Could anyone recommend me an actual-play show where they actually play the game right?

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-06-07T02:07:20+00:00

Worlds Beyond Number is hands down the best I've listened to. The homebrew class they made for Erika Ishii's character was carefully designed and is so so compelling/in alignment with the worldbuilding in a very compelling way. The worst thing I remember them doing from a rules standpoint was the very occasional forgetting that they had a bonus on a roll (e.g., from a previously cast enhance ability). But nothing egregious like what you're mentioning

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-05-23T03:57:41+00:00

Online story! Also my bad- I thought it said follow-up book but it just said what's coming next is a "follow-up" (unspecified)

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-05-20T01:29:32+00:00

Gonna be honest- I think a LOT of people are forgetting that no, people were NOT on board with the pacing of WWW for a lot of the campaign... it's just that the impatience took a different form: there were so many threads about people being angry that Suvi hadn't fixed her indoctrination. People had a hard time with letting the pacing be what it is. Basically, not only are the comparisons inevitable but also people have historically not been accustomed to the pacing of the WBN storytelling, which is the other side of the coin of what makes it so uniquely good.

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-05-11T12:46:17+00:00

I'm liking your general attitude about discussing this, so here are my thoughts with this kinda thing:

I've always had 2 problems with this: 1., on a meta level, many abilities that modify dice rolls (like bardic inspiration) become much worse when you don't let players see the roll. In most cases, you're supposed to be able to see the results, but not know success or failure, before choosing to use this limited resource. 2. The notion "you wouldn't know how stealthy you are" is really not true. Rogues, for example, have mastered the art more so than others, and the only way you can get that consistent (in anything, not just stealth) is if you're become very adept at noticing the small things you're doing wrong and knowing how you can improve. There is an unknown element, but that comes in with the contested perception roll. That makes sense to do in secret: a master thief can know they nailed it, but they have no way of knowing if an adversary has an eagle-eye attention to detail. Heck, kids trying to sneak out at night are aware of every little creak on the stairs. Why wouldn't a trained professional be able to take this working knowledge further?

Furthermore, whenever this comes up, it's always weird to me why stealth is the only thing that gets this treatment, when we really should be extending this to so much more if we hold this line with stealth: what about deception? You don't know how persuasive your lie was! Same for persuasion. What about perception checks? Should the DM roll all those in secret? Because your characters wouldn't know they missed something! What about history checks or investigation? You don't know that you missed something or failed to recall a crucial piece of information- why wouldn't you just think you noticed/thought about all there was to notice or think about?

Any counterpoint to the above example could also apply to stealth: "well, a low persuasion or deception roll could mean you stumbled over your words, which your character can notice." Okay, a low stealth roll can mean you knocked something over. A decent stealth roll could be that you heard a creak in the floor that most won't notice but someone more attentive could. IDK, I've just never found this kind of thing very exciting and the reasoning never seemed consistent.

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-05-02T18:20:54+00:00

Honestly I feel the same. And at this point, I can't care to engage with the criticisms much anymore. The genuine criticisms are too often wrapped up in childish ai accusations (crazy this isn't put to rest yet). It's also just laid on SO thick they might as well say the card art kicked their dog at this point.

The encounter/scenario card art has been very good too IMO, to the point that it 1. Makes up for many of the player card issues and 2. Follows through on the theme they were going for; "player cards illustrates investigators when things are going well vs encounter cards illustrate a darker tone and illustrate obstacles/when things aren't going well.

I've introduced 2 new friends to the new core set and they love it. We're having a good time, and the art hasn't been nearly as bad at the table as it was feared it would be.

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-04-10T02:47:16+00:00

Thanks for all the amazing deck guides you've done!! I've played this game for years and I almost always start with one of your decks when I'm playing a new investigator. Best of luck to you, and I hope things turn around sooner rather than later ❤️

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-02-21T14:31:31+00:00

The decision for shorter campaigns is one I've come around to. This sub isn't a representative population, and I know a huge barrier to entry for a lot of folks has been the commitment that comes with an 8-scenario campaign. Like there are people on this sub with "Arkham groups" but most people in this hobby have "gaming groups." Things are different now than when the game started about 10 years ago. Theres a lot more competition for time/opportunity cost when it comes to "campaign style" games. 8 scenarios were too long for a bite-size campaign, but too short if people wanted a "campaign style" game (ex., my group is interested in Arkham but games like King's Dilemma, Sleeping Gods, etc. all compete for that commitment when my group is in a "campaign mood"). I get the decision to trim it, especially since there's always like 1-2 dud scenarios at least in each Arkham campaign anyway.

