https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/7/13/arkhamtypes/

I really appreciate this insider look at how the designers (and Matt particularly) see the players and what they enjoy about the game. I don't disagree with these archetypes, but I began wondering (as noted in the article) if there are any major gaps.

I would probably put myself at 50% Ritualist, 30% Storyteller, 10% Detective/Slayer. I love the story elements, and I love the lore built into the Arkham Files games, but I find myself wanting to replay campaigns of this game more for the experience and the 'what-will-happen/will-we-make-it' factor than the story. This is where the ritualist elements come in. Whereas I don't enjoy the tension and pressure the way they describe a 'Nihilist,' I very much enjoy feeling reliable or at least optimistic in the face of any twist of circumstance.

But when thinking about the playstyle I enjoy most, I continue to come back to Rogues as a favorite class. It's an unusual choice for me as I almost always opt for spell-casters and support roles in almost another game I can think of. But in Arkham Horror, I am hard-pressed to choose anyone over the Rogues except for variety's sake.

What I like about Rogues (particularly Sefina) is that you are both literally and figuratively adaptable. Your actions are not set in stone; you can often bounce from offense to defense to support at the drop of a hat (evasion/lockpicks/backstabs/liquid courage/double or nothing). You are frequently able to function as a fail safe when any portion of your team's clockwork slips, and if you are feeling lucky, you can boost efficiency at the same time. I don't feel like this is a "slayer" trait because it appears that the notion of a slayer relies on a big finish. A tide-turning achievement. Whereas, what I really find enjoyable is the sense that I will never gum up the works. At least not without making a fatal mistake. Maybe an archetype such as "The Wander or Jack-of-All-Trades" or some such? I tend to fill my decks with a variety of cards for different circumstances and often will have only 1 copy of at least 22 of them, relying on the draw to direct my options, but often find myself able to assist in a multitude of situations when the need arises. Some of this is the same thrill I get from Eldritch Horror when I don't know what to expect and need to rely on my wits to adapt to a given situation, but feel that I have options at my beck-and-call. With a little bit of wit, if you build right, you can almost never feel helpless or that your teammates will need to pull your weight.

What do you guys think?

I guess I'd put myself mostly in the "Detective" archetype. I want to do whatever is most efficient, and that means analyzing the player cards in relation to how well they perform against the challenges of the encounter deck. I certainly do plenty of things listed in the other categories, but mostly they are a means toward and end, and that end is efficiency.

I'm totally a storyteller. The narrative and some of the great in game moments that can be told as a story moment are absolutely what hooked me into the game.

After sharing the article with the friends I play with, they billed me as a detective/ritualist type, with slayer tendencies, but I was initially drawn to the game as a story teller (I already had all the other FFG board games, and was well into Netrunner.) When they asked me about what type they where, I first labeled them as a Storyteller/Detective type, drawn much more heavily to the narrative, having heavily read the original works, but attempting to be aware of how to efficiently run their turns. As we talked more about it, they highlighted more about what they enjoyed in the game, partially sounding like Soakmen in the first post, how they seemed drawn to rogues, their well-rounded appearance of play, and their ability to support the individual failings of the group at a moments notice, rather than seeking the greater glory befitting a Slayer.

They also mentioned something else, that they thoroughly enjoyed the cooperative aspect of the game. Not just in the facet of the players are not competing against each other, trying to see who can mess up the other first or win fastest, but also that the players are actively working together to solve a group problem that they may not necessarily be able to complete on their own. That favor of the cooperative element goes hand in hand with the elements of Rogue that support assisting other players that first drew this player to that particular faction. With that I think I would coin the new archetype using a term mentioned by the aforementioned player during our discussion.

The Catalyst is focused on maintaining the cohesive team effort of the group, and avoiding gunking up the works during an investigation. They are different from detectives in that they do not necessarily seek the most efficient method of executing the game's mechanics, nor are they slayers who strive to be the heroes of the moment with back to back hay-maker plays. They will however temporarily put on these hats if it means supporting the group's concerted efforts in driving through the scenario. Winning is not necessarily their ideal outcome; Rather, it's coming together as a cohesive team, regardless of the end result.

