Jump to content



Photo

Approx. Playtime?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 xenoss

xenoss

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:32 PM

I don't know if I missed it or not, but is there a approx. playtime info anywhere?



#2 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,648 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 02:44 AM

Knowing FFG's big box games, probably somewhere in the area of a week.  The box will tell you it's 2-4 hours though. =P



#3 David Spangler

David Spangler

    Member

  • Members
  • 270 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 02:46 AM

Ha!  "in the order of a week"  very good, and accurate, too! 



#4 Seboss

Seboss

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 03:54 AM

Which is why I'm not likely to pick it up. I'm sure it will be a truely awesome game but I just can't commit 6hrs+ to a board game anymore.
Twilight Imperium and Descent have been collecting dust for quite some time now....

I really hope Corey will find some way to keep it around the 4hrs mark which is the most I can tolerate.



#5 Old Blue

Old Blue

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 09:11 AM

The box also says players will need 6 days of MREs and water...



#6 Zadok13

Zadok13

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:21 PM

This game looks like it could be fantastic, but I will have to pass if it turns out to be another game that takes all day.  I have enough of those already and I just don't have time right now to focus on such a thing.  I really hope that the playtime is reasonable, and that the game is strong enough with just two people.



#7 Old Blue

Old Blue

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 07:19 PM

Maybe they'll have a mechanic like RtL that you can save and play at another time



#8 xenoss

xenoss

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 11:20 PM

I am conflicted.

On the 1 hand the concept sounds super interesting, with all its empire building, questing and such.

But on the other hand, I don't want to play a long, drawn out game.  But that feeling totally go against my desire to play an empire building, questing, war game that by definition involves long play time.

I'm looking forward to this game.  I'll just wait till some reviews have gone out before I take the plunge.  Since I'm not a RB or a Descent player, the setting really doesn't sell it for me.  To be honest, I'd rather see a Midnight game; no offense to the RB/Descent fans.

 



#9 cjohnson

cjohnson

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 12:10 AM

Playtime per se doesn't matter to me as much as emotional investment and the consequences of losing. The longer the game, the more cooperative I prefer it to be. Both Arkham Horror and Descent are as close to perfection as they could be in that aspect.

Arkham Horror is fully cooperative, the players cycle through the investigators in case they personally lose. The drawback of full cooperation is that there are no "organic" difficulty levels: the game is harder for a group of newbies and easier for experienced players. Character backstories present just the right amount of personalization.

Descent is partially cooperative: the presence of an overlord means the game will be only marginally harder for an all-newbie group.

As for Road to Legend, I have no idea how to run it. (I bought it as inspiration for the single-player / cooperative game I write and hope to finish next year.) Again, it's not a matter of session length. It's just that I have a hard time trying to sell the idea of playing a prolonged campaign with clearly defined goals and a considerable chance of losing. In an actual roleplaying campaign, the characters define their own goals and are always able to say, "Well, screw this mission, let's do something else entirely." Something that eats up a significant portion of life should be at least as fair as life is, which includes the option of redefining goals.

So, personally, I hope for various degrees of "win", the ability to form meaningful alliances, major world events and the ability to affect them, etc. But I'll buy the game regardless.



#10 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,648 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 02:27 AM

Old Blue said:

Maybe they'll have a mechanic like RtL that you can save and play at another time

This would be very wise, and a welcome addition to the game.  I enjoy the depth and strategic investment of FFG's other BIG games, but I'm less fond of always having to call the game on time half way through.  RtL's save game sheets and player boxes were a stroke of genius, imho, and I definitely would not be upset to see them again here.  Especially if it is, as I suspect, designed to be a really long game.



#11 Hagard

Hagard

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 08:58 AM

No need for a Save Sheet.

6 Dragon Runes are your Goal

get them Through:

Conquest. (WAR)

Questing. (and you can clobber your enemies Heroes= WAR)

Laying Siege. (WAR)

Secret Objectives. (WAR?)

 

Some situations could result in a tug of war... but if they adopted the magic rule of Battlemist (more Runes = More/Powerfull Magic) you might have an edge to defend the Rune you just claimed (at least for the next round)

 

Conflict ist encouraged and the Situations will always shift... So if you are not playing Cold War or Always Bash the Leader (and who knows how many points/runes a secret objective might give you)

oh and do not forget the relative small downtime for issuing Orders

Fast Card Based Battle

Action Cards

 

I would estimate a playing time of 1h to 1 1/2h per Player  so it would feel epic.... but not as time consuming as Twilight Imperium (or on some occasions Warrior Knights)



#12 xenoss

xenoss

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:59 PM

I didn't know there were games with a "save game" sheet.

I was planning to use ziplock bags for each player's "hands" and take 2 pictures of the board using a camera.  But really, I perfer to play in 1 session.



#13 Old Dwarf

Old Dwarf

    Member

  • Members
  • 461 posts

Posted 18 October 2009 - 10:15 AM

Well I have little time to really devote to Gaming but I do have a game room where I can just leave the Game set up.This allows us to play an hour before our wives realize we're gone.Most of our games are played out over several weeks.

 

OD


A Dwarf in Winter


#14 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,648 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 03:16 AM

xenoss said:

I didn't know there were games with a "save game" sheet.

I was planning to use ziplock bags for each player's "hands" and take 2 pictures of the board using a camera.  But really, I perfer to play in 1 session.

The "save game" elements were introduced to Road to Legend because that game expanded Descent in a lot of ways.  Descent was already a 4+ hour game, and the campaign brought it up to the point where nobody could reasonably finish a game in one sitting.  It was literally designed to be played over a series of weeks, and so the designers built in a method of recording progress in case the players couldn't leave it set up somewhere (a very prudent move.)

@Hagard:

My concern is less about what the victory conditions are and more about how long it takes to achieve them.  I would expect a game like this to support at least 6 players (likely more with expansions) so even at one hour per player, that's a 6 hour game.  There was a time when I could devote 6 hours to a game, but nowadays not so much.  Hence, a save game mechanic would be welcomed.  It's not a deal breaker if there isn't one, but if that's the case I'll probably make my own as a fan addition.



#15 Hagard

Hagard

    Member

  • Members
  • 17 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 09:43 AM

As you might have read in the "News" Article for Runewars it will only be a "two to four" player game.

Battlemist (6):

Dunwarr Dwarves

Lothorian Elves

Daqan Knights

Zul Orcs

Loth Kar Barbarians

The Dark One

 

Runewars:

Daqan Lords

Latari Elves

Uthuk Yllan (Nomadic natives turned Demon)

walking dead (under the control of Waiquar the Undying)

 

The other Races could be part of a possible expansion (but only time will tell)

 

Since there are multiple ways of gaining VictoryPoints (Dragonrunes) and "speeding up mechanics" i estimated the playing time to 1h to 1 1/2h per Player (could be more or less depending on playing style. but the fast and dirty style might be encouraged)

 

so you are looking at 2-6 hours (i would go with 4h including a brief rules explanation and battle example)

 



#16 superklaus

superklaus

    Member

  • Members
  • 190 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 11:54 AM

Hagard said:

As you might have read in the "News" Article for Runewars it will only be a "two to four" player game.

Battlemist (6):

Dunwarr Dwarves

Lothorian Elves

Daqan Knights

Zul Orcs

Loth Kar Barbarians

The Dark One

 

Runewars:

Daqan Lords

Latari Elves

Uthuk Yllan (Nomadic natives turned Demon)

walking dead (under the control of Waiquar the Undying)

 

The other Races could be part of a possible expansion (but only time will tell)

 

Since there are multiple ways of gaining VictoryPoints (Dragonrunes) and "speeding up mechanics" i estimated the playing time to 1h to 1 1/2h per Player (could be more or less depending on playing style. but the fast and dirty style might be encouraged)

 

so you are looking at 2-6 hours (i would go with 4h including a brief rules explanation and battle example)

 

I would vote even for 1h instead of 1,5h per player but with the later option to throw in an addon with 2 more players. So I have the choice to play only a 4 players basic 4h game for one evening or a 6h 6 players advanced monster on weekend.






© 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