Matt Smith
United States
Troy
Michigan
flag msg tools
It's a love/hate relationship.
badge
Check out my board game instructional videos on my YouTube channel: "The Game Explainer".
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Session Date: September 28, 2013
Scenario: Black Fang's Dungeon
Players: Bob (Harsk), Robert (Valeros), Barney (Ezren), Matt (Merisiel)

I wrote this session report primary to describe how our particular party struggled with this scenario, and how we ultimately almost pulled off a miracle win. I hope this serves as an example how PACG is not an auto-win, not multi-player solitaire, and really fun with the right group. I will not try to recount all of the events, as I didn't write anything down, and can't remember it all anyway.

After having just beaten the Poison Pill scenario, we were buffed and ready to take on Black Fang's Dungeon. With our collection of characters, we've noticed we have little trouble taking down monsters, and Merisiel can handle most barriers for the party (Harsk can look ahead, and Ezren occasionally casts Detect Magic, so we sometimes know when Merisiel needs to switch locations and take out a barrier). Where we struggle is with the Blessings Deck timer. So far, each scenario has come down to the final few turns. We almost always spend cards to explore when possible, but sometimes we've had to spend our few Blessings on checks.

Valeros and Merisiel started at the Throne Room, while Ezren went to the Thassilonian Dungeon and Harsk went to the Temple. Valeros found the Ancient Skeleton henchman on his first turn (2nd card), and took him down easily. We discussed the merits of closing the Throne Room now, but decided there was too much good stuff still to be found, so we left it open.

We spent the next few rounds whittling away at our current locations, until Ezren used Detect Magic at the Dungeon and found a really tough monster. He requested help from Valeros, who moved there, while Merisiel moved to the Desecrated Vault. Meanwhile, Harsk continued to flounder around at the Temple (he wasn't drawing Blessings, so he could only explore once per turn).

Merisiel quickly found Black Fang at the Vault! We were not in a position to temporarily close all other locations, so we decided it was best to have Merisiel evade Black Fang and leave him in the Vault. That way we knew where he was, and could deal with him after closing the other locations. Merisiel moved to the Warrens, as she could evade monsters without triggering the location effect (add a monster to the top of another open location). She also had the best skills to close that location.

Eventually, the team of Valeros and Ezren got to the last card in the Dungeon, which had to be the Henchman. Ezren took down the Henchman and closed the Dungeon. On the next turn, Merisiel closed the Warrens.

After Merisiel's turn, we counted the cards remaining in the Blessing deck, and found out we only had six turns left! This led to a lengthy group discussion regarding if we even had a chance to win the scenario. Harsk had the Temple covered, and Merisiel could move to the Shrine to Lamashtu. We decided to have Ezren move to the Throne Room, so he would be there to try to close it. If Valeros didn't find Black Fang on his last turn, Harsk would have to move to the Vault and try to find Black Fang on the very last turn of the game, assuming he had closed the Temple on his previous turn. Sounds easy, right? wow

(The remaining turns in order were: Valeros, Harsk, Ezren, Merisiel, Valeros, Harsk. I'll describe these six turns in more detail below, as it demonstrates how we had to really coordinate to have a chance at success.)

Valeros: Moved to the Vault and explored twice, but didn't find Black Fang. This was actually good, because there were two other locations where Black Fang could have fled.
Harsk: Had to spend two Blessings to find and defeat the Henchman at the Temple, then close the location.
Ezren: Moved to the Throne Room to be in position to temporarily close it.
Merisiel: After exploring and not finding the Henchman, I discarded my entire hand, to try to draw the Blessing that was required to close the location. Fortunately, I drew my final two Blessings, but only had one card left in my draw pile.
Valeros: Explored, but again didn't find Black Fang (he found an Enchanter instead). This left four cards in the Vault location deck.
Harsk: Since he had just closed the Temple, Harsk moved to the Vault and explored. He didn't find Black Fang, but instead encountered an Ambush barrier! After reading the card, he figured he could try to pass it and get a free explore of the next card, or fail it and have to encounter the next monster in the deck. We decided to have him fail the Ambush, and hope Black Fang was the next monster. The downside of this approach was the fight would be tougher (-1 per die). He failed the Ambush and flipped the next card; an Item. So he flipped the next card; a Spell. That left only one card, which was Black Fang! The only way Harsk could have encountered him was to get Ambushed when he did.

