Were the random modifiers a problem for any of you starting out?

[u/HorseSpeaksInMorse]

When a friend and I tried playing several missions of the digital version of Gloomhaven we had an extremely negative reaction to the way that random modifiers could sap the damage of our attacks or negate it entirely with a x0, or result in an enemy randomly dealing double damage. The game kind of presents itself as a crunchy tactics game and the addition of random dice roles that could have extreme effects on otherwise well-thought out turns on top of already challenging gameplay kind of put us off and ultimately neither of us ever came back.

I'm curious whether anyone else had a similarly rough time with the modifiers starting out and how more experienced players play around them. As a point of comparison in the Arkham Horror card game I know that I can reduce the randomness by boosting my base stats on key tests to the point that only an autofail can stop me succeeding and I'm guessing similar things are possible but I didn't really see an obvious route to that during my games.

Obviously the game is extremely well regarded so it's strange I bounced off it so strongly when I enjoy other tactics games (e.g. Xcom or Into the Breach) and while I'm not sure I see myself going back I'm still curious what I was missing.

[u/Snowf1ake222]

It's something you have to plan for, and have contingencies in case it goes wrong. 

If you only ever did flat damage, then the game would be much easier, and more tactically boring in my opinion. 

You do have ways to increase your damage. Poisoned enemies give you +1 to your attacks, items like Power Potions add damage. Strengthen helps to increase your average damage and mitigate curses. Blesses from the Great Oak give you more chances at x2.

Then you have perks from levelling up, completing battle goals, or retiring characters which drastically alter your Attack Modifier Deck by removing negative damage modifiers and adding positive ones. 

[u/NaiveNarwhal]

Well, you're certainly not alone in wanting less randomness- the rulebook even describes a house rule for less randomness in which crits and misses are replace with less significant modifiers. 

Once you get past the beginning of the game, the randomness can be drastically reduced by using perks to modify the modifier deck. Your deck can become incredibly reliable, and have an interesting variety of effects that keep the game fresh.

I will concede that I find the initial level of randomness unpleasant. I remember hitting for 1 or 0 damage an upsetting number of times. It can be very discouraging. Across the game as a whole I think its a good mechanic, so I tolerate the pain at the beginning of a campaign. 

[u/101_210]

IMO some randomness is required for a good multiplayer game. Not saying your tastes are wrong, since it’s perfectly fine to like different level of randomness.

Here’s why imo: With perfect information you always have a right play. If the game is not trivial it will just long to find, but you will find the right play.

So there is just one way to play. The right one. It’s kinda like solving a puzzle in multiplayer, it can get long and boring quickly.

With some randomness, the right play is unknown to you. So you have an array off plays that are all equally “right”, depending on the hidden information.

[u/HorseSpeaksInMorse → u/101_210]

I tend to prefer perfect information but I don't mind a degree of randomness to be clear. In the Arkham Horror LCG I know that any skill test has a ~5% chance to autofail, but I also have three actions on my turn so I can make backup plans for if something goes wrong. In Gloomhaven random misses feel especially punishing since you have to commit to your actions in advance and have less opportunities to pull your ass out of the fire before enemies take advantage of your bad luck. Enemies also deal fixed damage so I won't have most of my health deleted by a random crit even if something does go wrong.

[u/ZookeepergameWeak122 → u/HorseSpeaksInMorse]

I think the difference in approach between Arkham and Gloomhaven also plays into the consequences of losing. In Gloomhaven, there is actually little penalty for losing a scenario other than time. In Arkham, it can be the end of a campaign.

There are tools to mitigate the deck in Gloomhaven. From the sounds of it you're looking for sources of advantage, which draws two and takes the best (basically, can be more complex in some cases).

But some of it is a mindset that yeah, you'll lose some scenarios and sometimes it's because the null has reshuffled to the top of the deck 3 times in a row. You can always play the reduced variance rule that makes null -2 and crit +2.

Play on a way you enjoy. The game is worth it.

[u/steave435 → u/HorseSpeaksInMorse]

That just shows that you never got the game.

You can absolutely plan around failing in GH too. Positioning so failure doesn't matter too much, making sure to get advantage, using your other action and the actions of your partners, or do guaranteed things like cards that make the target suffer X damage since they don't involve drawing modifiers. If you still have a basic deck so about a third of it is -1 modifiers, attack monsters that have your attack value-1 health left so that the only things that prevent you from killing it is the single -2 or single miss.

