query to spielfrieks and found that that
>group's "luminaries" -- Rick Thornquist, Mik Svellov -- and the
>publisher, Eric Hautemont, have all had games that ended with the
>correct accuser not being the winner. The poster countered that the
>players must have played badly, since they should have seen that by
>accusing correctly, someone else would have ended the game with more
>points.

Bruno Faidutti:

I think here is the point. Like in many strong themed or very tense
games, playing badly is playing only in order to win, while good play
is playing to have fun, take your part in the story, and maximise
your score - which, depending on the situation, doesn't necessarily
mean win. Many games end in a "race for the chapter to make a last
accusation", and you often take some risk in making it - but it's fun
to take your chance, and if it gives you a second place instead of a
third, why not !

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 11:06
#42
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Bruno Faidutti wrote:
I think here is the point. Like in many strong themed or very tense games, playing badly is playing only in order to win, while good play is playing to have fun, take your part in the story, and maximise your score - which, depending on the situation, doesn't necessarily mean win. Many games end in a "race for the chapter to make a last accusation", and you often take some risk in making it - but it's fun to take your chance, and if it gives you a second place instead of a
third, why not!

What's wrong with a strongly themed game that also has a sensible scoring system? It's not like those two things are mutually exclusive. I'm sure Mystery of the Abbey's scoring system could have been tweaked so that it would have worked better, without losing any of the thematic elements. This way people who do not care much about winning can still have as much fun with the roleplaying aspects, while those that do play to win have a sensible scoring system to work with.

Oh, and you can have fun with a game, even when you are trying to win. Mr. Faidutti makes it sound as if people who are actually trying to win a game are all very dour and taciturn (always wanted to use that phrase! :wink: ) and cannot have fun in the process. Like I said, those things do not exclude eachother. Maybe mr. Faidutti is afraid that if he incorporates a serious scoring system in his game that people suddenly also start playing very seriously?

- Rene Wiersma

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 11:57
#43
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

zaiga wrote:
Maybe mr. Faidutti is afraid that if he incorporates a serious scoring system in his game that people suddenly also start playing very seriously?

I actually don't think that's a ridiculous concern. I don't think he intended the game to be played "seriously" -- it's supposed to be a light-hearted, good-natured romp, not chess.

I think designer intent comes into play in a big way. Take a game that I don't like, such as Fluxx. The game is very arbitrary, in my opinion, and features almost no skill. Now, could it be changed to be more skill-heavy? Yeah, probably. But it wouldn't be Fluxx anymore. It is what it is, and there are people who love the experience it provides, even though I have no use for it.

I also think you're taking the "winner" thing far too seriously. Let's say you are playing the game, and you have identified the culprit. If you make the accusation, you won't "win" the game. Should you make the accusation? Would you? For me, the obvious answer is "sure, why not." This could start a meta-game of its own -- "sure, you had some lucky revelations that technically won you the game, but I was the one who actually identified the killer." I truly believe that if it really matters to you who "wins" or "loses", then this isn't the game for you. I think the fun of making the correct accusation even if that doesn't net you the win definitely outweighs the little bit of "fun" you could squeeze out of playing this as a deep strategy game. And hey, in a way, this game could come out with multiple people feeling like they're the "winner" -- the one with the most points, and the one who had the correct accusation (and the ones who knew the killer but just didn't make the accusation). Surely that's a democratic outcome?

I really feel that this game is more an experience in a box than it is a gamer's game. Take it for what it is, and play it in that spirit. But don't accuse Faidutti of being a hack designer simply because he didn't adhere to your strict standards of mathematical perfection.

Or better yet, drop him an email yourself with your critique. He responded to mine in literally 5 minutes. I'm sure he'd get back to you very quickly as well. I was able to get his email by doing a search on "faidutti" in the spielfrieks group. Send him your objections, and let us know how he responds. I'd be very interested to hear what he says!

-Jeff

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 13:46
#44
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Arbitriness...