Now that we had a chance at Black Fang, everything had to fall into place. First, we had Ezren try to temporarily close the Throne Room. He needed a Charisma 6 on a d6, so Harsk spent one of his two Blessings to give him another d6. Ezren rolled a 9; success!

Next, Meresiel had to try to temporarily close the Shrine to Lamashtu, which simply involved banishing a Blessing (her last one). Easily done.

Finally, Harsk could fight Black Fang. First, he had to make a Fortitude 7 check against Black Fang's acid attack. He rolled a 9; success! If he had failed, he likely would have lost the weapon and Blessing he needed to have a chance of successfully attacking (as these were the last two cards in his hand).

Next, Harsk revealed his Light Crossbow for a Ranged attack of 2d8+3, and Valeros added a 1d4 because he was at the same location. This gave Harsk a total of 2d8+1d4+3, but he would be -3 because of the Ambush, so his net was 2d8+1d4. He needed to roll a 12. We all held our breath, as he rolled...11! shake

After thinking we had no chance, then working out a plan that, if everything fell together perfectly, we could win, only to miss by 1 on the last roll on the last possible turn, was AWESOME! Yes, you read that right. The drama, excitement, and emotion were running very high, which made for a fantastic finish, and a story which we will remember for a long time. Sure, we would have preferred to win. But we are all still alive, and now we have vengeance on our minds. Black Fang, we will get you next time!
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Smart

Kentucky
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've won 2 of my games precisely the way you almost won that one--Ambush revealing the Villain on the last turn or next to last turn. Honestly, I've gotten to the point of being glad I fail at that check because the penalty isn't too severe, and you get to eliminate 2 banes for one explore.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guillaume Pages
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Awesome battle report.

But I find it interesting that we are seeing more and more sessions where players are losing or winning by the skin of their teeth by pulling a rag-tag win.

This to me suggest that the idea that this game was too easy was born out of the first 3 introductory adventures which are tutorial adventures essentially.

Now that players are encountering the real meat of the game, it isn't easy to pull it off anymore.

I feel that PACG has really suffered from bad impressions which BBG and the internet has not helped. Instead players complains have added fuel to the fire with every Dick, Tom and Harry hating on the game. Had players taken the time to read the rulebook thoroughly and play through most of the adventures, I don't think we would be in a situation where Mike Selinker and his team are having to apologize to the community for their "disastrous game which contains so many mistakes".

Instead, we are now realizing that PACG is a well designed game and that because it is relatively innovative as a genre, it suffers from players not being able to grasp the game very well and calling its mechanic broken/boring.

It is a hybrid, since when have hybrids (of anything) worked well the first time they were released? (I am looking at you Prius). Hybrids are by definition more prone to problems than basic genre games because they may contains problems from two genre styles instead of just one. PACG has problems of card games AND RPG games.

Still, great session, looking forward to read your take 2.

Have you thought about implementing any malus to the end of your story or do you feel that failing at the last moment was punishment enough?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cracky McCracken
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Players thought LotR:LCG was too easy as well... until they realised they were playing it wrong. With all the inane rules questions this forum has been carpet bombed with I'm not surprised to see PACG go in the same direction (easy to hard)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Smith
United States
Troy
Michigan
flag msg tools
It's a love/hate relationship.
badge
Check out my board game instructional videos on my YouTube channel: "The Game Explainer".
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
guigtexas wrote:
Have you thought about implementing any malus to the end of your story or do you feel that failing at the last moment was punishment enough?

