You can indeed not win the loot, but still finish the race and continue your adventures.
Somewhat related...
In this scenario... since every card ends up in one trophy stack or another its not possible to remove basics from the game because they never get banished. Is that correct?
So....
Basically, you can't lose this scenario? You just play it, the loot goes to you or the charioteers, and you move on?
You can time out and fail to finish it. But, otherwise, yes - you provide an amusement no matter whether you win or lose.
Hmmm. I find that really unsatisfying. I'm disappointed, because this could have been a very challenging scenario. I'm guessing a number of people will house-rule a different win condition for that reason.
Hmmm. I find that really unsatisfying. I'm disappointed, because this could have been a very challenging scenario. I'm guessing a number of people will house-rule a different win condition for that reason.
The scenario is true to the source.
and while they get a special prize should they win, winning is not required as the race wasn't for anything in particular.
That's relevant... but personally I find having such a low bar for a win condition as very unsatisfying. I'm guessing I'm not alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever it's worth, I'm perfectly happy with the occasional relatively easy scenario.
Chief Technical Officer
|
The rules don't actually provide for replaying scenarios you won—only the ones you lose. For me, that actually sets the bar higher than usual in my book: You have as many opportunities as you need to do most everything else in the game, but you have exactly one chance to earn Muminofrah's Favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't actually provide for replaying scenarios you won—only the ones you lose. For me, that actually sets the bar higher than usual in my book: You have as many opportunities as you need to do most everything else in the game, but you have exactly one chance to earn Muminofrah's Favor.
That's actually exactly the reason why I hated this scenario (similar to the Dragon Trader). To each their own, I guess, but in my mind, players should not be penalized for winning scenarios - it creates a very unpleasant disconnect between the main goal of the game and the short-term goal of obtaining an unique upgrade, counterpointed by a feeling of 'missing out'.
(A suiting analogy for me is a computer game that auto-saves after you complete the main objective, but then doesn't allow you to replay the mission - sticking you forever with less than 100% on the progress screen. Granted, I'm probably in the minority that would be bothered by such a thing...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well on this one I feel just the opposite as Longshot (:-)).
I guess it depends if you are more a solo player or an old RPG group player.
I have one kid playing alone "RPG" (not sure why they use that very inappropriate term) computer games. He insists on visiting all the maps, dungeons, NPC... in order to get all the loots and bonuses. That's his vision of achievement, even if no one in RL would ever do that. And it also means there is pretty fun no fun in replaying the game (even with a different character).
I'm an old grumpy RPG-GM guy, I like before all role-playing a character. "Be the Summoner". So I try to act/react how I fell a hobbit would. If my objective is to save the world by closing a WorldWound gate, I absolutely don't care about getting loots or not. So I usually end up not being the übermunchkin, and that's good because that would make no sense in the story. And good thing is, I can replay the AP because there is a chance maybe next time I win the Camel Race and the adventure will be different.
Good news, it is our game, anyone can play it the way he wants, there is no bad way.
So please, keep on giving us various scenarios with varous outcome, some with mandatory wins/loots and some without, some easy and some hard, some with big loots and some with none. Because the whole point is to feel like we are not playing twice the same scenario (don't make it a computer game PLEASE!!! :-)), even when replaying one.
The rules don't actually provide for replaying scenarios you won—only the ones you lose. For me, that actually sets the bar higher than usual in my book: You have as many opportunities as you need to do most everything else in the game, but you have exactly one chance to earn Muminofrah's Favor.That's actually exactly the reason why I hated this scenario (similar to the Dragon Trader). To each their own, I guess, but in my mind, players should not be penalized for winning scenarios - it creates a very unpleasant disconnect between the main goal of the game and the short-term goal of obtaining an unique upgrade, counterpointed by a feeling of 'missing out'.
(A suiting analogy for me is a computer game that auto-saves after you complete the main objective, but then doesn't allow you to replay the mission - sticking you forever with less than 100% on the progress screen. Granted, I'm probably in the minority that would be bothered by such a thing...)
