Might point out some mistakes made... the clue giver should place their first card in front of them before writing down the words on the pads, this gives everyone a possibility to look for cards and a possible traitor more time to think about which cards they might play to match the open one should they be the player immediatly following the clue giver. Also, you immediatly draw a new card after playing the first and are allowed to use the card drawn as your second card if it has a better tie with the clue. The "traitor" should also pay attention to the cards played by the other players as to decuce the possible clue, so this aspect should also be taking into consideration by the other players when choosing their cards. There's a lot more going on "under the hood" that you'd expect at first sight... you're also trying to put yourself in a traitor position and lure away other players vote making them not gain any points...
@@theaxer3751 sure you do! Everyone voting on the traitor (one or more players) gains the 3 points regardless of whether the traitor was found or not. The traitor and storyteller however only gain 5/4 points if at most a single player suspected them, and they remained "unfound". Once 2 or more players suspect the traitor only the 5/4 points are not rewarded. In any case, everyone with their spying glass on the traitor gains 3 points, even if they are alone and the 5/4 are rewarded.
A small thing is the Informer (person picking a word) first puts a card down. Then write down the word and gives the notebook outs. This would give time for everyone to look at the card.
Seems weird for the clue giver to score points if the traitor isn't found out. What stops the clue giver from giving out an extremely general word so it's more applicable to a greater number of cards?
Yuo. Like Nick did with the clue "Fantasy" at 25:39. A perfectly legal clue. But, as Dave said, literally every single card has a fantastical element to it. This means the conspirator has almost impenetrable coverage even if they're blindly playing cards. Not surprisingly, Lincoln skated by without even a whiff of suspicion that round. I think the gameplay really breaks down by there not being some point-scoring incentive for the clue-giver to root out the conspirator. Like maybe the clue giver writes down the conspirator's name on a notepad before the conspirator reveals their identity, and only scores (or scores more points) if they guess correctly. That balances the benefit of giving a generic clue.
Seems fun. My wife and I have a great time playing dixit and this seems like a twist on that. I'm pretty sure I'd have a lot of fun with this. I love how you get a chance to explain your cards.
When my group played this we interrogated more. We didn't just accept the explanation someone gave. We would press them. I think it makes it more fun :)
I totally agree with what David mentioned about the scoring system. I love Dixit for a lot of things, and one of the most prominent ones is because the clue giver wants to give clues that aren't too obvious nor that are too vague. In here it seems that if a person wants to play to win they should give the most generic clues they possibly can so that nobody catches the "traitor". I don't know... I got disapointed yet again... once at Mysterium now with this one... I so wanted to like them, since I like Dixit a lot, but the experience didn't captivate me.
I get stressed out playing games like Spyfall but think I would enjoy this one better because you find out the 'secret' word and then.. now in-the-loop, can try to find connections on your cards and can always blame not having great selection of cards as to why they might not make the most sense. I did find it weird that the clue giver benefited from the conspirator getting away with it.. on the fence about getting this game, but it does look interesting.
I could tell you guys wouldn't like this after the first round. You weren't really playing it right and it seemed like you were mostly just getting through it to get through it. Nothing wrong with not liking a game, but this one seemed doomed from the beginning haha. This is one of my group's recent favorites and watching this really felt like watching a completely different game being played. Better luck with the next 'abstract art card' game
I have not played it, but after watching this and hearing the discussion I kinda feel this game would be better online, as a logic deduction game, where it's much harder to get social clues. But I also think it was probably designed as a social deduction game, which makes it extremely difficult on the conspirator because the conspirator has no social clues, only logic clues.
Seems like as the "clue giver" you have a higher chance of getting points if you pick a ambiguous word like a word that can be interpreted by a lot of cards (like a color or state ie. "solid" or "wet") thereby making it easier for the clueless one to make a convincing lie.
I always feel like these games go over better with people who aren't super serious gamers. You have to be able to enjoy yourself and take it for what it is, much like Dixit. I appreciate the discussion at the end of the game, however feel like some of the negative feedback were just subjective to them (couldn't see card, didn't see what was on card) not to mention they played it wrong which would make it easier for the traitor.
Dave: "The cards feel like they have enough stuff going on that you can you can almost make most cards work for something" .. I think this was the designer's intent so a player/traitor would have something to play.
Yes, I actually think it's a good game for people who aren't super into social deduction games. You can start them with something like this where you at least have a clue to go on.
