Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Arkham Horror: The Card Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Question on Death/Insanity and an alternative rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Dukelow
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
Hello everyone,

I'm fairly new to this game, have only played through the core set and just began playing Dunwich.
My question is a speculative one I've been thinking about.

When an investigator dies the game allows you to bring in a new investigator as a replacement, but how about if you wanted to "retire" an investigator and voluntarily bring in a new one?

I'm thinking about this in the context that if you have ended up suffering a lot of physical or mental trauma with a investigator and they've been reduced to starting the scenario with 1 or 2 life/sanity. It seems to me at that point it might be better to bring in a new investigator and try to start leveling them rather than trying to continue with the investigator who has 1 or 2 life until they are finally killed?

I don't see anything in the rules that prevents you from doing this as you can have investigators leave and come back in the middle of campaigns, but am I missing anything?

On a side note, has anyone experienced this? and what are the more experienced player's thoughts on this? Is it better to keep playing with your investigator who starts with 1 sanity or better to start getting XP on a new one?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chick Lewis
United States
Claremont
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do not think the rules have any problem with players 'retiring' investigators between scenarios, and replacing them with other investigators using all "level 0" cards.

If I had a badly-abused investigator with only a couple of starting sanity, I would retire 'em before the next scenario.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Dockery
msg tools
mb
Dawedu wrote:
I don't see anything in the rules that prevents you from doing this as you can have investigators leave and come back in the middle of campaigns, but am I missing anything?


The rules allow for new players to come in mid-campaign with level 0 investigators. Since the "player" is essentially a legal fiction as far as the rules are concerned (cf playing two-handed, where one actual player counts as two players as far as rules go), there's nothing wrong with replacing your investigator and starting over as a new player. In fact, I recall one of the developers explicitly recommending that course of action at one point
Spoiler (click to reveal)
to a player of Ashcan Pete who'd gotten Duke kidnapped and sacrificed.


Obviously, there are a few ways you can cheese this:
Spoiler (click to reveal)
For instance, by having the investigator with the Necronomicon skip Essex County Express, you guarantee that the Necronomicon cannot be lost, even if you lose the scenario. Or, if you're planning to string campaigns together, you could have a star investigator stay home during the final battle to avoid the brutal resolution effects.

In the end, though, it's a co-op game, so you're only cheating yourself. You could houserule that retired investigators can never return to the game, if you're that worried about someone gaming the system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
rsdockery wrote:
The rules allow for new players to come in mid-campaign with level 0 investigators. Since the "player" is essentially a legal fiction as far as the rules are concerned (cf playing two-handed, where one actual player counts as two players as far as rules go), there's nothing wrong with replacing your investigator and starting over as a new player. In fact, I recall one of the developers explicitly recommending that course of action at one point


One player = one investigator is no more a legal fiction than starting with 5 cards and 5 resources rather than 4 or 6 of each.

2-handed play is a house rule that breaks the one investigator rule and, by necessity, Peril.

Strictly speaking, if your investigator takes a bunch of trauma and weaknesses, you just have to alter your play style. You're not free to switch investigators by retiring at will.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
On Pete/Duke specifically, that was a ruling on a special case, not a suggestion to use a generally available option.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a veteran of the Call of Cthulhu pen and paper RPG, if all the investigators that start the campaign end up finishing, you've failed as a GM.

In that spirit, I'd absolutely allow or consider mid-campaign replacements between story acts to acknowledge an investigator that is simply too mentally or physically broken to continue. Could you just let them continue? Absolutely - and maybe you have nothing to lose if they end up getting knocked out for good during a chapter. However that seems unlikely as there have been penalties for being defeated so far (through what I've played through Dunwich).

Really the downside is that you're losing out on all of that damaged characters experience (and purchased cards). However, I don't think you should try to "level up" a replacement character if you retire another - just start a fresh character and see what happens.

Ultimately that's your call, but as a former GM that's how I look at it and how I'd play. For me it's all about the experience and I fully expect the characters to be completely and utterly traumatized sooner than later. That's Cthulhu!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tollas McClane
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rule book, page 6, Campaign Play:

Joining or Leaving a Campaign
Once a campaign has begun, players can freely drop in and out of the campaign in between scenarios. If a player leaves the campaign, do not delete that player’s information from the campaign log, as he or she may re-join at any time between scenarios. If a new player joins the campaign, he or she must choose an investigator not previously used during this campaign. That player begins as if it were his or her first scenario in the campaign, with no experience and no trauma.

