First, I should probably preface this post with the fact that my group and I who play Descent V1 never minded how long the game took to play.  We were all long time gamers that had played many other games that took longer.  We would usually get together and play 2 day straight sessions with a few rest and eat breaks.  Take a few days off, and then repeat.

I also know that one of FFG's goals with Descent V2 was to stream-line play, and shorten the overall time required to complete a quest.

What I really want to know from others, however, is the following:

Are we the only group kind of depressed with how SMALL the quest maps are?  I have read all of the previews, and just watched the recently released video.  All of the pictures I have seen of the quest maps tend to be smaller than most of the RTL dungeon layouts, let alone the monster sizes of some of the base level (non-RTL) quests.  In fact, many of the Encounter maps in RTL are larger than the quest maps in V2.  Add to this fact that the OL's deck is now only 15 cards (at least at base level), and it seems much of the flavor, customization, and general play goes out the window.

Don't get me wrong.  We are going to get V2, and we are going to play it.  I suspect, however, that it won't be all that long before we go back to playing V1.

Each of us has spent time creating custom quests to challenge the others with (playing both OL and Heros), and it just seems that the greater choices, flexibility, customization, etc. in V1 far exceeds that in V2.

I suppose, within time and future releases of expansions of V2 (perhaps more Archtypes, subclasses, etc.), FFG may be able to lay to rest some of our concerns, but …

Anyone else feel this way?  Just curious …

I'm 100% certain that the Descent 2nd edition vanilla box is just a beginning of a long journey. I'm happy that instead of loading the basic box with superheavy and long content, they give the players a chance to experience the game in smaller chunks. Then with the expansions they can make the dungeons/maps bigger and longer.

Also I'm 100% certain that if the basic game mechanics are as solid as they seem there will be a ton of fan created content for D2ndE. There you might see bigger, longer, meaner and heavy maps and quests.

All and all, I'm happy that the game seems like something our group will be able to get on the table every now and then. 1st edition was great, but for us it always felt that there just wasn't enough happening in a 4-5h game. Therefore we rather played something else. If smaller maps mean 1-2h game then I'm all for it.

any2cards said:

Smaller that RTL dungeon layouts?  I don't think so, Tim.  I admit that the map for "First Blood" is pretty small, but perhaps you're forgetting how small RTL dungeon levels really are?  I wouldn't say it's as small as all that, besides which, it is an introductory scenario, after all.

I've been following the previews myself, and I don't recollect seeing all that many quest maps.  Maybe two or three different ones, and First Blood several times, repeated from several different angles.  I'm not saying I expect any of them to be as massive as 1e quests were, but I think you might be getting a little bit ahead of yourself with worrying about them being tiny.

As for the OL's deck, it starts off small, but he buys more cards with XP over the course of the campaign.  The customization is still there, it just evolves over time instead of being done all at once.  As for flavor, the three OL classes help to ensure you can tailor your OL deck to whatever flavor of play you presonally prefer.

I'm guessing you're still in school, if you can afford to throw away two whole days playing a single board game.  If that's the case then, yeah, I can see how the shorter play time of 2e would suck for you.  Personally, I don't think I'd be interested in buying 2e if it couldn't be played in short bursts.  I just don't have that kind of time on my hands anymore.  Depending on how close you are to graduating and joining the workforce, you might find yourself coming to appreciate the compact style of 2e more quickly than you think.

 I have to say that the shorter play time is the number one change that is most beneficial for me.  I like to play games with my family, but they simply don't enjoy playing a game for more than a couple of hours.  Also, I simply don't have the time for epic gaming sessions like I did before I had kids.  A dungeon-crawl game that I can play on a work/school night with my kid is something I am really looking forward to.

Steve-O said:

Steve-O … first I absolutely must respond to your last statement first.  Made me laugh … very hard.  I am probably a very UNTYPICAL gamer on this site.  I am actually 51 years old and a professional poker player living in Las Vegas.  So, I, and my friends, tend to have all of the time we need to play games.  Most of us grew up playing all kinds of board games, strategy games, etc.