Jeff, I think your comment about Fluxx might be a little unfair, even though I appreciate that you can see why the game works even though it does nothing for you (I often say the same thing about certain television programmes - I can admire the craft of everyone involved, but the show simply doesn't "push my buttons".)
But I don't consider Fluxx to be entirely abitrary. Sure, there is no strategy and precious little tactics, but you try playing it in a group which (a) knows the goals and (b) knows how to select rules properly and you'll find that the arbitrariness is reduced to, oooh, a mere 80% of the game ;)

If you want to snipe at abitrary games, I think that Steve Jackson's "Munchkin" is a far worse culprit, simply because the game goes on too long. A Fluxx game will be over in a matter of minutes, Munchkin can condemn you to an entire evening that ends up coming down to a card draw or a kingmaker - and often with no good reason for either.

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 14:01
#45
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Hey, I think I had the appropriate hedge words in there -- I said it's "very" arbitrary, and that it involved "almost" no skill!

Fluxx is what it is. I don't care for it, despite having had fun playing it. Some people think it's great, and that's fine. If things go well, I won't ever have to play again...

-Jeff

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 15:40
#46
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Scurra wrote:
Munchkin can condemn you to an entire evening that ends up coming down to a card draw or a kingmaker - and often with no good reason for either.

Believe it or not, I disagree with this comment about Munchkin.

Sure, there can be lucky card draws, but first off the fact that you played all night means that a single "lucky card draw" cannot be blamed for a win- there were literally hundreds of things that could have been done differently before that point- especially in a game with diplomacy as a rule- or more accurately, a game without specific rules.

Munchkin's real problem is a lack of complete rules. It's no secret that Steve Jackson Games (affectionatley "Halfass Games" - especially in comparison to James Earnest's "Cheapass" Games) are impossible to enjoy after a point, and that point usually comes up when a particular rules question comes into play (almost any rules question, really). I was actually kicked off of the Munchkin message boards by Steve Jackson himself for complaining (and arguing a lot) that there weren't difinitive rules...

Sorry aboutt that little tirade, I just thought I'd share...

- Seth

Top
Wed, 11/19/2003 - 20:21
#47
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Munchkin now, sorry....

No, you're perfectly correct in that it doesn't really come down to one card draw. However, the game seems to be designed in such a way as to ensure that because the only way to "win" is to defeat a monster (since you can't use other "levelling up" methods), and there are several people who can achieve this (which is likely, due to the inherent rebalancing effect that ensures that no-one can really soar ahead of the pack), then what heppens is that it ends up coming down to whether (a) any of them draw a monster at all, or (b) one of them being the recipient of a large number of "fixing" cards, which will almost certainly reduce the likelihood of there being enough left for any other player(s).

As I say, I think it's a fabulous one-joke game (all of the monsters and objects etc. are very funny) and if it was not as long I would probably be prepared to play it again. As it is, it's on my "never again" list (like Fluxx is on Jeff's :)) Which reminds me:

jwarrend wrote:
Hey, I think I had the appropriate hedge words in there -- I said it's "very" arbitrary, and that it involved "almost" no skill!

Yeah, I know, I was feeling in a bit of a sarcastic mood earlier this evening, sorry. However. I still think that if you put a group of players together, half of whom had played Fluxx before and half of whom hadn't, the "experienced" players would win more often than they should...

Top
Thu, 11/20/2003 - 00:11
#48
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Munchkin now, sorry....

Scurra wrote:
... and there are several people who can achieve this (which is likely, due to the inherent rebalancing effect that ensures that no-one can really soar ahead of the pack),

I'm afraid I don't follow you. How does noone soar ahead of the pack? I mean sometimes they don't... but then sometimes they do! I've seen games be won where the final levels are 10 (winner), 3, 3, 4.

- Seth

Top
Thu, 11/20/2003 - 03:35
#49
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Munchkin now, sorry....

sedjtroll wrote:
I'm afraid I don't follow you. How does noone soar ahead of the pack? I mean sometimes they don't... but then sometimes they do! I've seen games be won where the final levels are 10 (winner), 3, 3, 4.

Boy, not in any of the games I've played, about 10 or so. I think the lowest score I've ever seen when someone wins is 7, and usually we have most of the players at 9. The most common ending is a bunch of people with 9, all trying to build up enough stuff so that everyone else won't be able to stop them. Finally someone either (a) decides he has enough power or (b) gets sick of waiting. That person then goes for 10 and everyone bashes him down so he doesn't make it. Then the next person goes for 10 (because a bunch of the bashing stuff is out of the game) and fails because everyone bashes him down. Then the next person tries it: either he wins because there's too much bashing stuff gone out of hands or the next guy does for sure.

