I was originally going to post this as a reply to another thread but then it occured to me that so many threads exhibit what I am about to talk about that it would be unfair to single out a specific thread and it makes more sense to address this to the entire forum.

My complaint is that, simply put, your experience of playing Arkham Horror is just that; your experience. It is not fact.

And if you do not like a certain thing about this game, that is your opinion. And it is rather self-centered to argue that it needs to change to suit what you think it should be. If you think a certain Investigator is too powerful then either don't use that Investigator or house-rule them to your specifics. Asking for an official change to address your concerns is absurd.

If you think that Joe Diamond with a Shotgun and 12 Clue Tokens against an Ancient One is too powerful, then simply don't let that combo happen in your game. Why on earth do you think this game needs a rules change to hurt it? Other players might not be as good as you and might need the help of that particular combo, who are you to demand that gets taken away from them? If Joe Diamond with a Shotgun is too powerful for you, don't use him. Use Jim Culver with Brass Knuckles instead, then try telling us that 12 Clue Tokens are too powerful.

If you think that the game should be played through a role-playing angle then great, go for it. But don't insist that the entire game should reflect that. If you think that the game should NOT be played through a role-playing angle then great, don't go for it. But don't insist that the entire game should reflect that.

Due to its size, due to its scope, Arkham Horror has the potential to be many things to many gamers. Why try and restrict that?

The game isn't competitive, it doesn't need to be precisely balanced for all players. The inequalities are what makes the game so open for all, if you let it be. If you start arguing that one Investigator is too powerful compared to the others, well where does it end? Who decides where we stop tinkering with the difference between Patrice Hathaway and Vincent Lee? If we make official changes to crush Patrice Hathaway's special text, why not then argue that her starting items are imbalanced compared to Vincent Lee's? After all, they're different. Patrice starts with 2 Unique Items whereas Vincent Lee starts with none and doesn't even have the Speed to get to the Curiositie Shoppe on the first turn. How far do we take the "arguing for equality" between Investigators until we get to the point of addressing THAT particular imbalance?

The differences between Investigators are the same as the differences between players. Some of them are really good, some of them are ok, some of them aren't great at all. Why is that a bad thing?

But it doesn't just stop at Investigators, it's the rules too. Arguing that rules need to change in order to maintain balance is equally absurd. If you think a certain rule makes the game too easy, I can guarantee you that there is someone else who doesn't. Why should the game be modified to fit your wishes and not theirs?

I for one like the fact that, as the printed rules stand, if Roland Banks wins his Personal Story then he can't lose to Nyarlathotep. It makes up for the fact that Amanda Sharpe could be devoured before the end of the first turn through no fault of the players. Or that one hit of bad luck means that Harvey Walters could fail his mission and never be able to seal a location again. Or that Silas is devoured regardless of the outcome of his Personal Story. How about trying to pass George Barnaby's Personal Story when Abhoth is the Ancient One?

Again, it comes down to the fact that some combinations are indeed very advantageous for the Investigators but there are also some that are very painful. What does it matter either way if other players exploit the advantageous combos? You don't have to. Why try to impose your vision of how the game should be played on other people? Let them enjoy themselves playing the game the way they want and you enjoy the game the way you want.

I have a friend who loves the a particular computer game in which you level up and find new more powerful weapons along the way that are powerful enough that they have minimum level requirements. He loves this game so much that in fact he has completed an entire playthrough only using weapons that are so weak that they don't have a minimum level requirement. He hasn't once called for the abolition of the more powerful weapons for other players, he's just decided not to use them because they remove the challenge for him nowadays.

I reckon a lot of players on this forum could learn from his example.

My vision for the forums is one where every day I have a different radical opinion about the game, but everyone is so afraid of my wrath that they pretend to agree with me. It's the kind of "everybody wins" scenario that I think we can all get behind.

Seriously, people can get pushy from time to time, but--with one notable exception from last year--I usually just ignore it.