I’m probably 75% storyteller and 25% detective. The first time through a scenario, not knowing what could or will happen, is definitely what I enjoy the most. I try not to look at any encounter cards while sleeving or before the first game. I’ve also yet to play as Pete during my solo games, despite his strengths, because in my head I can’t justify him owning a house (Night of the Zealot), having Dr. Armitage as a mentor (Dunwich Legacy) or going to the theatre (Path to Carcosa).

Once I’ve played through a campaign I have gone back through and treated it more like a puzzle, trying to get certain resolutions or more experience and tailoring my deck more to what I know is coming. I’ve not yet run any scenario as a stand-alone except Rougarou and Labyrinths because the progression element is something I really like.

I see myself as a 60% Ritualist/ 40% Nihilist.

The deck construction aspect of the game is probably my favourite part, and I can spend hours playing around in Arkhamdb. I probably spend somewhere around 7 hours/week on ArkhamDB, on average.

I don't care too much about solving the scenarios as puzzles, so when I replay scenarios it is mostly to test out a new deck idea I've had.

As for when the game starts, there are two things that really gets me pumped: Successfully landing a planned combo/synergy, and when things go terribly, horribly wrong (but still being able to scrape out a win). I find easy games where everything goes according to plan to be anticlimactic and, at times, boring.

My most memorable games have all been when the challenges seem insurmountable, but I manage to eke out a victory despite it all - usually coming down to a single win/lose token draw.

As for play style, I unquestioningly prefer survivors. There's something about turning a bad situation into something favourable that really resounds well with me. Additionally, I find that survivors provoke a diverse deckbuilding pattern, which makes them feel unique to each other in the way they play. I also enjoy playing Sefina and Lola for the same reasons, but over these past couple of years survivors have become my go-to faction.

The initial concept of archetypes is that “one person doesn’t wear the same mask all the time,” and I think that holds true with this game as well. The situation(s) help you decide which archetypal mask you’ll put on and when.

With that said, bravo for FFG to look at their games so introspectively, especially a game with such storytelling potential. It’s pretty cool. This company does a lot of things right.

Hmmm... I think that I am 40% storyteller, 40% ritualialist and 40% nihilist... so in total it makes me 120% mad

i have rpg player backround and have always enjoyed good books, I have played Many competative ccg during my life and I enjoy the challenge and am really bored if there is no real chance that I will not survive this time. Some of my friends don`t like that aspect at all and wonder why I would like to play the game at harder difficulty level than is needed... So mad??? Arkham Asylum, here I come!

On 7/13/2018 at 4:54 PM, Soakman said:

... I would probably put myself at 50% Ritualist, 30% Storyteller, 10% Detective/Slayer. ...

To me, you just said that his player archetypes don't fit you. You need to resort to 4 of them to describe your play style.

14 hours ago, The Cappy said:

To me, you just said that his player archetypes don't fit you. You need to resort to 4 of them to describe your play style.

Yup. I mean, they won't fit everyone to a tee. Most of my post is about what I feel would lean towards my Arkhamtype, but even I have a difficult time explaining it. Maybe something akin to Opportunist.

At the end of his article, Matt did ask the community to put forth their thoughts about playstyles. This was my attempt to try to breach new territory or some small insight into a different way of understanding my (maybe others'?) playstyle.

I think a lot of my enjoyment comes from the same sorts of things I enjoyed about Eldritch Horror and Arkham Horror. I came to this game with an Ameritrash board-gaming background. I know a lot of people entered the game from a LCG background. I love that they were able to create something that satisfies both and sort of mixes mediums.

1 minute ago, Soakman said:

Yup. I mean, they won't fit everyone to a tee. Most of my post is about what I feel would lean towards my Arkhamtype, but even I have a difficult time explaining it. Maybe something akin to Opportunist.

At the end of his article, Matt did ask the community to put forth their thoughts about playstyles. This was my attempt to try to breach new territory or at a different way of understanding a playstyle.