Really super anti-climactic in every game of Munchkin I've played.

Top
Thu, 11/20/2003 - 04:07
#50
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Munchkin now, sorry....

FastLearner wrote:
Boy, not in any of the games I've played, about 10 or so. I think the lowest score I've ever seen when someone wins is 7, and usually we have most of the players at 9. The most common ending is a bunch of people with 9, all trying to build up enough stuff so that everyone else won't be able to stop them. Finally someone either (a) decides he has enough power or (b) gets sick of waiting. That person then goes for 10 and everyone bashes him down so he doesn't make it. Then the next person goes for 10 (because a bunch of the bashing stuff is out of the game) and fails because everyone bashes him down. Then the next person tries it: either he wins because there's too much bashing stuff gone out of hands or the next guy does for sure.

Really super anti-climactic in every game of Munchkin I've played.

Huh. I've played a lot more than 10 games, and in my experience that's not the norm at all. Of course, once in a while there's the 'kingmaker because I'm sick of playing" anti-climactic ending. BUt for the most part it's between some of the players (not all) at the end, and generally smart or at least clever play throughout the game has been rewarded. Don't forget, it's also a diplomacy game.(and as such, Tyler usually wins in our group- the combination of diplomacy and "munchkinning" (rules lawyering) fits his play style perfectly- it's like this game was MADE with Tyler in mind.)

- Seth

Top
Thu, 11/20/2003 - 05:48
#51
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

I'd guess that the groups we've played Munchkin with are quite different, then. There's lots of diplomacy and lots of nastiness, resulting in everyone staying really even.

Top
Fri, 11/28/2003 - 04:48
#52
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
MotA Session Report- second (and 3rd, 4th) try

Well, tonight I played not 1 but 3 games of Mystery of the Abbey with a different group this time. There were 5 of us for the first 2 games, then just 4 for the last game...

Brothers Seth, Steven, Jared, Michael, and Sister Erin- with the exception of myself this was everyone's first visit to the Abbey (it was my second visit).

In an effort to keep the game length short, we played with the Parlour cards face up, and we used movement rules for the "6-player variant" (move 3 spaces, not 2). All that movement maed the game a little easier, and with the face up cards some thought it was TOO easy. For the second game we decided to do one or the other- so we went with moving 3 and put the parlor cards face down. In the final game we used the rules as published.

Everyone in this group thought the game was good enough to play again, some even liked it a lot. fter a couple plays I think I have decided that I really enjoy it. The only caveat is that some ground rules need to be set forth at the outset regarding recordning information... basically I recommend making it a rule that you make a specific mark on a monk when you actually see the card, which allows the distinction between questions that direcly relate to cards in hand and questions that relate to cards that have been eliminated but may not be in hand. For example, say "The checkbox in the corner for each monk is for this purpose and this purpose only. When you actually SEE a card, check the box (in addition to any other notes you find useful)."

I have tried to define some kind of system for tracking information without having to write too much stuff down. I currently X the checkbox when I see a card, put an X near the box if I deduce a monk is innocent, and most importantly I write the initial of the player that HAS a card on the left of that monk, and the players that I know DO NOT have the card ont he right. Thus, a question and answer like "How many Franciscan Novices do you have?" "none." can be a big help.

We also opened up a decent strategy for questioning... Brother Micheal asked brother Steven "How many of the following do you have in hand?" and then listed three monks. I later asked Michael "How many of these..." and listed my 3 suspects, as well as a monk I had in my own hand to help throw people off the trail. To an extent I think this could be a really useful way to narrow down the culprit, or at least someone's hand.

As far as the games, I won the first after 3 people (indirectly) answered that they didn't have a certain guy, and I deduced that the 4th guy probably didn't have him either. Teh second was won by Jared who, assuming Steven knew the answer and was headed for the chapel, beat him there and took a stab (approx 30% chance) and got it right. Game three was won decisivley (8 points!) by Michael- his 2 correct revelations and his accusation beat my 2 correct accusations by a lot.

We may play some more tomorrow, but after that it might be a while, as Steve is in the Navy now, and Mikey and Erin (just got married to each other over Holloween) live in Flagstaff.