Well thats just like your opinion, man.

What I hate about forums is that there is 1,5 new posts per day.

Maybe I'm just cranky from all the student papers I've been grading this week, and their bottomless fondness for the same sort of vapid, reactionary unreconstructed relativism (edit: yes, it appears that I'm being terribly rude, and I apologize. No offense is intended), but it's absurd to claim that the rules as written brook no possible improvement just because any given rule might be good by someone's standards. Instawin with Roland? Sure, why not. Infinite loop with Michael? Play it as written; how dare we be so impertinent as to demand a ruling?

I mean, look. Once we've gotten past the idea that any rule or interpretation thereof is just as good as any other (unless you really do think that infinitely long games with Michael McGlen are a good idea, and that everyone should just play with whichever version of Leo Anderson happened to end up in their Dunwich, since it's presumptuous to the point of heresy to inquire into whether there might have been a misprint), there do remain legitimate questions about the "correct" way to play. And yes, some of us take this farther than others, and many of us do have some strong opinions, mainly because we get excited about things we love, but it seems a bit much to claim that anybody is "imposing their vision" on other people. It's not like we go around torching every Massa di Requeim we can get our hands on and sending out enforcers to make sure that everybody is using our preferred house rules--you'll note, in fact, that each of us does go by our own set of house rules, because, though we may at times argue passionately for one rule/standard or another, in the end, we enthusiastically agree that people ought to do whatever is most fun for them. It's just that having established this fact, many of us still welcome a lively exchange of ideas on the matter.

There...is a rather fundamental issue in your post. Your point is that people should not try to alter the official rules because every rules change is sure to upset someone.

But every rules change is sure to please someone, too. As you indicate, there are a whole bunch of different people with different views on particular rules. I may not be being very clear, so let's take Patrice as an example. Your argument is that, if someone on the forum successfully gets Patrice altered so she's less powerful, then the people who like Patrice's power level will be unhappy. But if no one gets Patrice altered, then the people who don't like Patrice's power level will be unhappy. What gives one group more of a right to their preference than other? Numbers, perhaps, but there would be no way to determine this except a survey of every single Arkham Horror player the world over, which is essentially impossible.

Also: why does it matter if someone gets the rules changed? You argue that people should play as they wish regardless of the rules, so why doesn't this still apply if the rules are changed?

And finally, as a small matter: there's already been an errata that you can't gain clues during final battle, so Roland cannot automatically defeat Nyarlathotep.

Stenun,

I must confess I was rather surprised by your post. It's more or less two years I write on a daily basis on this forum, and I've always (except for a couple of occasions, 99.9% related to a person that now is not writing any longer here) found courtesy and a chance to compare my gaming style and my game knowledge with the ones of other players from all around the world. Politeness, intelligence, sensitiviy, respect are almost everywhere here. It's one of the most mature forums I've ever visited, and most of the guys here I call them friends. I really don't understand your point of view. I respect it, anyway, but I don't get the point.

Sure, everyone here has his way of playing. But when I listen to Jgt complaining for Darrell, or Avi complaining about non-strategical play, or Avec doing runic math on the chance of getting a surge and then with perfect humour lawyering about the true meaning of the word "page" in the rulebooks, or roleplayers vs hardcore boardgamer, and so on, I always find these posts a good debate. People explaining the way they play, and why they play this way. And it's a great thing. They offered me tons of good things to reflect on, and the different ways of looking at the game. I feel I can share some of their opinions, and some not, but in no way I've ever felt somebody pushing me or forcing me to play in a different way. And I thought this when I was still a noob, and now, that I'm an advanced player.

It'd be a less interesting experience - for me, at least! - answering only to rules questions and so on

I'm sorry you had this impression, and that this annoys you so much!

While I want to respond to this by inarticulate screaming EEEEaaaaaeEEEEEEeeeeaaaAAAAAaaa etc. I suppose I should try to contribute something slightly more substantial?