Think of it as losing the scenario, but moving on anyway rather than having to try again. A time-honored practice in tabletop RPGs is "fail forward," meaning that should the party fail at something, the plot or thing moves on with consequences for the failure, rather than stopping the party in its tracks and making them try again. This scenario uses the same ideology; whether you win or lose you get on with everything.
I'm a completionist in video games as well, so I know your pain of the non-perfect run at the end of the game, but realize that there is a wide gulf between how a tabletop RPG plays (or tabletop games in general) and how a computer RPG, action-adventure, etc game plays. With a single player video game you can reset and try again as much as you want, it's only your time being used up. With a tabletop game your group will probably get up and leave on you after a while of being stuck at the same place for hours, and might not be willing to come back to play the game again in the future.
Think of it as losing the scenario, but moving on anyway rather than having to try again.
This is the crux of the matter for me - the feeling of "losing", when supposedly you "won". I get it's a matter of 'perfectionist' VS 'role-playing' mentality, and I appreciate there are players in both camps - it's just something that I personally don't look for in my game design. It's the sort of set-up that would make players to "time-out", instead of doing what they gathered to do - play (it's the same thing, really, what apparently a lot of people do when they're in fear of dying - they let the Blessing timer time out; for some people it ups the stakes and they see it as "your choices have consequences", for me it's just counter-intuitive to a game's purpose and feels -ironically- arbitrarily *game-y*)
I'm an old grumpy RPG-GM guy, I like before all role-playing a character. "Be the Summoner". So I try to act/react how I fell a hobbit would. If my objective is to save the world by closing a WorldWound gate, I absolutely don't care about getting loots or not. So I usually end up not being the übermunchkin, and that's good because that would make no sense in the story. And good thing is, I can replay the AP because there is a chance maybe next time I win the Camel Race and the adventure will be different.
I think that I Also belong to that old grumpy RPG gang. Winning or losin is not important. Roleplaying the character is... Yep, Many ways of playing and I Also like scenarios that can end differently and you can still go on. That is I like that new Arkham Horror lcg, where averyrything can go south and you still can keep on playing. Some of my friends Are very unhappy if not all locations and monster were not defeated... how strange ;)
My group found the scenario extremely frustrating and were perfectly happy to lose Muminofrah's Favor and go on. Had that not been the case, I think it would have been longer til we went back to it.
What I found frustrating about it is that if you lose, you get absolutely nothing for your trouble. You do not get to keep or use any of the cards you acquire but you could end up having to banish cards. You also don't get to visit a trader.
I really liked the concept of the scenario but with the ridiculous skew towards the charioteers and poor reward, it absolutely fell flat for me in execution.
What I found frustrating about it is that if you lose, you get absolutely nothing for your trouble. You do not get to keep or use any of the cards you acquire but you could end up having to banish cards. You also don't get to visit a trader.
For clarity, when you say "lose" here, you mean letting the blessings deck run out? It's extremely difficult to lose this scenario in any other way.
Cause if you just fail to get the loot, you totally get to keep everything in your trophy stacks.
Well then, looks like I played the race wrong.
I read it that if we failed to win the race, we did not get to keep anything in our trophy stacks. Crud.
Yeah, sorry about that. You totally won the scenario, so you got what was in your trophy stacks and the ability to visit a trader. You just didn't also acquire the Muminofrah's Favor loot because it went into the other trophy stack.
I'm another who misread and thought we had to get Muminofrah's Favor to win- a case of expectation keeping me from reading what was actually there.