Since we spent 90 minutes and didn't earn either the scenario or adventure reward, we felt that was punishment enough. Besides, we're all old-school RPGers, so we're quite familiar with failing to defeat the bad guy, only to re-equip and go at it again.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathaniel GOUSSET
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mvettemagred wrote:
Session Date: September 28, 2013
easily. We discussed the merits of closing the Throne Room now, but decided there was too much good stuff still to be found, so we left it open.


So you make a discutable decision at the game start and because of that you risked losing by blessing deck.

I am sorry but this doesn't justify the game difficulty. It only justify the fact that when people do stupid things or take risky path they often get burned by it.

Should you have closed the location on time you will have easily won, like everyone that concentrate on the scenario goal usually do.

If they only time you got in a danger of lossing a game is when you take easily avoidable bad decisions then the game IS too easy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek VDG
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
IKerensky wrote:
mvettemagred wrote:
Session Date: September 28, 2013
easily. We discussed the merits of closing the Throne Room now, but decided there was too much good stuff still to be found, so we left it open.


Should you have closed the location on time you will have easily won, like everyone that concentrate on the scenario goal usually do.

If they only time you got in a danger of lossing a game is when you take easily avoidable bad decisions then the game IS too easy.


A broad statement that cannot be verified. It would have been a completely different game. Yes, most likely they would have a few extra turns. It doesn't necessarily mean it would have been 'easy'.

Then, keep in mind that if you close locations ASAP, you will have fewer/weaker resources for the next scenario, which can be extremely important and make those scenarios more difficult to complete.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Smith
United States
Troy
Michigan
flag msg tools
It's a love/hate relationship.
badge
Check out my board game instructional videos on my YouTube channel: "The Game Explainer".
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
IKerensky wrote:
mvettemagred wrote:
Session Date: September 28, 2013
easily. We discussed the merits of closing the Throne Room now, but decided there was too much good stuff still to be found, so we left it open.


So you make a discutable decision at the game start and because of that you risked losing by blessing deck.

I am sorry but this doesn't justify the game difficulty. It only justify the fact that when people do stupid things or take risky path they often get burned by it.

Should you have closed the location on time you will have easily won, like everyone that concentrate on the scenario goal usually do.

If they only time you got in a danger of lossing a game is when you take easily avoidable bad decisions then the game IS too easy.

We definitely thought about that, both at the time, and after we were done. We didn't drain the Throne Room location, but we did spend 2-4 more turns there looking for boons. Would those extra turns have made a big difference? In this case, I don't think so. Consider:
- We had to drain the Dungeon to find the Henchman
- After Black Fang was first discovered, he was shuffled to the bottom of the Vault deck
- The Henchman at the Temple was near the bottom of that deck
- We hadn't even touched the Shrine deck.

At least for this play of this scenario, I think some bad luck with the shuffling of the location decks, combined with our general lack of extra explores, led to a very tight finish. I conceed it would have felt different if each Henchman was in the top 3 cards of the location decks. But if we had closed each deck when first possible, then we would have been missing out on some nice boons. Balancing character improvement with scenario completion is something we're still "dialing in". But I'd rather have the ending we had, than finish the scenario on turn 20 and have no good new boons to show for it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This thread reminds me why I think PACG is such an awesome game. Not too hard - you could have won - and not too easy - because you didn't win. With lots of cool moments and memories along the way.

IKerensky wrote:
So you make a discutable decision at the game start and because of that you risked losing by blessing deck.


I maintain that if you try and rip through each adventure as fast as possible, and always close every location as early as possible, there is a very good chance that you won't be equipped well enough to breeze through the later scenarios. I know that is what happened when I solo'd a character through the first 4 or 5 scenarios - when I had dashed through the early games, I found myself short of good boons to tackle the later games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Clarke
Canada
Port Coquitlam
B.C.
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
IKerensky wrote:
mvettemagred wrote:
Session Date: September 28, 2013
easily. We discussed the merits of closing the Throne Room now, but decided there was too much good stuff still to be found, so we left it open.


