We were playing the voodoo haunt in Betrayal at the house on the hill and a few factors came into play, to paraphrase the rules of that haunt:

...You win if all the dolls are destroyed and at least half of the explorers don't die.


...If you die your doll is automagically destroyed...

We played with three explorers (one traitor, two heroes). After my friend destroyed his doll I ended up succumbing to the voodoo doll and died, thus my doll was destroyed. Half of the heroes still lived (as did the traitor), and all the dolls were destroyed. We won.

It seems a little odd that the heroes won by one of them dying. In fact had he been more ruthless, my partner may have killed me to win. It was bit of a let down. Should he have had to fight the traitor still? Or was this a legit win?

2 Answers 2


Sounds to me like you met the victory conditions: not too many people dead, and all the dolls gone. (Unless there's a "you can't win by dying" clause; I don't own the game.) True, it's not the best rules writing - the victory condition is basically equivalent to at least half the heroes destroying their dolls while still alive. But here's a lot of badly written rules text in the haunts in Betrayal; at least in this case it's still clear enough.

In terms of feeling let down: would it have bothered you as much if you'd died first, then your friend destroyed his doll? Probably not. But of course, it's silly for that to be a win and your game not to be.


We played this haunt a while back, and this is a legit way to win. It's sacrifice, and while it doesn't make sense, neither does sneaking into an old house, placing dolls of people you don't even know, finding all these people, setting up an "accident" so they all happen to meet at this specific haunted house, then revealing yourself.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .