Not to mention a gate could be there so she'd have to close it/get by the monsters in order to complete her story

Anyway, if I'd failed it, and my current sanity would have been 4 or less, I would rather leave the card and suffer a -2 max sanity than to risk and draw a madness. But that's just me.

kroen said:

Yes, kroen, but just as easily, through luck or careful playing, I can see the whole game going by without passing or failing Jenny's quest. For instance, Jenny may never get five clues, and the terror level may never reach three. Of course, it could depend on what fiendish new mechanic the Innsmouth expansion or board bring. But ultimately, the fail isn't the worst thing ever. Sure, it's crippling, but I'm sure there's a lot worse in the personal stories. Jenny is better than most at keeping her sanity...

There are some good odds that Innsmouth would pose a threat to the terror level.

kroen said:

That's what I'd do too. Unless I planned on getting her eaten, in which case I'd take the madness.

i really like the idea of these stories but i have to wonder if it will in some way take away from the co-op alittle bit. players might be inclined to take care of their personal stories rather than work together on the big picture.......seems like these could be a bit of a distraction. either way i cant wait to play around with these stories.

Call friend and Mi-Go brain case takes care of that! ha ha lol

PearlJamaholic said:

Anything that doesn't lead efficiently to the defeat of the Old One is a distraction. Killing monsters is usually a distraction, as is using a clue to pass a skill test.

It's the distractions that make the game more interesting and difficult. If all the stories are like Jenny's, you can play it four ways. Pass it and increase your power incrementally. Many think that +1 speed/Lore for spending 5 clue tokens is not distracting enough. So FFG added a negative incentive for further distraction. In addition, there's the null choice. Don't let the terror level reach 3. But then monster killing becomes a little more distracting, though the terror level raises by other means. Finally you can choose to not even play the stories at all and leave them in the box.

But I agree with you, I'm certainly ready to try them and I'm really excited about 8 more distracting Old Ones and 16 more investigators who have to learn to avoid the distractions.

mageith said:

yeah i guess thats another way to look at it. but it seems some of the other distractions can have some benefit for the whole group. the stories just seem so focused on the player. who knows. i shouldnt really comment too much without playing/seeing all of them. maybe not all the stories have something as big as spending 5 clue tokens to succeed either.

but part of the fun is being distracted it gets sort of boring getting clues, go into gate... seal and repeat... sort of fun to do the other things... example played 11 hours the other day trying to finish all the Task, Mission and kill all monsters in the cup!

Team

• Kate
• Fine
• Leo
• Mandy

Don't normally like doing that but it was Abboth and never killed it in the final battle... score 40!

PearlJamaholic said:

I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. Allies don't necessarily only benefit the player. Buffing up an investigator often can often add a dramatic improvement to the group. I hope the personal stories are more than just a distraction to stopping the AO -- best would be to include the PS into the group's strategy and story to maximize its benefit.

personal stories equal flavor and isnt that why we play AH for the flavor?? Gameplay wise there are better games but i love the mood of AH.

I'm would not be surprised at all if the rest of the cards have pass conditions that are equally lackluster. Starting with rifts in Kingsport and now personal stories in Innsmouth, I see a pattern emerging. These specific aspects of arkham are not supposed to be a win/lose scenario. Instead, they are lose/lose. The potential reward you gain, is too small for the amount of invesment. However, the consequences of not investing are equally bad.

I know rifts in Kingsport are perhaps one of the most contentious things to discuss, but indulge me for a moment. In order to prevent rifts from opening, you simply need one investigator to spend the game walking around kingsport. You can safely ignore the rift track completely for two turns, and then have the investigator arrive on turn 3 and keep the rifts at bay the whole game. Investment, one investigator unable to contribute to sealing/monster killing/anything else in arkham proper. Reward, no rifts and spurts of monsters and doom tokens. Theoretically it's an iffy tradeoff at best. However what's the theoretical result of not investing. At least 1 rift opening up, spewing monsters forth and throwing doom tokens around in a more frequent than just base rate.

Is it worth the investment? Hard to say. But I personally think that's the point. If you do kick one investigator to Kingsport, you're hacking off your own hand. If you don't, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I see that very same concept at play here for personal stories. Dump 5 clue tokens (which as Jenny may take awhile to collect) for an ally of questionable usefulness, or handicap yourself for potentially the rest of the game. It's not a win/lose scenario....it's a not really win/kinda pain in the butt. Choose the lesser of the two evils.

To me, that's what makes arkham difficult. You have to choose between two choices in just about all aspects of the game, and none of them are win/lose. I'll reserve judgement for now, but right now it just seems to be ramping up difficulty by creating more objectives other than sealing.

I like the idea that this provides a distraction from the main game. Investigators would not always try to work towards the same, self-sacraficing goal. Some investigators would only be focused on accomplish their personal story. Others may be looking at the bigger picture, others may be doing their personal thing. I do like that it adds flavor.

I also see this as a means to help balance the investigators. Kind of like the racial techs in Twilight Imperium. Its an element of the game that doesn't affect all investigators equally. I highly doubt that all these stories will provide an ally or have similar consequences for failing. I hope these help make lack-luster investigators (like Sister Mary, etc.) more playable.

Acebob said:

Think there'll be a variant where someone who completes their personal story can vamoose and win the investigators fail?

Acebob said:

And regarding the flavour: I love that the backstories can finally have an actual impact on the game.

Since I also enjoy doing missions, it'll be hard for me to not try and fullfill the personal stories.

jhaelen said:

What is it they say now? +1?

I couldn't agree more. I can't wait to see if all those characters I dislike playing become sought after because of their terrific backstories. Will Dexter become Dr. Strange? Will Diana bring down the Silver Twilight Lodge? Will Mark avenge his wife?

Ohhhhh, that last one I'm DYING to try...and I hate Mark.

Just hope that personal stories don't take up too much of the time. In fact, i would prefer if they were optional to each character, or at least optional if you already have a task/mission to start with. I can see that with so many stories, some would be much harder (and perhaps more rewarding) than others, but it's bad if everyone rushes to do their personal story in the first 5-6 turns.. it just .. cuts the doom track by half

Also, i'm not sure whether i like it if the personal stories balance out the character, e,g Mandy and Daisy gets very challenging stories while <insert name of least fav char> gets a much easier story. I like balance, but i also like it that some characters are overpowered so we can still stand a decent chance against some of the AO in a full game with all expansions thrown in..

hulahoop said:

I don't think that would be the way that the investigators would be balanced, if thats the way they did it. A personal story should not always be a guaranteed detriment. The way I see it, they will just be easier to accomplish, but with less of a reward and less of a detriment. It may be something like "defeat X toughness worth of monsters" and spend it at a location for Y money or perhaps Z clue tokens. Maybe even something as cheap as a retainer or a blessing for accomplishing your personal story. But for an investigator that needs more of a boost, I could see something unique like "exhaust to get X to a combat check, require no hands" or maybe a spell that only they can cast. Other potential prizes I could see for investigators that need a boost could be something like "remove a doom token" or maybe even a "move the terror track back by one" (possibly for the Mayor, though I could see this requiring much explanation on the card).

Just some thoughts