Mystery of the Abbey - should I try it?

My thoughts:

Awesome components.

Immersive atmosphere.

Lots of clever ideas.

Not a game, per se.

It's not a deduction game like Clue because after a couple of rounds you can't really apply basic deduction to the mystery anymore -- players are always passing cards around and so eventually you can't ask any kind of clever questions that won't just give the same info away to everyone playing.

And it's too long.

No, it's not the level of Puerto Rico, but it's not the level of Citadels, either (to name another Faduitti game). In my opinion if you strip off the pretty chrome it wouldn't even be the level of Clue, but with the chrome in place it's a bit better than that.

FWIW I quite enjoyed Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. I more-or-less liked the movie (the visuals were very cool), but it was definitely a substory of the book.

There are two types of guesses you can make. The first is about the murderer's characteristics, like "The killer is a Franciscan" or "The killer is fat". If you're right at the end of the game then you get two points, and if you're wrong you get -1 point. Each characteristic can only be guessed once in the game.

The second is guessing who the murderer actually is, which is worth 4 points.

You find out if you're right about the characteristics once the murderer is revealed. IIRC you find out if you're right about the murderer if no one can reveal a card to show that you're wrong, much like Clue.

The big problem (for me) is that because the cards are always being passed around the table you can't really ask good questions. For example if you ask Bob if he has any fat monks that are Franciscans and he says "no," that doesn't really help much because by the time you are ready to ask Larry the same question cards have been passed around -- while he may have had one moments ago he's since passed it to Bob.

As such, and as mentioned, it's not really a pure deduction game. Some of the theme stuff is great, though. And again, it's really beautiful.

No, Joe. That won't work. The game only ends when someone makes a correct accusation. Why would someone make an accusation when it wouldn't win him the game? Unless they are fed up with the game and just want to end it, of course.

- Rene Wiersma

No, Joe. That won't work. The game only ends when someone makes a correct accusation. Why would someone make an accusation when it wouldn't win him the game? Unless they are fed up with the game and just want to end it, of course.

- Rene Wiersma

In the one game I played, we had 6 players and there were three of us who had all nailed it down to 3 suspects. The first 2 players guessed the wrong two, leaving me the correct one. This was somewhat unsatisfying from a game standpoint, but in answer to your question, someone might make an accusation because he knows he won't have the chance to do so again, because his turn won't come around.

Making partially informed guesses that turn out to be right is probably valid as a "strategy", becase 2 correct guesses are equal to a correct accusation and 2 wrong guesses. The problem I have is defining what a "partially informed but still intelligent guess" looks like. For example, let's say you've seen 7 bearded monks and 4 beardless monks. It seems that saying "the killer has a beard" would be an intelligent guess. But is it really? I just haven't played enough to have a feel for how the guessing system is meant to work.

But what I definitely found is that you shouldn't invest too much importance in the scoring. The strength of the game is its immersive gameplay, and with the right group, it succeeds at that in spades, possibly moreso than any other game I've played in recent memory (the probable exception being pirate-themed games, because everyone can have fun saying "Har!") For a 1 hour game with lots of atmosphere, I'm willing to grant some lattitude on the scoring.

BTW, has anyone seen the new electronic talking Clue? Is this the same technology as the King Arthur game? It looks like it "solves" some of the bugs with original Clue -- no roll-and-move system, playable with 2 players. Might be worth checking that out as well!

-Jeff

In our game we had a similarly dissatisfying conclusion: I and one other player had narrowed it down to two monks. My turn came first so I accused and picked the wrong one. The other player obviously eliminated that one and so accused the right one. Winning by turn order.

And yeah, pretty much all of the questions come down to "have you seen" after a bit.

Our questions were more along the line of: "only one of monks on the cards I just passed you was bearded, of the order of that monk how many have you crossed out?".

Like I said, perhaps we were taking this game too seriously.

- Rene Wiersma

Ah, so it's just a kingmaker problem then. Since you assume you can't win the game anymore, you settle for second best and hand the win to someone else.

There's something fundamentally wrong with the scoring in this game.

I don't disagree that the scoring is problematic, but I don't think it's a kingmaker. The example I mentioned, I'm analyzing in hindsight. No one knew, during their turn, just how close everyone else was to having the solution. So, it's a gamble -- do you go for an accusation, even if you're not 100% sure it's right, or do you wait till your next turn and hope that no one else is as close to the solution as you are such that they'll correctly solve the game?

I wouldn't say the game's scoring is broken so much as that it rewards something very different from most games -- it rewards educated guesses that turn out to be right. It doesn't reward getting very close to the mark, but missing. For example, in the game I mentioned, 3 of us had it down to three suspects, then the other two guys guessed the 2 of those that were wrong, leaving me the win. Now, they could have not guessed at all, in which case, probably none of us would have made an accusation. But once the first guy did, it made it a better choice for the next guy and an even better one for me, to make an accusation. Yet, if the first guy had guessed right, he would have won; had he not made an accusation at all, he may still have lost. It's a risk-reward thing.

So, while I agree that the game's scoring system seems unsatisfying after the one time I've played, the game's strength isn't the "game" per se, but the metagame -- the immersive atmosphere, the fun of trying to solve the mystery first, etc. It's a race game, not a deduction game. And it includes a lot of chaos. But for a one hour game with this much atmosphere and fun, I'm not complaining. Obviously, someone who wants something more strategic should look elsewhere. But it's not fair to evaluate the scoring system without properly placing it in the context of the game itself, and of course there's no evidence that the game has a kingmaker problem per se.

Jeff, answer this question: why would I want to make an accustion if I knew it wouldn't win me the game?

A possible answer is: because another player might be able to guess first and this is my only chance to get some points.

This is essentially a kingmaker situation, because in this case I am handing someone else the win.

So either the scoring system is useless, because the only way to win is making a correct accusation or it devolves into a kingmaker sitsuation, where one player willingly conceded the game to another player.

No, it doesn't reward making correct guesses. Eventually, the only way to win is to make a correct accusation.

Sure, it has a lot of atmosphere and I don't mind games that have a lot of chaos and don't have much strategy if they are short enough (which in my experience Mystery of the Abbey isn't, but OK).

However, if a scoring system is flawed, it is flawed and this has nothing to do with placing it "in the context of the game" or not. After all, a game is always played within the context of its scoring system and it is the scoring system that should encourage the players to play within the theme and not the other way round.

- Rene Wiersma

If it had only taken an hour then I think I would have liked it a lot more.

-- Matthew

Consider this situation. Player A thinks he knows who the killer is. However, if that is true then player B has made 3 correct revelations and 1 wrong revelation (5 points) and player C has made 1 correct revelation (2 points). Player A has not made any revelations are accusations yet.

Player A also thinks it is quite likely that player C now knows who the killer is, but player A can reach the accusation room first. Player B has just made some lucky revelations, but probably doesn't have a clue who the killer is.

Now, what should player A do? Make the accusation? If he is right, player B will win, but if he doesn't make the accusation player C will likely win. This is a kingmaker situation, right, because basically player A decides who wins?

I think that if you tried hard enough, you could make ANY game look like it had a kingmaker problem, but that doesn't necessarily mean it does; it might just mean you have been very creative in constructing an example!

All that you've shown in this example is that B, by having outplayed A, has made it very difficult for other players to win (if he really has 3 correct revelations). But that's sort of the point of the game, right? That you're rewarded not just for the accusation, but for having accurate information earlier than anyone else.

In your example, I don't think there's a "kingmaker" problem. A can't win by making an accusation, thus, he should make a revelation and hope C isn't as far along as he thinks, which will hopefully give him one more turn in which to make the accusation. Sure, he could "throw" the game to B by making an accusation now, but that clearly isn't his best course, nor is it a lock that he will lose if he goes the other route.

I can't figure out what your objection is. It seems in this example that the revelations DO matter, because a player with the correct guess could lose. But elsewhere, you complain that revelations DON'T matter, because the player with the correct guess never loses. How many games have you played? I've only played once, and I'm certain I'm nowhere near ready to make a pronouncement on the scoring system, though I do have concerns about whether it really means anything or not...

Player B can only still win when someone makes a correct accusation and if the game is played by players who want to win the game they won't make an accusation that won't win them the game. Which means that the only valid way to win the game is by making a correct accusation. That makes the whole revelation aspect a bit moot, doesn't it?

