The ones you'd never willingly play with I mean (unless you drew them randomly).

For example, I'd make Vincent heal 2 stamina except during final battles where this would neutralize the Ancient One.

I have to tell you, I've won with Dexter, Vincent, and Amanda...and have lost with Mandy, Joe, and Carolyn. Yes, Vincent should probably heal two Stamina, Daisy should maybe make a Will check to use one of her special abilities, Sister Mary should not have a chance to lose her Blessing, and Patrice should only parse out a few clue tokens for skill checks, but by-and-large, the Investigators are fairly well balanced. Okay, enough of that...

Vincent Le e : Heal 2 Stamina

Daisy Walker : Make a Will (+0) check to use her Iron Will ability

Sister Mary : May use a Clue Token to keep her Blessing

Patrice Hathaway : Clue Tokens may be used by other Investigators for the purpose of Skill Checks only

That's it...really!

A little upgrade for Sister Mary so she doesn't suck so much right off the bat.

Wendy Adams cannot be the deputy.
Daisy Walker has only 1 focus and can only use each ability once per turn.
Patrice Hathaway has only 1 focus and can only spend her clues on other investigators skill checks
Amanda Shape begins with a Miskatonic Student card, but gets only one clue from it.
If you're not using personal stories, Sister Mary begins with 3 clues.
Charlie Kane and Roland Banks can't use their special abilities during final combat.

Officially, Lily Chen can only heal one point per slider movement, so there's no fixing needed so long as you're aware of this limit.

I get that the reason Vincent's way lamer than Carolyn is that Stamina's not as big a deal, but 2 stamina is still kind of a lot. I was about to suggest increasing his healing range, having completely forgotten that his PS already does that. So maybe just make that a bit less onerous; he passes as soon as he gets five clues, but doesn't need to discard them. And, just to up the stakes a bit and make things nicely Hippocratic, he fails if he gets any monster trophies. Alternatively, I think Avec has suggested making him a mobile St. Mary's, which also has a certain charm to it.

I secretly like George, but wouldn't be opposed to expanding his bail power a bit, so that, for example, he can also spend money to keep people from getting delayed. This is partly also for reasons of Mark Harriganesque hilarity, of course; it's fun to imagine him bailing someone out of R'lyeh, or getting a restraining order against Gladys Pickman.

subochre said:

I would BURN the Personal Stories of Darrell, Jenny, Hank, Vincent, and Diana. Not too thrilled with Rex's either.

jgt7771,

You have to more specific than that, my friend. I've passed Darrell's and Diana's; and read Jenny's, Vincent's, and Rex's and think they're great! I don't own IH, so I'm unfamiliar with Hank's. So, why BURN them?

My bet is on "they require you to spend whole load of clues not on sealing".

jgt7771 said:

I think I'd change Diana's so it allows you to draw 3 cards instead of 2. Or possibly it lets you draw a third card if you roll a die and get a success.

One of the most glaring things that affects investigator balance is the imbalance of value that exists between stamina and sanity. High sanity is innately better, having high stamina requires synergy with specific set-ups to not be a hindrance. Correct that problem, it helps even out most of the investigators. I have one universal, general rule attempting to combat this.

It is this: During the movement phase, you can sacrifice Stamina (up to 2 per turn). Each Stamina sacrificed gives you either an extra movement point, or a +2 to a single combat check.

The mechanical justification is: Everyone knows that sanity is more valuable than stamina, the main reason being because it's easier to lose and is relevant for more in-game mechanics (like spellcasting). The result of this obviously unintended imbalance is that high sanity characters are generally "better" than high stamina characters, who are usually pigeonholed into more restrictive roles. This issue affects both high stamina/low sanity characters and characters who are not min/maxed for the role their special abilities encourage (i.e. Dexter). The only investigator this rule disproportionately affects is Vincent, who out of all the investigators is in the most need of help. Additionally, it helps create symmetry between stamina and sanity by providing investigators with a way to us it as an active, strategic resource. Basically, it helps mitigate the problem of low sanity being a crippling hindrance rather than a fair trade-off.

The thematic justification is easy: the stamina cost represents either running your ass off to get somewhere faster, so you lose stamina, or it represents something like an attempt to grapple or win a fight by attrition. I think it makes perfect sense either way.

Obviously, that doesn't fix every imbalance problem the game has, but it does go a long way in helping out high stamina investigators. The only other thing that needs to be done is correcting a few of the special abilities with common-sense limitations or improvements.

MyNeighbourTrololo said:

Yes, but it's deeper than that. Setting Darrell aside (since that one's different), the other ones mentioned are all as you suggest: discard a "seal" to pass. In general, that really doesn't bother me; it even works on a psuedo-thematic level. But the reward/failure analysis is in and of itself a failure, and to my personal horror, my role-playing cultists are beginning to SEE that.