So you make a discutable decision at the game start and because of that you risked losing by blessing deck.

I am sorry but this doesn't justify the game difficulty. It only justify the fact that when people do stupid things or take risky path they often get burned by it.

Should you have closed the location on time you will have easily won, like everyone that concentrate on the scenario goal usually do.

If they only time you got in a danger of lossing a game is when you take easily avoidable bad decisions then the game IS too easy.


It's an ADVENTURE. They took a calculated risk and wound up with the adventure of a lifetime. Isn't that why we play these games?!

Where is the fun in a group cooperative adventure you play for an hour and a half and always wind up losing? This game provides, fun, thematic moments on your way to glorious victories. I personally don't have a problem with that.

I MUCH prefer that to coops like Ghost Stories where the margin of error is so slim you feel like you're a machine.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
dvang wrote:
IKerensky wrote:
Should you have closed the location on time you will have easily won, like everyone that concentrate on the scenario goal usually do.

If they only time you got in a danger of lossing a game is when you take easily avoidable bad decisions then the game IS too easy.


A broad statement that cannot be verified. It would have been a completely different game. Yes, most likely they would have a few extra turns. It doesn't necessarily mean it would have been 'easy'.


No matter how many players you have, there are N+2 locations. With more players you have fewer turns per player. I'm afraid that it DOES seem pretty obvious that choosing to extend the game clock by not closing a location when given the opportunity is flirting with disaster precisely because you don't know what the rest of the decks will be like.

It may not mean the game is easy, but it's definitely an obvious "I choose to make the game harder" risk/reward decision.

dvang wrote:
Then, keep in mind that if you close locations ASAP, you will have fewer/weaker resources for the next scenario, which can be extremely important and make those scenarios more difficult to complete.


That's theoretical: in practice you need a loot card in those 5-8 cards that is not basic, that can be acquired by the character attempting the challenge, and that will benefit someone in the party greatly enough to warrant a slot in the deck. That's pretty slim odds for one location against the certainty that you're eating your game clock to do so.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
RDewsbery wrote:
I maintain that if you try and rip through each adventure as fast as possible, and always close every location as early as possible, there is a very good chance that you won't be equipped well enough to breeze through the later scenarios. I know that is what happened when I solo'd a character through the first 4 or 5 scenarios - when I had dashed through the early games, I found myself short of good boons to tackle the later games.


This is where party size matters. Yes, a solo player should absolutely take time to explore. With 30 cards in location decks and 30 turns there's no real time pressure. But a party of 4 has 60 cards in location decks to work through in those same 30 turns: for them it matters a lot more.

But loot matters a lot less to a big party. First off there's the aid: coordination means that each check has more that can be used to pass it. And the bigger party size means that more loot will be seen so there are more chances at the things you want (I've seen Lini helps Marisiel get a spell so that it's in the pool at the end of the scenario, for example), and less pressure to HAVE to find all the things.

Party size matters to any discussion on strategy in this game. With a 4 character party I will stand by the assertion that closing locations to keep up on time is more important than small chances at loot. But yes, I also agree with you that a solo character needs the loot more than the time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Smith
United States
Troy
Michigan
flag msg tools
It's a love/hate relationship.
badge
Check out my board game instructional videos on my YouTube channel: "The Game Explainer".
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jsciv wrote:
RDewsbery wrote:
I maintain that if you try and rip through each adventure as fast as possible, and always close every location as early as possible, there is a very good chance that you won't be equipped well enough to breeze through the later scenarios. I know that is what happened when I solo'd a character through the first 4 or 5 scenarios - when I had dashed through the early games, I found myself short of good boons to tackle the later games.