While the rules do not specifically state it as they refer to players and not characters, the Join/Leave a campaign text allows for removing & adding characters, but with reasonable limitations (no xp) and benefits (no trauma).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Tollas wrote:
Rule book, page 6, Campaign Play:

Joining or Leaving a Campaign
Once a campaign has begun, players can freely drop in and out of the campaign in between scenarios. If a player leaves the campaign, do not delete that player’s information from the campaign log, as he or she may re-join at any time between scenarios. If a new player joins the campaign, he or she must choose an investigator not previously used during this campaign. That player begins as if it were his or her first scenario in the campaign, with no experience and no trauma.

While the rules do not specifically state it as they refer to players and not characters, the Join/Leave a campaign text allows for removing & adding characters, but with reasonable limitations (no xp) and benefits (no trauma).


Yes. That's the passage I'm referring to. Nothing about that allows you to change your investigator, barring death, insanity, or certain spoiler-y conditions.

It specifically states it's referring to players by using the word "players."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lindgaard
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
Tollas wrote:
Rule book, page 6, Campaign Play:

Joining or Leaving a Campaign
Once a campaign has begun, players can freely drop in and out of the campaign in between scenarios. If a player leaves the campaign, do not delete that player’s information from the campaign log, as he or she may re-join at any time between scenarios. If a new player joins the campaign, he or she must choose an investigator not previously used during this campaign. That player begins as if it were his or her first scenario in the campaign, with no experience and no trauma.

While the rules do not specifically state it as they refer to players and not characters, the Join/Leave a campaign text allows for removing & adding characters, but with reasonable limitations (no xp) and benefits (no trauma).


Yes. That's the passage I'm referring to. Nothing about that allows you to change your investigator, barring death, insanity, or certain spoiler-y conditions.



Then again, the FFG game police is rather understaffed these days...you'll propably get away with it devil

( My point: If thats what you do, do it. It's your game.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dukelow
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
Well this is definitely an interesting conversation. Good points and interpreting of the rules everyone and thank you for lending your knowledge. I see the point that it might not be officially allowed by the rules. But it also doesn't clearly state that you cannot 'retire' an investigator either.

Right now I'm just playing two handed solo, but would like to bring this game to my gaming group at some point.

I think the house rule I will have and will propose to them is that you can 'retire' an investigator, but it is the same as insanity or being killed. The investigator is done and the new investigator joins the campaign with 0 XP just like if your investigator was killed.
I doubt that we will be dealing with characters being eliminated that much anyways, and if we are we need to look at our strategy and reevaluate.

The reason that I would rule it this way though, is the idea of having that bad luck with an investigator and going into the second to last mission with say, one starting life on your character. Then you're faced with the two very not fun outcomes of:
A.) Having that character finally be killed, even in the beginning of the scenario. Then that player is spending the rest of the night drinking coffee, watching everyone else play and building their deck with no XP to prepare for the final scenario.
B.) That character somehow survives with one life and then must go on to the final scenario with, again, one starting life. Say then they get knocked out early in the scenario and have to watch everyone else play out the finale without them?

In the end this game is just about having fun and I think that whether or not this is allowed by the rules I would play with allowing retirement of the investigator.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Lindgaard wrote:
Then again, the FFG game police is rather understaffed these days...you'll propably get away with it devil

( My point: If thats what you do, do it. It's your game.)


Of course. That wasn't what OP asked, though.

Generally speaking, if someone is asking a rules question, it's either so they can play the rules as written, or make an informed decision on a house rule. "Do what you want," is sort of the opposite of helpful.

Besides, it continually boggles me that people feel the need to remind others they can do what they like with their game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Dawedu wrote:
Well this is definitely an interesting conversation. Good points and interpreting of the rules everyone and thank you for lending your knowledge. I see the point that it might not be officially allowed by the rules. But it also doesn't clearly state that you cannot 'retire' an investigator either.


It doesn't have to -- there's simply no mechanism for it. To change characters, you can die or go insane. (Or spoiler.) When the rules do tell you how to change characters, the lack of a mention of retirement means it's just not an option that exists.