We did have a group of 6 that won on the first try. Simoun was third and the first to miss a check to acquire, so she was designated as back up. Zadim was up next, and we decided to also have him skip exploring and be on hand to boost combat rolls. Ahmotep was the eventual winner, although her ability to +/-2 a roll never came up.
|
This scenario was really cool. Very unique win conditions, and the reward is huge. It isn't immediately apparent that some players should skip turns so that one or two players can get a big win stack, and the cultists were tough to beat. Also, the reward is really huge - possibly the best item I have ever seen in the game. At one point I waited out the deck so cameltrops would sabotage the cultists, then I explored like mad to take advantage of taking the lead. Exciting.
This scenario was really cool. Very unique win conditions, and the reward is huge. It isn't immediately apparent that some players should skip turns so that one or two players can get a big win stack, and the cultists were tough to beat. Also, the reward is really huge - possibly the best item I have ever seen in the game. At one point I waited out the deck so cameltrops would sabotage the cultists, then I explored like mad to take advantage of taking the lead. Exciting.
Calthaer, I almost always enjoy your posts, and I almost never share your sentiments. You're an interesting dude.
"Unique win conditions" -- there's not much of a win condition, at all. It's actually very hard to lose this scenario -- you pretty much would have to try to.
"Possibly the best item I have ever seen" -- really scratching my head over this one. I don't recall the specifics of the item, but I remember not understanding what the fuss was about. (Given your playstyle, I'm guessing it has a power which greatly assists acquiring loot... given my playstyle, that would fit with me not finding it exciting.)
It's actually a really nice way to get a bonus to Diplomacy for the whole group for the whole scenario. Makes it very much easier to get allies, and helps a lot with certain banes since we have several that use Diplomacy.
"Unique win conditions" -- there's not much of a win condition, at all. It's actually very hard to lose this scenario -- you pretty much would have to try to.
I'm sure in this case we're talking about getting the Muminofrah's Favor card, not just finishing the scenario. :P
I don't recall the specifics of the item, but I remember not understanding what the fuss was about.
The main power (paraphrased) is "Display. While displayed, anyone may recharge a card to add 1d12 to a Diplomacy check." Assuming you have a character who will get it out on the table early and you're not overflowing with Charisma/Diplomacy it's decent. (You're comparing your base roll vs. a recharge for d4+d12.) If not, well, you'll trade it for an Ally pretty quickly using its other power.
|
|
Thanks, elcoderdude. Ditto from me. One thing that I find really fascinating is the wide variety of ways people can play and enjoy this game. You have correctly ascertained that I am all about scoring cool cards. I really like nabbing treasure; it's my thing. (Besides disliking Wrath of the Righteous, which is my other thing - but that's closely related to the first). Hopefully we will get to play together someday. Are you going to PAX Unplugged? Hawkmoon, Theryon Stormrune, and I will be there (and maybe others; can't recall).
Keith is right-on with that loot you get - a +d12 to all diplomacy checks for the whole group for the whole scenario is huge. If I remember correctly, the very next scenario after this had a villain (or henchmen?) who had a diplomacy check. Also, those Pharasma tomb guards or soldiers or whatever are better defeated with Diplomacy than combat, if I remember right - and they come up all the time.
The card is no "Letter of Marque," but it is still pretty sweet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't think of it as 'losing' the scenario if you don't get the favor, just 'winning less decisively'. Kind of like the difference between your favorite football team winning a game 28-27 instead of 28-3. You still won, just not as as much.
... One thing that I find really fascinating is the wide variety of ways people can play and enjoy this game...
... But the entire point of the game is to collect massive amounts of treasure...
To correct if I may your second sentence built on your very accurate remark in your own first sentence:
But the entire point of the game is FOR SOME OF THE PLAYERS to collect massive amounts of treasure.
Some of the players around my table aren't at all in collecting loots.
Hopefully we will get to play together someday. Are you going to PAX Unplugged? Hawkmoon, Theryon Stormrune, and I will be there (and maybe others; can't recall).
Hey Calthaer, somehow I overlooked this question (I was off-line for 3 weeks).
Really sadly, I'm not going to make PAX Unplugged (I know it's in your neck of the woods). But I'm definitely planning on making a Hawkcon someday. See you there :>
The rules don't actually provide for replaying scenarios you won—only the ones you lose.
