The mistaken assumption here is that each quest scales the same way depending on the number of players. Quest 1 may scale in a symmetrical format keeping everything easy and predictable. Quest 2 may scale in a symmetrical way, but it is clearly a bit more difficult for a solo player to win than a four player group. Quest 3 may scale in an asymmetrical way, where the loss of the Hero is much more painful for the solo player but the Ally restriction is much more costly for the four player group. Considering the other LCG's, I'd actually be a little surprised if this wasn't done on purpose.

Some people just want a nice easy time fiddling with cards, just like some people play solitaire, something to do to pass the time. Other solo players will approach the game as if it were a solo run on a PvP MMO, purposefully throwing themselves into the deep end to prove that they can do it. While I'm not that last player, I wouldn't even bother having bought this game if I were the former. The rules given here are much closer to the former than they are the latter. Winning 25 out of 25 games is just boring to me. I'd rather lose 25 out of 25 but see continual progress toward beating the Quest. YMMV

The game plays just fine solo. I'm 5-3 with the Tactics deck on scenario #1, considered the most difficult core deck. the other core decks are practically 100% wins on scenario #1. I haven't played the second scenario more than once or twice, but from what I gather it is more of a challenge, but still relatively winnable by customized solo decks. I haven't tried Scenario #3 solo, but heard it is near-impossible solo.

So, I think if you are losing consistently on scenario #1 you are probably doing something wrong or need to think out your strategy more.

Otherwise, to be constructive, I'd recommend rather than changing the game rules, create an easier scenario and/or Encounter cards. The scenarios are designed to have different difficulties while using the same rules. A big difficulty multiplier, especially for solo-play, is the scenario. If you find scenario #1 too difficult, try starting without the location and/or Forest spider in play. Try reducing the first and 3rd quest card progress requirements by 1 or 2. Etc.

Also, if you're having difficulty with soloing the first scenario, post up an example game report and ask for suggestions from the forumites. You'll get plenty of tips and suggestions on how to best use and win with all 4 core decks. Taking advantage of the mulligan redraw, for example, can be very important.

dvang said:

Not that you didn't provide good suggestions, but saying the game plays fine solo when you've only played 1/3 of the solo game isn't particularly useful. I also don't see how you can say it plays "just fine" and then go on to say you've heard its near-impossible (to me, a near impossible game is not "just fine", perhaps you have different tastes). I'm not trying to be a **** about it, but a lot of the people defending the balance of solo play seem to have mostly played the first scenario.

On the subject of tips and tricks though, I'd be curious to know how you got such a good record with the stock tactics deck. I've found that scenario extremely difficult with the Tactics deck, as you have almost no Willpower. 2 locations at once in the staging area was usually all it took for me to have my threat spiral out of control. Yes, Legolas with a Blade on him is key, but if you flip up a few locations it quickly becomes impossible to overcome the enemy threat strength.

I'll add one more voice of support for the OP (who may have given up on this thread after the response he got from what has usually been a fairly supportive community). I'll add three points to the discussion:

1) For those who argue that this is a deckbuilding game, please remember that FFG has consistently promised that all the LCGs would have an enjoyable experience out of the box. The game may get better with deckbuilding, but it shouldn't require it in order to be fun.

2) For some people, tweaking the rules is just as much fun as tweaking decks. In each case, the player is engaging a problem-solving part of the brain, playing the game repeatedly, tweaking some more, and building something that feels "better" than what he started with. It's the same sort of creative effort that we all enjoy -- the OP is merely applying it to a different part of the game than the rest of us. Outside a tournament, that's his right.

3) (I don't know if this applies to the OP or not, but....) Those of us who are experienced at CCGs/LCGs sometimes forget that this is a challenging hobby. New players can be overwhelmed by the number of moving pieces in play. Deckbuilding adds another gigantic layer of complexity. For LCG novices who are having a hard time, changing the rules is a faster and more reliable fix than deckbuilding. With experience, the need for rule changes will go away naturally.

Arma virumque said:

Realy?I thought that deckbuilding is 50% of what makes a card game fun and interesting.Why someone wants to buy a card game if he does not like deckbuilding?

Also this game is indeed fun and enjoyble out of the box.Because someone can't win one of the 3 secenarios solo don't mean that this game sucks.First and second scenario gives you an excelent experience for solo play and you can win the third scenario with 2 players.The box writes 1-2 players not only solo.Solo play is one option not the only option.

Be sure wen adventure packs comes live we will have the chance to win third scenario solo.I have seen Radagast and this Wizard will kick this scenario's ***s.