I think a lot of my enjoyment comes from the same sorts of things I enjoyed about Eldritch Horror and Arkham Horror. I came to this game with an Ameritrash board-gaming background. I know a lot of people entered the game from a LCG background. I love that they were able to create something that satisfies both and sort of mixes mediums.

Arkhamtype. I like it.

The other side of the coin is that they only listed the co-op Arkhamtypes. Those that come from competitive board games know that there are additional styles of play (including Net-Decker, Red-Deck-Wins/Zerg-Rush, Control, ect.). Some of aspects of those are in the 5 listed, but I think there are more molds that we can cookie-cutter ourselves into.

Nihilist Storyteller. I'm less worried about winning than it being exciting. I don't play at harder levels (yet) because I feel like that would just be frustrating. But I love the characters with unique play -- Calvin, Sefina, Lola (though I hate building her), Norman. I shy away from most Seekers and Guardians because their play is generally Investigate/Fight, while I'm more interested in "How can I possibly get the clues and kill (or avoid) the monsters?" And as a fan of the source material, I take pride in not shooting my way out of situations. I'd rather run away with just a lingering shred of sanity. I do appreciate Seekers as the class closest to the source, and Norman especially so.

3 hours ago, CSerpent said:

Nihilist Storyteller. I'm less worried about winning than it being exciting. I don't play at harder levels (yet) because I feel like that would just be frustrating. But I love the characters with unique play -- Calvin, Sefina, Lola (though I hate building her), Norman. I shy away from most Seekers and Guardians because their play is generally Investigate/Fight, while I'm more interested in "How can I possibly get the clues and kill (or avoid) the monsters?" And as a fan of the source material, I take pride in not shooting my way out of situations. I'd rather run away with just a lingering shred of sanity. I do appreciate Seekers as the class closest to the source, and Norman especially so.

We sound pretty similar, but I'm more entertained with a subtle make-do-with-what-you've-got approach, or a bit of a make-it-work-or-else situation in most cases. It doesn't have to be exciting per se, but I love taking a wide spread of cards to deal with any situation and relying on my wit to make them work (the idea of eavesdrop is so enticing despite the fact that it simply is not as easy or safe to pull off as deduction). The more unconventional the more fun. It doesn't always have to be exciting though (but I've yet to play a game where I didn't feel it was exciting to be honest that I can recall).

I haven't tried Lola, but she's in my list of investigators I'm going to have to try. Sefina is my fave.

With the new card

I'm hoping we see a unique and fun take on the seeker in the form of Gloria Goldburg. It's a stretch, but I like speculating. I'm also interested to see how they're going to spin Patrice as she was always a strange combination of investigation/support/mystic.

1 hour ago, Soakman said:

We sound pretty similar, but I'm more entertained with a subtle make-do-with-what-you've-got approach, or a bit of a make-it-work-or-else situation in most cases. It doesn't have to be exciting per se, but I love taking a wide spread of cards to deal with any situation and relying on my wit to make them work (the idea of eavesdrop is so enticing despite the fact that it simply is not as easy or safe to pull off as deduction). The more unconventional the more fun. It doesn't always have to be exciting though (but I've yet to play a game where I didn't feel it was exciting to be honest that I can recall).

That's pretty much what I mean by exciting. "How will Calvin get out of this one?" It seems like Survivors should be my favorite, but I like Mystics best, followed by Rogues.

16 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

That's pretty much what I mean by exciting. "How will Calvin get out of this one?" It seems like Survivors should be my favorite, but I like Mystics best, followed by Rogues.

Yeah, ditto. I'm usually Rogues/mystics and then seekers and survivors are about even. I have a hard time enjoying guardians that are not oriented more toward a support role just because while incredibly valuable, they have a rather simplistic approach to overcoming their problems.

I'm not willing to fit myself into a nihilist box simply for the same reason you stated. I don't want to feel frustrated, I just want to be able to play unconventionally. I find Easy/Normal challenging enough, probably because I don't optimize my decks to get that super +8 to combat +4 damage, etc, set-up so I find the standard difficulties of the pulls just fine. Especially with the occasional auto-fail occurring anyway.