I'm finally on this scenario and here to get clarification but I'm confused by this statement. We can't replay scenarios we win? I've never seen this rule. I know we can't go back and get the reward for a scenario twice, but I've never seen a rule that says you can't replay scenarios you won again and I always thought that was one point of getting rewards for the final scenario in the final Adventure Deck of each AP...
Also, many players go back and retry some past, won scenarios to get better boons, especially if they are in need of some loot changes to get past a difficult scenario.
Am I missing some rule?
Looking at the Mummy's Mask rulebook, which is currently governing for all published sets:
Ending a Scenario, Adventure, or Adventure Path
If at any point you need to advance the blessing deck but there are no cards remaining in it... the scenario then ends and your party of adventurers loses. You also lose if all of the characters are dead at the same time... You do not earn the reward on the scenario card, and you didn’t complete that scenario. You must replay it and complete it successfully before you can attempt the next scenario.If the players defeat the villain and prevent it from escaping, or they achieve a different condition for winning listed on the scenario card, your group defeats the scenario...
If you successfully completed the scenario, you may proceed to the next scenario listed on the adventure card.
So, it's there, but damn subtle. As Vic said, "The rules don't provide for replaying scenario you won." The rules don't say you *can't* replay a won scenario - but then again, they don't say you *can*. And by default for board games, if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't do it.
If you successfully completed the scenario, you may proceed to the next scenario listed on the adventure card.So, it's there, but damn subtle. As Vic said, "The rules don't provide for replaying scenario you won." The rules don't say you *can't* replay a won scenario - but then again, they don't say you *can*. And by default for board games, if the rules don't say you can do it, you can't do it.
Hmmm, I would love to dispute this and get Vic's input, but he already gave it :)
I guess I will house rule this away, mostly because it sucks for my play style: because I always have 2 groups go through an Adventure Path
1. The Dream Team - They play the scenario and I make notes and its not too stressful, just fun. They are optimized for the adventure path, take the best / most optimized upgrades and cards. A nice casual game night...
2. The "special" team - They are a more challenging group and they can be more fun (sometimes) if I already practiced the scenario and have it down. They are not optimized, just a couple of thematic characters who need more thought and are a challenge.
Unfortunately, as you, yourself know (!) sometimes my "special" team gets stuck and I can't get them past a scenario. So, I use someone from the Dream Team who already passed it, to go back and help them through. I did this alot in SnS...
I feel like this is a new rule.... I remember lots of players redoing old scenarios while waiting for an Adventure Deck to be released or to get some extra boons....
Here's a 2015 post (from Hawkmoon) stating that you can repeat scenarios:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/18749066#18749066
And here's an old-timey (2013) post from Mike Selinker implying that scenarios can be replayed, but that the rewards can only be taken once:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/12933563#12933563
But the PACG rules have changed since then. Just pointing out that it may have been accepted at one time that scenarios could be replayed even if won.
Here's a 2015 post (from Hawkmoon) stating that you can repeat scenarios:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/18749066#18749066
And here's an old-timey (2013) post from Mike Selinker implying that scenarios can be replayed, but that the rewards can only be taken once:
https://boardgamegeek.com/article/12933563#12933563
But the PACG rules have changed since then. Just pointing out that it may have been accepted at one time that scenarios could be replayed even if won.
In addition, the rules state:
"You may not earn the reward from a given scenario, adventure or Adventure Path more than once unless the reward specifically tells you otherwise"Which seems redundant if you aren't allowed to replay won scenarios anyway.
Also, not allowing characters to replay past (won) scenarios can lead to players getting stuck. Sometimes your characters are not optimized for a particular scenario's requirements and you need to change out some of your boons. If you can replay the current scenario that isn't too, too bad, as long as there are some locations you can focus on to find the loot you need and not worry too much about getting past the scenario. But there are some scenarios where all the boons are put in a pile or stash and the players don't get them unless they win.