They love the game. All aspects of it. The stories as well as the gameplay. But they're not nearly as ignorant about things any more. (I can say that because we only play once a month or less: after a few years, their two dozen games have finally allowed some synapse bridges to be built, enough to work up genius strategies on their own.) They love Personal Stories, as it adds much character to their Investigators. But afterwards, usually after a so-close-to-winning loss, I HATE IT when they're able to recognize that "maybe I shouldn't have saved Pa." Because that's NOT how it's supposed to go. Saving Pa/Isabelle/whoever is supposed to be a GOOD THING. On a role-playing level, it's fantastic, but when your gameplay suffers because of it--Avi, get in here--it's a BAD THING. And when the role-players realize that, they get depressed, and entertain thoughts of "we were playing it wrong".

THAT. IS. CRAP.

Especially when favorites like Roland and Bob just have to HAVE five Clues, and they get FAR better rewards. Hank's Pa? Bonuses to Stats HANK NEVER USES! Jenny gets to cover for her Speed deficiency, but is that worth a seal? Vincent doesn't even get an actual Speed boost, he just gets extra movement points: grand, but worth a seal? Diana and Rex are bit less anger-inducing, because they're both Clue-generators, but I've still seen the losses and the disappointment because of it.

I personally think that having any of them have to have more Clues in their possession, or maybe Clues and something else (like scavenger hunter Harvey), and then have to visit somewhere specific, would fix everything. But now that's a House Rule, isn't it?

----------------------------------------

And then there's Darrell. I LOVE Darrell. Decent Stats, great Starting Possessions, and lots of Encounters to read. A 1920s Peter Parker. From the cracking of that first box, he was my favorite Investigator. And what does he get for a Personal Story? Close two Gates before you can Seal. Actually, it's worse than that: "Before you can have any kind of Clue Stash."

WHY??? Was it really necessary to crack Darrell in the knees with a bat? Was he TOO popular, TOO advantageous, TOO fun?

Lemme get Avi again...ahem...Avi, when is it a "good time" to merely Close a Gate? (If you have to use more than two or three "if/when" clauses, then you're reaching and it's automatically BAD.) Right. That's what I thought.

Zebra loves Encounters. He loves piles of cash for shopping, so he loves Retainers. He loves Magic Weapons (for Physically Immune Critters), and lots of Speed and Fight. And he HATES Darrell. Because his Personal Story prevents him from contributing to actual game strategies, or even building up any kind of Clue buffer for, on average, six turns.

Six turns. And that's if you're absolutely fortunate. That's HALF A GAME for many players, but I suppose that's kinda moot, since almost all of those players will take Darrell and simply toss his Personal Story under their drink as a coaster. "Not worth it." I honestly don't care if metagam..."strategic operators" play that way, but when my role-players start playing that way, when I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO, I would rather pull out the flamethrower and just torch the stupid card. (Just like I did to Joining the Winning Team, Call Ancient One, and Massa Di Requiem Per Shuggay, the most offensive anti-role-playing cards available.)

jgt7771 said:

Let me support Jgt here. I hate Darrell PS story too, for the very same reasons. Sure, you can use him to gather Allies very quickly, and have encounters that can contribute to the global strategy, and he's still vey good at moving in Kingsport without being cursed from the Terrible Old Man or delayed by the Terrible Old Woman named Gladys, but... he's not Darrell any longer.

Besides, I think it's not that great thematically having a reporter that should not collect clues. Sure, he can't seal in some ways (ES, Patrice or the Favour of Nodens Environment), but it doesn't happen often to have them available. They twisted in an evil way a very good character. They could have fixed him by raising the number of clues to 6 or find something different.

Poor, poor Darrell

See no problem here. If you're playing for fun, then there is nothing bad in his personal story because in for fun games people rarely win not by final battles.

But if you're laying for the professional win, I can't see why you can't just ignore his personal story as not having a retainer is not such a big drawback for the greater purpose.

Isn't "screw this, screw proofs, if I won't do something about what's happening, there soon be no one to show those proofs" a roleplaying decisions?

You also can ask an elder sign from another investigator.

I played Darell only once, and I drawn an Elder sign as one of my starting posessions

See no problem here. If you're playing for fun, then there is nothing bad in his personal story because in for fun games people rarely win not by final battles.

Patently untrue. This group has several sealing wins, and several just-one-more-turn losses. Granted, we don't pile on the pain--no Heralds, one expansion board at a time--so I suppose "for fun" is an adequate description...

But if you're laying for the professional win, I can't see why you can't just ignore his personal story as not having a retainer is not such a big drawback for the greater purpose.

...but now you're just being offensive. "Professional"? I've been playing since 2006. Even when I play solo, I don't play too much differently than my group. But I've always hated Speed Arkham. For a game that has more written flavor than any other game I've EVER encountered, ignoring it all for gameplay I would consider a tragic waste. If Professional = Speed Arkham, I challenge your use of terms.

Isn't "screw this, screw proofs, if I won't do something about what's happening, there soon be no one to show those proofs" a roleplaying decisions?

Not if it's a "loaded" decision. And certainly not if it's metagaming. You're not saying "Screw proofs" because Darrell is; you're saying it because you think you can win the game without having a Retainer. Which is fine, but it's hardly role-playing. If anything, it's Darrell's Personal Rationalization.