I really appreciated the discussion at the end and I agree with all of the major issues flagged by the group. This game is interesting in that it's very close to a very good game, yet I think it fundamentally falls short in a way that makes it pretty deeply flawed. You can still have a nice time playing it of course, and the cards are beautiful, but the game really has some critical rules/gameplay shortcomings that I do not think are fixable. I admire the attempt to essentially create a hybrid of Dixit and Spyfall, both of which are great games. But IMO this game just doesn't quite work. Just my .02.
Gaz, those are from the BoardGameGeek Artist Series. They are shown here: boardgamegeekstore.com/search?q=posters. I believe we are printing new sets plus the new series. You can get notified when they come back in stock. Thanks for the note and for watching. -Lincoln
Seems like you should pick a card that is less likely to match theme second regardless of who you're playing as. Trying to match theme more is more likely to rat you out.
Man, this is too bad. I really like both Mysterium and A Fake Artist, but the incentive system seems odd in this one. It also was clear the Lincoln wasn't having fun when he didn't even try to offer a story for the cards. Maybe some house rules could fix this?
As a non-conspirator, why at all would you not want people to vote for you? Why play cards that actually fit the clue? People that vote for you in error will score zero. I would think you should want to look guilty.
@@SingularSuperNinja Not if one other person votes for the conspirator with you. So ideally, you want MOST people to vote for you. You want to look a bit more guilty than the conspirator. Nick realized that the best plan was always to "muddy the waters," as he put it. If everyone plays that way, then there's a "race to the bottom," with everyone making poor matches, and then it seems like there's no longer a game.
I feel like this game's scoring system is meh and choosing the 'bad' guy is, well, detectively, but not so fun to do. As for me it would be better if players could choose who the 'bad' guys and who the 'good' guys are and people score based on the ammount of 'good' and 'bad' tokens they have on their cards. For example - if a good guy gives away very easily that he's a good guy and got 'good' tokens on his cards - he scores very low, so he should bluff that MAYBE he don't really know what the word is... And same for the 'bad' guys - they should play as like they totally know what the word is to get some 'good' tokens to score higher. But then the name of the game didn't fit... It sure is a fun game to play tho I maybe expected some deeper level of complexity in this one
Throughout this playthrough, Im thinking the scoring cant be right. What incentive is there for the word-giver to be clever and sneaky? None. At. All. The get most rewarded for easily-guessed words with obvious pictures (like Sarah with Creature). Then I realised - this isn't really a gamers game. Its more of an ice-breaker or a party game, you're not meant to overthink it but just have a laugh and a bit of fun. Still don't like it, but it is what it is.
If there was an incentive for the word-giver to be clever and sneaky, the conspirator would lose every single time. The word-giver could just throw out some nonsense and win every time. The objective of the ones who gets the word is to be clever and sneaky, they need to find cards that can be explained without giving too much away to the conspirator. The objective of the word-giver is to be obvious. The cards don't even have to match the word, they just have to make it easy for the conspirator to play a card that can be easily explained as the word. So it's better for the word-giver to play a card where the main feature has a weak association to the word, than a card where a small feature has a strong association to the word. For the conspirator it's just about getting as many outs as possible and then bullshit. The scoring is absolutely necessary to make the game work. The word-giver and the conspirator needs to work together to even have a chance.
not even halfway through the video and have had 15 ad interruptions...really hating RUclips right now, at least I can skip the ads here unlike Twitch, but still...very annoying and disruptive
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Might point out some mistakes made... the clue giver should place their first card in front of them before writing down the words on the pads, this gives everyone a possibility to look for cards and a possible traitor more time to think about which cards they might play to match the open one should they be the player immediatly following the clue giver. Also, you immediatly draw a new card after playing the first and are allowed to use the card drawn as your second card if it has a better tie with the clue. The "traitor" should also pay attention to the cards played by the other players as to decuce the possible clue, so this aspect should also be taking into consideration by the other players when choosing their cards. There's a lot more going on "under the hood" that you'd expect at first sight... you're also trying to put yourself in a traitor position and lure away other players vote making them not gain any points...
But you don't get the points if you're the only one voting for the traitor. So I think this mechanic might work better with more people.
@@theaxer3751 sure you do! Everyone voting on the traitor (one or more players) gains the 3 points regardless of whether the traitor was found or not. The traitor and storyteller however only gain 5/4 points if at most a single player suspected them, and they remained "unfound". Once 2 or more players suspect the traitor only the 5/4 points are not rewarded. In any case, everyone with their spying glass on the traitor gains 3 points, even if they are alone and the 5/4 are rewarded.