I'm going to try using four heroes in solo play rather than three. The first mission is easy regardless of solo or multiplay but the second and third and incredibly hard for solo play. I don't consider that cheating, as the game obviously isn't balanced between solo and group play.

Entropy42 said:

Why doesn't it matter? The mechanics of the game are the same whether playing the first scenario or the second/third. The mechanics of the game work. If a scenario is proving too difficult, that is specific to the scenario, not the game mechanics. The first scenario is designed as the primary solo scenario, as well as being an intro scenario for larger groups. The second scenario is designed to prove a difficult challenge for solo, and an even challenge for 2+ players. The third scenario is not designed to be won by most solo-decks, and is meant to be a reasonable/difficult challenge for 2+ players. From what I gather, this is exactly how the scenarios work. AFAIK, the third scenario is NOT intended to be soloable with a single deck (at least not a core deck). It is a scenario designed and assuming multiple players. Again, difficulty really isn't scaled much by the game mechanics, and mostly scaled by the scenario. Which Encounter types to include, starting locations/enemies/restrictions, progress points needed for quest cards, etc, are all controlled by the scenario, not by the mechanics of the game. Thus, as I said, the primary difficulty control is not the game mechanics but the scenario. If the scenario is too hard (or too difficult) for you, and you want to do something about it, I suggest adjusting the scenario variables rather than the core gameplay. <shrug> Add or reduce starting enemies/locations. Remove some nastier Encounter cards from the encounter deck. Reduce the number of progress tokens needed on some of the quest cards. Don't jail a Hero at the start of the third quest, etc.

I've posted up two session reports on BGG of wins with core tactics vs scenario #1. Admittedly, one of those wins I posted(the second) I had some excellent card draws. The first is a more typical game, with about average card draws (for me, anyway). As long as you keep questing with both Gimli and Thalin, and as long as you get an enemy at least every 3rd card or so (very usual and doable), you can progress through the quest. It isn't necessarily easy, and a string of bad cards can be difficult to recover from, but it is winnable if you play smart. The Tactics deck is the most difficult one to win with of the four.

dvang said:

I wasn't questioning the base game mechanics, but I would lump quest instructions under game mechanics, and I am questioning those. I was saying the game (which right now consists of 4 decks and 3 quests) does not work well solo. I don't think anything in the game or rules indicates that one scenario is designed for solo play while others are designed for multiplayer, though I agree with your assessment that those are about how they ended up in terms of balance. I just don't see the same fundamental difference that you do between changing what the rulebook tells you to do vs changing what the quest instructions tell you to do (though I agree that modifying it on a per-quest basis is probably easier).

Ultimately, I think they could have taken steps to ensure the quests scaled better as you added/removed players, and for the most part, they didn't.

servant of the secret fire said:

Deckbuilding, in my experience doesn't matter at all if you play the game with two or more players. It's already too easy using the starter decks! I won 27 out of 36 games (12/12 games vs. the 1st scenario, 7/12 vs. the 2nd, and 8/12 vs. the 3rd) playing two games with each two-sphere combo.

With a single deck I won 8 games out of 66 (6/8 vs. the 1st scenario, 1/25 vs. the 2nd, and 1/33 vs. the 3rd). In other words: The first scenario plays well solo, the other two: not really.

Did anyone of you who thinks the game scales 'just fine' notice the other thread about scaling? It's about finding a house-rule to make the game harder when playing with three or four players!

Titanium Man had the right idea: 'Something' must be changed to make the game more enjoyable when using a single deck. He just overcompensated. It definitely doesn't take all of the suggested changes to work better.

And Entropy42 is almost certainly absolutely right: Playtesting _must_ have concentrated on the two-player game and getting the first scenario right. Otherwise the egregious scaling issues in the second and third scenario could not be explained.

Note that I'm not saying the game isn't fun. If it was all bad I would have stopped playing long ago. But let's be honest folks: The scaling sucks. Big time.

But it's a problem that can be fixed by more carefully designed scenarios.

You do realize that the Core Set box says it is for 1-2 players. Playing with 3 or 4 players is doable, but I don't think that it is reasonable to expect that quests designed for 1-2, which are all 3 quests that we have right now, are perfectly balanced for 3-4. You can play them, but because you're basically doubling the number of players (and heroes) the quest is designed for, of course they are going to be easier. <shrug>

As I said, alter the scenario to make it harder if you'd like. Try starting scenario 2 with 2 Hill Trolls. Jail 2 or 3 heroes in scenario 3, etc. The mechanics of the game work fine for 3-4 players. The problem is that with 3-4 players you are playing quests designed for 2. Beef the quests up, or design you own specifically for 3-4 players, if you want more of a challenge.

dvang said:

The chance to win increases from 'almost impossible' (i.e. 3-4%) to 'easily doable' (i.e. 50-66%). That's not what I'd call proper scaling!

