Jump to content



Photo

Incorporating the treasure cards back in(?)


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#41 foo82

foo82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:27 PM

 I think there is still a way to incorporate treasure into search deck. Just randomly choose 5 treasure cards and include it into the search deck prior to each quest.. Have someone shuffle the deck behind their back so they can't see the cards (or blind pick them from an enclosed pouch) whenever search comes up.

To balance this, eliminate gold from items searched. When it is time to shop, the only way to get gold is to sell back equipment. Also, to slightly balance it, instead of no. of players +1 for shop cards, do no. of players - 1 to limit the selection.



#42 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:02 PM

Foo 82- Sounds like an excellent idea.

 

Robin-There was no "looting heaps of treasure". Treasure was randomly and strategically placed as I have already explained. And, this edition is a re-issue of the first edition. Or maybe I'm reading your comment wrong(?) Anyway, I think you'd have to play it to get the feel of it. Saying that you already read about the first edition but didn't like what you read about it is not the same as playing it. The first time I played it, and this was after only one dungeon, I immediately went on-line and purchased all the expansions. It was just that good. This new one was okay, but I haven't bought any of it. My playing experience with this one was far different from the first edition. It was still fun. It just wasn't so much fun that I wanted to purchase it until they added more elements, which they will be doing soon. For example, the first dungeon gives you an ettan and a handful of goblins. You have to kill the ettan and stop the goblins from leaving the board before 5 escape. There were 3 search tokens. Two of them gave potions that were completely unnecessary since the dungeon was so ridiculously easy to beat. There were no treasure items at all. The whole thing was over very quickly. After that, we were allowed to buy items from the store, but all the items were basic equipment more or less. I can understand that, from a campaign point of view, this is more of the ideal since it's a slower and more realistic build up of the characters strength. But from a stand alone dungeon crawl point of view, it was pretty disappointing. The first dungeon in the base game of the first edition had you braving the depths of a four level dungeon. Your goal was to kill a giant called Narthak. Along the way, you have to deal with beastmen, skeletons, giant bats, hell hounds, giant spiders, wizards, and the giants henchmen. In level one, there is one copper chest. In level two, there are one copper and one silver. In area 3, there is one silver. In area four, there is one gold chest. The contents of each chest are different, but each contains at least one treasure item card among other things. There are 22 copper item cards, 18 silver item cards, and 16 gold item cards. None of these items can be bought from the store deck, which is separate. When you are instructed to get an item, you draw it randomly from the specific deck. And the items are pretty cool. Way better than the new 'search' function, which gives you nothing to really get excited about. This dungeon, the first dungeon in the base game, was way more fun, 100 times harder to get through, and much more rewarding to play in general. Now can you see what I'm talking about?
 



#43 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:10 PM

nathrotep said:

For example, the first dungeon gives you an ettan and a handful of goblins. You have to kill the ettan and stop the goblins from leaving the board before 5 escape. There were 3 search tokens. Two of them gave potions that were completely unnecessary since the dungeon was so ridiculously easy to beat. There were no treasure items at all. The whole thing was over very quickly. After that, we were allowed to buy items from the store, but all the items were basic equipment more or less. I can understand that, from a campaign point of view, this is more of the ideal since it's a slower and more realistic build up of the characters strength. 

First Blood is rather a "tutorial", introductory encounter, which clearly favors the heroes.
Now D2 offers a much slower progression for heroes than the usual dungeon crawlers.
The potions become more usefull in a 2 encounter quest - you can save them for healing or stamina recuperation in the second one.
Their gold value allows to buy equipment - and there, too, you won't find super duper equipment in the Shop (even if there is a progression with Act II shopping).
The XP are the best way to progress, with new powers, etc.
But I reckon that things are more progressive.

 

I do like the "do the best with what you have" philosophy of D2.
It challenges tactical skills more than yearning for a quick improvement of available equipment and a fast progression of the characters.