Very glad you are still able to release new videos!
Lincoln said in a live stream, that they had a backlog of videos so hopefully world events allow them to gather together sooner rather than later.
Just bought it. Now watching your video.
Super specific clues like "Boot" are surely a bad idea. The cluegiver wants to give the traitor somewhere to hide by using a less specific word.
A small thing is the Informer (person picking a word) first puts a card down. Then write down the word and gives the notebook outs. This would give time for everyone to look at the card.
Seems weird for the clue giver to score points if the traitor isn't found out. What stops the clue giver from giving out an extremely general word so it's more applicable to a greater number of cards?
Yuo. Like Nick did with the clue "Fantasy" at 25:39. A perfectly legal clue. But, as Dave said, literally every single card has a fantastical element to it. This means the conspirator has almost impenetrable coverage even if they're blindly playing cards. Not surprisingly, Lincoln skated by without even a whiff of suspicion that round. I think the gameplay really breaks down by there not being some point-scoring incentive for the clue-giver to root out the conspirator. Like maybe the clue giver writes down the conspirator's name on a notepad before the conspirator reveals their identity, and only scores (or scores more points) if they guess correctly. That balances the benefit of giving a generic clue.
It's a party game, nice for holiday, points should not be the focus, but enjoying the arts and the time with your friends or family
Seems fun. My wife and I have a great time playing dixit and this seems like a twist on that. I'm pretty sure I'd have a lot of fun with this. I love how you get a chance to explain your cards.
This looks like a blast, I think I will procure myself a copy
Thanks for the backlog of videos!
When my group played this we interrogated more. We didn't just accept the explanation someone gave. We would press them. I think it makes it more fun :)
Detective Club looks fun, reminds me of Escape the Night, that kickstarter game.
I totally agree with what David mentioned about the scoring system. I love Dixit for a lot of things, and one of the most prominent ones is because the clue giver wants to give clues that aren't too obvious nor that are too vague. In here it seems that if a person wants to play to win they should give the most generic clues they possibly can so that nobody catches the "traitor". I don't know... I got disapointed yet again... once at Mysterium now with this one... I so wanted to like them, since I like Dixit a lot, but the experience didn't captivate me.
I get stressed out playing games like Spyfall but think I would enjoy this one better because you find out the 'secret' word and then.. now in-the-loop, can try to find connections on your cards and can always blame not having great selection of cards as to why they might not make the most sense. I did find it weird that the clue giver benefited from the conspirator getting away with it.. on the fence about getting this game, but it does look interesting.
Link’s first round he tried to match the “car” when the word was vehicle. Freudian slip got the magnifying glasses tossed his way?
I could tell you guys wouldn't like this after the first round. You weren't really playing it right and it seemed like you were mostly just getting through it to get through it. Nothing wrong with not liking a game, but this one seemed doomed from the beginning haha. This is one of my group's recent favorites and watching this really felt like watching a completely different game being played. Better luck with the next 'abstract art card' game
I have not played it, but after watching this and hearing the discussion I kinda feel this game would be better online, as a logic deduction game, where it's much harder to get social clues. But I also think it was probably designed as a social deduction game, which makes it extremely difficult on the conspirator because the conspirator has no social clues, only logic clues.
It seems like you could play this game with Dixit cards? Or even Mysterium cards?
Wonderful "hidden traitor" game!
Not sure how things are in the US (In the UK) are you able to meet up and create new videos anytime soon? Hope you guys don't run out of any!!!
Seems like as the "clue giver" you have a higher chance of getting points if you pick a ambiguous word like a word that can be interpreted by a lot of cards (like a color or state ie. "solid" or "wet") thereby making it easier for the clueless one to make a convincing lie.
I always feel like these games go over better with people who aren't super serious gamers. You have to be able to enjoy yourself and take it for what it is, much like Dixit. I appreciate the discussion at the end of the game, however feel like some of the negative feedback were just subjective to them (couldn't see card, didn't see what was on card) not to mention they played it wrong which would make it easier for the traitor.
Dave: "The cards feel like they have enough stuff going on that you can you can almost make most cards work for something" .. I think this was the designer's intent so a player/traitor would have something to play.
Yes, I actually think it's a good game for people who aren't super into social deduction games. You can start them with something like this where you at least have a clue to go on.
It's really sad, that after so many years, nobody has come up with rules that make sense to utilize the beatufil cards
This game looks fun.