All in all, I'm happy I got the game. I like it and do not have issue with the 'common' things people find are 'wrong' with the game.

- Seth

Top
Fri, 11/28/2003 - 12:50
#53
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

Glad you're having fun, that's great!

I'm curious, why do you need the checkbox rule? Can't you just change the question to "have you seen" instead of "have you checked" and get the same result?

As for notation, just like in Clue I wrote the initial of each player who I knew had seen a certain card. This helps a lot with your own questioning as well as providing great insight into other people's questions.

Top
Fri, 11/28/2003 - 14:00
#54
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

FastLearner wrote:
I'm curious, why do you need the checkbox rule? Can't you just change the question to "have you seen" instead of "have you checked" and get the same result?

Because then people are like "Um, I don't remember", the comment was made last night "why should I have to keep notes a certain way (or in fact even look at my note sheet) just to give you a better answer?" I argued that that's what the game is all about *shrug* but in a way they have a point. The rules don't say they have to 'research' their answer- although you could argue that means they don't even have to look at their hand, in which case "Do you have Father William" could be answered "I don't think so". That makes the game stupid though, as I understand it you have to answer the questions as thoroughly as possible, which means checking your sheet, checking your notes, and actually trying to remember.

On a similar note, another qestion came up... I cited the example in the rules about the question "what room are you going to" where it says you are then bound by your answer (or you have lied and must do Penance). Someone said "what if you haven't decided yet?" We thought that was reasonable and just didn't ask those Q's, but I'm now thinking that kind of question should be answered- if you hadn't decided then either decide (then of course stick to it), or take the vow of silence. I'll make that a rule (clarification) next time for sure. I should write these down...

- Seth

Top
Sat, 11/29/2003 - 06:42
#55
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Yet another Session report

Played 3 more games tonight. Same group as last time (minus Jared, so 4 of us).

This game is officially a good, fun game.
Caveat: It is NOT a German Strategy game. There is some influence of luck as sometimes you happen to get dealt a certain combination of cards, and people just happen to ask questions which play right into your hand, allowing you to win very early. It doesn't happen often, but game 2 today (for example) I figured out whodunit on about my turn 4. That's pretty quick, and it doesn't happen too often.

So game 1 Steve won... he, Michael and I all knew the culprit (Erin asked me a very revealing question which I SHOULD have refused to answer, and then I asked her an even MORE revealing question that I should have tried to disguise...) but Steve had the Crypt card and was able to beat us to the punch.

Game 2 I figured out very quickly based on otehr people's questions regarding fathers and the information in my own hand. I quickly learned that there were only 8 Fathers in the game, and that William was the one not represented. I was about to make revelations because noone had a clue yet, but I relised that would be silly and I just accused. No point in maximizing a score if we don't record it or something.

Game 3 involved me making an incorrect accusation, Mike making *2*, and Erin being the only one of us with a clue what was going on. Steve did make a revelation, which was incorrect. He said that had Erin not won that turn, he would have made another revelation... that too would have turned out to be incorrect. This game lasted a long time, as we were aout to go to Mass #4 when Erin solved it.

Game 3 also featured a really lame bibliotec card, which I didn't even want to get, but did because I had the fewest cards.

Games 2 and 3 also saw some people try the "vow of silence" strategy. There were a LOT more unanswered questions those games than there had been before. My solution to that was to hit the Parlour a bunch and also searching peoples' cells. I think this isi a great strategy IF you're the only guy doing it. If everyone Shushes up, then noone gets info and the game drags. If that happens I think you have to start getting in peoples' way so they land on you and HAVE to ask you something (important rule there)... then answer and ask them something useful back.

Finally, the rules clarifications I mentioned were discussed, agreed upon, and implimented. Also we nixed Penance for forgetting the turn counter (which was a boon to each of us as we each forgot at least twice) and were lax about other stuff. I did have to pay penance for not asking a 'yes or no' question per the event card though :(

- Seth

Top
Sat, 11/29/2003 - 14:12
#56
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Yet another Session report

sedjtroll wrote:
Games 2 and 3 also saw some people try the "vow of silence" strategy. There were a LOT more unanswered questions those games than there had been before. My solution to that was to hit the Parlour a bunch and also searching peoples' cells. I think this isi a great strategy IF you're the only guy doing it. If everyone Shushes up, then noone gets info and the game drags. If that happens I think you have to start getting in peoples' way so they land on you and HAVE to ask you something (important rule there)... then answer and ask them something useful back.

