Play Make Write Think

Here we are going to talk about Mansions of Madness. Yes, that game with that ridiculously long rulebook to teach you how to be a decision maker in the game. At first glance, the game is daunting in its medium as it gives a lot of rules that you would only expect to be doable in a video game. However, the combination of the app that the game requires and the board game combined makes the game very interesting to play. In my opinion, the goal of the game is to protect yourself from becoming insane. I think that it better to become physically harmed than insane because when you’re insane, you become a hazard for other players as well. So, my team (Austin, Rachel, and I) made it our mission to not become insane by any means necessary.

So, let’s talk about the decisions that was made in order to ensure that none of us went insane. Foremost, we all got card that balanced each other’s weaknesses out. For example, Rachel had the character with the most physical strength, so I had the character with the most sanity, while Austin fell in the middle of the two extremes. This kind of did not work out the most for us as Rachel had the least amount of sanity, but unluckily had the most amount of horrors. However, I luckily continued to get clues which took some of the pressures of my fellow player, Rachel. MANNNN we love those clues. Hence, through the decision making of keeping a balance, we were able to keep the game going on for a while. In the words of Austin, “let’s get these d**n monsters!”

On Tuesday night I played Betrayal at House on the Hill with three other students from class: Michael, Giovanni, and Sadie. We initially started reading the instructions out loud, which was helpful, but we decided it was taking too long so we watched a five minute video instead. We were confused about the “haunt” part of the game, but we knew it was a later part of the game so we started playing with understanding just the basic exploratory of the game. As my character, I decided to pick Darren “Flash” Williams (speed: 6, might: 3, sanity:3, knowledge:3) because I thought the increased speed would be useful to get to places faster than the other players.

Once we started playing the game, we started exploring and collecting events, objects, and omens. Many of the rooms contained events, and I started to realize that putting all my stats into one category (speed) may have not been the best idea, because I started to lose other stats by not rolling high enough. Because your stats determine how many dice you roll, many times losing stats can make it easier to lose even more stats, which gave me the idea that a more standard 4,4,4,3 stat distribution would have been superior. After a while of exploring, which mostly coincided with me losing stats, we picked up one omen too many and the haunt began.

The haunt was the most exciting and fun part of the game for me. We had haunt 9 which started out with everyone as a hero and we had to all get to the pentagram chamber in order to kill a dark fiddler. Once in the room, we had to roll a sanity roll of 5+ four times to dispel the dark fiddler and win the game. However, if we sanity rolled less than 4, we died and became a traitor. In our game, Sadie was the first to become a traitor. Next was me, then finally Giovanni until only Michael was left as a hero. Might became an important factor in the game as we took turns trying to take down Michael. The game got really tense as Michael lost health. It could have gone either way, but Michael managed to eek out the last 5+ sanity roll. Luckily for him, he had high might and sanity stats, otherwise he might not have been able to pull it off.

Overall I thought this game was really fun to play, especially the haunt portion, as the stakes were high and it basically became a free-for-all to win the game. Although a lot of the game comes down to random chance, there’s also a large amount of freedom and multiple different ways to play, which I enthusiastically enjoy.

For someone who doesn’t play board games often, this was easily the most complicated board game I’ve ever played. In my opinion, the game was not so friendly to new users. The hardest part for me was trying to understand the overall objective of the game, and what the goal of moving my player around the board was. First of all, I essentially picked my character randomly because I had no idea how much each attribute mattered. I ended up choosing the character with the most knowledge, hoping this would somehow be important later (sadly it wasn’t. at all.) I had to engage in probing in attempt to understand how the game worked and what was important. Why do I want to open further rooms, and what significance, other than potentially improving my attributes, do the cards have? Do I want to stay relatively close to the spot we started at, or is it smarter to get as far away as possible? I knew it wasn’t just me because the people I was playing with seemed to be missing a sense of direction as well.

This board game forced us to make a few strategic decisions, but, for me at least, most of those decisions felt random since I didn’t really know how the game worked too well. I felt that it was pretty linear in the sense that we just wanted to get to the haunt, and there wasn’t any other way to end the game. Also, I felt like the haunt took an unnecessarily long time to start. But, when it started, the game started to all make a little more sense. I didn’t feel like there was much telescoping in the game because it was filled short-term objectives, and no long-term objectives. This was probably due to me being a new player to the game though. Once the haunt started we all had to rush to the pentagram chamber, and I realized that I was at a huge disadvantage since I drifted far from the beginning of the game. Once we began battling in the pentagram chamber, the game was left up to the luck of dice rolls. The haunt was the most fun part of the game for me since I love intensity. Until then though, the game just felt like it was lagging along, and I wasn’t having that much fun. Overall though, I enjoyed the experience of playing such an intricate game; it was very interesting to me, a person who’s used to playing simpler games. Congratulations to the legend and winner of our game, Michael Mariam.