This is where party size matters. Yes, a solo player should absolutely take time to explore. With 30 cards in location decks and 30 turns there's no real time pressure. But a party of 4 has 60 cards in location decks to work through in those same 30 turns: for them it matters a lot more.

But loot matters a lot less to a big party. First off there's the aid: coordination means that each check has more that can be used to pass it. And the bigger party size means that more loot will be seen so there are more chances at the things you want (I've seen Lini helps Marisiel get a spell so that it's in the pool at the end of the scenario, for example), and less pressure to HAVE to find all the things.

Party size matters to any discussion on strategy in this game. With a 4 character party I will stand by the assertion that closing locations to keep up on time is more important than small chances at loot. But yes, I also agree with you that a solo character needs the loot more than the time.

I always knew size matters!

But seriously, if we had been further along in the game and found a henchman near the top of a deck, we would have had more information on how we were doing against the Blessings deck to make a better decision. Since it was the very first turn of the game, it seemed a reasonable gamble that the other 5 locations would have a more average shuffle. As it turned out, 3 of 5 locations had the henchman/villain buried very deep. No biggie, as it was a great adventure anyway. We found some good stuff; now we can focus on completing the scenario the next time. I think the party will be better off in the long run anyway.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oyrren
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Fully agree with OP and all those referring to the RPG dimension of the game. One should not complain about the lack of the roleplaying feel and at the same time claim that the game is too easy. Sure you can play PACG as a purely victory-oriented board game and seek the easiest way to win, but is that what we want?

For some of us at least, this is not the way to go. Instead of breezing through the scenarios, we take calculated risks (sometimes ill-calculated, thanks to the randomness of the location and character deck construction) to enjoy exploring them as much as we can. Damn it, in your favourite tabletop RPG, don't you always peek into the next room, or don't you try to open the potentially lethal trapped chest? Sure you could take the straight path to your final objective, but do you want to give up on the rest that the scenario has to offer? Good AND bad? Sure, with a real GM you can pretty much rely on the lethal chest holding some cool content that makes your risk worth it, while the random nature of PACG does not guarantee it (ok, we spent our last blessing to crack the Battered Chest and get one crappy Short Sword? Bugger...). But many of us will still go for this, and not just the munchkins

And then there's of course the above-mentioned strategy v. tactics issue. Especially in the early games,if you manage to find a good boon or two you can so much improve your odds for the next scenarios. Or of course you can lose. Or die. Greed is a vice
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Senn
United States
Fort Lauderdale
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.

Tough encounter? dont be afraid to recharge cards to beat the living crap out of something. You might only discard one card in the process of a tough battle if you win as opposed to playing it safe and then end up taking damage.

If you find a henchman at a hostile location close the location, and keep exploring those with many boons. Bring support like Lem with you to help you out. Work in teams. You can go from potentially rolling up to 12 to like a 36 very easily.

Closest encounter i had was Ezron having zero cards to draw from next turn. While my 3 other characters had almost a full deck
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Clarke
Canada
Port Coquitlam
B.C.
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Grove123 wrote:
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.


As opposed to what? Not having a clue how to win?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guillaume Pages
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Grove123 wrote:
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.


I think the idea is that it is easy now. After all, this is the first game and PAIZO wants to make a bucket load of money on it. Make it accessible to all sorts of players. Real hard-core gamers who represent a small proportion of your potential market won't be happy... who cares anyway.

With the upcoming adventures, we know from various interviews that monsters will be bigger and badder. Sure, players will have better weapons but I do have the feeling that difficulty will be coming nice and slow.

Since this a hybrid RPG game, we can compare PACG to regular RPG game. As far I know, my first few adventures in an RPG are relatively easy, setting up the theme of the adventure, advancing my character, getting the feeling that I am in it for the long run.

Why on earth would the GM make it hard on us on our first adventure? What complete non-sense. That is just the mark of a bad GM. "yeah, we all fail on our first combat check, well, I won't continue this adventure then and play another game then..."

