HI all

Having just finished 3 games of AH with two loses and one win(only remembering towards the late game the Old One is magically immune, when everyone has stocked up on the biggest baddest magic weapons, is a mistake which will be sorely remembered)

I am thinking we might make our games much more difficult than we can manage. In our group we have split the management of the game down to one of us taking care of the item decks, another keeping tabs on stuff on the board(clues, gates and monsters) and me taking care of encounters. because we like the suspense and themes of the game we might be making our encounters more difficult than they should be. During an encounter I usually read aloud to the others what happens(one of the others if I have an encounter). This is something that has just developed over our gaming sessions and plays out in a fun and very roleplayish way,

One problem which might have come from this, is we have begun only reading the part of the encounter that tells what happens and what check a player should do, which means we usually leave out the part where the encounter explains what the result of succes/failure is. This is a great way to get caught in the atmosphere of the game and makes for a lot of agonizing skill checks.

This leads to us probably burning way too many clue tokens on insignificant encounters both in fear of the gruesome death that lies before us or because we get a bit greddy and think it might be worth it(the times where we have burnt 2-3 clue tokens to gain one is many)

So are there any others out there who do something like this for encounters, or does this seem to be too hard a houserule?

Many people do this, but with one alteration (which is what I think you're looking for):

After/if the person fails, you then read what the "bad stuff" is. That makes them know whether or not a failure is or isn't "clue worthy." If they pass initially, of course, you don't say what would've happened. Same thing goes if they choose to not do an optional encounter (the "You may make a X check" kind).

This gives you the great atmosphere and tension, but also prevents you from hindering yourselves severely by doing so.

EcnoTheNeato said:

I do exactly what you do, OP, but I agree that the above solution is a great way split the difference. Spending a clue after the fact of a bad encounter could represent the character's last ditch effort to do something, like throwing a wild punch or trying a spell one last time.

*shrug* We play it exactly like the OP. Ecno presents an interesting variation, though.

Thanks for the replies

I like your suggestions Ecno, which sounds like a good idea. In that way we get to keep the suspense. In that way we get to have a little bit more control over what our actions will end with. I think ill try an implement it next time we play.

You are making the game harder than it strictly needs to be, however, I also enjoy playing that way. =P

My philosophy with any co-op game is tha tanything you can do to make it harder for the players is worthwhile. The game can't learn from your tactics, it can't react to ingenious moves, it can't improve in any way. This means the game will only get easier as you learn the ins and outs. Any kind of house rule you want to make that makes it harder to win will probably serve to keep the game interesting longer.

By a similar token, any time there's an ambiguity in the rules I prefer to rule against the investigators, for the same reason.