Why does it matter if someone likes one thing or another thing or complains or doesn't complain? As long as people aren't treating each other unpleasantly here, does it really matter what they think or say?

As for my own view of the modify an investigator threads. Welllll... Personally I enjoy it for a few reasons. The making strong investigators (mostly just Patrice) weaker is significant because I can't enjoy them in a game otherwise (they're so strong I feel like the game doesn't have a chance to win— it's not challenging). As far as modifying weak characters, welllll, normally I *enjoy* playing weak characters. It's more fun (for me). But here's the thing, what if I want a more challenging game but I also want to use a few weak characters who I like for thematic reasons? Having an alternate way of playing them can be fun. Also, if dealing with new players who don't really understand the game but want to pick a particular (weak) character, it's a good idea to have some idea of how to modify them so they'll have a better playing experience.

That's how I see it anyway.

And I don't really have any problem with Tib's obsession with preventing unbeatable investigators in final combat ;'D

avec said:

... That is a great idea. I should get an avatar with a mask on both sides of its head. One smiley, one foaming at the mouth :'D

subochre said:

Speak for yourself. I've already burned down three people's houses because they refused to unlock their doors to let me enter and destroy the cards of theirs I dislike. So what if I killed the innocent with the guilty? Justice was done!

I think some people have missed my point.

Maybe that's my fault for not expressing myself clearly enough, fair enough.

My point is that everyone's experience and opinion of Arkham Horror is just as valid as everyone else's. What I am trying to object to is when people try to push their opinion as fact; people adopting an attitude of "I think this should change therefore it should happen to everyone", people adopting an attitude of "this needs to change because I don't like it".

That's all.

Stenum: Every once in a while, I hear someone express dismay that not everyone plays the game using the same rules. I think they're into leagues or something, where everyone in the world supposedly faces the exact same set of challenges. I've even had a person explain that, even though I never met him, I was still taking something away from him by using my own house rules. What can you really do with these people except ignore them?

Julia: Runic, eh? Put it that way, it sounds pretty cool.

....Are there any instances here of people saying that everyone else should play a particular way? I honestly cannot recall any. If you're reading this as implicit in the posts here, then you are likely reading too much into things.

Here are some counter-points I have to your post, Stenun.

• Some forum members have been asked by the designer and expansion overseer to find loopholes and game-breaking situations. This likely occurred because of enthusiastic discussion.
• Investigators are supposed to be equally balanced, but differently useful. Most of the time the designers did a good job but in a couple cases there were accidental oversights. It happens, but why should we be quiet about it? Investigators should be more or less useful under certain conditions, but if by design some are significantly better or worse on average, it was probably not intended by the designers. In summary, absolutely: they should all be equal on average.
• We are not the only ones to find a clue-hoarding Shotgun Joe to be a problem in final combat. The designer himself came onto the forums with a proposed rule to prevent this. If the designer of the game thinks something is cheap or hugely thematically dissonant, maybe we should listen.
• Other players who "need help" don't understand the basis for this game, and could break whatever rules they like to suit their gameplay. Why shouldn't the designer come up with retroactive rule changes?
• Remember that this game is based off of the Cthulhu Mythos, which exist because of its thematic presence. Players are playing investigators with back-stories and encounters are padded with words that have no value except when considered thematically. Personal Stories and Epic Battle were introduced as add-ons. At this point, moving away from imitating roleplay is more absurd than moving toward. Of all the games to change rules based on theme, Arkham Horror is definitely one of the best.
• Nobody ultimately decides when everyone will agree on balance. But when many players agree on something, it's worth considering. People asked for a revised Dark Pharaoh and an expansion-expansion, and they eventually were made. People asked for minis: also made. They ask FAQs: many get answered, and a full-FAQ is in the works. So it seems like we should continue discussing strengths and flaws.
• Remember that there is a rubric for determining a fair amount of starting items. Patrice's and Vincent's sheets both match that rubric. So long as we agree that the rubric is fair, which we've been doing since the base game, then those two are balanced for items. Stats and abilities are what's in question.
• Rules that result in an automatic win need to be considered. This is a critical flaw and as such, is a flaw for ANY game, except where such situations are intentionally part of the experience (only party games do this).
• The fact that you think that Roland never losing to Nyar (note that this does not require a passed story) implies that you think Michael never being able to lose to Rhan-Tegoth is okay. Imagine setting up the game and realizing that, so long as you keep McGlen (or Banks) alive, it's impossible for the investigators to lose. That's not fun: that's bad design. And the fact is, both of these rules have been fixed after-the-fact by the designer so that these loopholes are closed. If you don't like this, then you should house-rule against these rules, but you'd be wandering into the territory that you're currently criticizing.
• Also, Roland Banks is not Amanda Sharpe. You can't argue one on behalf of the other. WRT Harvey, "never being able to seal" or "never being able to pass your story" is absolutely not the same as "never being able to win (or lose) the game."
• If there's an exploit, people will complain. If the designer agrees with them, he will remove the exploit. But if nobody complains, he'll never notice.
• Your anecdote about your friend is highly irrelevant. Both you and your friend recognize that the intent of that game is not to be permanently limited to weak weapons and that what he is doing is intentionally outside how the designers envisioned the gameplay to evolve.

Arkham Horror is fun. I love it. But it is not perfect. Many of us recognize similar imperfections. The designers should be greatful that this game has gotten the feedback it has.

Lastly, if you do not like the kind of discussions conducted on these forums, of if you do not agree with a designer's rule change, you could simply ignore them. But thanks for your opinion anyway.

Tibs said:

Sorry but I don't believe that for one moment. There's no way someone would design Patrice Hathaway and believe her to be "equally balanced" with Jim Culver. Patrice was obviously designed to be one of the more powerful Investigators - and there's nothing wrong with that at all. But trying to argue she's designed as an equal to Finn Edwards is just silly.

Tibs said:

Sure, by all means listen. But that doesn't mean the designer is automatically right (no offence if he's reading this). I've played so many games over the years and read so many FAQs and designer comments about what was intended versus what is actually doable, that I have come to regard a designer's arguments of intention to be no more automatically valid than the players's arguments.

Let's change media for a moment and look at the movies. Let's look at the 1997 Star Wars Special Editions. They included changes that the writer/director wanted. Did everyone think they were all good changes? How about the recent change of adding a "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!" to Darth Vader's dialogue in Return Of The Jedi?

And yes, I **know** this is different. I am using an analogy to show that the creator's changing things years later doesn't automatically mean that the changes are good.

Tibs said:

What about rules that result in an automatic loss? It is possible to lose this game during Setup. Why is there no frantic clamouring for that change? Why does no one seem to mind that the game can sometimes be unwinable no matter what but everyone seems to think it's stupid to have an unloseable game?

Tibs said:

If you think that, I believe you missed the point.

The point was that my friend finds that game very easy in its "official" way to be played. So he purposefully made it harder for himself but doesn't mind at all that the ease is still there for the players who need/want it.

If you believe an auto-win is too easy, why not make it harder for yourself but leave the ease there for those who want it? If you believe Joe Diamond makes the game too easy, why not make it harder for yourself but leave the ease there for those who want it?

I know I'm certainly guilty of getting ultra-emotional about certain issues, but I pride myself on never claiming that anyone else with an opposing opinion is "wrong". I may disagree, but that's the end of it: I disagree. (Okay, and MAYBE I won't want to play in one of THEIR games.) Recently, I know I got pretty riled up about Personal Stories--and I believe I threw in a caveat that it was because FFG threw a harpoon through my favorite Investigator--but I'm better now. I got a handful of feedback, both on and off this forum, and my brains have cooled.

Plus, in retrospect, I thoroughly enjoyed that debate.

Tibs, my man, truly splendid post. Not only well-stated, but you get a big cookie for fluent use of "rubric"!

Stenun said:

I agree with you on this point. I don't have such a low opinion of the game designers to believe that they thought Patrice would be equal to Vincent ;'D

Without going into a big post about your response, I'll just say this:

No, I don't think Patrice is balanced against Finn or Jim. I do know that mistakes can slip through the design process though. I think, with Patrice, the designers honestly lost track of what "appropriate" was.

It's really not fair to weigh Lucas's ongoing treatment of the Star Wars franchise against anything.

Tibs said:

One day, "Reductio ad Hitlerum" will be replaced with "Reductio ad Lucasum".

Let's call it "Stenun's Law". :-D

Stenun said:

This is an interesting point, but I actually think there's a straightforward answer: auto-winning a game still takes several hours, whereas if you lose during setup, you can just reshuffle and play again. If the cases were more closely analogous, that is, if a given AO/investigator combo necessarily resulted in an awakening and loss if certain minimal conditions have been met, but I had to play the game through to get to this preordained conclusion, I actually would consider this a serious problem. (Secondarily, there's the fact that the mythos zero loss is still basically theoretical, whereas drawing a given Investigator against a given AO is relatively common).

Now I'm really confused. Even if Kevin Wilson makes an official rules change, the people who don't like the change can still ignore it, right? I mean, the fact that it's an "official" rules change means nothing, since everyone plays the game differently. Not to mention that the vast majority of gamers (probably) don't even go online to check for "official" changes. They just use the rules that came in the box. Is someone going to explain to all those people that they're playing the game wrong because of something Kevin posted online six years after the game was published?

Even if/when the FAQ gets published, it still won't settle things once and for all. People will find fault with large portions of it, no matter what. So what's the point in arguing about whether a rule change is "official" or not, or in trying to make an amendment "official" in the first place?

One of the things that annoys me the most about this forum, I can't find where to change the beam time (?)...

...

Oh... My mistake, it wasn't a technical issue I was supposed to speak about ?

avec said:

Not everyone will have access to such a FAQ and not everyone will agree on every facet of it, but many will see and use it, and many care about what rules are officially updated. That's the point. You can't expect to change everyone's mind.

I was going to make another point, but Avec essentially took the words out of my mouth. What I will add, though, is that Stenun included Avec's point in his original post, and it essentially nullifies his argument (put simply: if you [stenun] believe it is important to play as you want as opposed to according to the rules, then why does it matter whether people get the designers to alter the rules?).

Also, to Tibs: I've never seen that response from the designer about Joe Diamond. Could you direct me to it?

Tibs said:

And how is that different from anything else that gets posted online? "Official" changes matter only because you personally place importance on the word "official." If another person didn't care whether a rule change was "official," there'd be no reason they would have to care.

To make it more specific, say that Kevin posts an official change to Patrice, complete with a new investigator PDF. You can even mail FFG a proof of purchase or something and they'll send you a new investigator card in the mail. So what? What about people who don't read online forums, or who don't like the new Patrice? Are they wrong to play with the old one? Even if Kevin were to include in his post, "you are wrong to play with the old Patrice," what difference would it make? Some people would play with the new Patrice and other people would play with the old one. The only people who care about "official" changes are the people who choose to care.

Edit: ninja'd by Walk

avec said:

So what is that I'd let people who didn't know that there was an option to get an update. They can play with whichever one they like, but there will be an "updated" and "older" version. I can tell you there are tons of gamers who would be interested in playing the "most up-to-date" version of any rules, if they're available.

Kevin, or anyone at FFG would never come on to say, "you are wrong to play with (old ___)." Most likely, they would indicate that "new ___" is the direction they've decided to go or that is the current update.

My ultimate point is that people who freely choose to ignore official rules and rulings are not affected by updated rules. People who accidentally ignore officially updated rules are not affected by them. However, people who prefer to play with the most up-to-date rules will benefit from them.

Nobody suffers from official updates. Many gain from them. So why argue against them?