It's like 2-handed play. It doesn't have to tell you one player can't choose two investigators. It tells you what you can do -- choose one investigator and build a deck -- and simply doesn't mention all the things you can't.

If people thought FFG's rulebooks were insane now, imagine what they would be like if they mentioned every single thing you couldn't do?

All that being said...

Quote:
In the end this game is just about having fun and I think that whether or not this is allowed by the rules I would play with allowing retirement of the investigator.


As you should! I'd recommend discussing house rules with the people you're playing with in general, but it seems like you're already planning to do that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MC Shudde M'ell
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
Generally speaking, if someone is asking a rules question, it's either so they can play the rules as written, or make an informed decision on a house rule. "Do what you want," is sort of the opposite of helpful.

Besides, it continually boggles me that people feel the need to remind others they can do what they like with their game.


It can be helpful to hear from an experienced player, because there are other questions in the same vein that do get a different reaction. It's not always intuitively obvious to newer gamers which rules are in the "critical for game balance" category and which rules are in the "go ahead and house rule" category.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
Dawedu wrote:
Well this is definitely an interesting conversation. Good points and interpreting of the rules everyone and thank you for lending your knowledge. I see the point that it might not be officially allowed by the rules. But it also doesn't clearly state that you cannot 'retire' an investigator either.


It doesn't have to -- there's simply no mechanism for it. To change characters, you can die or go insane. (Or spoiler.) When the rules do tell you how to change characters, the lack of a mention of retirement means it's just not an option that exists.

It's like 2-handed play. It doesn't have to tell you one player can't choose two investigators. It tells you what you can do -- choose one investigator and build a deck -- and simply doesn't mention all the things you can't.

If people thought FFG's rulebooks were insane now, imagine what they would be like if they mentioned every single thing you couldn't do?

All that being said...

Quote:
In the end this game is just about having fun and I think that whether or not this is allowed by the rules I would play with allowing retirement of the investigator.


As you should! I'd recommend discussing house rules with the people you're playing with in general, but it seems like you're already planning to do that.


Except, mechanically, having an investigator retire and picking a new one is no different to you dropping out and another player taking your place with a new investigator. With regards to the rules the only time a player is a mechanic is during a scenario (which is why two handed play is a house rule) - since cards in your hand are meant to be secret, and perils etc.

The point I'm making is playing two handed does alter the mechanics somewhat significantly - perils are no longer functioning how they should. But retiring a character has no mechanical difference to drop in/drop out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Esgaldil wrote:
It can be helpful to hear from an experienced player, because there are other questions in the same vein that do get a different reaction. It's not always intuitively obvious to newer gamers which rules are in the "critical for game balance" category and which rules are in the "go ahead and house rule" category.


When that's the question asked, sure. "It's your game, do what you want," is probably right behind, "grim rule," as most misplaced piece of advice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Jjdelanoche wrote:
Except, mechanically, having an investigator retire and picking a new one is no different to you dropping out and another player taking your place with a new investigator. With regards to the rules the only time a player is a mechanic is during a scenario (which is why two handed play is a house rule) - since cards in your hand are meant to be secret, and perils etc.


It's absolutely different. You, the player, are constrained to deal with the consequences of previous games on your investigator. It defines how you interact with the game, and shapes your choices in scenarios.

I don't know how much more black and white you want it than,

RRG, Campaign Play wrote:
A campaign is a series of interrelated scenarios in which each player plays the same investigator from one scenario to the next.


It's literally the very first, and arguably defining, thing said about campaign play in that section.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
Jjdelanoche wrote:
Except, mechanically, having an investigator retire and picking a new one is no different to you dropping out and another player taking your place with a new investigator. With regards to the rules the only time a player is a mechanic is during a scenario (which is why two handed play is a house rule) - since cards in your hand are meant to be secret, and perils etc.


It's absolutely different. You, the player, are constrained to deal with the consequences of previous games on your investigator. It defines how you interact with the game, and shapes your choices in scenarios.

I mean, I don't know how much more black and white you want it than,

RRG, Campaign Play wrote:
"A campaign is a series of interrelated scenarios in which each player plays the same investigator from one scenario to the next."


It's literally the very first, and arguably defining, thing said about campaign play in that section.


