Mythos Tales - Spoiler-free Review

[@jonathanwarner2893]

Mythos Tales was definitely the most pleasant surprise I've found through the channel. I really went in with pretty low expectations. Heard it was buggy and I was worried it would be too hard to reason about anything happening in the case because of the Lovecraftian theming (it would simulate madness too well). But I found that more often than not one could make reasonable decisions about where to go next and have a firm enough grasp on the supernatural threat being encountered. I also really enjoyed the intention of many of the experimental mechanics even if they probably needed more testing and fine tuning. I do think I probably look back on the cases with a bit of rose tinted glasses. I think I remember the cases a bit more in an ideal form than some of their real jank. But overall really enjoyable experience and makes me excited to see another take on a supernatural mystery and monster hunting game. If you're interested in that idea I'd get this and play through it for some inspiration.

[@COOPFORTWO]

That's nice to hear. I was surprised how much I enjoyed being in this creepy world trying to solve a mystery. One might fear that with a supernatural element anything might be possible and it might therefore be hard to use logic, but it was always used in moderation.

[@dorpth]

I thought it was a neat addition to the Consulting Detective formula with the time limit to cut down on the end game meandering, and the conditions you could fulfill to get different encounters. But...ultimately I lost interest in it for the same reason as Consulting Detective. Progress always seemed 30% deduction, 70% random luck of choosing the right spot for a valuable lead ("Is the police station going to provide the valuable lead this case? The medical office? The records office?"). The time limit ended up making that worse whereas you could ignore it in Consulting Detective. Both games had the problem of never knowing if you had fully solved the case yet, and moving on to the final questions was an irreversible decision since the questions themselves were often spoilers. I dunno. I prefer my detective games with big "ah ha!" moments as you blow the whole thing wide open. Consulting Detective type games feel like we're sweeping up breadcrumbs, never knowing when we've collected enough to make a sandwich until we decide to take a bite and find out it's missing something.

[@TypicalJoker94]

Never play Consulting Detective with a lead limit. You're never going to beat Sherlock Holmes's score because he pretty much cheats since he's supposed to be the greatest detective who solves everything. If you play Consulting Detective by taking your time and following every lead until you believe you've exhausted all the locations then that's when it's time to answer the questions. And it's not going to make the cases easy if you've read everything; some of the cases feel like you're actually supposed to read everything and even then it can be difficult to understand the mystery. As far as "aha!" moments versus subtle breadcrumbs, I guess that comes down to your gaming preference versus mine. I really like the slow build-up with the subtle clues that allow the player to connect seemingly minor dots until the answer unfolds before you and you feel really smart and proud as opposed to turning to a page that states "you found the weapon under the couch, John X did it."

[@dorpth]

Maybe the cases get better with CD expansions, but nothing in the base game grabbed us. There's the infamous Mystified Murderess case that everyone agrees is terrible. We spent forever on the Arms Magnate one because we figured no way did we have enough evidence to convict someone of murder, but turns out we did when we finally gave up and turned to the answers. Whenever we turned to the answers, it was either "oh, we could have ended this case half an hour ago" or "huh? Where in the world did these plot threads come from?" Both of those just made us all feel deflated and bad.

[@thenucas]

did you play the 1st edition? that's the 1st edition box on the desk. i ask because i felt no errata were necessary with the 2nd edition (though sadly it doesn't include the bonus case). i find it interesting you felt the 1st edition was totally playable. people really do talk up the problems with it.

[@COOPFORTWO]

If that box is the 1st edition, then I played the 1st edition! People seem to have different tolerances for errata and bugs -- for me this genre has a long history of them and I didn't find anything critically broken. It's nice to hear the 2nd edition is even better. I suspect this will get a reprint at some point. -jesse