Jump to content



Photo

FFG--Please release GM-less co-op rules for this!


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Ebonsword

Ebonsword

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:37 AM

Since FFG appears to be completely revamping the game, now seems the perfect time to create an official set of GM-less, co-op rules for Descent.

There are plenty of folks out there (myself included, obviously) that prefer true co-op to the "players vs GM" style of play.

This is not a request to remove the "player vs GM" style of play from Descent--I would just like GM-less play to be an option.

 

I would think that FFG would see quite a bit to be gained from doing this, as it would allow Descent to be more of a competitor to the D&D board games like Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon.



#2 SoylentGreen

SoylentGreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:59 AM

 If FFG does not officially do it - there will most certainly be a fan based version that would do this. There is a co-op version for descent 1e that is on Board Game Geek - http://www.boardgame...t-descent-quest 

They even have decks of cards you can purchase printed from ArtsCow to have nice professional looking decks that you use when you play.

I printed them on my own and sleeved them but have yet to play it - I intend to - but just haven't gotten to it yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#3 PWBrian

PWBrian

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 08:06 AM

 It would be really cool to see something official along those lines, but without it I can see myself and others making our own versions without a ton of trouble.



#4 Kartigan

Kartigan

    Member

  • Members
  • 408 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:15 AM

 I would have to agree it would not be very hard to make that stuff yourself, I have heard a lot of good things about Descent Quest over on Board Game Geek.  Descent has always been about the Overlord vs. the Heroes and I hope they put their effort into getting that fine-tuned before worry about releasing any solo or pure co-op add-ons.



#5 sepayne7l

sepayne7l

    Member

  • Members
  • 567 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 11:58 AM

To me, the full co-op in the D&D games I've played is okay, but really lacks the fun of the team versus the Bad Guy that Descent and Fury of Dracula give you.

Personally, I'm thrilled that with a conversion kit Descent may actually hit the table more than once every year.



#6 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,561 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 01:46 PM

Yeah, I'm not exactly chomping at the bit for a co-op version of Descent.  Fan-made variants existed in 1e and I'm sure fan-made variants will exist in 2e, it's not something FFG needs to include, IMHO.



#7 Hadoken

Hadoken

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 11:26 PM

i don't think it's a good idea.

 

A co op rule means a totally different system.

If you want GM less game,play the (very good) D&D Adventure system game,or Dungeon Run.

Descent is more like a buffed up Warhammer Quest game.

And that's the point.

 

 

 

In really can't wait for this second edition :)



#8 Ebonsword

Ebonsword

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:27 AM

Hadoken said:

i don't think it's a good idea.

 

A co op rule means a totally different system.

If you want GM less game,play the (very good) D&D Adventure system game,or Dungeon Run.

Descent is more like a buffed up Warhammer Quest game.

And that's the point.

 

Um, you realize that one of the main features of Warhammer Quest was GM-less, co-op play, right?

I guess I don't see how having official co-op rules in addition to the players vs GM rules could possibly hurt the game, and they would likely draw in the growing number of folks (like me) who prefer true co-op dungeon-delving.



#9 PWBrian

PWBrian

    Member

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 04:26 AM

Ebonsword said:

Um, you realize that one of the main features of Warhammer Quest was GM-less, co-op play, right?

I guess I don't see how having official co-op rules in addition to the players vs GM rules could possibly hurt the game, and they would likely draw in the growing number of folks (like me) who prefer true co-op dungeon-delving.

I don't see it hurting the game, but I don't see it happening officially either.  This is Fantasy Flight.  They wouldn't just put out co-op rules, they'd put out co-op components.  Would I like to see a Descent 2.0 Co-op Kit?  Yes.  But I still think this is going to go the homebrew route.



#10 Kartigan

Kartigan

    Member

  • Members
  • 408 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:45 AM

Ebonsword said:

 

Hadoken said:

 

i don't think it's a good idea.

 

A co op rule means a totally different system.

If you want GM less game,play the (very good) D&D Adventure system game,or Dungeon Run.

Descent is more like a buffed up Warhammer Quest game.

And that's the point.

 

 

 

Um, you realize that one of the main features of Warhammer Quest was GM-less, co-op play, right?

I guess I don't see how having official co-op rules in addition to the players vs GM rules could possibly hurt the game, and they would likely draw in the growing number of folks (like me) who prefer true co-op dungeon-delving.

 

 

I don't think it would hurt the game (you could just ignore them if they were bad), but I don't really see it helping it either.  My biggest issue with them doing this is that means they've taken time away from developing the game in other directions and I don't want that to happen.  I.e. if they spend their time making an expansion to make the game fully co-op then that means 1 less expansion for the real game; which isn't something I'd want to see.



#11 Chu Wolf

Chu Wolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:46 AM

Found it interesting that there are basically two arguments given here against co-op:
 

1st - Co-op rules are no big deal because amateurs will just whip out some home-brew alt rules and you'll be good to go with no trouble.
 

2nd- Co-op rules would take a crippling investment in time that the professionals at FFG cannot afford to take away from other content.
 

I know the same people did not make both arguments but reading the posts as a whole it just struck me that the two arguments taken together really insult the abilities of the design team.
 

I for one dove into 1e and regretted it (not FFG's fault). It sits on the shelf purely because it has no co-op. Yes I made my own rules, and yes I liked the look of some of the home brews, but it was just easier to play other games. So, if 2e does not offer co-op I will likely pass. I actually agree BTW that if it will harm the core vs game that they should not co-op it, but IF it is no big deal to co-op it then it would be best if they do it from day 1 of the re-launch, because even the best home-brews always 'drift' out of sync with official material, and if it won't be official, well, just not the game for me and mine (which is fine by the way, not offended by it). In the end it is a business decision by FFG.
 



#12 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,561 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 01:17 PM

Chu Wolf said:

1st - Co-op rules are no big deal because amateurs will just whip out some home-brew alt rules and you'll be good to go with no trouble.

Just for the record, that's not what I said.  I said "I don't care about co-op personally" AND "if FFG doesn't do it, the "amateurs" probably will."  I wasn't drawing a causal relationship between those two statements.  As far as whether co-op rules are "a big deal" or not, that's up to each individual to decide.  It's a matter of opinion.  I don't think they are, but that's just my 2 cents.



#13 ilikegames

ilikegames

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:55 PM

Trying to compare Descent to Warhammer Quest just doesn't make sence.

What made Quest so BA was that "have to get to level 10" mind set. The same mind set that's making Blizzard millions of dollars "get better stuff to kill tougher monsters to get even better stuff" doesn't end. Of coarse your Lv 8 barbar would just some how "fall" into the fire chasm and die! But that's another story. The whole questing, leveling, journeying thing is what quest was built on.

Descent is totally different - ment for one dungeon runs. Even road to legend didn't really cut it for me in the whole leveling up dept.

So basically instead of putting together an "official" dm-less rule set. THEY should get the rights and just reprint Warhammer Quest - just like GW did with Space Hulk



#14 Mistersam

Mistersam

    Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 12:19 PM

 I bet 100$ they will do GM-less rules, maybe not in the core game, but in a future expansions. Descent 2 look more like Warhammer quest, not Descent 1. The tiles style, class, level system, campaign... Am 100% sure to buy it!



#15 Hellfury

Hellfury

    Member

  • Members
  • 830 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 02:55 PM

Chu Wolf said:

In the end it is a business decision by FFG.

 

Actually, it is a design decision. Its an adversarial game that requires human intellect as an antagonist.

Plenty of dungeon crawl games out there now that are co-op without having to make every last game on the planet a co-op. FFG just recently released one called Gears of War. Not that co-ops are bad, but there seems to be a resounding tenor amongst some consumers that every game needs to be able to be played solo/co-op.

Find a game that fits the bill and play it. Expecting a clearly adversarial game to be played co-op is a fairly major design difference. Like night and day. A completely new design.

Just as you wont likely buy it if it lacks co-op capability, I will likely not buy it if it does.

The above isn't aimed directly at Chu Wolf (he is just quoted incidentally), but at the crowd in general that gathers at every single new game mewling for co-op rules for clearly non-cooperative games.

It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.

 

Also, why would someone want to play the game if the co-op design was just an afterthought? Doesnt sound like a very fulfilling experience. I would rather play a co-op that was meant to be a co-op right from the beginning of the design process. Much as I would rather play an adversarial game that was meant to be such from the beginning. Designs from an afterthought generally stink.

Kind of like movies made with 3d tech in mind and movies made into 3d during post production. One is clearly superior in what it does compared to the other. Why settle for the half measure?

So including co-op rules for an adversarial game  actually would hurt the game by inlcuding both. Because neither is getting the full attention that either design deserves and the game would suffer for it. It really is an "either or" situation here.



#16 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,561 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 02:27 AM

Hellfury said:

Plenty of dungeon crawl games out there now that are co-op without having to make every last game on the planet a co-op. FFG just recently released one called Gears of War. Not that co-ops are bad, but there seems to be a resounding tenor amongst some consumers that every game needs to be able to be played solo/co-op.

I have to agree with this.  Maybe it's just because I'm getting old and cynical, but it seems like there are so many people these days looking to play all their board games solo.  To me, a big part of the appeal of board games is getting a group of people together.  It just isn't the same otherwise.

I like me a good co-op game, but only so I can co-operate with my friends, not so I can play it alone.  In my experience, all co-op games have a limited lifespan, because the game never changes it's tactics.  Even if it has a few different approaches determined at random, the permutations are finite and they don't learn from player actions.

Hellfury said:

It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.

I admit I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but isn't that exactly what the bio-terrorist variant in the expansion does?  Maybe chalk that up to a bad example. =P

Hellfury said:

Kind of like movies made with 3d tech in mind and movies made into 3d during post production. One is clearly superior in what it does compared to the other. Why settle for the half measure?

I am again forced to concur.  I recently saw Transformers 3 in 3D and it was probably the only "3D movie" I've ever seen that didn't give me a pounding headache.  I won't get into an arguement about whether that movie was good or not (it wasn't), but the point is it was made for 3D from scratch and that particular aspect worked so much better than the ones that stick it in as an afterthought for 5 minutes of footage.



#17 Mordjinn

Mordjinn

    Member

  • Members
  • 195 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 03:37 AM

+1 to everything that Hellfury and Steve-O said. There's plenty of co-ops with solo play capability in the market at the moment and more coming all the time (Gears of War, D&D Adventure Games, LOTR CCG, Space Hulk: Death Angel,Arkham Horror and Ghost Stories just to name a few). Personally winning over a game (even with friends) is nowhere near as satisfying as winning over friend(s). Co-ops need a different kind of system mechanics to work and implementing those to the basic Descent 2 box would definitely create some kind of compromise in the rules. I DON'T want this to happen.

Descent 2 should be designed from top to bottom to deliver the best possible one against many gaming experience. Nothing more, nothing less. Co-op/solo play stuff can be created by fans.

 

 



#18 Hellfury

Hellfury

    Member

  • Members
  • 830 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:55 AM

Steve-O said:

Hellfury said:

 

It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.

 

 

I admit I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but isn't that exactly what the bio-terrorist variant in the expansion does?  Maybe chalk that up to a bad example. =P

I wasnt aware that this was possible in the expansion. I'll have to find someone who has it and see how good it is. So yeah, I guess chalk that up to a bad example.



#19 Ebonsword

Ebonsword

    Member

  • Members
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 01:54 PM

Hellfury said:

Chu Wolf said:

In the end it is a business decision by FFG.

 

Actually, it is a design decision. Its an adversarial game that requires human intellect as an antagonist.

Plenty of dungeon crawl games out there now that are co-op without having to make every last game on the planet a co-op. FFG just recently released one called Gears of War. Not that co-ops are bad, but there seems to be a resounding tenor amongst some consumers that every game needs to be able to be played solo/co-op.

Find a game that fits the bill and play it. Expecting a clearly adversarial game to be played co-op is a fairly major design difference. Like night and day. A completely new design.

Just as you wont likely buy it if it lacks co-op capability, I will likely not buy it if it does.

The above isn't aimed directly at Chu Wolf (he is just quoted incidentally), but at the crowd in general that gathers at every single new game mewling for co-op rules for clearly non-cooperative games.

It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.

 

Also, why would someone want to play the game if the co-op design was just an afterthought? Doesnt sound like a very fulfilling experience. I would rather play a co-op that was meant to be a co-op right from the beginning of the design process. Much as I would rather play an adversarial game that was meant to be such from the beginning. Designs from an afterthought generally stink.

Kind of like movies made with 3d tech in mind and movies made into 3d during post production. One is clearly superior in what it does compared to the other. Why settle for the half measure?

So including co-op rules for an adversarial game  actually would hurt the game by inlcuding both. Because neither is getting the full attention that either design deserves and the game would suffer for it. It really is an "either or" situation here.

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.

It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch.  Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version.  It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.

In other words, instead of it being like a "pure" 3D movie versus a "pseudo" 3D movie, I see it more like the 1931 film version of Dracula where the Spanish-language version was filmed using the same sets but with different different actors and director.

 

Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce.  If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so.  It won't bother me in the slightest. 

It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes.  If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?

 



#20 Mordjinn

Mordjinn

    Member

  • Members
  • 195 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 08:09 PM

Ebonsword said:

I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.

It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch.  Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version.  It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.

In other words, instead of it being like a "pure" 3D movie versus a "pseudo" 3D movie, I see it more like the 1931 film version of Dracula where the Spanish-language version was filmed using the same sets but with different different actors and director.

Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce.  If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so.  It won't bother me in the slightest. 

It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes.  If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?

The problem is that co-op games need certain kind of mechanics to work. So when implementing those mechanics the designers would have to choose to compromise between the "best possible adversarial system" and "best possible co-op system". I guess what most of the Descent players wish for is the best possible adversarial system, because that's what the game is/was all about in the first place. I doubt that Descent 2 will be the best adversarial dungeon crawl / adventure game if this kind of compromise is made.

Using your example it would be like the Spanish version director calling the original version set builders and requesting some changes on the original set and props because "then the film would appeal more to the latino audiences". Maybe some sombreros on the statues of the castle Dracula? :)

 

 






© 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