This is semantics. With respect to how cards and decks interact with a given scenario, it is mechanically no different.

Now if you want to debate over what the designers intent was about having players feel weight to their decisions (which is not a rule by any means), this actually achevés that - feeling the need to retire an investigator is essentially the same as them being defeated. Except you don't have to play out the 100-1 scenario in which they actually get defeated. But this isn't important for my argument.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:

It's absolutely different. You, the player,

RRG, Campaign Play wrote:
A campaign is a series of interrelated scenarios in which each player plays the same investigator from one scenario to the next.


It's literally the very first, and arguably defining, thing said about campaign play in that section.


This is literally violated by the killed/insane rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Jjdelanoche wrote:
bd flory wrote:

It's absolutely different. You, the player,

RRG, Campaign Play wrote:
A campaign is a series of interrelated scenarios in which each player plays the same investigator from one scenario to the next.


It's literally the very first, and arguably defining, thing said about campaign play in that section.


This is literally violated by the killed/insane rules.


Yep. And those rules appear in the Campaign Play section, under Trauma. That's the way rules generally work. You present the general rule, then exceptions.

Now point me to where it says a player may retire their investigator under other circumstances than death or insanity, and choose a new investigator. It doesn't. Therefore, no such exception exists.

You've basically reached the point where you're saying ignoring a game mechanic is not mechanically different than not ignoring that game mechanic. And make no mistake, one player = one investigator is just that, a game mechanic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bd flory wrote:
Yep. And those rules appear in the Campaign Play section, under Trauma. That's the way rules generally work. You present the general rule, then exceptions.

Now point me to where it says a player may retire their investigator under other circumstances than death or insanity, and choose a new investigator. It doesn't. Therefore, no such exception exists.

You've basically reached the point where you're saying ignoring a game mechanic is not mechanically different than not ignoring that game mechanic. And make no mistake, one player = one investigator is just that, a game mechanic.


You've reached the point where you're not willing to think about why game mechanics are there. For the most part it's a balancing thing, for the rest it's thematic. And with a question like this, the obvious reason it's being asked is because the OP is worried about it imbalancing the game. My point is that it will not, because the game doesn't care whether it's a different person sitting behind that new investigator or not. That's right, the game literally can't tell. And my added point above also points out that it maintains the thematic flavour of the game.

There are no interactions the game will have with that player that could possibly detect it. However, with two handed play, the fact that the knowledge of, say, a peril, is shared between the 'players' behind two decks means the game can tell.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dukelow
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
Ok, keep it civil everyone.

I definitely think you both have made good points about the rules and have made good contributions to this discussion.

When it comes down to it, like I said in the beginning this is only a speculative question. I don't imagine that there are many groups out there who have gotten to the point where investigators are dying off.

I think bd flory is right in the intention of the rules as they were written.
There is written language which only supports players remaining with their current character during a campaign:
'If a player leaves the campaign, do not delete that player’s information from the campaign log, as he or she may re-join at any time between scenarios. If a new player joins the campaign, he or she must choose an investigator not previously used during this campaign.'
I notice the difference between the leaving player may re-join and a new player must choose an investigator not previously used.

I think James J is correct in the impact this house rule would have on the balance of the game.
If Joe can leave my campaign after scenario 5 and Mary joins in scenario 6 as a new investigator, how is that mechanically different from Joe leaving my campaign in scenario 5 and Joe rejoining the campaign as a new investigator in scenario 6?
This is also my real concern and reason for making this post, I wouldn't want to make a house rule that would throw off the balance of the game.

I will say it wouldn't be that difficult for FFG to slightly revise the wording in an errata or whatever to say something like:
A campaign is a series of interrelated scenarios in which each player must play the same investigator from one scenario to the next.
Then it would be completely clear and there is no room for debate.
However, everyone knows writing rulebooks is really challenging, particularly with fringe rules like these, and FFG does a great job in my opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dawedu wrote:
When it comes down to it, like I said in the beginning this is only a speculative question. I don't imagine that there are many groups out there who have gotten to the point where investigators are dying off.


I wish you were right. My Roland has gone insane more than once...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Jjdelanoche wrote:
There are no interactions the game will have with that player that could possibly detect it. However, with two handed play, the fact that the knowledge of, say, a peril, is shared between the 'players' behind two decks means the game can tell.


