Jump to content

BD Flory

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BD Flory

  1. I don't think this is true. Ross' second ability is a trigger that creates a lasting effect, so "your location" changes as you change locations until the effect finds someone at "your location" playing an asset and discounts it. If it referred to the location itself and didn't move with you, Ross would likely say, "this location," or similar, not "your location."
  2. The Arkham Police Blotter is updated. Report your crimes here! I mean games. Definitely report your games: The Arkham Police Blotter Check out the community results, here. Over 600 games reported and counting! Arkham LCG Community Stats Report Now updated for The Unspeakable Oath and Hour of the Huntress. Thanks for all the reports!
  3. Acts 2+ blank unrevealed arkham asylum locations, which includes the clue cost of moving into patient confinement locations. This was an error, and they're looking into fixing it, possibly in the next FAQ.
  4. Yes, Matt confirmed this was intentional. OTOH, the act cards blanking patient confinement was not, and will probably be addressed by a faq.
  5. "Clues at your location," refers only to clues on the location card (including for other purposes than discovery, such as checking if there are clues at your location for Inquiring Mind or Roland's gun), not to clues on other cards at the location. See "Clues" in the RRG.
  6. That's why I said, "when adding doom to the agenda."
  7. In the interest of avoiding confusion for the OP, note that both Led Astray and The Cult's Search specify they may advance the agenda when adding doom, so they cannot "overload" doom in this way when adding doom to the agenda. They will each advance the agenda immediately.
  8. There is currently no weakness Pushed into the Beyond can discard, I believe. Edit: Oh, you probably meant from your deck, not play.
  9. Alas, none of the boxes (including core) are particularly good for storing cards. You'll probably want to look into another solution.
  10. Don't be disingenuous. You said that with one breath, then with the next that they can't change too much, or they're not the same thing anymore, which is just reasserting the original contention by implication. To which I respond with my original contention: You're being ridiculous. But by all means, keep stamping your widdle foot and telling people they aren't roleplaying to suit your limited definition.
  11. Eminently predictable: Nobody claimed people talking politics in Barrens chat was roleplaying. But that doesn't mean people can't roleplay in WoW. Just as some people don't roleplay Arkham (and probably some even talk politics while they're playing!), but that doesn't mean no one can. There's is a vast swath of territory between, "nothing means anything," and, "each thing has a fixed meaning that is unchanging." Sorry that's so difficult to grasp.
  12. Actually, this explains a lot -- addressing prescrpitivism brought it to mind. I'm not "aligning" my definition. I'm observing what the thing is and describing it, which is really the only way to define any genre or medium. It can never capture every nuance of the thing (because any such thing is always changing), but it's a more flexible method of taxonomy than attempting to qualify or disqualify things based on a personal perspective. The prescriptive approach is self-defeating. As soon as you say, "it is this thing, and this thing only" (no matter how broad that is, or how many elements of the definition there are), it's dead. Art and creativity don't work that way. They're amorphous and constantly changing, as well as negotiable and socially constructed (which is why the opinions of "the crowd" matter -- "the crowd" has tremendous influence on any discussion). It isn't subjective, as such, but a collective process for which there is no objectively "right" answer." What is roleplaying today doesn't include everything that will be roleplaying in ten years, and what roleplaying will be in ten years doesn't include everything that is roleplaying today, or ****, in different areas of the country and the world and the internet. I'm more interested in what has meaning, broadly, rather than just to myself. Discussion is a way to bring that out, not shut it down.
  13. Notice that he's talking about "commercial" fiction. He was part of the 60s New Wave, which pioneered soft science fiction, and drew on a wide array of literary influences that placed him well outside the commercial formula. You're arguing from google. The idea that Spinrad would hew to a prescriptive definition of science fiction (as opposed to observing market trends, which is a different thing) is ludicrous. Particularly in the 1970s, when he wrote the line I quoted.
  14. You're right, my definition doesn't matter. Which is why I don't tell people they're not roleplaying when they say they are. Your narrow definition, however, fails to capture a wide swathe of activities that their practitioners call roleplaying. You seem to be projecting. I'm not offended a bit. You do seem prepared to flounce off in a huff, though, since you've reached your habitual, "If I"m wrong, nothing matters and everyone's wrong, so nyah," phase. Par for the course.