Also, also, the Adventure Card Guild rules state:
"You can replay any Adventure Card Guild scenario as many times as you like, as long as your character is of the appropriate tier (see Appendix 1: Tier Advancement). When you replay a scenario, you do not gain the scenario, adventure, Adventure Path, or tier rewards, but you can upgrade your deck."
Just a few reasons why this seems like not such a good change, but since I will be out of MM in a few months and start the Guild Scenarios, it won't effect me much...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The statement about not getting rewards again always implied to me that you could replay scenarios. I don't entirely agree that it's a case of you can't because the rules don't say you can. I'd apply that principle to in-game actions but outside the game I'd normally assume that by default at least you can play any game you own.
That said, every reason I can think of for wanting to do it just seems like an abuse to me:
* Replaying scenarios to farm loot (probably the most benign but still messes with game balance).
* Replaying an old, easy scenario which has a lot of "banish to close" locations, and using it to banish bad cards that you want to replace with basics (there was a great candidate for this in RotR-B).
* Replaying finished scenarios to pick up side-quest loot that you missed.
* Escorting new characters (e.g. after a permadeath) through old scenarios (i.e. power-levelling)
* Unlocking Arueshelae, then replaying all the past scenarios that gave feats to give her double-feats.
So I'd be perfectly happy for someone to say you can't do it. But I suspect the one big reason I left out above is what's holding them back from explicitly saying not to: Replaying a mission just for fun, because it was a fun one. I can see why they'd not want to tell people they can't do that. Gloomhaven has a whole system called "casual mode" to handle this situation (or similar situations anyway).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, PACG is a campaign. Some rules do 'bridge' scenarios - for example, you can't just change your deck any way you like between scenarios.
That said - I acknowledge there's been guidance saying we *should* replay scenarios we won: in particular, if a player's character dies, one of the sanctioned methods to include a replacement character is for the entire party to replay the past scenarios, so the replacement character can catch up on feats & boons (or so I thought). (Characters which already received rewards would not receive them again.)
We're left with a problematic statement from Vic, which maybe I interpreted too authoritatively. I'd appreciate official input on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also point out that the PC/iPad versions let you replay scenarios as much as you want (again, without taking rewards).*
Not that the video version is an authoritative source, but presumably the video game designers received at least some guidance from the original designers.
*Per elcoderdude's comment, I definitely appreciated this. In at least one campaign I added a character a few scenarios into the campaign, and being able to catch up that character by replaying scenarios was extremely useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also point out that the PC/iPad versions let you replay scenarios as much as you want (again, without taking rewards).*
Not that the video version is an authoritative source, but presumably the video game designers received at least some guidance from the original designers.
*Per elcoderdude's comment, I definitely appreciated this. In at least one campaign I added a character a few scenarios into the campaign, and being able to catch up that character by replaying scenarios was extremely useful.
It's much worse in the computer implementation, because there's no setup time. For the card game, we eventually figured that the thing that balanced abusing banish-to-close locations was the fact that you technically have to spend 15 minutes setting the whole thing up, and longer still going through the motions to find a henchman etc. When you consider that the only cost of failing a mission is to spend time setting it up again to replay it, you're actually not ahead at all on average, compared to just having a slightly worse deck and pushing on with it.
Whereas move it online and all of a sudden every inconvenient abuse becomes trivially easy. Rather than try and stop it, they decided to just let people have their fun, and went (too far) the other way entirely, such as with the whole "stash" mechanic. I actually think stash is a great idea mind you. The too far part is when I'm literally forced to put an AD6 card in my new party because it's left in the stash from a previous party (but I guess I'm getting a little off topic here).
All that said, I did also have the impression that the original implementation at least was meant to match what you were technically allowed do in the card game, give or take a few corner cases, bugs, and excepting where it explicitly didn't match (such as with banishing->removing basic cards).