Yes, if you want to assume that you have 16 players standing by, one for each investigator and each with their own deck, who can tag in after each scenario, allowing yourself to freely switch investigators between scenarios is no different than the rules as written. If you think the designers had that in mind, well, go crazy, I guess.

Many, many games rely on practical limits to define gameplay limits. Further, players are an element with which mechanics commonly interact. That's demonstrably the case here, where the RRG explicitly uses the word "player."

Social deduction games like Secret Hitler also can't tell if a different player sits down behind a certain position and takes over gameplay. The game is still radically different if you do that.

The difference is obviously less impactful here, but as I mentioned above, it shapes player decisions. It emphasizes the value of resigning to avoid trauma, because you, the player, can't simply switch investigators to shed trauma -- again, relying on the practical limit of assuming that multiple players aren't waiting in the wings to jump in, as well as the presumption that you, the player, actually want to play the game.

Players are a game element, just as much as the physical components of the game. They interact with the game in certain prescribed ways, and are allowed to do some things and not other things for a reason. I suspect this is going to be emphasized even more in the coming cycle, given the appearance of hidden cards, and some examples of similar mechanics we can look to across other Arkham Files games.

Whether or not we get a full on traitor mechanic, for example, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Hidden cards that pop up later in the cycle explicitly address players in the same way the Insanity condition does in Mansions of Madness, such as by prohibiting you from speaking, or prohibiting you from disagreeing with the player on your left, and so on (mixed in with more concrete play procedure restraints).

It's also worth mentioning that theme, mechanics and story are not distinct in game design. In Arkham in particular (especially for a card game) these elements interact in strong ways. Flavor text gives instruction, and occasionally subtle hints on how to proceed in a scenario. Game mechanics produce story by making certain cards interact in certain ways, and so on.

So yes, I've considered in some depth why various rules are the way they are. I used to work in game design, and still consult occasionally. I think about these things habitually. As the cliché goes, "It's my gift. It's my curse."

None of which is to say OP shouldn't do as they like.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Dawedu wrote:
If Joe can leave my campaign after scenario 5 and Mary joins in scenario 6 as a new investigator, how is that mechanically different from Joe leaving my campaign in scenario 5 and Joe rejoining the campaign as a new investigator in scenario 6?
This is also my real concern and reason for making this post, I wouldn't want to make a house rule that would throw off the balance of the game.


I think the issue with balance is that it ignores the presumption that players are motivated to play the game, and will do so if they are able.

There are many, many ways to game the system where you can sit out a scenario via this rule, to your significant advantage, but because the presumption is that you wish to play the game, it isn't explicitly prohibited for you to have an A team and a B team of players, each with unique decks, to jump in where it's strategically wise rather than necessary due to real life.

As an example...
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Once you secure the Necronomicon in The Miskatonic Museum, you can (via such a house rule) bench that investigator to completely remove the risk of it being stolen back in subsequent scenarios. This guarantees some advantage in Where Doom Awaits, by inflicting one damage per investigator on Seth Bishop (because it can't be stolen back).

If you wish (again, via such a house rule) you could also return that investigator to play for Blood on the Altar, to fully take advantage of the Necronomicon's potential to restore Silas, which allows you to achieve the "best" situation for victory in Where Doom Awaits and completely eliminate Seth Bishop. Doing so eliminates the opportunity for the campaign to "defend itself" against this outcome in The Essex County Express, significantly reducing the risk you assume by taking the Necronomicon.

Instead of an Empire Strikes Back moment where the bad guys turn the tables and attack the investigators' train to foil their plans by kidnapping the professors and stealing the Necronomicon, you just send a sacrificial lamb on the Essex County Express to eat the trauma, and leave any story assets in safety.


Now, can you, the players, just agree to not abuse this kind of thing if you adopt this house rule? Sure. (Although it may happen by accident on a blind play.)

Can you the players, abuse this by actually having Mary waiting in the wings and jumping in only for one scenario...

Spoiler (click to reveal)
...while anyone with a story asset sits out so it can't be stolen? And hey, while you're at it, might as well have Mary suck up that trauma you risk jumping to the Engine Car.