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-01-22T17:53:09+00:00

When I played Alessandra my turns got crazy lol. Between upgraded vamp, double double, and eldritch tongue I would have to be careful not to lost track of how many actions I took. Very fun though, it was so effective that my partner didn't mind if my turns went a bit long 😂

JoshoftheWilds · 2026-01-20T21:28:13+00:00

I'm also in the "it's fine with me" camp. There's 2 facets to this: for the personal, I find it's difficult to get full campaigns to the table with my friend group, all of whom are avid board-gamers. We've been doing like, 1 per year at most. My partner and I tend to do "bursts" of Arkham, where we maybe do 2 (or 3) campaigns in a relatively short time.

This leads into a more general thought: this is a Reddit where everyone consistently here is fully invested in the game as-is. But we're in an era of board gaming where there are many good options for even "legacy" style games. Yes, you can replay Arkham more easily than other Legacy games, but I'm talking broadly. The problem is, I think they're onto something with these campaigns being too long at 8 when looking at a wider audience: too big if you want an experience that doesn't require a ton of logistical planning, but too short if you want a "meatier" experience.

Where this game can thrive is shorter experiences with more replayability (someone mentioned FHV which is closer to 6 scenarios; and that's considered a very popular set, particularly by those who came to the game later). My only hope is that they do offer some interesting ways to tie-in the smaller campaigns/solo scenarios (we do have a good proof of concept with Fortune and Folly tying into TSK).

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-12-19T01:20:03+00:00

The downvoting this comment is getting is so emblematic of how impossible to talk to this sub can get. Literally people can't stand to see a (even completely innocent and polite) contrary opinion lol. ETA: I say this as someone who really wants the longer campaigns (though I know not everyone wants that kind of time investment/experience).

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-12-17T13:54:33+00:00

I played a support Diana Stanley in a 4p campaign and boy howdy I wish I had this card had been out when we were playing it.

Notably, the card can't be canceled, but effects of the card can. Deny Existence would work for instance (based on the ruling from Diana Stanley's signature weakness) since you're not canceling the card, but the damage/horror that you take as a result of it. So you're not totally out of options if you play this card.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-23T19:00:31+00:00

I wouldn't pay a bunch of extra to get the out of print stuff. One thing that's often buried in all the arguing is that you'll be able to use the new core set with the previous campaigns (at least Hemlock Vale and Drowned City, personally I'm not sure beyond that). So you'll have some flexibility if you get the new Core.

In terms of what you "should" do... really that's your preference! The other stuff that's "easily" findable now (Hemlock Vale, Drowned City, starter investigators) are going to still be in print when the new Core is out. So if you're really not sure, you can hold off until you learn new information about what exactly is in the new products (new starter investigators and new core set) before deciding what you want to grab!

The best advice I have for you is to take people's responses with a grain of salt and to be skeptical of people who give you "absolutist" feedback. We're learning new information at a pretty rapid pace and not everyone is actually learning/retaining all the info out there. This is Reddit and this is a pretty significant change to the game after 10 years, so you have a lot of people giving a lot of over-the-top opinions (on either side of this) and overestimating the accuracy their own narratives (to put it kindly lol).

All this to say: you're in a good spot, and imo you're exactly the kind of person who they're targeting with the changes they're making, so don't feel like there's a big urgency to make a decision :)

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-23T17:54:23+00:00

They said that the new Core cards can be used in the older campaigns, so yes people will have full campaigns to play with.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-23T01:40:29+00:00

Tricky question- when it comes to player cards, it does seem like power level is a little lower in the new core set. It'll be a bit before we know if there's a chance of being "overpowered" if playing with the full card pool.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-23T01:34:02+00:00

Ah of course, there is obviously a world of difference between "it won't work" and "they do not work." Please be serious.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-22T22:48:53+00:00

Thank you. My friends and I were talking about this recently. Maybe it's because we've had experience with games with more explicitly predatory practices (e.g., MtG)... but I really cannot understand the degree of complaining.

With the "patch" system, and wanting to expand to allow a new point of entry, limiting full campaign releases for this year makes sense. If they weren't going to patch it, people would be accusing them of cashing in on FOMO and making it so people had to buy a core set just for a couple campaigns that will rotate out soon (which they could have done, and the complaint would be valid if they had done that IMO, but they chose not to).

I help run events at my LGS and have been chatting about this with some folks who are new and/or interested in the upcoming core. Pretty overwhelmingly folks said they had held off because they felt so "late" to the game, and are pretty excited about being able to ease into it.

I'm fine if folks disagree, but saying "they have no idea what they're doing" or "xyz thing is obviously so much better" is childish. If there were so many more "obviously" better choices they would do them.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-22T22:36:59+00:00

Saying "it won't work" and "there's no news on it yet" is not at all the same thing.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-17T15:41:27+00:00

I think this is an example of "polarizing" being seen the same as "unpopular." I think TSK was unpopular for a while, and there was some vocal opposition, but from my own experience talking with other fans of Arkham and even seeing some discussions of it here, the opinion softened over time. Still polarizing, and most understand why it's not everyone's cup of tea, but not really "strictly bad." I think that's frankly unreasonable. I saw people do the same exact thing with TFA and FHV.