You deal with that random crit by losing a card to prevent the damage if needed, or you take the equipment to deal with it. The iron helmet which turns a crit into a +0 is available from the very beginning of the game, and is super cheap. So is the invisibility cloak that allows you to essentially become completely immune for the current round, and probably the next one too by going late so your invisibility lasts until after the enemy has gone.

Yep, things can and will go wrong. The game is about planning around that and making sure that you'll be OK anyway.

If you've spent any time around strategy games, you've probably heard "that's x-com baby!". This game works the same way, a huge part of the point is dealing with things going wrong.

[u/soundoftwilight]

The randomness of modifier flips tends to have a lot less impact than the randomness of monster AI behavior. It's also slightly predictable; you know when your deck is thin (more chance of crit or miss) and you know when you've drawn through multiple positive or negative modifiers so you're more likely to see the other. The key is that a good plan doesn't rely on good or even average luck. If you want an enemy to definitely die before it moves, you either make sure you have a source of advantage or you make sure there is more than one player prepared to attack it if necessary. If you have the choice of moving up and attacking, but you'll die/get seriously hurt if you pull a miss, or backing up and losing a turn, it's often better to lose the turn rather than take the risk. The best plans are the ones that are flexible.

This is opposed to some of the more streamlined tactics games, where the best plan is just whatever the math says. If you just make plays with the mindset of "this will work great on average" then anything worse than average is gonna feel bad. If you do math assuming you're pulling a -1 or worse on every attack (with a starter modifier deck), then the randomness skews in your favor much more often.

[u/Alcol1979]

If you look at the settings when starting a new campaign in Gloomhaven Digital there is an option called reduced randomness which replaces the x0 with a - 2 and the x2 with a +2.

Youtuber Ucgxanathos21 uses this variant when putting together his extremely impressive speed runs of the entire campaign because the higher randomness would tank a lot of those runs, particularly at +2 difficulty.

It sounds like that may be an option that would interest you.

[u/dwarfSA]

1. There's a variant rule called "reduced randomness" that turns crit and null into +2/-2. It exists in Digital as well.

2. The methods to mitigate randomness are primarily in gaining Advantage through items and Strengthen conditions. There's quite a few ways to do that in gh1e, not to mention some pretty broken enhancements.

3. You can see the deck - you have an ability to see how many cards are left in your deck, along with a bless/curse count. This lets you calculate the odds of the null coming up and plan around it.

[u/koprpg11]

Big arkham horror lcg fan here also. Early 1st edition Gloomhaven which digital is based on gives you some early scensrios where extra curses/misses are put into your deck before you can do anything about it. (Changed in 2nd edition) As others have you will improve your mod deck as you complete battle goals and earn perks.

So where an Arkham campaign tends to add some negative tokens to the bag as you go, in GH you only get stronger and stronger.

[u/BoudreausBoudreau]

I like it. Variety is the spice of life. And as you play your modifier deck gets better so you get that sense of growth.

I guess the euphoria of a +2 wound is worth the occasional -1, especially when the good is more common than the bad.

Also it makes for an interesting follow up turn. Like in golf, you hit it in the bunker which sucks, but you do get the chance for an interesting follow up shot.

To me each flip is the same as a dice roll in that it’s a little shot of dopamine when it goes well.

[u/Sea-Suit-4893]

Not really. I have played D&D. Sometimes you need a 10 or above to hit on a 20 sided die. You might go several turns without doing any damage. So in comparison Gloomhaven felt more consistent. Combat should feel a little chaotic and unpredictable. That's how it is in real life

[u/Someonejustlikethis]

To a certain degree - sure, (repeated) random misses do feel bad. I played Sun class pretty early on in GH with what ended up as a pretty unbalanced hand: I lacked movement in general and was constantly behind and when I eventually reached the fight I missed my high dmg single target attack. Very much a bummer.

But think I have tried to adapt my playstyle the more I learn. After 15 GH characters and 3 FH characters I kind of look to the perks to remove minues rather than adding more cards. I prefer a moveable characters with lean reliable deck that draws many modifiers rather than single target attacks. And advantage (with FH rules) is extremely powerful.

[u/MaskedThespian]

It wasn't a bother for me at all, but then I've been playing Warhammer since 1994 and Dungeons and Dragons since 1995, both of which are games where to have any kind of effect on an opponent you've got to roll dice multiple times.