And "As I said, alter the scenario to make it harder if you'd like." is a perfect example of the Oberoni fallacy (as we call it in the world of RPGs):

“There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.“

In my own words: Just because you can solve an issue by houseruling the game doesn't mean it isn't an issue. In fact you're admitting it is an issue because you suggest to introduce a houserule!

dvang said:

The Core Set is not designed to be used only by 1-2 players. Right on page 2 of the rules it says "(Up to four players can play the game cooperatively with a second copy of the core set.)" The only reason a single box says 1-2 instead of 1-4, is that you can't make 4 legal (50 card) decks with the contents of the core set and they didn't want to mislead players (there is a post in this forum from TheSpaniard which directly stated this). The quests even include some mechanics for scaling (like deal out 1 encounter card for each player), so I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the quests that come with the base game would be scaled properly for 1-4 players. As you said, yes, there are ways to modify the rules to accommodate a number of players other than 2, but that's really exactly the point I've been defending in this thread, as it is about making custom house rules to make the game more balanced. Lots of people have come in saying the game is balanced and doesn't need rule modifications, and I just strongly disagree with that.

And others strongly disagree with you. The main thing EVERYONE needs to remember is everyone is entitled to their own opinion and no one should trample someone else for having a different opinion. You and jhaelen believe the game has flaws, others do not. Let's all just agree to disagree and get back to having some fun.

Entropy42 said:

Sorry mate but no.At your first post your exact wards are:after a few games,it feels like the encouter deck is a bit stacked against the solo player,so in an attempt to even the playing field i am testing some solitaire house rules.

Solo and 2 players coop the rules are fine and i don't see any promblem with the game mechanics.The promblem with solo play so far is that everyone here have promblem with the third scenario and not with the game rules so no house rules are needed, only scenario rules if you feel that a scenario is too hard.

If you say that we need rule modifications for solo and 2 players coop game then no i disagree with you.But as for 3-4 players coop i agree that the game is way too easy and FFG must do somethink for this.

servant of the secret fire said:

There is only one general game rule I consider problematic and that's the surge keyword: Surge always adds a single card to the staging area, no matter how many players/decks are present. That's the one area where the general rules do not scale properly.

<shrug> Scenario mechanics are not the same as core game mechanics, IMO. Changing a scenario is not "house ruling". It is essentially making a new scenario that increases the difficulty, which is part of the reason of scenarios.

I stand by my opinion that the game plays fine with the underlying mechanics it has. If a particular scenario is too easy or too difficult, adjust the scenario or play a different scenario with a different difficulty rating. Right now we only have 3 scenarios, so adjustment is most likely what you'll need to do. Or, create your own scenario that is specifically designed for 4-players.

That is really all that needs to be done.

dvang said:

servant of the secret fire said:

I'm not the one who started this thread, so those are not my exact words at all. I was just defending the idea of modifying the rules. Though after all this back and forth, I agree with Dvang that its probably a better idea to just tweak the quests rather than tweaking the game mechanics if I think the balance is off.

I'll probably do that at some point and post them up here for people to critique and balance.

Entropy42 said:

OOOPS.I am so sorry mate my fault.

I agree that FFG must have different scenario rules or set up for solo and different for 2-4 players.Scenario's 3 set up for solo and 2-4 players is not balacned and its unfair.

jhaelen said:

I'm wondering if Titanium Man is playing the Basic game, where you don't deal out Shadows cards. Also if the quests are two easy for a 2 player team (and yes, when the core says 1-2 players I'm going to dismiss your complaints of quests being to easy as a failure of the games ability to scale or the designers and playtesters not being thorough enough), then try playing in nightmare mode.

Which brings me to the question whether or not he is playing with the unadulterated decks or if he has combined two spheres to create a single deck. If he is still playing with the single sphere decks it is not surprising that he is running against problems. Which of course is his prerogative but having problems and choosing not to use the full set of tools at his disposal (which are outlined in the rule book even) is just that, a choice. Not something you can really blame on the game, designer, or play testers.

I realize this is an old post, but I had something to contribute that I posted on BGG, and seemed to apply here...

It's interesting - you get a lot of pretty definite for/against folks for house rules. Some feel it destroys the spirit of the game; others feel it's fine if it gives you more enjoyment.

So - I'm a big fan of ONE thing with games: Fun.

And that makes me one of the latter types that believes (almost) anything goes as long as you're having FUN.

(I guess this is why FFG's notes in the game booklets that say I should "NEVER" do this or that, or it's 'forbidden' always strike me as Draconian. "Ease off, dude! I already paid for this game." But I get it, tournament rules, etc. Still, let me have fun... ANYway.)