I played the game “Mansion of Madness” with Wenyi and Kimberly. It basically combines the form of both board game and video game, featuring Lovecraftian’s horror monsters and puzzle-solving mindset. That is to say, we not only have to set up the cards and roll the dice on the table but also have to download its app to trigger the plot.

When Wenyi and I first started setting up the game, we were confused when going through the wordy rule book, because there are a lot of rules that make sense only at the particular situation. Thanks to Kimberly, who has previously played this game with her friends, we get to understand the rules and set up the game successfully. We chose one of the base game that is supposed to be about 90 to 120 min. However, we still couldn’t finish it in 3 hours. According to Kimberly’s previous gaming experience, she said, it is because we tended to explore the map more after Wenyi got a Claustrophobia Horror Effect with accumulative Horror cards that could lead her to Insane when in a small map. At first few rounds, we played slowly, checking the rule book frequently. Also, we forgot that each character has their own strength. For example, William Yorick, my character, can gain an extra clue whenever a monster is defeated, but we did not realize it until halfway through the game.

The game is more comprehensive and playable than I thought it would be. It is an interesting combination of video game and board game that I believe it preserves the most enjoyable part of each game formats. For example, the gaming process, like dice rolling, could just be a random number generator in the video game, which makes the players feel like they have less control during the game. However, there are drawbacks as well. If the game is entirely data-based, the mistakes like forgetting the characters’ strengths will not happen.

Double Group Plays >> Review

Three college students are sitting at a square table in the Emory Student Center. One of the three has played twice. I was that player. The first time I ran through the game, I was responsible for handling the rules and understanding the overview of the game. It felt free form in that the objective of the game was handled indirectly from me to the other players. The decision of actually setting the game as solo play or team work was in my hands. From my interpretation, it was an independent mystery game played with others. However, the set-up of the game further established the lack of competition and individuality due to shared spaces on the board game and relying on the person who knows most of the rules. There were other cards to ensure helping other players as well as implied interpretation that getting the “insane” condition card would end badly for everyone. Thus, from our group interpretation, it was supposed to be a cooperative mystery game. Clearly, from the first to second game with two different groups, as the rule decider, I decided to keep the cooperative play environment as opposed to the independent survival approach of winning. Even when the game coerced us near the end that only a single player could survive, we decided against that and focused on the experience and narrative. We, as players, ended up setting a team process and strategy decisions as in one player decides what they want to do, but the consent and open opinions of others also played into what the one player does. Sometimes, the physics of the game altered or were bent to fit into the group dynamic. A rule from the book was the use of the clue tokens where it was for the player only; however, when someone was in trouble or needed a token, anyone in the team would offer theirs. Another was the ignorance of yellow and filled borders and deciding which ones to cross. The result was still fluid gameplay that did not downplay consequences on players and still held the “logic” of the game. Barricades and stealing items in trade actions were not in use, and the fires were extinguished for the good of the group. When I played with the insane condition, I ignored it, knowing I would lose the game; however, the team objective was more important, and all of us wanted to know more of the story and propel the game onwards rather than win/lose.

My Final Thoughts

Mansions of Madness actually offered that nonlinear experience in setting aside book rules and previous interpretations of games. For example, the order of the players did not matter. Another was the board game was set in moveables tiles and used technology for interactive experience. In fact, when I played through the second time with another group, the map of the game changed, and the game time was extended. The gameplay was straightforward in a sense that all the basic rules such as borders, dice, and damage cards were laid out. However, there was plenty room for error when it came to subtle questions such as what was considered in range, what borders could be crossed, or even if special abilities were considered actions. Group 1 chose a more fluid style, making up rules as we go while retaining the same physics of the game when we had those questions. Group 2 went for the strict book structure, following the exceptions laid out in book terms. Honestly, I did not enjoy the second approach, but it also offered me different insight in that different strategies were made to move through the game. The items and conditions made the game very complex, requiring each of us to decide what was best for the group, for ourselves, and if we even remember what cards we have in our inventory. Truthfully, I believed the app added to the complexity of the game, filling in the plot holes and confusion during gameplay. It understood the need for fluid gameplay and easier user interface as opposed to complete manual reference. This allowed the manuals to be less cumbersome and more useful. Overall the game was non-linear; this is added to the fact that the app randomly generated maps and encounters. This allowed the use of probing and telescoping in reaction to the various random challenges presented. For me, it made each game of the same story feel different. There were general rules set up that resembled more of guidelines. The landscape of the map changes, each turn and item offers different challenges, and even the group dynamic can change the choices we make. Thus, Johnson’s claim holds true in this board game.