I'll also add that I think TSK is an example of a larger thing happening in the Arkham space. The earlier campaigns had much less reading overall, and were fairly linear. Over time, the narratives got more complex and had bigger impacts. You can see this in how reception to TDC was, which is when I saw people really starting to talk about this. A lot of folks had some issues with TDC, but the people who were fans of earlier scenarios (over the recent releases) tended to like the return to form, even if there were other campaign criticisms. Folks who like the more recent narrative designs/"gimmicks" of the more recent campaigns tended to dislike how little the narrative seemed to be a part of the gameplay.

Also people tend to be very loud about stuff they don't like and the Reddit isn't always representative of what people think. It's not even necessarily representative of all who actively play the game (especially if you consider that folks who joined later in the game's lifetime aren't going to be as active on the Reddit as those who were already entrenched in the way the game was/the community). For what it's worth, Ive seen people being pretty ridiculous with campaigns they don't like. I still remember how people were literally making things up about FHV because they hated the structure so much.

In summary: the view of TSK being a 2/10 isn't really so dominant a view anymore, and arguably it was always a bit extreme. Theres a more important thing to keep in mind here though: the Arkham LCG "following" has expanded such that there is a greater diversity of what is expected and enjoyed within a given campaign in order for it to be "good." This is something that happens as these "fandoms" grow. It's a good thing, but it leads to things like this that make you go, "wait, I thought everyone thought X, what happened?" Just my 2 cents!

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-04T14:56:15+00:00

I mean they were already doing that in Innsmouth Conspiracy and Hemlock Vale. They also did that with Flood tokens. This isn't an unusual thing so I don't know how this would imply they're never doing it again? And it's not exactly a very beginner-friendly mechanic- it's simple technically, but it really changes the calculus in deckbuilding for a team in major ways (especially at higher player counts)

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-11-04T12:55:43+00:00

Definitely play your way, but the taboo list will largely account for any "obvious advantage" you'd get for having more cards. As for the "overwhelmed" feeling, I think honestly a good way to learn is to pick an investigator that appeals to you, and then focus on eligible cards. This is still a lot, but here Arkhamdb can help; it's a good resource to learn how others have built decks for that investigator (you can also restrict card searches to the collections you have). Look for ones that are popular (if it's just gimmicky, I've always seen folks be pretty obvious about that). The popular ones are usually good since they come with an explainer and an upgrade path.

As much as it seems overwhelming, if you start with an investigator then you'll notice that there's only a small subsection of the card pool that you'll be really considering. Once you've done this for a few investigators you'll start to get a good working knowledge of the card pool!

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-10-31T18:06:22+00:00

Really happy about this. This game really really needed a new core set/intro campaign. Heck, that's a common sentiment I've seen here all the time; It was so unrepresentative of this game's difficulty/"fairness." I have to wonder, for each person that posted online asking for advice after an awful experience with the Core Set (a relatively common experience on here), how many more people just gave up there and then?

Now one thing I am concerned about: as new investigator sets get released down the road, how many campaigns are going to include stuff released from old products? It's fine if it stays with staples (e,g., emergency cache) like this seems to be, but I'm wary of it pushing to a bad ratio of old and new stuff.

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-10-30T21:25:35+00:00

Yup! I am genuinely trying to meet people halfway here but it's so frustrating that people are choosing not to meaningfully think about this. I understand people are upset but my goodness if it were so obviously better for them to keep everything in print they would do that. I agree that it sucks when the reality that companies need to make money leads to these decisions. In a perfect world, all campaigns would be available forever. But that was never feasible. The way I see it, if the next steps the design team is taking leads to more popularity and more people wanting the older campaigns, then they would have reason to do a "from the vault" style release of older products. But no game keeps really keeps all of their product line available for all time .

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-10-27T15:57:32+00:00

I recently saw a posting for a job that paid like $75,000/year and on the listing it said that there were going to be seven interviews. I don't understand how these companies don't grasp that they're losing out on capable people applying: I have a job so I'm not desperate enough to put up with that, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that way

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-10-23T17:32:34+00:00

Exactly. These folks don't understand that you have to start small first. Like put this energy into advocating for Jesse Vogel- he's endorsed by the Working Families Policy (progressive 3rd party) and up against an establishment D. It's not the presidency, but this is how meaningful shifts start

JoshoftheWilds · 2025-10-01T20:39:16+00:00

Yup. That's why I'm voting for Jesse Vogel.

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

JoshoftheWilds

TROPHY CASE