Jump to content


Question about the "feeling" of the gameplay

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 jgt7771


    Saving the world from cosmic evil since 2006

  • Members
  • 1,410 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 06:20 AM

This is probably too early to ask, since FFG hasn't revealed much, but wow, budgets are tight nowadays, ain't they?   Plan ahead.

I'm an Arkham Horror player, and I love that FFG seems to be pursuing a small niche of cooperative games.  But I've read some of the comments on the older version of DungeonQuest, and it doesn't sound all that "cooperative".  It sounds a bit more like "competitive solitaire", with every player trying to achieve a similar goal separately.  My question is (for those who have played the older version), is there any interactivity between the players at all?  Like cards played on each other, to help or hinder?  Does whatever I do affect anyone else, perhaps besides just releasing more creatures into the dungeon?

I guess my concern is...I have different groups of players.  Some love Arkham Horror because they want to win and die together, and not battle each other.  Some love Eurogaming, and wish to crush all who challenge them.  I tend to prefer the former, but can equally enjoy the latter.  My problem is when the game becomes a weird hybrid of neither.  Play together or oppose together, but not play alone until the final tally, like some lonely scavenger hunt.

I suppose as a tangent to that (so I don't tick any fans off), I will still probably pick this up as a purely solo game.  Something I can do in front of the TV or whatever.  Like Descent, my Arkham games, solo or otherwise, tend to take a few hours, and if DungeonQuest is a bit lighter than that...well, I'm at least intrigued.

What was that noise?

#2 Pascalahad



  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 08:27 AM

« Competitive solitaire », that’s a very good description indeed. If the new Dungeonquest is like the old one, it is not cooperative, nor is there much interaction between characters, only indirect ones : another player acts as the monster when a table neighbor encounters one, characters can take paths discovered by other characters when they're easier than theirs, and there even cannot be more than one character on a given tile.


It’s « player vs game ». Fortunately, the best I’ve seen inthat category. The feeling is great !

In solo games, it’s very easy to use, the set-up occurs mainly during the games, not before.

#3 Mind Robber

Mind Robber


  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 03 June 2010 - 10:56 AM

Its a player Vs player game too in that you have to have more gold than any (if there are any!) survivors.

In terms of interaction, not much; you can use each others paths through the castle this generally happens on the way out.  Sometimes you can block another players move by staying in a room that they would want to enter.

I bet that FFG add abit more interaction in this new edition.

#4 Demodog



  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 June 2010 - 08:00 AM

So the Games workshop version didnt allow two characters on the same tile at the same time? Why is that? The swedish version did, of course the first one entering gets the roomcard but that doesnt stop another from coming after at their round.

#5 Mind Robber

Mind Robber


  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 04 June 2010 - 01:31 PM

Ye, in the GW version the only room that two or more characters were allowed in at the same time was the treasure chamber.

#6 Poeppel



  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 05 June 2010 - 07:57 PM

I think what's most appealing about this game is that the characters will die with style . Because die they will. The chance of survival is almost nonexistent (somewhere I read 15%). So whenever players remember a good game of DungeonQuest they will tell the story of how their characters got killed (with style and drama). Personally, I never made it out of the dungeon alive but all of my characters died heroically, of course. It is lighter in tone than most other dungeon crawls, and really has not much interaction between the players as mentioned before. The solo variant is nice to play, if no one else is around to share the character's wish to die. Hopefully the flaws of the old edition will be corrected in the upcoming version.

#7 coasteray



  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:24 PM

To answer a few concerns:


I own the 1987 GW version, and on page 3 of the rules, it states that there is only a 15% chance of survival.  Also, there is no PvP in this game.  No one ever fights another player.  You are all trying to survive to become the richest player.  Everyone plays his own game, so, yeah, I guess you could say that it's "competitive solitaire".  The thing is, though, you don't have to worry too much about a player who has more loot than you, because his chances of escaping with it are lousy. 

The whole game is that of having the feeling of "I've gotta get in there and grab the loot and get out as fast as I can, otherwise I will DIE!!".  The 26-turn Sun Track determines everything.  It just keeps on going, and you look at it and figure what you should do next:  Search the tile you're in in hopes of getting gold or jewels, and therefore not be allowed to lay down a new one; or forget the search and move on by laying down a new tile and drawing a new card.  It depends on whether or not you think you may find some gold or jewels in that tile, or maybe you'd rather go to the center of the board and steal gold from the (hopefully sleeping) dragon.  If it wakes up, OMG!!!    That's determined by choosing one big chit out of eight big chits.  Hopefully, you won't pick the one that says the dragon is alive.

I should also mention the tiles you lay down are both good and bad:  traps, portcullis(es), monsters, rotating rooms, pits, or just empty chambers or straight walkways.  Same with the cards--monsters, gold, jewels, etc.  You never know.  It's all random.  You fight monsters with a small cross-reference chart on the board that displays the outcome of dice rolls.

I'm going to put this new version on my "to get" list. It will be fun to see how it compares to the original English version.

© 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