A Side Note

My favorite character was Carson Sinclair the butler. He keeps falling and tripping in game (while accumulating damage from those), but he can challenge a Hunting Horror (snake monster) to fisticuffs. I find him hilarious and cool. What’s yours?

LINK: https://eng101s20.davidmorgen.org/quests/side-quests/side-quest-6-design-analysis-of-betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill-or-mansions-of-madness/

I played the game Betrayal at House on the Hill with other three students in the class. Overall, comprehending the rules took a lot more time than we expected, but we are satisfied with the experience of playing this game.

I think the probing part of this game is simply discovering new rooms and new rules along the way. The way of arranging the rooms are also important, especially when they show different directions and numbers of doors on the tile. We gradually realized that we cannot simply just jump from one room to another–we have to follow the doors that lead to different paths.

In the early game (before the haunt) the biggest decision making in this game is to decide whether to stay in the new room that you explored or keep going; however, I would argue that this is largely a matter of luck since you don’t know which tile or card will be drawn next, therefore the decisions that the players made are not solely based on their own logic or strategy. The late game (after the haunt) on the other hand, requires collaboration and strategy making. For example, we were playing the Haunt number 43, which requires the players to pickup candles in given rooms by doing a might roll, and bring the candle to the room where the haunt was revealed and lit it up by doing a knowledge roll. One condition was that if the Knowledge roll doesn’t reach the required number, we automatically lose the candle and have to go back to the room and pick it up again. Our strategy was to let the person who has the most Might points to pick up the candles, then drop it off for the person with the most Knowledge point to try to lit up the candle in order to maximize the chances of success–you obviously cannot expect a person with 2 knowledge to perform a roll to reach 5+. Dividing up the job and design separate paths for each explorers were essential since in our case, each explorer has their own strengths and weaknesses; also having diffused responsibilities can minimize the damage the team will take when one of the explorer is killed.

Another part of the telescoping is the usage of items. I was aware that many items increases one of your ability at the cost of another ability. When trying to decide whether you want to use the item or not, you need to focus on the winning condition, in our case, you would use the item if it increases you Might and/or Knowledge, or when you can distribute the damage to other abilities in order to save your live.

One last point that I had strong impressions when playing the game was that the traitor was seriously over-powered–well, it totally makes sense since he’s going against multiple players alone. Since the explorers and the traitor have different rule books and had to read them separately, the traitor does not know our winning condition, and we were unfamiliar with his new power as well; therefore, when the traitor “teleported” straight to the room I was in, I was deeply in shock. Later on I realized that not just the traitor, his monster is also capable of “teleporting”. Even though we won at the end, I would say that the main reason is because the traitor doesn’t know what our winning condition was, therefore he could not effectively prevent us from winning, while explorers only needs to know that the traitor’s goal is to kill all the explorer (at least in the Haunt that we played).

I definitely think that this particular board game is not linear because there is not a particular way of playing the game: different factors can trigger different Haunts, and playing different characters and different sides (explorers vs. traitors) can give you different experiences, as well as figuring out different strategies based on different conditions and collaborating with different players, so there really not an end to playing this game (that’s also why we ended up buying the game). I am super excited about the other Haunt that I haven’t get to play yet, and I will definitely try as many as possible.