Now, I just spent several hours looking at the layouts of many RTL dungeons, and in fact many of the outdoor Encounter layouts; I counted map pieces used and measured for a rough, overall size.  Even if we discount First Blood, and only look at the 5 distinct maps detailed within the video (0:22, 0:29, 0:33, 0:41, and 0:49), only the map in 0:49 appears to be larger than most of the D1 RTL maps/enocunters; all of the others are smaller.  Now, I am assuming that what appears in the video are actual maps for quests (Act I or Act II), and not just some stuff thrown together for visual presentations.

As for customization of the OL deck, if you are not playing in campaign mode (and quite frankly even if you are), 15 cards just is way too small.  There are too many events/triggers/cards that allows the OL in D2 (at least what is shown in some of the previews) to discard cards from his deck, arrange them (at least the top 5) in whatever order he wants, etc.  I just don't think there will be enough variety in the long term; in fact, I think it will make it far easier for the OL and Heros (assuming a resonable memory) to know what is left in the deck at any given time, and prepare better for what is coming.

Now, of course, this could have been a decision made by FFG to enforce more interest in expansions, drive additional sales, etc.  Certainly a good business model.  I also agree that as expansions come out, and additional cards. map pieces, quests, archtypes, subclasses, etc. are made available, the overall re-playability of things will improve dramatically.

My concerns is what actually will lead me to also purchasing the conversion kit; if for no other reason that to allow additional heros, monsters, etc.

Thanks for responding; I don't often post, and more usually just lurk, but a well reasoned opinion and discussion adds value.  I have followed many of your posts in the D1 forum.

any2cards said:

LOL.  I stand corrected. =P

any2cards said:

As a professional poker player (and I'm assuming your friends are at least experienced players, if not pros), I can see why these things might be a concern for you.  For myself, I probably couldn't get even one card I wanted in the top 5 just by shuffling a stack of 15 cards.  I mean, one in three odds, I guess, but I'm not exactly that good at shuffling cards.

You did get the part about how the OL can CHOOSE to pair down his deck in between encounters during a campaign, right?  He can also choose to use the whole thing.  Although even it grows to as much as 25-30 cards, that still may not be too big from your perspective.

You can always make a house rule to reintroduce threat, if you wanted.  Put all the OL cards in the deck and the OL gains 1 threat per turn (NOT per hero.)  Playing a card requires the OL to spend threat equal to its XP cost.  You can decide after playing a few times whether or not he's allowed to discard cards for threat (XP cost) or not.  Hard to tell if allowing discards would be fair or too powerful.  You might also want to leave out the 3 XP cards until after the jump to Act II.

any2cards said:

I certainly think it's safe to say FFG is planning to make expansions for this game at some point.  I'm not so sure that picking the number "15" for the base OL deck was a deliberate move in that direction, but I am also fairly sure that expansions (when they arrive) will add at least a few more base cards to his deck, each.

Personally, I just hope the expansions come out at a reasonable pace, giving the designers and playtesters sufficient time to hack it out and make sure it works.  D1e expansions were coming out far too quickly, and it really began to show near the end.

You make some good points.  As I said previously, I do not want to pre-judge too harshly before actually playing the game.  Quite frankly, one of the reasons I don't post more within these game forums, is the same reason I don't post a whole lot on poker forums such as 2+2 … there tends to be very little thought out discussion, and way more flamming … in the end adding very little value.

There are exceptions of course, but I am sure you know what I mean.  Just look at what has happened since the reviews and the rules have been released for D2.  Both on FFG and BGG, there are endless "laywer-ese" battles and analysis … nit picking what a specific word means, etc.

The individuals with whom I play tend to be fairly easy going.  While we are all certainly type A personalities and very competitive, we have learned with games from FFG to just create a home rule when disagreement arises and play on.  Then we may post a question to these forums, or wait for the latest FAQ to come out.

So, I try to be careful myself when making comments without having first played the game.  We shall play the game and see how it flows.  I do agree with you, however, that while I do want to see FFG release expansions, if only to allow a greater variety in game play, I want them to do it in a very controlled, planned, and heavily play-tested manner.

As you stated, the more that was released for D1, the more headaches it created.  They need to really make sure that as they introduce new concepts, triggers, events, etc., that they are appropriately tested with everything that came before; quite frankly, I think there are some participants within this forum that would make good play testers.