Furthermore, why would PAIZO make this hard? Reviews would be negative, people wouldn't buy the game.

Let's take the example of Robinson Crusoe which is a coop board game which everyone is raving about. One problem: it is really hard, players don't feel like replaying scenarios because it is too hard. Solution: Crusoe has a built in difficulty leveler where you can add the dog or the character Friday to help you with your adventures.

PACG does not have any ways to increase difficulty. That is a criticism which I think they now understand should be available to gamers, especially for boardgamers who generally have access to changing the difficulty of the game. RPG gamers don't need to play easy, medium or hard because there is someone who is taking charge of the difficulty for them.

All in all, I think discussing difficulty is a moot point. We are 1/6th of the way through the game. Of course it is going to be easy other players would not pay for the other 5/6th of the adventure. Let us discuss difficulty when are 2/3rd of the way through the adventure.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian M
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I hope this serves as an example how PACG is not an auto-win, not multi-player solitaire, and really fun with the right group.

I would agree that it's not an auto-win.
It's definitely not multiplayer solitaire (but very few games are anyway).
And it can be immensely fun.

We've had our share of very close calls; one or two games coming down to the wire on the last turn. We've had one loss. (We also had one game that we thought was a loss, but only because we horribly misplayed a rule).

But it's pretty much a push-over.

And that's not a bad thing, in my opinion. The real fun is in getting new cards added to your characters and leveling up. Given the amount of skill involved and the campaign aspect, I don't mind at all that it's usually a push-over.

When it's not a push-over, it's usually because either:
A) You shuffled all the henchmen to the bottom of the decks.
or
B) The dice gods hate you. Sometimes they just do. We've had a character rolling 4 dice, none smaller than d8, needing a 6 and failing. Some math whiz want to run the odds of that for me? I know it's less than .4%. (not 4%. .4%).

Now, while I don't know exactly what happened in your game, there are some...let's just call them "sub-optimal" choices here.

Quote:
Where we struggle is with the Blessings Deck timer. So far, each scenario has come down to the final few turns.

Well, racing the timer is the main challenge is the core of a single game.

In a 4 player game, you'll need to explore roughly 33ish times (assuming the henchmen are pretty even distributed), and you've got 30 turns to do it in. So you need to make each turn count. However, you've got enough time (and Blessings) to make those 33ish explores, and you can save even more time by temporarily closing locations when fighting the villain.

So...

Quote:
Valeros found the Ancient Skeleton henchman on his first turn (2nd card), and took him down easily. We discussed the merits of closing the Throne Room now, but decided there was too much good stuff still to be found, so we left it open.


Ouch. 33 explores. You just assured that you need 8 more explores to close the Throne Room. Now you need 41ish explores in 30 turns*. You just hurt yourself. A lot. For cards that you'll probably just toss anyways.

* This is not even close to mathematically precise, but it's not a bad estimate.

The one place I can see leaving open when you get a henchmen early is the Temple; it has all good stuff, and enough blessings that you can blaze through it. Very low risk and time cost.

Quote:
Merisiel quickly found Black Fang at the Vault! We were not in a position to temporarily close all other locations, so we decided it was best to have Merisiel evade Black Fang and leave him in the Vault.


If Merisiel couldn't fight Black Fang, this was probably a good choice.

If Merisiel could fight...you get to close out that location for free, ignoring the entire rest of that deck. That's several explores. The other heroes can still temporarily close their locations, so you can force Black Fang to a few areas, which tells you quite a lot. Black Fang in a new area is great - you've got twice the chance of meeting something that lets you close that location.

Quote:
Merisiel moved to the Warrens, as she could evade monsters without triggering the location effect (add a monster to the top of another open location).


Running away isn't a plan. Running away is what you do when the plan fails.

Evading is bad. Don't get me wrong. Being able to evade can be very good. But every time you have to evade, you have wasted one of your precious explores. You should never, ever plan on evading.