My group plays rarely enough that they don't remember Personal Stories, but they know what they are: "Do this, and get rewarded. Don't, and be punished." When "doing this" flies in the face of accepted strategies, and doesn't hand out a HUGE payoff as a result, that's crappy game-scuttling by the designer. But let's go a step further, and try to reconcile some Personal Stories against more-than-rookie-player established strategies, but keep in mind that you DON'T know the outcomes.

Tommy: Tommy passes if he's DEVOURED. My group HATES losing their Investigator, and Tommy, frankly, is a rather good Investigator to have, and throwing him to the wolves is kinda unthinkable, even for a noble sacrifice story. Metagamers toss Tommy like a gum wrapper at earliest opportunity.

Silas: See Tommy above, but this time the devouring is a horrifying surprise. (The shock was so memorable, Zebra isn't fond of Silas anymore either.) Metagamers...gum wrapper.

Tony: My group likes combat. Tony's a decent fighter (when armed), and a great manager of his monster trophies. Shame his Fail is better than his Pass (completely intrinsically opposed to what a Personal Story is supposed to be.) Metagamers fail Tony as soon as possible.

Would anyone try Luke's story if they knew the outcomes? Or Leo's? Or would they just let Isabelle DIE?

Personal Stories ARE Role-Playing! And the inequality muddied throughout them is kind of a travesty. If they wanted us to continue all those "Stories So Far", they should ALL live up to the tradition of a personal goal and not punish you for passing them!

You also can ask an elder sign from another investigator. I played Darell only once, and I drawn an Elder sign as one of my starting posessions

Hey, don't think I don't try. But once your Unique deck is piled high with six expansions, seeking Elder Signs is hardly a strategy worth pursuing. That's just blind luck.

First of you claim you're playing for fun, roleplay and hate speed Arkham, then you rant about some of the personal stories standing on the way of faster win.

Lets think logically. Wouldn't selfish motives hurt the greater good even if done for the good purpose? Why would everything be so perfect as you want it to be? For any purpose. Hank, for example, is sort of dumb and wants his Pa back, so in a real situation this person would search for his parent because from his perspective it's more important in current situation. From player perspective finding Pa would have it's advantages but winning is more important than gaining mostly useless ally. Now try to explain this to the lost kid. But, certain circumstances may change his mind. If you think defying Darell's personal story for the greater purpose is not roleplayble, then I think your group not so much into roleplaying at all.

My point is: personal stories were created to add some new diffirence to the game and introduce more choice to made for the players. They are not supposed to all be good and help players win in condition you see it. They are selfish.

Even rulebook says: "The investigators must be careful not to neglect their primary goals while trying to complete their personal stories.".

Well, one thing we all strive for is fairness. A personal story that is too harsh or too beneficial for its triggering condition is not fair. Sometimes a personal story is made that way to counter an investigator who is too bad/good. Sometimes the investigator is already fair—and the story makes him unfair.

It's also not true that personal stories are self-serving. Something that helps the individual helps the team. The reason you don't want to be too distracted by your story is that you need to spend effort to win the game . Time spent completing your story or avoiding its failure can help indirectly, but putting too much effort into it will cause the investigators to suffer. This is why many lament the 5-clue-cost stories: is an ally or some other small bonus really worth a the cost of a seal?

Thus, another risk/reward balancing act is introduced. But some of these risks and some of these rewards could have been better tested.

Yes, some stories help other people, some don't. Because all individuals are diffrent, do you follow me?

Quick fix for Darrell: go to First National Grocery and buy Research Materials. Yeah, if you're unlucky enough to get an Other World Encounter that gives you Clues, you'll fail, but it's a lot better than not sealing gates or failing the Story.

Also, to Tibs: as it stands, I think your Roland fix is official already, since not being able to gain Clues during final combat will apparently be in The (or at least a) FAQ.

subochre said:

Yep. While Vincent is in Arkham, any space he occupies has all the abilities of St Mary's Hospital, except for the encounter cards.

Mary skips all time spent LITAS. LITAS is basically a free teleport for her. (I noticed in some cases it's more efficient to be LITAS than to go to the South Church).

Amanda gets a $2 discount at the Administration Building. She is after all a full-time student.

Jim can spend focus at any time except during combat. He can draw an encounter and then spend focus points, if he has any left. If he plays his cards right, he almost always gets to roll a minimum of 1-2 dice for skill checks.

When Mark goes insane, he stays where he is, draws a Madness card, and continues with his turn. He may not need the help, but I enjoy watching him get more and more insane until he flames out spectacularly.

Dexter only needs one Tome to pass his personal story.

I think that's been clarified officially too, but since for Roland and Nyarlathotep it's a pressing issue , I figured I'd inform anyone who hasn't yet realized what's up.

Avec: I was under the impression that your suggestion for Sister Mary is normally the case. Am I wrong?

That is the way Mary plays. Since she doesn't reach LiTaS, she doesn't wind up losing a turn.

What I mean is, she doesn't automatically go to the South Church.

I posted without going back to check her ability, so I got it a little bit wrong. It's really this: "Instead of being Lost in Time and Space, Mary may move to any stable location."

avec said:

Oh my god... I *love* the Mark fix. Amanda's is something I'd consider incorporating for other players also.