Interesting. This is how my one and only game went. People didn't take the vow of silence about 1 in 3 times at most, maybe 1 in 4 times. 2 hours of that without the ability to easily deduct the real culprit (due to card passing) was the primary reason the game was no fun for us.

This must be one of those game where you have to play "a certain way" in order for it to be fun, as I can certainly siee how much lighter it woudl be if people actually answered questions.

Oh, and I dislike games that have to be played "a certain way" to be fun. :)

-- Matthew

Top
Sat, 11/29/2003 - 17:58
#57
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Yet another Session report

FastLearner wrote:
This must be one of those game where you have to play "a certain way" in order for it to be fun...

I think it's more a game where you have to play several times before you decide if it's fun or not. It's almost like an investment... if you play a couple times to see if you really like it, you'll be rewarded with a fun game. If your first impression is that it's bad for some reason, and you never play it again, then it will certainly never get better.

MotA has something of a learning curve I think, it's analagous to a newbie playing Puerto Rico for the first time wih a bunch of veterans... except everyone feels that way. Noone really knows what they're doing, and they all feel like it was a bad experience. That was how my first session with MotA went, but I was interested to see if it was really that bad, or if my guess was right (based on our discussion here). When I played it with the second group, I had the experience of that first game and was able to relate it a bit to the new players, and I think that made the whole game go a little better.

- Seth

Top
Wed, 12/03/2003 - 09:07
#58
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Yet another Session report

sedjtroll wrote:
MotA has something of a learning curve I think, it's analagous to a newbie playing Puerto Rico for the first time wih a bunch of veterans... except everyone feels that way. Noone really knows what they're doing, and they all feel like it was a bad experience.

I agree with Matthew that games that have to played a certain way to be fun are suspect. However, I want to adjust that statement a bit and say that games that have to be played a certain way in order to work properly are suspect. I'll explain this in a bit.

I think Matthew does mean something different than what Seth is saying. Seth seems to be aiming at the fact that people have to understand a game before it can be enjoyed, which is true sometimes, but not always. I liked my first playing of E&T even though I didn't grasp all the nuances right away. Ditto for Puerto Rico. It does help if all players are newbies instead of a mixed group of newbies and veterans. Then again, that's not what I want to talk about, because it seems that a designer can do very little about it. So while it is an interesting topic, it is not something that is of interest when designing a game.

What is of interest for a designer is the statement that a game has to be played a certain way in order to work properly, because this hints at a flawed design. I'll explain what I mean.

Take, for example, a certain 2-player wargame where the object is to eliminate the other player. In this wargame defending is far more sensible than attacking, because the odds are in favor of the defender. What then happens, if both players are playing sensible is basically: nothing. Both players are waiting for the other to make a move, which never happens because attacking is stupid.

Now some might say that this is a problem with the players: they do not get into the spirit of the game. It's a wargame so players should want to attack eachother, why play a game if you are not willing to play?

I, however, think this reasoning is flawed. You cannot blame the players for being intelligent. The design of a game and it's victory (point) system should encourage players to play within the spirit of the game. A robust game system keeps functioning, even when a player starts behaving irrationally and/or makes moves that go against that the theme of the game, but then that player should be punished for such behaviour by having less chance to win the game.

I am not saying that Mystery of the Abbey is such a game, because I think it is not. Mystery of the Abbey still technically works even when players are being obnoxious and are making dumb moves. However, Matthew brought up this point and I thought it was an interesting enough topic to respond to.

Thoughts?

- Rene Wiersma

Top
Wed, 12/03/2003 - 13:45
#59
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

I would argue that both are true.

To a certain extent it's true that all games must be played a certain way to be fun. If, for example, you play by the letter of the rules but not the spirit then a game can be ruined, certainly. Nothing in the rules say, for example, that you can't get up and go home in the middle of your turn, to return 3 days later and complete your turn. Most games don't say that you're not allowed to beg to see other players' hands of cards, etc.