What do you do about the warrens then? Never go there. The Warrens should always be the last place you explore. Then there are no painful extra monsters popping up. If the villain is somewhere else? Force it to the Warrens, or have someone ready to temporarily close the warrens.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Gormley
United States
Northborough
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
I'm a lover of all things heavyweight strategy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We've sort of decided that any time we can close out a deck, we do. This has, at times, meant closing decks and losing cards. Realistically, we've only lost 2-3 cards we wanted out of probably 60 that we've closed out, and we have won all of our 11 2-3 player games (Ezren, Kyra and Harsk). Our recently found holy candle will help us with that even more.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R N
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
mikecl wrote:
Grove123 wrote:
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.


As opposed to what? Not having a clue how to win?


As opposed to having varied options, few to none of which are clearly better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Clarke
Canada
Port Coquitlam
B.C.
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slacks wrote:
mikecl wrote:
Grove123 wrote:
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.


As opposed to what? Not having a clue how to win?


As opposed to having varied options, few to none of which are clearly better.


That's nearly every coop I've ever played. There's usually a best way to win them. Maybe you're problem is with coops. Personally there's enough going on and it's a social enough game to keep me entertained. It's a card based roleplay and it does that very well but yes it's not rocket science or a game with which to impress others with your consummate skill.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R N
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
mikecl wrote:
slacks wrote:
mikecl wrote:
Grove123 wrote:
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.


As opposed to what? Not having a clue how to win?


As opposed to having varied options, few to none of which are clearly better.


That's nearly every coop I've ever played. There's usually a best way to win them. Maybe you're problem is with coops. Personally there's enough going on and it's a social enough game to keep me entertained. It's a card based roleplay and it does that very well but yes it's not rocket science or a game with which to impress others with your consummate skill.


Most good coop games that I've played offer difficult choices. This does not make them "rocket science" and I don't play them to "impress others."

Typically when there is a "best way", it is because an alpha gamer has picked what they think is best and presented it that way. This is much different than actually only having one good play. This is a problem I see in Pandemic, which I think is a good coop when you can avoid the alpha gamer problem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Gormley
United States
Northborough
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
I'm a lover of all things heavyweight strategy!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slacks wrote:
mikecl wrote:
slacks wrote:
mikecl wrote:
Grove123 wrote:
my problem is the game is too easy because you know what you got to do to win.


As opposed to what? Not having a clue how to win?


As opposed to having varied options, few to none of which are clearly better.


That's nearly every coop I've ever played. There's usually a best way to win them. Maybe you're problem is with coops. Personally there's enough going on and it's a social enough game to keep me entertained. It's a card based roleplay and it does that very well but yes it's not rocket science or a game with which to impress others with your consummate skill.


Most good coop games that I've played offer difficult choices. This does not make them "rocket science" and I don't play them to "impress others."

Typically when there is a "best way", it is because an alpha gamer has picked what they think is best and presented it that way. This is much different than actually only having one good play. This is a problem I see in Pandemic, which I think is a good coop when you can avoid the alpha gamer problem.


I've played what I consider to be a fair amount of co-ops and in them all, there's almost ALWAYS a best option. Granted, I'm often the alpha gamer putting it forth, but either way, whether I'm seeing it or no one is, there's a best option. You used the phrase "good" in there - I would agree that anything that brings us closer to winning is good and there are many options that can achieve that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Ainsworth
United Kingdom
Manchester
Lancashire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are difficult choices in the meta game with the loot.

The individual scenarios though are, I agree, mainly about luck. It's less a puzzle and more a ride. There are strategies but they're quite basic and easy to see after a little bit of play and sometimes they'll be irrelevant.

This is based purely on Perils of the Lost Coast and Burnt Offerings, of course. I've already played homebrew scenarios where strategy and choice were huge, and showed me just what the system is capable of. So maybe we'll see more in that regard from Paizo, if not, again it seems to be flexible enough that fan made scenarios have a lot to offer.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.