Obviously not; in your own example, B's revelations kept A from making an accusation that would have been correct, thus buying B more time to find the real suspect to make the correct accusation himself. So perhaps they provide a "stall" mechanism, in some sense.

Well, you could of course play it that way. But I personally think you're playing the game at way too high a level of analysis. This is meant to be a chaotic game, not really a game for perfect planners. You make it seem as though everyone knows the whole time exactly which revelations are correct and which aren't, but really, you don't figure it all out until a fairly late stage. I think it's meant to be played as a race moreso than a strategic contest.

Then don't! This seems like a really simple problem, really. But again, I think before you can pronounce the game "broken", one really needs to know whether you're basing that on 1, 2, 5, 10, etc plays. Is this your "first impression" or your considered opinion? And also, this just might not be the kind of game you enjoy. But again, the problem may not be the scoring system so much as the play style of your group...

I wouldn't have complained if the game just ended when someone makes a correct revelation. In that case you probably would still make an accusation, even when you are not 100% sure, just to be able to win the game before someone else makes the correct accusation.

I think a change like this would be worth trying out, for the reasons you mentioned. It might be just the fix that the scoring system needs to be more relevant!

Only if "the player who makes the correct guess always wins", which I haven't played enough to know if it's true. Have you? Is that always the case?

I must say I only played the game once. I don't think that this makes my criticism of the scoring system is less valid, since I'm approaching it from a purely theoretical standpoint. That the scoring system doesn't work is something you can prove through analysis, not something you need to experience through practice.

I'm afraid I don't agree. I'm not at all satisfied that you've "proven" that the player who makes the correct revelation will always win the game. I bet it works out that way much of the time (probably most), and it's probably supposed to. But even if the "revelations" system are only a "stall tactic", they're by no means useless -- in fact, based on the way that it sounds like you're playing the game, they could be a crucial strategic element.

I don't personally think you can necessarily analyze games from a purely theoretical standpoint. And certainly not when you've only played once! If I recall, you also objected to the "lockup" situation in Balloon Cup without ever having seen that happen or knowing how often it does happen in practice. And I assume you would have had a field day with the Greyjoy/Lannister imbalance in the "Game of Thrones" boardgame.

To me, you can only evaluate a game by playing it, and clearly neither of us have played enough to properly evaluate Mystery of the Abbey's scoring. You cooked up one loaded example to prove your point, but I'm sure I could come up with examples that prove the opposite point. For example, in the game I played, many players made early accusations based on partial info that subsequently turned out to be wrong. I think "early guesses" are something you haven't factored in as a legitimate strategy. I really get the feeling that you're playing this as a pure deduction game -- that I'll only make an accusation when I'm really sure it's right AND I'm really sure it will win the game. In practice, I just don't think the game permits that heavy a level of analysis, and I think the more chaotic and free-wheeling this game is, the more enjoyable it will be (or at least that's the way it's designed).

If you can say that the scoring is broken on a theoretical level, well, all I can say is that you haven't proven it to me, and I'm very skeptical when someone pronounces a game "broken" after one play. I think it's quite possible that you're right, but I'm not willing to jump one way or the other without more plays...

-Jeff

I'll concede that making revelations could be a strategical element, used as a stalling technique. I think this would actually be hard in practice, because you need at least three correct revelations to beat one correct accusation, but from a theoretical point of view it could be a valid strategy.

However, it 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.

Why not? I could determine that Tic-Tac-Toe will always end in a draw when both players play perfectly, without ever actually playing the game. There's lots of stuff you can analyze simply through theory. Pythagoras did not come up with his famous theorem by using measuring sticks!

This is actually a good example of a mechanic of which it is very easy to analyze if it works or not, just take a worst case scenario and see if the mechanics still work. I'm not interested in how often such a lock-up happens. I'm not looking for mechanics that work almost always, I'm looking for perfection, both in theory and practice.

I might. Who knows, I have never played the game.

Hmm, that example seems poorly understood. I don't know what you mean with "loaded". The example was meant to show a situation, which I think is not all that uncommon, that actually favored the other side of the point I was trying to prove. The point of the example was to show that players won't make an accusation that will not win them the game, if another player has scored more points through revelations. 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.