Steven Johnson argues that board games do not require any probing skills. I played Betrayal at House on the Hill with the other three players. In the game, I became the traitor and the other players became heroes. My goal was to kill all the other heroes using myself and a monster. As Steven claims so, there is no probation of the physics of the game. This is apparent because the physics of the game is just a connection of tiles that represent distinct rooms. Although we are able to discover new rooms, each tile already tells what it does. However, strategic decision making, or telescoping, is needed because we need to explore the tiles cleverly and sometimes use to improve a player’s circumstance. In my case, my monster was able to teleport to the “omen” tiles by lowering its might to 3. Also, I had a choice to land on a specific tile to increase its might by 1. By using the advantage of the immortality of the monster, I teleported to the “omen” tile when there was a player on it. Although my chance of winning the fight against a player becomes lower (since I can only roll 3 dice now), I was able to scare them because they thought that my monster was overpowered, although it was not as strong as they believed. In the beginning, they thought my monster could teleport to any space and just gain a might every turn and can steal an item if I win the combat. Therefore, during the game, I realized that I had to consider both the mental and physical states of other players. In the end, I was not able to find the requirements for them to win, so I lost the game. The game itself was very complex for us. We end up reading the rule book for about two hours. But, after we understood the game, it was so fun, and it was like a video game for me.

#sq6

I played the game “Betrayal at house on the hill” with Giovanni, Winslow, and Sadie. The game presented many challenges and was confusing to us at first. We all tried setting up the game and trying to understand the end goal, but we struggled to do so until we watched a YouTube video explaining the game. It took time to figure out things like which rooms should go where and how many rooms (tiles) we put down in a roll. As the game went along, we had to decide how to interpret some cards and the descriptions they gave us.

The game encouraged decision-making in many ways. We decided which card to take in the beginning, which ended up being very important during the game, specifically the haunt. When we rolled the dice, we had to decide where to place the room tiles on the table. However, the dice had more of an influence in the game than the decisions we made. The game was a bit slow because rolling dice without being able to choose much and determine your fate becomes repetitive and boring after awhile. Our group was patient, though, and kept confidence that the haunt would bring the most excitement to our game. Luckily, the haunt lived up to the hype.

During the haunt, Sadie had to choose to kill me or Giovanni after all of us rolled a number greater than six and she chose Giovanni. Then, I rolled “against” people and my rolls were very lucky. I kept out rolling my opponents and I ultimately ended up beating Winslow because I had the holy symbol. If it weren’t for lucky rolls during the haunt and exploring stage, anyone could have won the game because this game took virtually no skill. In my play of this board game, Steven Johnson’s statement that board games do not require the same strategic decision making skills as video games do is very true in this game. In most video games, you have total control over your character’s actions and decision making. For example, in GTA V, players can decide where to go and how to complete missions. In sports video games career mode like in NBA 2k, gamers at home can choose their player’s path and dictate their player’s performance. In a board game like “Betrayal at house on the hill,” players have most decisions made for them based on the cards you pick up. Also, the rolling of the dice determines where you go and what tiles go onto the board, requiring no skill whatsoever.

Throughout the game, we dealt with telescoping and probing. At certain points while exploring, we were confused and had to consider how our decision on what to do would lead to the haunt and affect the final outcome of the game. We also engaged in probing by rereading rules and talking amongst ourselves about what to do when someone chose a card that was confusing. Overall, this experience allowed my group and I to work through challenges such as interpreting rules and understanding how the game works. Although it was a slow start and complex to play, we got the hang of it and the haunt had us all excited. When it came down to the haunt, everyone was fully engaged and eager to see what was going to happen.

After reading Everything Bad is Good For You by Steven Johnson, I was not convinced of his argument that video games are very complex nonlinear narratives that make players prove the physics of the game world and make lots of strategic decisions in order to play but board games don’t require the same sorts of skills from players. However, after playing Betrayal at House of the Hill, I was even less convinced of Johnson’s argument. Right when we started setting up, I knew this game would require many strategic decisions and set out a complex series of plays and choices. When we started setting up, we were initially confused as to where all the pieces went and why the dice only had four faces. We read the instruction manual very carefully but ended up watching a YouTube video about how to begin playing the game. Once we actually started playing, the rules made a lot more sense and after a few people took their turn and we started exploring the house, we all had a “Wow!” moment because we realized how cool this game was. I have played many board games but the scene has always been established before I started playing. However, in this game, it really excited me exploring the house and building it the way we wanted to. The game required a decent amount of strategy since we had to decide which traits to lower or increase and consider how these traits would make us stronger once the haunt started. Overall, we considered strategy in each step of the game to succeed in “The Haunt.” Once we reached “The Haunt,” we knew we were in for something exciting. After we all arrived at the Pentagram room in the fastest possible way, spirits and tensions were high. We played through “The Haunt,” and I died first (of course…). Then, the remaining two of us went insane and attacked Michael but they ended up dying in the process. So… drum roll, please… Michael won!!! He had the holy symbol and high rolls so it really helped him win, but nonetheless, congratulations Michael!