But I can understand that it does not fit some players' expectations.
That understanding does not so far as heading to a demand of making treasures more powerfull or easily obtainable within a quest.


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

#44 Sausageman

Sausageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 01:20 AM

Robin said:

…the possibilty that the first edition gave of looting heaps of treasures.

The thing is, D2 doesn't give you ANY treasure - not by my interpretation of it anyway.  Potions were, in D1, the 'booby prize', by and large, of a treasure chest, and the fact that these make up most of the 'search deck', it leaves us feeling a bit flat.

My other issue with them (as I've mentioned previously) is you can't even save them for a future quest - use them or lose them.  This makes zero sense (other than from a GAME perspective where the search deck resets every quest) from a hero perspective, and leaves me feeling that the quests are slightly disjointed/autonomous.

And as someone said WAY back when the previews of this game were coming out, what's a dungeon crawl adventure without treasure/treasure chests?  I completely agree with this - I can count on one hand how many fantasy rpgs I've played in that haven't had some treasure/magical items, particularly from dungeons.  And those that didn't were usually Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay  :)



#45 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:44 AM

Sausageman said:

what's a dungeon crawl adventure without treasure/treasure chests?
Thus the more appropriate question, IMNSHO : Is Descent 2nd edition a Dungeon Crawl?

I would tend to say that it is more a tactical fantasy game than a dungeon crawler.
It is more about trying to reach specific objectives than looting treasures and killing monsters.
Typically, in many encounters, if heroes focalise upon killing monsters they will loose.

Tactical games do stress the "make the best of what you have".
D2 is not generous in giving more gold and more gear: it forces players to rely upon their present ressources, without hoping too much additional help.

I do understand that this can be frustrating for players who are used to rains of magical swords and super duper powers falling on their blessed heroes around each corner of the dungeons they explore.
As a (mostly tactical) wargamer, I am less disappointed, as Descent 2 gives me an experience comparable to a tactical wargame - but with a good fantasy theme immersion.


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

#46 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:39 AM

I think you would have to at least try Descent first edition to see that it's quite as tactical as the second one, if not more so. No one is forcing you to try and pick up any treasure; if you want to go through the game and try to win without it, it's your call. The tactical part is very much there, and much better than in the second edition. The building of skills is featured prominently, and that is just one of the choices that you can make while you play. The dungeons can be played as a linked campaign, or, with the edition of the Road to Legend expansion, you can play solely in campaign mode. Nothing is falling out of the sky; you really have to work hard to get the treasure if you want it. The OL has many traps, tricks, and monsters that they use to prevent you from getting it. Part of the OL's job is to stop you from winning, and preventing you from getting the items that you may find throughout the dungeon is a big part of that. If you have fun simply by outwitting the OL and achieving the objectives of the game, well then, good for you, and good luck with that. As for me, I kinda like having a magical sword from time to time. What the heck! I even like seeing my characters grow and become stronger than they were, more able to thwart the OL's growing powers and stronger monsters. I know, I know; it's a novel concept, but I guess I'm a more of a traditional sort of gamer than a cerebral, 'winning is it's own reward' sort of guy. What's wrong with having a nifty weapon and some cool new threads to wear while you're busy making a mess out of all the OL's plans? You want to walk around in that same leather armour and wave an iron sword at the monsters for the whole game? Bo-ring!
 



#47 Macnme

Macnme

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:25 PM

Saying that, in DE2 it seems that everytime the heroes are doing a search, they're finding the Treasure Chest card - and then luckily drawing the exact best piece of equipment they need from the store cards…. it has really hindered me as the overlord, as the heroes are getting WAY more value out of the searches than you would expect them too.

 

Luck can make all the difference in this game… which I like. I like randomness.

 

 



#48 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:30 PM

@nathrotep: you clearly prefer D1. And you have your reasons for that choice, which are surely good ones.

I don't need to prefer D2 over D1.

I like D2 for what it is.