I really appreciated the discussion at the end and I agree with all of the major issues flagged by the group. This game is interesting in that it's very close to a very good game, yet I think it fundamentally falls short in a way that makes it pretty deeply flawed. You can still have a nice time playing it of course, and the cards are beautiful, but the game really has some critical rules/gameplay shortcomings that I do not think are fixable. I admire the attempt to essentially create a hybrid of Dixit and Spyfall, both of which are great games. But IMO this game just doesn't quite work. Just my .02.
Looks great. BTW where did you get your game posters from, they're awesome!
Gaz, those are from the BoardGameGeek Artist Series. They are shown here: boardgamegeekstore.com/search?q=posters. I believe we are printing new sets plus the new series. You can get notified when they come back in stock. Thanks for the note and for watching. -Lincoln
A nice game with beautiful cards, but i don't like the pressure of being the traitor, I always do bad in those kind of games
I think the "fantasy" word choice highlighted a flaw. The game should probably give the word either with word cards or perhaps an app.
Seems like you should pick a card that is less likely to match theme second regardless of who you're playing as. Trying to match theme more is more likely to rat you out.
Man, this is too bad. I really like both Mysterium and A Fake Artist, but the incentive system seems odd in this one. It also was clear the Lincoln wasn't having fun when he didn't even try to offer a story for the cards. Maybe some house rules could fix this?
Not a bad game but I am with Lincoln on this one..
Game feels a bit broken. Best to give a very generic word and have a random chance of hiding the “traitor”. I just don’t get it.
Tom Hartley yep. Dixit is also broken. Best strategy is to say a random word or number or gibberish.
As a non-conspirator, why at all would you not want people to vote for you? Why play cards that actually fit the clue? People that vote for you in error will score zero. I would think you should want to look guilty.
Because you'd be gifting the cluegiver 4 points and the conspirator 5 points
@@SingularSuperNinja Not if one other person votes for the conspirator with you. So ideally, you want MOST people to vote for you. You want to look a bit more guilty than the conspirator.
Nick realized that the best plan was always to "muddy the waters," as he put it. If everyone plays that way, then there's a "race to the bottom," with everyone making poor matches, and then it seems like there's no longer a game.
I feel like this game's scoring system is meh and choosing the 'bad' guy is, well, detectively, but not so fun to do. As for me it would be better if players could choose who the 'bad' guys and who the 'good' guys are and people score based on the ammount of 'good' and 'bad' tokens they have on their cards. For example - if a good guy gives away very easily that he's a good guy and got 'good' tokens on his cards - he scores very low, so he should bluff that MAYBE he don't really know what the word is... And same for the 'bad' guys - they should play as like they totally know what the word is to get some 'good' tokens to score higher. But then the name of the game didn't fit...
It sure is a fun game to play tho I maybe expected some deeper level of complexity in this one
Throughout this playthrough, Im thinking the scoring cant be right. What incentive is there for the word-giver to be clever and sneaky? None. At. All. The get most rewarded for easily-guessed words with obvious pictures (like Sarah with Creature).
Then I realised - this isn't really a gamers game. Its more of an ice-breaker or a party game, you're not meant to overthink it but just have a laugh and a bit of fun.
Still don't like it, but it is what it is.
If there was an incentive for the word-giver to be clever and sneaky, the conspirator would lose every single time. The word-giver could just throw out some nonsense and win every time. The objective of the ones who gets the word is to be clever and sneaky, they need to find cards that can be explained without giving too much away to the conspirator. The objective of the word-giver is to be obvious. The cards don't even have to match the word, they just have to make it easy for the conspirator to play a card that can be easily explained as the word. So it's better for the word-giver to play a card where the main feature has a weak association to the word, than a card where a small feature has a strong association to the word. For the conspirator it's just about getting as many outs as possible and then bullshit. The scoring is absolutely necessary to make the game work. The word-giver and the conspirator needs to work together to even have a chance.
really hating the commercial interruptions every few minutes...not your fault, but it's still annoying
Are they really happening every few minutes? We need to look at that-Lincoln
not even halfway through the video and have had 15 ad interruptions...really hating RUclips right now, at least I can skip the ads here unlike Twitch, but still...very annoying and disruptive
@@msmilder25 thanks for telling us. I've been so busy I haven't had much time to watch RUclips so I haven't seen it happening.
at least in the 2nd half, they turned into pop up banner ads, instead of full-on commercials
msmilder25 same with me I had 15 annoying interruptions.