Jump to content



Photo

Incorporating the treasure cards back in(?)


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#21 Triu

Triu

    Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:11 AM

Robin said:

nathrotep said:

 

Plus, I gotta say this; what's the incentive to even play this game without the treasure cards? You don't win anything, you don't find anything, you don't get piles of gold. You can't even buy anything cool. What are you playing for? The satisfaction of a job well done? That's lame.

 

Winning a challenge is a nice objective.

Damn, you mean all the chess games I've played over the years were a complete waste of time because I didn't get any cardboard loot?  Bummer! 



#22 Schmiegel

Schmiegel

    Member

  • Members
  • 262 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:52 PM

 Robin, I just want to say that I totally agree with you. I think that the slower, incremental buildup of gear in Descent 2nd Edition makes each upgrade seem all the more "precious" and "special". It's all relative. Each to their own. But count me among those who think the new edition is working just fine, thank you. I'm pretty sure that new equipment "shop cards" will be added to the mix with each new expansion as well. 



#23 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,405 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

nathrotep said:

Plus, I gotta say this; what's the incentive to even play this game without the treasure cards?

What's the incentive to play ANY board game by that logic?  It's all cardboard and plastic at the end of the day.

nathrotep said:

You don't win anything, you don't find anything, you don't get piles of gold. You can't even buy anything cool. What are you playing for? The satisfaction of a job well done? That's lame.

You win (or lose) the scenario.  You find lots of potions and gold in the search cards (you just don't have cardboard tokens for them.)  You can buy all the gear you want in between quests with the gold you have found previously, it just isn't as much gold as 1E had you rolling around in.

You say you aren't a wargamer, but you can't be much of an RPGer either, if the constant influx of new "loot cards" and cardboard money tokens is this important to you.  Most RPGs don't have any physical components beyond dice and a pencil (and minis and map tiles for some of the more recent game lines, but D2E has those in spades anyway.)  Money and XP being tracked on paper shouldn't be too much of a system shock for someone with a background in RPGs.

At any rate, I don't think this discussion is going to get much further in terms of constructive dialogue.  There've been a few solid suggestions for how to up the phat lewts in 2E in past posts.  If none of those work for you, then I would humbly agree with previous posters who have suggested D2E is not the game for you.



#24 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

It's not about the cardboard tokens at all. It's about upgrading your characters. Even in D&D you find or buy stuff that you upgrade your characters with. My main point after receiving the suggestions was just to point out that the new game doesn't give anything exciting to upgrade with. In chess, it's a battle of wits that you play with strategy. People who play chess have to think several moves ahead to out match their opponent. Winning at chess is it's own reward. But we're talking about a game that has art work involved, with lots of things going on, a lot of it mixed with RPG elements. I suppose you could say that playing it just for the challenge is good enough. But when you've played the first edition, it pales in comparison. I think I may have figured out a way to mix the two in any event; change the search function to treasure chests and up the OL's creatures and cards with the cards that do that from the first edition campaign. I highly recommend that those of you who haven't played the first edition try it. You'll immediately see the difference. I hope that in the future the expansions will fix this problem with the second edition. For now I'm sticking to the first edition. And, of course, Mansion of Madness, Arkham Horror, and Talisman. All of these games are great and offer the type of game play that I'm describing. All of them allow you to upgrade and get cool loot as you play. Enough said.



#25 Sausageman

Sausageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 12:25 AM

I actually understand and agree with you, to a point.  The search deck has one, ONE card in it that can cause you to find new, useful equipment.  Players like new equipment, just like they dig new powers too.  It's perfectly possible to play for many hours and not get anything beyond your starting gear (certainly in a four player game where money is spread thin).  Is this really what people want from a dungeon crawl game?  Especially when you compare that to the first edition that had gear thrown at you constantly.  I think it's gone slightly too far the other way now.

Hell, you can't even keep potions from one quest to the other…  Wow…



#26 Triu

Triu

    Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:27 AM

Some people like Monty Haul dungeon crawls, some don't. Sounds like D1E was the former -- although I haven't played it -- and they tried a different tack with D2E. Personally I think most games put too much emphasis on gear & not enough on skills. If you take away Conan's +9 Sword of Compensation, does he go from hero to zero?

To be honest however, finding potions (majority of Search cards) -- and buying items -- does seem backwards to me. Looting trash (level 1) gear -- shield, armor, etc. -- during the run would make more sense to me than finding an undamaged potion bottle … and then drinking from the damn thing without having it identified by the town alchemist?! I can kind of understand why they did it from a design / playability standpoint, but I think I'd have made different decisions.

Relics are the rare exception of gear acquired during Encounters, aside from the occasional chest, which does seem right to me.



#27 Sausageman

Sausageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:07 AM

Triu said:

Some people like Monty Haul dungeon crawls, some don't. Sounds like D1E was the former -- although I haven't played it -- and they tried a different tack with D2E. Personally I think most games put too much emphasis on gear & not enough on skills. If you take away Conan's +9 Sword of Compensation, does he go from hero to zero?