I won't try D1. The rules were too heavy (I read them) and I am not looking for long gaming time. I also read that, due to the less luck driven combat defense results, D1 hero players could take ages to decide about the perfect combination of moves. That would be a source of deep boredom for me. I hate "chess like" overcalculation.

I am not very interested in changing D2 into something else - but time could possibly show that FFG would create expansions that went in the way of augmenting powers and gears of heroes, as you seem to want them to do.

As long as D2 remains light and fast to play, I will adapt.


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

#49 Sausageman

Sausageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:08 AM

Robin said:

Thus the more appropriate question, IMNSHO : Is Descent 2nd edition a Dungeon Crawl?

That is a fair and appropriate question.  And my answer would be, well, not really.

Which I think is part of the problem, as D1 was very much a dungeon crawler.  People have upgraded to D2 expecting a more finely tuned game, and actually ended up with an extremely different game to boot.  In the same way as buying a sequel to a video game, you expect it to be, by and large, the same sort of game, only with refined mechanics and wotnot, I (and it seems, some others too) were expecting the same from D2.

Just look at the furore that the FPS version of XCOM caused - people wanted the turn based game from before, not a drastic re-imagining.  And now we have XCOM: Enemy Unknown…



#50 Wrapped

Wrapped

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:02 AM

Hmmm.. I think we are looking at a simple Aestethic goals problem here. If the stuff from the search and store deck would look and be named in a more "high fantasy"-fashion the people missing "cool stuff" would be pretty pleased. Say that the name of iron longsword would be changed to "razor talon" and have some flames on it in the descriptive picture, but keep all stats, everybody would win (except for me who kind of enjoy the low fantasy feel of the gear).

Only problem with doing this is Aestethic scaling and I think that FFG knows this. Its so much easier to top the last expansion if you started out low and worked from there when it comes to "coolness".



#51 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

Wrapped; that wouldn't work because the stats are all different. I take it you are being sarcastic(?) Either that, or you have no idea what you are talking about. None of it matters because, as we all now know, they were just holding back the treasure cards for the expansion releases. The announcement they made today shows that there will be treasure cards after all. (see below) I'm still going to wait until they pump out a few more expansions; too little, too late to catch my interest until there are more cards. For all those of you who never played the first edition and stubbornly refused to even consider playing, I say-HA! I win this debate. The first edition is superior to the second until they put out more cards. Enough said.

 

 

"Fortunately for the heroes, they’ll have plenty of powerful new equipment available at the shop. For example, warriors who often find themselves unable to chase down fleeing foes may want to hide a handbow up their sleeves. This handy trinket can make ranged attack without need to re-equip since it doesn’t technically take one of your hero’s hands to carry it.

For those who’d just as soon avoid a fight, Flash Powder makes for a quick, if dramatic, escape. Throw some at the feet of a nearby foe, and the blinding reaction will leave it stunned long enough for you to make a hasty retreat. Add the Merciful Boots (an Act II Shop card) to the equation, and you’ll have a mobile medic that’s an asset to any team.

These are just a few of the new Shop cards coming, but even with an array of powerful weapons and other items, will the heroes have what it takes to stand before the overlord’s new minions? Look for Lair of the Wyrm on store shelves in just a few more weeks!"

 

 



#52 BatHead

BatHead

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:20 AM

nathrotep said:

 

Wrapped; that wouldn't work because the stats are all different. I take it you are being sarcastic(?) Either that, or you have no idea what you are talking about. None of it matters because, as we all now know, they were just holding back the treasure cards for the expansion releases. The announcement they made today shows that there will be treasure cards after all. (see below) I'm still going to wait until they pump out a few more expansions; too little, too late to catch my interest until there are more cards. For all those of you who never played the first edition and stubbornly refused to even consider playing, I say-HA! I win this debate. The first edition is superior to the second until they put out more cards. Enough said.

 

Oh, please stop. Get over yourself, you don't win anything, this isn't a contest. Your opinion that the first edition is better is fine, but that's all it is, your opinion, not a fact.



#53 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,675 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:43 AM

Macnme said:

Saying that, in DE2 it seems that everytime the heroes are doing a search, they're finding the Treasure Chest card - and then luckily drawing the exact best piece of equipment they need from the store cards…. it has really hindered me as the overlord, as the heroes are getting WAY more value out of the searches than you would expect them too.

You are aware that drawn search cards are not reshuffled into the draw deck until the end of the quest, right?  Not the end of the encounter, mind you, the end of the quest.  Adam Sadler has even responded to fan-submitted questions about what happens if the search deck runs out by saying "No more searching until the next quest."  The heroes should only be getting one peice of gear from searching per quest, no matter how lucky they are.

Sausageman said:

That is a fair and appropriate question.  And my answer would be, well, not really.

Which I think is part of the problem, as D1 was very much a dungeon crawler.  People have upgraded to D2 expecting a more finely tuned game, and actually ended up with an extremely different game to boot.

I'm curious what your definition of a dungeon crawl is.  Not to insult you or challenge your answer, of course, but just out of genuine curiosity for where you get that impression.  D2E strikes me as being plenty crawly, but perhaps I qualify a dungeon crawl somewhat differently than you.



#54 Triu

Triu

    Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:52 AM

My impressions of what people mean by dungeon crawl (what we used to call Monty Haul in my RPG days):

  • You don't know what's around the next corner or behind the door until you pass it. 
    [strategy = bad; tactics = okay; roll playing = good]  :P
  1. Kill monsters [& get XP]
  2. Seach & get phat lewts (or lutes once they add a Bard class).
  3. Rinse & repeat
  • The one with the most toys wins.
     
  • Lore is to keep the women & children distracted.

I'm [mostly] kidding -- I enjoy a good Dungeon crawl -- but the term is used as a perjorative in many circles.  I picked D2E because I was looking for more than a DC.  It seemed to fit between Drizzt & Mage Knight.



#55 Zarovichx

Zarovichx

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:02 PM

nathrotep said:

Wrapped; that wouldn't work because the stats are all different. I take it you are being sarcastic(?) Either that, or you have no idea what you are talking about. None of it matters because, as we all now know, they were just holding back the treasure cards for the expansion releases. The announcement they made today shows that there will be treasure cards after all. (see below) I'm still going to wait until they pump out a few more expansions; too little, too late to catch my interest until there are more cards. For all those of you who never played the first edition and stubbornly refused to even consider playing, I say-HA! I win this debate. The first edition is superior to the second until they put out more cards. Enough said.

 

 

 

I find this has to be a very immature person that wrote this. This reminds me of a gaming friend that I play with. He's a loot hog and we've lost many co-op fantasy games because getting loot is more important then winning the mission/scenerio to him.

I have played Decent 1st Edition and own it and I don't find it a superior game. 2nd edition has better character advancement in some ways with the class system it incorporated. D1E did allow you to buy more dice and draw random skills but the class system in D2E is better overall and adds more flavor.

The map tiles are better in D2E overall. The art work is better and doesn't look at all the same. Plus the outdoors tiles is nice too which D1E didn't have.

I don't find the shop cards any better or worse then the treasure cards from D1E base set.

I do like the shorter play time and your not forced to slot out 4+ hours just to play a mission./scenerio.

The first expansion is adding more shop cards, more classes, secret rooms, and side quests, what is there not to like.



#56 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 01:54 PM

My sarcastic response was in reply to the other gentleman's sarcastic comments. But thanks for making my point for me; the second edition will now get better as they add the treasure cards they were holding back. Shorter play time was not my issue; it was the boringness of the dungeons and lack of treasure. Even our OL was bored. And I'm not a loot hog; as you are well aware, having played it yourself, in the first edition you almost have to get the treasure to win. Also, the dungeons in the second edition are ridiculously easy to get through. Until the upcoming expansion, there were no treasure cards. The second edition is like an extremely dumbed down version of the first, like they were shooting for a much younger audience. In the first edition, the dungeons were longer, better written, more challenging, and a lot more fun to play. Saying that I'm wrong, and that's just my 'opinion' is all well and good, but it's like someone saying; "Hey, I never played chess before, and probably never will; too many rules, way too long. I just don't get it. But tic-tac-toe! Now there's a game I've played and it's the best thing since sliced bread! I'll just enjoy it for what it is and never even have to try to figure out chess. If anyone tries to tell me that chess is a better game, I'll just scoff at them and tell them that it's just their opinion…." Descent second edition is like tic-tac-toe compared to the first edition. If people like it the way it is, I guess that's fine for them. But they're still missing out on a far superior game. However, none of that matters anymore because they have announced the new treasure cards. In 3 or 4 expansions, I may even try it again to see if it has grown enough to enjoy playing it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to play the many other fine games that FFG offers, like Arkham Horror, Talisman, etc. Until then, you guys have fun playing your 'tic-tac-toe'.



#57 Zarovichx

Zarovichx

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:18 PM

Talisman is the easiest game to play so if D2E is Tic-Tac-Toe then Talisman is Candyland. Talisman requires no skill to play and win, it's all about being the luckiest. I can't believe you think there is actual meat and potatoes to that game. Sure there is treasure cards in the deck but you may never see them. It's very likely to draw nothing but creatures, events, and strangers the entire game.



#58 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 04:54 PM

Okay, so Talisman is not a good example of a game that requires a lot of skill. You got me there. I just lumped it in there as one of the other games by FFG that we like to play. We had more fun with that than Descent second edition, so it got included.



#59 Triu

Triu

    Member

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:00 AM

I enjoy a variety of games depending on the people I am playing with, the situation (time & space), and even my mood at the time.  I don't play much chess these days (although I could probaby dig up at least 6 sets around the house), but I have played the occasional game of Tic-Tac-Toe with young kids recently.  I've even tried to play Go, although I'm not very good -- it's a bit too abstract for my tastes.  I like the chrome, although not as much as some.

I am very much enjoying Descent 2E right now.  I can understand why FFG kept the brand, although this is more of a reboot than a sequel.  I prefer games that focus on skills rather than items.  I'd rather go into combat with a Navy Seal armed with a butter knife than a civilian with an assault rifle.  I would enjoy playing D1E in the right circumstances, but finding the time & players these days … 

True believers know they are right; it's not a matter for opinion.  Resistance is futile.  Any counter-argument will be met with "Nope, I'm right; you're wrong!"  Not much point debating with the nope rat.



#60 nathrotep

nathrotep

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:27 AM

Thank you Triu. Well spoken. I am passionate about how much better my playing experience was with the first edition. My whole game group agrees with me. When people who have never tried it tell me that the new one is better, I know that they are wrong. This is based on having played both games with my group, with players who have played a lot of different games. People can try and tell me that the new one is better until they are blue in the face and it won't change my mind. My group is about having a rewarding experience with fun, compelling, and challenging games. As you say, it's hard to find the time to get everyone together to play, and when we do, we want to have a great time. The second edition frustrated everyone in my group. We did not have a great time. The main problems we had were the over simplification and the loss of the treasure cards. If you compare the first dungeon in the first edition to the first dungeon in the second edition you will see what I'm talking about. It's not about being a 'loot hog'. It's not about 'game length'. It's about having fun. If you enjoy the new one, then good for you. It's not completely unsalvageable, and the new treasure cards will help with that. I'm excited to see that it may grow back into something that would be worth playing again. But people shouldn't try and tell me that the old one isn't better, because there they would be wrong. And that is a proven fact based on hours of play time with both editions. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. If that makes me a 'nope rat', that's fine; but I'm still right.






© 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