When it comes to exceptionally difficult games, I just don't have the patience to spend dozens of hours to get good at all of them. But some are so good, I feel the need to "mod" them a bit until I've got the hang of it. And then I start jacking up the difficulty by removing said mods, or tweaking it up in skill.

- Stay with me... I'm going somewhere -

So one of the ideas we've implemented as an optional house rule in both LOTR as well as Arkham Horror LCG is this:

** YOU choose your first hand. **

That's it. YOU select the best cards going in that are realistic for the scenario.

Why?

Because, in an effort to mimic reality, I thought: Wouldn't you CHOOSE what you set off on an adventure with? I mean, *most* of the time you would get at least a small amount of choice in what you grabbed before you left the house to face a goblin war party. *(Not that many scenarios are "in media res" - dropping you right into a shocking situation, after all.)

So if a scenario is rapidly driving us insane with the difficulty, we'll tweak it slightly to increase our odds slightly. (And in some of these scenarios, you really do need a little sumthin'-sumthin' to keep from avoiding the game entirely. I just don't do well with ritual masochism in my gaming. As much as some people say they love the challenge, it can wear on you a bit.)

So for LOTR, I will simply do the "double resource" easy rule and leave it at that. Sometimes we'll do a first-hand-pick if it's a really new or kickass scenario.

Anyway, it's a more extreme version of the mulligan rule, but one that puts me in an enabled position. I chose these cards, now I'm going to make it work. Or find out why these don't and learn more about the dynamics of the play.

YES - I realize that those opposed to modding the game in the name of it being more winnable (the "purists" if you will) will not like this. I get it, and you do have a LOT of valid points.

I just wanted to share my opinion and a bit of philosophy we have toward gaming. I hope this helps someone...

@ctdemeco I remember there being a "Enjoyable mode" variant in BGG's variants forum. It "allows" each hero to chose a card from their sphere to be part of the starting hand, instead of you choosing your whole hand. Maybe that is less extreme? I have not tried it though and as a MTG fan I would prefer to add cards that "fish" for key cards.

Since i try to play thematic decks instead of power decks, I do plan on trying the solo 5-hero, draw 2 cards and add to encountet cards per turn variant. My hope is that this variant will allow me to "explore" more of both the quest (due to more encounter cards drawn) and enjoy more of the card pool (due to larger decks with more draw in planning phase). I don't mind a difficult quest (though I do mind near impossible quests with my thematic decks), so my hope is that it does not altet the difficulty to much either way. If anyone has experience or tips, I would appreciate them

I'm also planning on testing letting Ranged characters to exhaust to do an attack when an enemy engages and Sentinel charactets exhaust to add defence value to a defender. My hope is that this gives more features to solo games without breaking the game. Once again I'm happy to hear anyones experience

I'm not inherently opposed to modding the game to be more winnable, but I wouldn't enjoy the variant as a base way to play. I think it would suck the variety out of the player deck.

As an occasional method of going against tough quests, it's defensible in that given enough tries, your deck would eventually produce that chosen starting hand randomly, you're just saving time by skipping all those auto-concede hands that were suboptimal. Sort of like picking your hero to be captured for Dol Goldur, only much more so.

Good point ctdemeco. The only purpose of this game is to have fun! The only one(s) you must care about when you play is those who are actually playing this adventure. It is absolutely right to rewrite part of rules or cards, even on the middle of a game if everyone enjoy this most than the original one.

To my own I do only a few "mod" because I love to share experiences with others people, and this is only possible if I play the same rules that they does.

I have Noted on many occassions and i Will do so again here that when it comes to cooperative games, for the game to have longevity and maintain interest of players it must feel "impossible" to beat. This is absolutely the most vital component in Lord of the Rings the living card game. If i was able to beat every quest i own, i would never play this game again. The only reason i keep coming back is because at least half of the quests on my shelf i have never beat and trying to figuire it out IS the game and solving these really difficult puzzles is the most rewarding aspect of this game.

For what its worth i do understand the frustration of not being able to beat certain quests but for example a few months ago I found Conflict At The Carrock impossible to beat, today using the exact same card pool I can beat it 80% of the time and with a wide range of decks and heroes. I solved te puzzle, it was super hard, it took a lot of tries, but in the end i made it. It was really rewarding to finally post that win in my quest tracker.

I don't see anything wrong with changing the rules of the game to make it easier to win, but I do think you are depriving yourself the oppertunity to dive deeply into the game, gain some mastery and over coming the challenge. In a way what your doing is kind of a reflection of western society, aka, its too hard so we change the rules to make it easier.