Perhaps you are confusing this with the idea that players must be 100% sure of their accusation, before making it. That's not what I'm saying. Players can and should make educated guesses when making an accusation, but they always know what the outcome of the game will be if their accusation turns out to be right. Why make an accusation that will not win you the game, if it turns out to be a correct accusation.

Counter examples are always appreciated, of course. :wink:

Well Jeff, if you had actually bothered to read my whole post you might have read that the passing around of cards, the fact that you have to rely more on intuition than on pure deduction skills and the idea of taking calculated risks is something that I actually enjoy in this game.

There are a few things that I dislike about the game, some of which are very subjective (playing time, randomness) and some which I think have their roots in poor design (the scoring system coupled with non-fixed ending).

In the one game I played I actually made an early accusation, based on partial information and it turned out to be wrong. A later accusation won me the game, but only because I was early in the turn order (everyone else had figured out the murderer as well by that point).

I don't know what your definition of "broken" is, but I wouldn't call the game "broken". I think the scoring system doesn't do what it apparently is supposed to do or what it could have been anyway (an alternative path to victory). That doesn't make the game as a whole broken. However, I'm very interested in what your conclusions will be after playing the game more. I'm now actually interested in playing the game again and will try to get it played on gaming night next week. 8)

- Rene Wiersma

Well, certainly in the context of your example, it would be!

Even if that's the case, it certainly might be more than the "useless" appelation you gave it.

Again, I don't necessarily see this as the certainty you do. Let's post this question on spielfrieks and see if it's true. It might be. And even if it is, (a) that's ok and (b) we've already established that there might be other purposes for revelations than "an alternate way to win". Do you know for a fact that the designer's sole intent for scoring points on revelations was to win.

Why not? I could determine that Tic-Tac-Toe will always end in a draw when both players play perfectly, without ever actually playing the game. There's lots of stuff you can analyze simply through theory. Pythagoras did not come up with his famous theorem by using measuring sticks!

Ok, let me correct my remarks to say "you can't analyze ALL games with theory". This is meant to be a chaotic game. I think it's meant to reward "clever" rather than "strategic" play. I think that analysis is not going to help answer some of the questions.

Ok, I'm glad you said this, because here is where we part company. I am a physicist, not a mathematician, so getting things "pretty darn good" is good enough for me. I still haven't played Balloon Cup, but if it looks up in only one out of 100 games, that's good enough for me. Probably even 1 out of 20 is ok, too, especially given the somewhat-fiddly "fix" rules. Obviously, that's not "perfection". We are looking for different things.

Hmm, that example seems poorly understood. I don't know what you mean with "loaded". The example was meant to show a situation, which I think is not all that uncommon, that actually favored the other side of the point I was trying to prove. The point of the example was to show that players won't make an accusation that will not win them the game, if another player has scored more points through revelations.

The point of the example was to show a kingmaker scenario, which is why I said "loaded", because I'm sure if you thought hard enough you could think of an example of a kingmaker scenario in PR, but that doesn't mean the game has a kingmaker problem.

Ok, I'll grant this for the sake of argument. Why again is this necessarily a bad thing? If the player who guesses the culprit wins, then that's sort of as it should be, right?

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that someone isn't reading your whole posts. I've tried to keep separate your distaste for the scoring system with your acceptance of the rest of the game, but I am not sure you've done a completely outstanding job keeping those separate. One gets the feeling that because of the scoring system, this isn't a game you want to play very much.

I think these are all very legitimate, but I continue to say that you haven't played nearly enough to substantiate these objections yet. Maybe, as Seth suggests, the scoring system exists for a different reason than to provide an alternate means of victory. If that's the case, then I don't think it would be appropriate to say the scoring system is "broken", just that it wasn't what you thought it was after one playing.

Yes, and as I've said, I too have expressed concerns about the scoring system, and felt after my one playing that while I "won", I didn't really feel like that actually meant anything. I don't suspect I'll get to play the game soon; I'm spending most of my playing time lately either playtesting one of my games that I'm trying to get finished, or playing "Game of Thrones". But I do hope to see this one again, as I did enjoy it. It's interesting that you said playing time was a problem. Our game took 1 hour. That seemed to be about as much game as this one had in it -- maybe 75 minutes. If our game had lasted longer (as it seems like others' do), I doubt I would have liked it as much.