After they have tested everything, and are prepared to move forward, they need to make sure they have a very good writer on staff who can be very clear and concise in their diction, to avoid many of the problems that have occurred in the past.

 I saw in da Rules that they had split the quests in encounters. This will save more space (small gameboard size) and create more objectives to the same quest. I'm happy for the Road to Legend campaing concept and for the replay-factor (custom classes, campaing's quests system, custom OL deck)

any2cards said:

You are so right here.  Swoop caused so many headaches in our group it hurt.  In fact, I'm STILL not sure I can explain how it works….  It was one of those 'nice in theory' ideas, but in practice it just didn't work at all.

I wonder if we'll see flying creatures at all in fact, for just this reason (be interesting in seeing the razor wings, demons etc that had flying/swoop in 1ed).

Sausageman said:

This made me laugh out loud for quite a while; so much so, that I couldn't type this reply for a few minutes.  To say that the concept of "swoop" in outdoor encounters caused us headaches does a disservice to the term headache.  I think for me it was more like one of the Cluster Migraines from which I suffer.  I actually don't even think swoop was a good concept in theory; I think it was a disaster from start to finish. At least for me, it never made thematic sense, and just caused issues over and over again.

The fact, however, that many of those issues arose because the new feature of swoop was not properly play tested against just about anything that came before is a great example to your point.

We found, for the most part (not saying that there aren't exceptions) that Altar of Despair and Well of Darkness seemed to work well with the base game.  Once you started to get into Tomb of Ice, Road to Legend, and the unmitigated disaster known as Sea of Blood, it went down hill fast, and never stopped.  SOB was such a mess that our group has never actually played with it.

any2cards said:

I'm beginning to wonder if you're in our gaming group  :)  Seas of Blood made us want to weep.  The Kraken and, well, practically everything else was a total mess, the ship encounters seemed broken, even the island levels of each dungeon were fubar'd.  We had an aborted campaign of SoB and made me long for the relatively painless Road to Legend again (and that was not without pain)…

Don't get me wrong, I think they *almost* had it, and certainly did with the concept.  I just hope D2 hasn't stripped too much of what I loved about the first game away - or at least we see some of it return.  I liked the progression of the characters, the length of the campaign, the pseudo-rpg side of the campaign.

Sausageman said:

The campaign may be a little on the short side (it's certainly shorter than a game of RtL, but whether or not it's "too short" remains to be seen.)  As for the other things, I think 2e will suit you well.

I've already got a few ideas for homebrew campaigns bouncing around in my head, though.  Making a longer campaign seems like it would be a pretty straightforward endeavour, for those who want one and are inclined to use homebrew content.

Strangely what I've read makes me more interested in playing homebrew quests than 1st ed. I think maybe it's because the tools are built into the base game to allow for a larger variety of experiences.

Steve-O said:

How would you make a longer campaign without the possibility of the heroes becoming too powerful for the monsters (seeing as monsters only upgrade at the interlude)?

Bleached Lizard said:

Heroes have a certain power cap too. There are just about 8 skill cards each class can buy with xp, and 20/14 act I/II equipment cards to buy (divided by up to 4 heroes), plus whatever relics there are. Not sure how many they'll get to acquire in the course of the campaign that comes in the base game.

Bleached Lizard said:

Well, we are talking about homebrew campaigns here.  If the heroes are liable to get too strong for Act II monsters before your homebrew campaign is finished, the obvious answer would be to make a second interlude and upgrade the monsters to "Act III" thereafter.  Devising "Act III" stats for monsters (and Act III gear) would be something else to hash out in your homebrew rules.

Alternately, you could try to find ways of making a longer campaign without allowing the heroes to grow much stronger than they normally would.  For example, by making a campaign with the same number of quests, but using bigger maps.  The heroes earn the same amount of XP, they just spend longer playing through it.  Or have some kind of unavoidable event where the heroes lose all their gear and need to start over or something.  They'd still have all their skills (logically) though, so that idea might not pan out.  It would depend on how much of their fighting ability comes from gear and how much from skills.

The beauty of homebrew is you can go wherever your imagination takes you.  You're making up the rules already, so just make up more to address any complications you come across.  1e's core rules were too much a mess for me to be bothered doing this sort of thing, but 2e seems relatively clean cut.