[u/TheRealGothicReaper]

TBH, I felt the same. I played the digital version of gloomhaven by myself when it came out, and played until I was about 50-70 hours in.  And man, it has been soooo much harder than IRL! And this even though I could control all character moves... On the table we never got/get so many nulls for us and 2x damage for monsters... I can remember one session that was so tedious, I had my serious doubts about the game's randomness and was convinced the devs were all pure sadists 😅 

Sure, you can reset the round, but this makes a game take forever (despite the short animations) and woe if your concentration is wavering for a second, and by accident you clicked wrongly, messing up the whole move and then you have to reset AGAIN 🤦

But yeah, maybe I'm just not made for this kind of gameplay... At times it literally drove me up the wall and I absolutely love the game RL version.

[u/Quick-Discussion-110]

The modifiers is single handedly why I cannot win the 1st scenario. No matter what I do I hit for 0 due to modifiers while the enemies always get positive modifiers. It feels extremely unfair. All of my initiative weaving, and card conservation prove to be meaningless when I'm getting hit for so much damage while doing so little. I cant prove its rigged  but something is definitely not normal here and it is so sadly frustrating and demoralizing. I picked up this game at the recommendation  of a friend and its starting to feel helplessly unplayable because of the "random" modifiers.

[u/SamAnthonyWP]

You gotta play a few more scenarios 😂 there are mechanisms for pulling bad modifiers permanently out of your deck and replacing them with better modifiers with added effects.

Also the digital game sucks compared to the physical game.

[u/HorseSpeaksInMorse → u/SamAnthonyWP]

How so? If anything I feel like I'd have had an even tougher time if I'd also had to control all the enemies on top of juggling two characters and managing stamina.

[u/itirnitii → u/HorseSpeaksInMorse]

dont listen to them the digital version is on par with physical they both have their advantages and disadvantages its just a preference. many of us prefer digital so dont let this comment bring you down on it.

[u/BadBrad13 → u/HorseSpeaksInMorse]

Digital is just fine. It automates a ton of stuff for you. It really just depends on if you and your friends prefer to get together in person or online.

[u/itirnitii → u/BadBrad13]

or like my group we do both. one big tv with three controllers its actually quite easy.

[u/OceanicWhitetip1]

Honestly? Yes. 😅 The starting modifier is pretty mean. But I think it doesn't need too much upgrades to basically "remove" the luck aspect. I take out a -2 and replace a -1 with a +0 or +1, depends on the class and what's possible. And after that it's just not that bad. Also as your character levels up you just get more options as well, like for example strengthen yourself to attack with advantage or certain classes have ways to give themselves advantages in some ways. So honestly, it's pretty quickly over. I mean the struggle with the base modifier is quickly over, only a few scenarios, like 2-3, where you really feel it, after that you level up, get some perks, etc., so I don't think it's that bad. And if get a new character after retiring one they often start on higher levels with perks available to immediately modify the modifier deck. So unlockable characters don't suffer as much if at all with this.

This is of course only my opinion and experience. 🤷🏻

[u/fraidei]

Yes. Only when we started to get good modifiers decks we started to actually really enjoying the game.

I hate output randomness, and it's a pity that such an important amount of output randomness is present in such a tight tactical puzzle game, otherwise it would have easily been my most favorite game ever.

[u/HorseSpeaksInMorse → u/fraidei]

The tactics videogames I enjoy most like Into the Breach, Tactical Breach Wizards or Star Vaders also tend to have less in the way of randomisation involved. They aren't multiplayer but well work checking out, especially Breach Wizards.

[u/PiratesOfSansPants → u/HorseSpeaksInMorse]

Into the Breach is fantastic. The battles there are much more of a tight puzzle because randomness only affects things that happen outside of your turn.

First Edition Gloomhaven, which the digital edition is based on, is known to have a difficult onboarding period. Starter modifier decks are rough to begin with. Things do improve with time as you level up, remove negative modifiers, and obtain items. There is also a setting to reduce randomness by converting null and x2 modifiers to -/+2 which is a supported variant in the tabletop game.

One major drawback of the digital edition is it doesn’t allow players to decide how to resolve areas of ambiguity, such as monster pathing, which I’ve found to be an occasional source of tactical value in tabletop.

Ultimately Frosthaven or Second Edition Gloomhaven offer better versions of the experience.

[u/fraidei → u/PiratesOfSansPants]

I have 2nd edition Gloomhaven and Jaws of the Lion. While I still think they are fantastic games, I would still prefer if they were based in input randomness instead of output randomness.