But some games seem to require that you play with a certain attitude (that's not common to all games) for the game to be enjoyable, as well. I would strongly argue that MotA is such a game: if you play with a specific attitude (that we're all monks, for one, and that activities like chanting add a pleasurable atmosphere) then you'll enjoy the game, but if you only play with the specific victory conditions in mind -- gathering clues to figure out which cards are not available -- then I would argue that there are flaws in the game that make that particular activity much less fun. It's only when it's played in the "spirit" of the game does it shine.

Munchkin is another example of such a game. If you work to pretend that you're an adventurer then it's kinda funny even the 10th time you put a duck on your head while wearing magical kneepads and attacking a potted plant with a fork. If you don't work to immerse yourself in that atmosphere, though, it becomes an incredibly repetitive, stunningly long game of bash the leader, with almost no strategic options and incredibly obvious only-one-real-move tactical options.

This isn't true of many, many games, however. I can immerse myself in medieval Spain when I play El Grande or I can ignore it altogether, but either way there's game there to actually play. I can be grumpy or excited, introverted or extroverted, 14 years old or 74 years old, imaginitive or dull as hell, and no matter what there's a core game there to be played that will mentally stimulate me, bringing me some level of fun.

MotA could easily be such a game, imo, with some changes, and yet would still have the fun monk factor for those who want it. The same is true of Munchkin, as it wouldn't take a ton of changes to improve the fun of the game mechanics themselves.

I guess it comes down to having the game mechanics be fun while the theme is fun, too.

I also heartily agree with Rene, of course. If playing to win stops the game from progressing then that's another flaw that needs to be addressed.

Either way, though, I see the game as flawed, and therefore a poor design. In my opinion.

Top
Wed, 12/03/2003 - 16:28
#60
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

FastLearner wrote:
Either way, though, I see [MotA] as flawed, and therefore a poor design. In my opinion.

I don't think it's the mechanics that are making the game "flawed" in your eyes, at least not in the case of Mystery of the Abbey. It's true that if everyone takes the vow of silence, it takes longer to figure things out. But it does not stop the game alltogether, and depending on your point of view, it may not even make the game less fun.

The discrepency is that if everyone DOES hush up, then you have to turn to different methods of either figuring things out, or forcing people to answer questions. Without playing the ways to do this may not become obvious. I'm sure I don't know exactly what I would do in such a case, but by way of example I'd probably move back and forth between the Parlour and the Scriptorium, forcing answers from the Parlour (we play that those questions are secretly answered rather than publicly. It doesn't explicitly say in the rules which is correct, but it makes sense you should get the bonus for the room, not everyone), and getting nifty abilities from the Scriptures- like "force someone to answer if they take the vow, and they can't ask back".

So my beef is not with a general dislike of the rules regarding vows of silence, nor with your groups opinion on the best strategy for the game (I would think that always taking the vow is NOT the best strategy, especially if everyone else is doing the same). My beef is with first impressions from a group that hasn't ever played before that amount to "the best strategy is obviously to not answer questions, therefore noone will ever get any information and the game doesn't work."

zaiga wrote:
I liked my first playing of Puerto Rico even though I didn't grasp all the nuances right away.

I certainly didn't. I was one of 2 players who hadn't played before, and I simply was not grasping all the nuances, and all the rules, and all the strategies all at once. It appeared that everyone, even the other newbie, had a much better idea of what was going on then I did. When I left that game, I thought I'd probably never play it again. It was a year and a half later when I decided to give it another try, and I basically re-learned it from scratch. That time I enjoyed it more, and was willing to play again to see if I really liked it or not.

zaiga wrote:
What is of interest for a designer is the statement that a game has to be played a certain way in order to work properly, because this hints at a flawed design.

I agree with you completely. My point, as you accurately pointed out, is that some games, perhaps many or most games, need to be played more than once before that decision can be made (wheather or not the game is flawed).

Too often people will jump to a conclusion such as "the game is flawed" or "the game is no fun" solely based on their first impression of the game- which in turn is based on 1 playthrough, with a particular group of people, where a specific set of circumstances occurs. A set of circumstances that the players do not recognize and are not familiar with, by merit of never having played (or not having played much) before.

I know that's how I viewed Puerto Rico the first time I played it. I'm glad I gave that one another shot (I even bought my own copy, which is something I seldom do if a friend already owns a game).

- Seth

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut