Jump to content

Radish

Members
  • Content Count

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Radish

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , 0, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Did anyone else find this scenario just too difficult? I've played through most of the others and while have lost a few this is the first one that just felt absolutely unfair and as a result not fun. Basically when we started out we had several monster treachery cards before we had a chance to put on weapons so it took the first half of the first act to get out of that quagmire. Then when we had the clues to advance we had one turn before the agenda flipped due to doom. At that point it was over since we had to (1) get clues from locations (2) fight the ghosts (3) do whatever thing the ghost wanted us to do in order to stop them from reflipping (4) fight off the ghost at the location the OTHER ghost wanted us to go to and do something (5) get the large amount of clues on THAT location before we could finish off the ghost (6) avoid the super ghost hunting us that even if we evaded or killed would come back with treachery cards and attack out of turn. The entire thing just seemed totally impossible unless you were able to advance the act as absolutely quickly as possible in order to clean up every one of the ghost locations before they lost aloof. Otherwise it feels absolutely unreasonable since there just isn't enough time to do the incredibly amount of work it's asking. Knowing that now I feel like maybe we could do better but the sense we got was that the urgency ramped up so significantly after the first half where there was almost no threat (except the witches bogging down our actions) to the second where you were screwed if you didn't know beforehand to rush to spawn the ghosts. Maybe we were missing something and made it way more difficult than we had to but like I wrote earlier this is the first scenario that really just did feel remotely sensible in what it was asking. This isn't supposed to be a venting complaint, but more to see if other people had similar experiences since I'm worried my other player had such a bad time that they aren't going to be as interested in playing more if upcoming scenarios are similar.
  2. Hello we just played the first scenario and I had a question that is probably dumb but I didn't see an exact answer in the rule books. When you provoke an attack from an enemy is it always exhausted afterwards and then only readies at the end of the Shadow Phase? This came up when a bunch of monsters jump on a player, that player left the space and got attacked, and then the monsters were all grayed out on the app indicating they were exhausted and no longer able to be provoked. I just wanted to make sure this was a standard rule that they basically only can attack once a full round. I found a lot of references to how exhausted monsters act when they are in ready or exhausted states and what happens when they are provoked, but nothing really indicating they exhausted afterwards outside of "35.6 The app automatically readies and exhausts enemies as required; all enemies are readied at the end of the shadow phase."
  3. Oh well. We'll just have to make sure people pick well the first time. Thanks for the confirmation!
  4. My group is about to start a campaign for the first time using this app. However one person isn't going to be able to make a few sessions, particularly the first where we would pick characters. Is there any way to add or change the party composition after the game has started or are you locked in for the entire game?
  5. Thanks for the replies! I had no idea about that player card transition to encounter card mechanic and it's really good to know.
  6. Hello I was just wondering about a rules clarification. Terrible Secret says that the horror can not be canceled. However Deny Existence says you simply ignore these negative effects. I just wanted to make sure that using Deny Existence to counter Terrible secret was legal since it seems like a really too perfect counter for that signature weakness (although you have to be holding the card of course). Thanks!!
  7. I agree the game needs to be competitive. We are actually going back to my closet and dusting off my Descent stuff to give the coop app a try soon (crossing fingers since I really want to play) but fundamentally Descent is a game with a player Overlord and if it doesn't have that it isn't Descent.
  8. Yeah I feel bad because I understand game design and testing is a hugely difficult deal and it's really not my place to say how to do that sort of thing. It's just as a consumer of the end product you can see some large flaws that we caught just by playing the maps one time. I think the most glaring was there was a map in the Trollfens expansion where as the Overlord after setting it up I told the players they had already lost regardless of how their first turn went. They were skeptical but then I just moved a figure the way I was allowed and the map was over in one turn. We spent twenty minutes trying to figure out how anyone wouldn't do exactly what I did since it was so clear and we had to be missing something but couldn't. That bug was fixed in an errata but it really should have been caught and caused my group to lose faith in the game since that sort of thing can wreck a campaign that awards bonuses based on scenario victories.
  9. While I think it is almost even more unlikely than a Descent 3E, a new 2.5 rule and campaign book that incorporates the models and map pieces from 2E while fixing the more unbalanced parts of 2E and giving new Overlord options would be really, really cool.
  10. As someone that has played since the original Descent and bought a lot of the products for 2E until my group started disliking it I would really like a 3E to take over for 2E which is really showing its age. My wishes for a 3E should it happen are: 1. A more robust Overlord upgrade path. Reducing all the upgrades for the overlord to one monster level up halfway through the campaign and then the cards was very underwhelming, especially considering all the ways the heroes could customize their characters. It also left the Overlord very hamstrung should the heroes chance into some of the more broken combinations of items and abilities. There was a lot less personality for the Overlord as well. 2. Way better playtesting. For a while I was buying the expansions for 2E the day of release. Without fail at least once per game session there would be a situation where something happened outside of the expectations of the developers which would result in us having to on the fly house rule something. In an adversarial game like Descent that meant one side was typically having to concede and the other would take that advantage and win the map leaving a bad feeling for everyone that it wasn't earned. Usually the faqs and errata would fix this but in something like Descent where you are expected to play over the course of many sessions to complete a campaign you don't usually play scenarios more than once or twice with the limited time most working people have so your one experience is hampered unless you wait for a while as the early players to work out the kinks. The character kit for the 1E characters was also wildly unbalanced. 3. Less power creep. I think the base game of Descent 2E is pretty well balanced. However as expansions came out newer heroes, classes, and items were sometimes indisputably more powerful than the base set. It's been years but in one campaign a character got one of the latest expansion items very early through some luck and he steamrolled the rest of the adventure. 4. Better rubber banding to get the weaker side back in the game. If the heroes start getting too powerful, I feel there is really no way for the Overlord to recover. Part of this is due to the severe lack of real options the Overlord has since monster choice can only do so much when even level 2 monsters are either being one shot by heroes if there are multiple per spawn or just beat up by all four if there is only one. I've had some luck as the Overlord by going really hard initially to make sure they got very little upgrades so the inevitable snowballing was delayed. This ended up making the hero players unhappy since the goal of these games should be to increase your power levels. This might just be an inherent flaw in the 1v4 game style since in a typical RPG a (good) dungeon master isn't trying to just win the game against the other players and very difficult to balance effectively. 5. Fatigue being used for movement should be much more heavily restricted, if anything it should just be removed and a more conventional mana system for abilities replace it. The boards simply aren't big enough to allow the characters the ability to run so far and then gain extra movement on top of it. A lot of the scenario breaking moments we've had were due to the heroes being able to either kill monsters before they ever had a chance of moving regardless of where they were spawned or being able to use actions while also moving just enough squares to get around most Overlord traps. 6. A more robust campaign system. On one hand I do like 2E's simpler system than 1E but I think they went a little too far and it's just a bit too bare bones in between maps. While I don't really think a 3E is on the way or anything I would really like a new version of Descent. 2E had a lot of promise and we tried to play the campaigns multiple times but the issues I listed always ended up leaving players either unsatisfied or angry due to rules disputes.
  11. In that scenario we got 4 out of 5 rings during the parade and ran out of time during the party with only a few wasted turns fighting monsters and talking to people. If even slightly being inefficient means an end state because of the hidden timer I think that's a real problem. The interact tokens, by their descriptions, aren't clear enough to know which ones are red herrings and which aren't without investigating. It's absolutely true if we had beelined to the closet, talked to the girl and gotten the key, gotten the rope in the same room, someone else goes to the diadem room and steals that, then everyone runs to the second floor and quickly gives everything to Marie we would have had enough time. However there is a lot of hidden information such as the map layout, where stuff is located, what happens when certain triggers are flipped, etc. I don't really want to feel like in a game where exploration and exposition are focused on, every game we have to worry that any turn could be the last without any warning. It encourages people to not want to interact with the game and try to rush through even if the sense of urgency isn't there. The scenario with the multiple days of investigating the fish cult (I can't remember the name exactly) handled it better since there were clear indications that the day was getting longer and you would need to start wrapping things up instead of just saying "hey! you have one more turn" out of no where. It's also not just about the lack of notice; just ending the game when we could have instead been given the chance to fight out way our or escape with a mob following us would have been preferable to just saying "you lose" even if the likely hood of success was very low. People just felt that the end came out of nowhere and was absolute unsatisfying, especially after we seemingly did everything "right". We investigated the parade keeping the floats slow and got almost every ring to be found then in the party we found all the items we were supposed to while fighting off every monster and getting information from the guests. The game then punished us because we weren't going as fast as it felt we needed to without giving us the knowledge of that until it was too late to adjust. Part of me is frustrated since after a few of these sorts of sessions people in my group are starting to lose interest in playing; losing out of nowhere is not really that fun even if the game is set in the Lovecraft "everyone is screwed" setting. I really, really like this game and these kinds of hidden fail states are hard when people only have a very limited amount of gaming time and this takes sometimes over two hours to play. Basically more "the party guests look agitated, you better start thinking about wrapping things up quickly" at the 50% mark instead of one turn before the end. edit: I feel like I'm being overly negative since overall so I want to stress the game is really great and this is just something that ended the experience out of no where and faster than the players would have liked. If the game wasn't good and fun people in our group wouldn't care about it.
  12. One problem our group is running into with a few of these scenarios is that the game does not instill the sense of urgency that is in effect and it's causing us to lose. For example, the recent scenario with the parade and floats in Sanctum of Twilight. After getting to the mansion party we are basically told we need to find the girl and get out. However there are tons of things that need to be interacted with from pieces of paper, to buried figurines, to a ton of different people. We went though all of these and the last two had the items that were required for winning (the key and the rope) without much indication on where they were. One turn before we found the girl the app suddenly announced time was short. Then one turn later the game just ended without any real fanfare. I think this is bad for a few reasons. The first was that the main section of the game was effectively pointless and ate up over an hour of playtime. Getting the rings didn't really affect much as busting in the back door didn't waste much time, especially when we had several monsters attack us from the front door. Second, if the game is going to have a hard cut off there needs to be a lot more indication of this. The first half made this very clear with the floats getting to the end of the street so we could plan out what we had time to do and what we didn't. Then in the second half we are at a dinner party that just suddenly goes crazy and hard fails without any real notices. Third it's incredibly anticlimactic. The game seemed to imply that people would get violent and we would have to force our way out once the magic tiara was stolen. However we didn't even get that the game just ended and everyone just went "huh..." and felt like we wasted two hours. Lastly if there is going to be a "time is running out! Better hurry up!" it should be much sooner than a turn before everything is over. That is totally useless unless you were going to win the next turn anyway and thus didn't need it. There have been a few others like this although off the top of my head I can't really remember since we play sporadically. It's just an overall bad feeling when you find out you've been racing a clock without knowing it. The game encourages you to explore for narrative hooks and such but then you get punished because you only have a very set amount of actions before the game tells you the game has been lost. It often doesn't indicate how much you have outside of the most vague clues if even at all. I would like if the scenarios could either shy away from these sorts of end states unless they make it very clear what the timer looks like (like the previous example of the floats moving through town). As it is these end up feeling like the sadistic GM who smugly tells their players that they lost because an hour ago they forgot to search something and don't have the item they need to kill the villain. I don't want to have to play this game assuming we could lose at any time because we have taken longer than the app wanted without saying and have to rush through and game the system as much as possible.
  13. We had a similar situation to the OP. We spent several hours trying to solve a mystery and fight a giant monster and then a player just screwed everything by jumbling up puzzles and the game ended with no real fanfair. It was totally anti-climactic since it's not like the game knew why we failed and could incorporate that into the narrative. The player that lost us the game and "won" was disappointed as well since he knew he couldn't have been stopped and he wanted to see the real resolution anyway. It wasn't like he outsmarted us, we were just powerless to affect him or his efforts. The problem with these cards is that the game clearly wasn't designed for them. For instance when you KNOW a character is trying to screw with the party you have no way of stopping them. There's no mechanic to attack fellow players or even really interact with them much at all. It isn't like Betrayal at the House on the Hill where when you figure out who the haunt is the game turns from coop to adversarial, everyone is still technically on the same team and the goal and plot hasn't changed. So you have a player you know is trying to screw things up and the most you can do is try and work around it while they are grabbing story specific items or making puzzles unsolvable. Additionally most of the other insanities are just kind of lame, it's a mismatched mix of stuff that is just role playing like the "don't talk for the rest of the game" (which is incredibly unfun for the person who gets that one by the way) and totally game changing ones like the traitor. I get that the idea is the traitor is supposed to pretend to have one of the more benign insanities while subtly influencing the game in their favor, however there is just no need when there isn't some way for the other players to really do anything about it if they figure it out. If the game had some sort of way for the other players to identify a traitor or some sort of branching path with the app where that mattered it would be much better. It's just totally half baked. It also punishes people that don't have time to play often and aren't familiar with all the insanities. For instance the one where the player is trying to be along with one other person holding a bladed weapon. If you haven't played the game many times so you aren't familiar with that possibility, there is literally no way to know to avoid that and the game just ends. You could read all the cards beforehand and explain the possibility to every player but that is not really encouraged by the game rules and also is at odds with the pick up and play low setup nature of the game. The game is also totally about action efficiency. Having one player doing nothing means you are probably going to lose, let alone with one wasting time setting fires or trying to stab people. This isn't a RPG, it's a board game with very specific rules run by a computer program. A better way to do an insanity mechanic is to have scenarios that assume that there is a possibility for that to occur, have a flag you can set in the app for when someone goes insane, and then have it react to that and tailor the experience to that player. Potentially you would need the app to have something like "The insane player hits this button to see what his or her insanity effect is in secret." The method with the cards that is absolutely not designed to work with the game at a fundamental level just doesn't cut it. We basically house ruled it that when you hit your cap on insanity cards you flip them over and keep all the ones that were permanent and discard the rest. This gives you a handicap like when you hit your wound threshold but doesn't ruin the game.
  14. Thank you guys for your input on this. I'll have to think it over. The game isn't a huge investment for one box so maybe I will give it a shot and keep in mind it might not be optimal. I really appreciate all the incite from more experience people!
  15. Hey just had some questions for the community on this game that's kind of hard to research. I'm looking into getting into a new card game to play with my friend. However she isn't a huge game person (she likes playing them but isn't going to go out of her way to do it) however is usually willing to give stuff a shot and likes things like Hearthstone and is ok with the Arkham Horror LCG. The stuff I'm interested in knowing is: 1. How "crunchy" is this game? I like Netrunner but it's got a lot of systems and card interactions that are required to know very well to be effective which my friend does not like. Does it require a ton of knowledge on every card that exists or you get blown out? 2. Is one Core set enough to actually play the game and have fun? I'm worried that it would be a very mediocre experience and give a bad first impression. I don't want to really invest in this and end up with literally no one to play with if my friends end up disliking it like I did with Netrunner. 3. Is this something we can learn as we play together out of the box or am I going to have to read a ton of stuff on how to play it properly then teach her? Any honest answers would be helpful. If this game isn't for us that's fine but I'd like to know before I waste her time.
×
×
  • Create New...