Sure, you could do that, too. But the game designers have relied on a combination of the one player = one investigator (and in case it needs further reinforcement, it is also explicitly stated on page 2of the Learn to Play guide), and the practical obstacle of having a bench combined with the presumption that people actually *want* to play the game, to make it sufficiently inconvenient that it won't happen.

Without one player = one investigator, that obstacle vanishes.

Quote:
I will say it wouldn't be that difficult for FFG to slightly revise the wording in an errata or whatever to say something like:
A campaign is a series of interrelated scenarios in which each player must play the same investigator from one scenario to the next.
Then it would be completely clear and there is no room for debate.
However, everyone knows writing rulebooks is really challenging, particularly with fringe rules like these, and FFG does a great job in my opinion.


This seems to me to be asking for excessive reinforcement. The rules also don't say you "must" draw a card and gain a resource during upkeep, or that you must draw an encounter card during the mythos phase or even that you must reveal a chaos token during a skill test. Nonetheless, these things are not optional.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James J
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never played secret hitler so I'm afraid I can't comment on that. I stand by what I am saying and you are now, yourself, relying on unwritten things to reinforce your argument. But the rules as written certainly don't prevent you from leaving certain investigators out of risky scenarios, if you had enough 'players'. I feel, however, that this is departing from the question since the OP wishes to retire investigators, not 'bench' them.

You do seem to repeatedly be ignoring my point that the idea of retirement is no less a motivation to remain trauma-free than the killed/insane rules. The rules as written allow you to 'shed' trauma in the sense that once you've taken as much as you can you can wipe it all and start afresh. The notion of simply switching has significant drawbacks since you have to build a 0xp deck, too.

The way you describe 'players' being interacted with doesn't require that last scenario they were the same 'player'. The interactions so far seem to be scenario contained (I haven't played the carcosa cycle yet so I wouldn't know if this continues to be the case).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B.D. Flory
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Quote:
I stand by what I am saying and you are now, yourself, relying on unwritten things to reinforce your argument.


Yes, to reinforce the point that the rules do, in fact, mean what they say in black and white, and that there is a reason they say it.

You're the one who brought up designer intent and so on, in order to argue that the rules are not, in fact, what they say, as written. Or that the rules as written aren't impactful, or meaningful, or whatever.

These are not equivalent positions.

My argument is and always has been the rules explicitly tie one player to one investigator. The exceptions they go on to carve out include death and insanity, but not retirement. That's it.

What OP or anyone else chooses to do with that, or the balance discussion, is up to them.

Jjdelanoche wrote:
But the rules as written certainly don't prevent you from leaving certain investigators out of risky scenarios, if you had enough 'players'.


Yes. Again, the designers assumed that people playing the game actually want to play the game, rather than achieve an advantage by sitting out a scenario.

Quote:
You do seem to repeatedly be ignoring my point that the idea of retirement is no less a motivation to remain trauma-free than the killed/insane rules. The rules as written allow you to 'shed' trauma in the sense that once you've taken as much as you can you can wipe it all and start afresh. The notion of simply switching has significant drawbacks since you have to build a 0xp deck, too.


The key difference is that you cannot shed that trauma at a time of your choosing. You might take a particularly bad loss on Essex County and head into Blood on the Altar with 3 mental trauma on Roland. Maybe 4 by the time you hit Undimensioned, which can be critical to victory or defeat in the campaign.

Under any model that allows you to retire at will and switch investigators, it's fairly easy to see that beginning with a level 0 deck and another investigator is a better play than the risk of a one-shot kill in a critical scenario.

Likewise, if Daisy or Sefina take a couple of physical trauma in the first two scenarios of Dunwich, it's very likely (depending on a couple of things like your team mix and difficulty level) wise to retire them early rather than waiting on the game to finish them off, so you have as much time as possible to accumulate experience on the new investigator by the end game.

(This is also true, by the way, in OP's proposed house rule. Losing half of your experience is much less impactful if it happens early in a campaign than late. You might be out just a few points by Interlude I. By scenario 7 or 8, you could stand to lose 10 or 15 xp.)

Quote:
The way you describe 'players' being interacted with doesn't require that last scenario they were the same 'player'. The interactions so far seem to be scenario contained (I haven't played the carcosa cycle yet so I wouldn't know if this continues to be the case).


I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Please clarify?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.