  15. The tennis analogy is fatally flawed to begin with, because you're equating a single game with an entire category. What you're doing is more like saying, "Tennis is a sport, and you play with 1 or two players on a side, a ball you hit back and forth over the net, with rackets. Therefore, football is not a sport." Which is nonsense. Just as there are many kinds of sports, there are many kinds of roleplaying, which put various emphasis on the different aspects of the genre -- some of which you call "trappings." The crunchiest, most tactical roleplaying game is still a roleplaying game, just as is the loosest, most story-oriented roleplaying game. And that's without even looking outside the pen and paper medium, where "roleplaying game" brings a broad spectrum of additional meanings. Roleplaying can be as heavy as deep character studies (fictional and otherwise) with no dice and minimal rules, and even reaches the level of therapy tool, and only escapes being a "game" by virtue of its seriousness. Even that isn't set in stone. Roleplaying games in the electronic medium had their root with almost no roleplaying outside of equipment and skill choices (if that), and has evolved to a point where you can interact with other players in real time, whether in an MMO environment, a custom built mod, or even what amounts to a GUI for long-distance pen and paper groups. Even within pen and paper, games can range from loose and unique resolution mechanisms like Gloom or Fiasco, to set piece tactical exercises peppered with pithy one-liners (or at least attempted pith), separated by roleplaying scenes that are a thin excuse to get from encounter to encounter. These thing are all roleplaying. (Along with a few things that aren't proper for a family forum, but for some people, could probably also be categorized as "roleplaying" and sometimes "games.") You brought up science fiction. Well, here's a thought from one of the greats: "Science fiction is anything published as science fiction." -Norman Spinrad. "Sports" is the same way. There's a fuzzy line where stuff stops being a sport and starts being a game, and vice versa, revolving around degree of competition, money, equipment, physicality, and codified (rather than "folk" rules). The same goes for roleplaying games. Or in the case of Arkham Horror, a game with roleplaying elements, wherein you can, if you wish, roleplay your investigator any way you like. In roleplaying games, the line is a whole lot fuzzier than it is in "sport/game." (Personally, I do prefer a looser rules framework and a few other things arkham doesn't have in my roleplaying games. But that doesn't mean one cannot roleplay arkham just because I don't wish to.) Would I call Arkham a "roleplaying game?" No, not really. For a variety of reasons, not list of which it wasn't published as such (see Spinrad above). That absolutely doesn't mean you can't roleplay it, or a group can't treat it as a roleplaying game if they wish. And if they do, voila! It's a roleplaying game. SImple as that. Whether something meets Buhallin's definition of roleplaying is pretty much immaterial to the rest of the world, I'm afraid.
  16. You can play doubles tennis, and its still tennis. You can play tennis on clay, grass, or hard court; with a wooden racket or graphite; professionally, competitively, or just for fun. All still tennis. "Role-playing," is a much broader category than that. You're being ridiculous.
  17. Also, tanking Blood, whether intentionally, partially, or otherwise, risks or guarantees the loss of the Powder of Ibn-Ghazi, which makes life a lot easier in UU (and therefore, WDA).
  18. While it is a rule, it's as much a practical limit. If all the investigators have been killed or driven insane, how are you supposed to continue whether this rule exists or not? It just clarifies the point. Of course, if you're keeping up with releases, it is (by now) very difficult to actually lose this way, since there are 16 investigators in the pool. It's really a core box issue, as 3 or more players definitely can lose the core campaign in this fashion if they only have the core five investigators. Add in another 5 investigators, and it's impossible to lose the core campaign this way, and narrowly possible to lose Dunwich this way.
  19. It's on the last page of the Night of the Zealot campaign guide, and presented as a variant. It's probably not going to be fun for anyone to have one investigator so thoroughly outclass the others. It gives you access to many powerful cards much earlier in the campaign than the scenarios are designed to support, and in one case, a story asset that is positively game-breaking for some scenarios outside of the campaign for which it's intended (one of which is fairly pivotal for The Dunwich Legacy). It's been said that the trauma awarded at the conclusion of campaigns is to make you feel the weight of your experiences. My suspicion is that its second intent is to discourage continuous campaigning. In any case, here's the text from the campaign guide on the variant mode:
  20. Yes, 0 is the fewest. Dianne is more of an impediment at higher player counts, when it isn't so easy to empty a bystander before she shows up. Even then, she isn't much more than a speed bump, since she's easily defeated. My personal suspicion is she's less a serious obstacle than she is foreshadowing. I wouldn't be surprised to see her again, in some form. She is, after all, wearing yellow. And she is positively divine (and Devine).
  21. Because this is false. Marie Lambeau was a preview, and it was promised that she would appear in a normal product at a later date when the book was announced. Mechanically distinct cards have not, as a matter of course, been released except for game products. It has happened in the past, but not for years, and for a now defunct game. Since then, every LCG card released by FFG has been in an LCG product or has been nothing more than alternate art. So yes, there is very good reason to be surprised -- this is a departure from a long-standing norm in LCG production.
  22. Unexpected issue cropped up with data collection, but all straightened out now, and accepting reports again.
  • Create New...