To be honest however, finding potions (majority of Search cards) -- and buying items -- does seem backwards to me. Looting trash (level 1) gear -- shield, armor, etc. -- during the run would make more sense to me than finding an undamaged potion bottle … and then drinking from the damn thing without having it identified by the town alchemist?! I can kind of understand why they did it from a design / playability standpoint, but I think I'd have made different decisions.

Relics are the rare exception of gear acquired during Encounters, aside from the occasional chest, which does seem right to me.

What doesnt seem right though is you are assumed to sell all potions etc when you return to town at the end of a quest…  Why is that?



#28 Ispher

Ispher

    Member

  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:01 AM

Sausageman said:

Triu said:

 

Some people like Monty Haul dungeon crawls, some don't. Sounds like D1E was the former -- although I haven't played it -- and they tried a different tack with D2E. Personally I think most games put too much emphasis on gear & not enough on skills. If you take away Conan's +9 Sword of Compensation, does he go from hero to zero?

To be honest however, finding potions (majority of Search cards) -- and buying items -- does seem backwards to me. Looting trash (level 1) gear -- shield, armor, etc. -- during the run would make more sense to me than finding an undamaged potion bottle … and then drinking from the damn thing without having it identified by the town alchemist?! I can kind of understand why they did it from a design / playability standpoint, but I think I'd have made different decisions.

Relics are the rare exception of gear acquired during Encounters, aside from the occasional chest, which does seem right to me.

 

 

What doesnt seem right though is you are assumed to sell all potions etc when you return to town at the end of a quest…  Why is that?

Because they're like milk, they go bad if you don't keep 'em in the fridge. Besides, with all these monsters roaming his lands, Baron Greigory is afraid of terrorists, so he does like all flight companies do: he confiscates every bottled liquid that enters his town.

For those who didn't get it, this game is supposed to be an evolution from Descent 1, and evolution, a.k.a growing up, is supposed to go this way:

Kiddie who likes cool stuff => Nerd who likes to think

So: evolve or stay with Descent 1.

Sheldon Cooper



#29 Macnme

Macnme

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 02:07 PM

I'm in blissfull ignorance.

Having not played DE1 I don't know what I'm missing and enjoy DE2 purely for what is there - rather than bemoaning what isn't there.

The search tokens serve as the principle loot gathering mechanic in DE2 - and that is adequate enough for me, for now.



#30 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:02 AM

Macnme said:

The search tokens serve as the principle loot gathering mechanic in DE2 - and that is adequate enough for me, for now.
Of what I seem to understand, the complaint is that search tokens (--> search card drawn) don't give as much booty as DE1 loot did.
I couldn't care less about that and, as you, enjoy DE2 as it is.


An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#31 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:51 PM

Actually, the first edition still had all the thinking you are mentioning, plus better dungeons. The treasure cards where split into 3 decks; bronze, silver, and gold. Each dungeon had a starting point which would have only bronze treasure chests (or 1 chest), then a silver level, etc. The chests were further randomized in that you had to draw them out of a face down pile of chits while setting up the game. On the back of the chit it would tell you what you got to draw when you landed on it. Sometimes it wasn't treasure but something else. In the first edition, you start out weak, and the monsters are stronger than you; you almost have to get the chests if you want to survive each level. Each level got progressively harder than the last. And it was a further challenge to outwit the OL by figuring ways to get to the treasure chests around or through the monsters, obstacles, etc. The first edition had both plenty of strategy and thought, plus the fact that you had to get to the treasure to get equipment. You could, (and sometimes had to), try and solve the objective without the treasure. The treasure decks were also random, so a lot of times, you'd get stuff that you couldn't even use! So for those of you who haven't tried it, please take the time. It's really a lot of fun, and very challenging. I think of the second edition in this way: remember how great 'Dragon Age: Origins' was? Then you got all excited when you heard about 'Dragon Age: Awakenings'. But 'Awakenings' was dumbed down and not as fun, right? That's how I felt about this game when I went to play it at the demonstration. I'm not saying that it's not a fun game; I'm saying that it was a disappointment when compared to how much fun I have playing the first one. Having no treasure cards not only takes away the possibility of loot, but also a really fun part of the over-all experience which I feel is a necessary component.
 

 

 



#32 Sausageman

Sausageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:19 AM

nathrotep said:

Actually, the first edition still had all the thinking you are mentioning, plus better dungeons. The treasure cards where split into 3 decks; bronze, silver, and gold. Each dungeon had a starting point which would have only bronze treasure chests (or 1 chest), then a silver level, etc. The chests were further randomized in that you had to draw them out of a face down pile of chits while setting up the game. On the back of the chit it would tell you what you got to draw when you landed on it. Sometimes it wasn't treasure but something else. In the first edition, you start out weak, and the monsters are stronger than you; you almost have to get the chests if you want to survive each level. Each level got progressively harder than the last. And it was a further challenge to outwit the OL by figuring ways to get to the treasure chests around or through the monsters, obstacles, etc. The first edition had both plenty of strategy and thought, plus the fact that you had to get to the treasure to get equipment. You could, (and sometimes had to), try and solve the objective without the treasure. The treasure decks were also random, so a lot of times, you'd get stuff that you couldn't even use! So for those of you who haven't tried it, please take the time. It's really a lot of fun, and very challenging. I think of the second edition in this way: remember how great 'Dragon Age: Origins' was? Then you got all excited when you heard about 'Dragon Age: Awakenings'. But 'Awakenings' was dumbed down and not as fun, right? That's how I felt about this game when I went to play it at the demonstration. I'm not saying that it's not a fun game; I'm saying that it was a disappointment when compared to how much fun I have playing the first one. Having no treasure cards not only takes away the possibility of loot, but also a really fun part of the over-all experience which I feel is a necessary component.

Dragon Age: Awakenings was Citizen Kane when compared to Dragon Age 2.  What the hell did they do to that game?  It was AWFUL



#33 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:45 PM

You know, you're absolutely right. I meant Dragon Age 2, not Awakenings. I was really excited about it, pre ordered it, and then it was just not that great. I'm glad I got to play this game first instead of buying it. I'm going to wait and see if they fix the treasure card problem before I sink any money into collecting it.



#34 BatHead

BatHead

    Member

  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:51 AM

nathrotep said:

You know, you're absolutely right. I meant Dragon Age 2, not Awakenings. I was really excited about it, pre ordered it, and then it was just not that great. I'm glad I got to play this game first instead of buying it. I'm going to wait and see if they fix the treasure card problem before I sink any money into collecting it.

I doubt very much they will do any such thing, as it only seems to be a problem only for you, it's not broken, you just don't care for it.



#35 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:28 AM

You obviously have never played the first edition then, so don't have any idea what you're talking about.



#36 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 08:16 AM

Why should one need to play 1st edition to give an appreciation about 2nd edition?

You have a problem, because you are trying to compare two different games.

But the problem is subjective. It is in your mind. Nothing wrong with that, but don't present your search card pet peeve as an objective problem.


An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#37 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 06:11 PM

I think you're misunderstanding me; I'm comparing the first edition to the second edition. They share the same name, the same art work, and many of the same concepts. It's not in my mind-they've been marketing this as an improvement over the first edition. Which, in my opinion, it is not. That's my argument. Therefore, if you have never played the first one, then you have no reference to understand what I'm talking about. The second edition is an okay game; it's simply been dumbed down to appeal to a wider, and perhaps younger, audience. Much like what they did to Dragon Age with Dragon Age 2. I believe that they are holding back the better cards for release with the next expansions. This second edition is just a base game with no frills, and they plan to include more cards with each expansion. That's just an educated guess based on what they've done in the past with re-issued games. I guess you could say it was a pet peeve, but since you haven't played the first edition, how do you know it's not actually a valid complaint?

 

 



#38 Sausageman

Sausageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 12:49 AM

nathrotep said:

 

I think you're misunderstanding me; I'm comparing the first edition to the second edition. They share the same name, the same art work, and many of the same concepts. It's not in my mind-they've been marketing this as an improvement over the first edition. Which, in my opinion, it is not. That's my argument. Therefore, if you have never played the first one, then you have no reference to understand what I'm talking about. The second edition is an okay game; it's simply been dumbed down to appeal to a wider, and perhaps younger, audience. Much like what they did to Dragon Age with Dragon Age 2. I believe that they are holding back the better cards for release with the next expansions. This second edition is just a base game with no frills, and they plan to include more cards with each expansion. That's just an educated guess based on what they've done in the past with re-issued games. I guess you could say it was a pet peeve, but since you haven't played the first edition, how do you know it's not actually a valid complaint?

 

 

There are some aspects that I believe are better in 2nd Edition, but comparing the two, I would say that Descent 1, WITH the Road to Legend expansion, is the much better game.  With that being said, I completely understand that Descent 2 is just the base game, and comparing base game to base game, 2nd edition is much better (not to say there aren't things I miss of course - treasures and off-hand bonus' being things I've already mentioned).

With that I mind, I keep reminding myself that it IS just the base game, and in 3 or 4 expansions time, it may well be the game I hope it becomes.

Or at the very least, I really hope the Overlord gets some love.



#39 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:35 AM

Well said. I agree. I still like the first one better, but with more expansions, it could well rival the first edition some day.



#40 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:30 AM

nathrotep said:

I guess you could say it was a pet peeve, but since you haven't played the first edition, how do you know it's not actually a valid complaint?
A pet peeve can be a valid complaint.

I don't need to have played D1 to understand that your discontent with D2 is based on the comparison between both games and, specifically, about the possibilty that the first edition gave of looting heaps of treasures.

At least, that is what I think I understood from your complaint.

I personally don't care the least about the fact that D2 is not an upgrade of D1.
I did not purchase it with that in mind.
All I know is that I would not have purchased D1, after all I read about it - not that it is a bad game in itself, but it certainly would not correspond to my expectations.


An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS