Arkham Horror 3rd Edition

Thanks for the additional info!

In a role-playing game, such as Call of Cthulhu, there are two extreme types of adventures: railroad and sandbox. There are also some adventures that offer a mixture of the two styles.

A railroad adventure has a linear plot, and it is the game master's job to restrict the players to the parameters of that plot. The designer has a specific story to tell, and the only contribution from players is improvised dialogue and die rolls. The big advantage of the railroad is that you can potentially tell a strong story.

A sandbox adventure offers a setting, and invites the players to explore that setting in whatever manner they choose. The setting might be as large as a multiverse (Amber diceless) or as small as a haunted house or a small dungeon, but the key distinction is that there is no set story and the players have a lot of freedom. Sometimes a sandbox game lacks focus and the sense of narrative isn't strong.

Arkham Horror 1st was a small, shallow sandbox, while Arkham Horror 2nd was a big, deep sandbox if you got some expansions. Mansions of Madness 1st was a railroad, and maybe 2nd is too. It sounds like Arkham Horror 3rd will also be a railroad. As a game master, I like games that fall in between a railroad and a sandbox. As a player, I want more of a sandbox, though ideally with some story in the mix.

Hmm, Pete's post got me thinking. I always favor modularity, but it does lost some of its "Hey, remember that's store around the corner" feel.

The sandbox in AH 2nd wasn't very appealing when I played. This was before they started releasing expansions, so we had a lot of instances of seeing the same cards come up over and over in different areas. We'd see stuff like lodge memberships as a possibility, but we were always so strapped for time that it never made sense to try and pursue any of that stuff, because we always felt like we needed to either be jamming our fingers in the dam of opening gates, or flipping through the item deck looking for seals.

I dunno, maybe we were playing it wrong? Maybe we needed more expansions? Either way, AH always seemed kind of aimless and a lot of rummaging through decks hoping for the thing you needed, and finding a lot of junk.

Chaz is right, I think out-of-the-box ARKHAM 2e can get samey fast. Once you know how to exploit Elder Signs, things all kind of start going the same way. Staple on DUNWICH though an it's exponentially more interesting. More to do, more to see, more to plan and better ways to execute plans with Madness/Injury cards. Even a small box expansion like KING IN YELLOW changes things up a -ton-. I wonder if we'll tire of 3e as fast?

I think we should reflect upon the Dark Tower/Fireball Island hate being spoken of here in the frame of “nostalgic bullshit” and then evaluate why you’re so attached to the nostalgia of 2nd Edition.

Not casting stones, because I have no dog in this hunt, but just calling for reflection.

I can see how the modular board makes sense now. But I'm not sure I like how you're not in Arkham anymore, but in a small part of it. I do enjoy the scope of the card game, but I'm not convinced it will work for the board game. On the other hand it sounds so different from 2nd ed that it will probably make sense to keep both games because they'll scratch a different itch. And while I like the card game a lot, I would love to not have to do deck building, but just play the goddamn stories.

jeb wrote: Chaz is right, I think out-of-the-box ARKHAM 2e can get samey fast. Once you know how to exploit Elder Signs, things all kind of start going the same way. Staple on DUNWICH though an it's exponentially more interesting. More to do, more to see, more to plan and better ways to execute plans with Madness/Injury cards. Even a small box expansion like KING IN YELLOW changes things up a -ton-. I wonder if we'll tire of 3e as fast?

I guess that's kind of my thing: I really hate when you need to add on expansions to make the game interesting. For my money, if the base game isn't fun, even if I could make it fun by buying expansions, I'm probably not going to bother. It might be better, but now I'm gambling even more that the thing I didn't find fun manages to get fun if I throw more money at it, and where does that end? It's especially if you happen to buy the game early on, before the expansions come out.

Saying "expansions really fix this game" is basically saying that they couldn't managed to make the game fun the first time, but they'll happily sell you the patch to fix it. Hell with that. I'd much rather spend my time and money on a game that's fun out of the box, and then gets more fun or different fun if I want to add expansions.

I don’t see so much of a problem when after a bunch of people buy a game and say it’s shit, then a year later it’s fixed and raves about, you get both the game and the expansion and treat it as one package. I don’t care what it WAS if I didn’t buy it. I care what it IS when I decide to.

Arkham Horror 1st was a small shallow sandbox, but it was still better than most boardgames in existence in 1987. Arkham Horror 2nd was only slightly bigger as a sandbox, except that there were more spells and items, and the quality of the components was exponentially better. After about 20 plays, our group found Arkham Horror to be nearly a solved game.

But once you added in at least one or two expansions, Arkham Horror 2nd becomes a substantially deeper sandbox. None of the expansions add elder signs, so fishing for elder signs is no longer a viable strategy. Sealing six gates is no longer a fairly sure thing once you have gate bursts, or even just an extra board with more unstable locations.

Here's the important thing about the distinction between a sandbox game and a railroad game: replay value. Once you have played the scenarios in 221B Baker Street or Orient Express, those games are done. You can keep them in your collection or sell them, but you can't really play them again. From the sounds of it, Arkham Horror the Card Game has somewhat limited replay value. You can play again with different characters, but you're going to get the same story, though the cards will come out in a different order so the scenes of the story will be arranged differently. Arkham Horror 2nd with some expansions doesn't have this limitation. You can return to it over and over again, and get a different experience every time.

Don't kid yourselves about Arkham Horror 3rd. This will be a game with expansions, and just playing the base game will be a fairly limited experience. I suspect that there will be scenarios, and each scenario will only give you access to a limited slice of the overall game. To me, that's a railroad, and I'm not likely to get on board.

SuperflyTNT wrote: I don’t see so much of a problem when after a bunch of people buy a game and say it’s shit, then a year later it’s fixed and raves about, you get both the game and the expansion and treat it as one package. I don’t care what it WAS if I didn’t buy it. I care what it IS when I decide to.

For sure, that's the case. It also bumps the price for the "fixed" version up even higher. And in a world where board game prices are creeping up, that's bad. Like, to get the 2nd Ed base game and Dunwitch expansion (if we figure that's the first real "fix" expansion) right now (assuming both were in print, which they aren't), it's $54 for the base game, and then another $40 for the expansion at Miniature Market. The fix almost doubles the price of the game. So as long as you're willing to stomach that, then swell, but that's a hell of a buy in. For me, at least.

I hear you, Chaz. For me, ARKHAM 2e was plenty of game. I remember this four hour game trying to suss out the rules with my brother-in-law and we were hooked. We played the hell out of it. So, yeah, it got "stale" for us in the same way RISK gets stale after you've played the hell out of it. Add on DUNWICH, at least for us, and it's like it never gets stale again. I suppose it would, but we haven't found it. The series is so popular, someone nearby will get it, right? That'd be perfect--you get to play, but you don't have to own.

I feel you about price. I’m very price sensitive anymore. If it’s a mediocre or good game I don’t care how much it is because I’m not buying it. It has to be a fucking stellar game for me to buy it, and the price isn’t as relevant if I know it will get played.

The good news is that the games I get to play more than once a year are usually 20$ games

Thanks for the update, uba.

Can you speak to the not-fun-ness at all more specifically for you? Is it too narrative focused?