I, for one, hope that FFG has learned their lesson in trying to bolt-on a concept for an already existing game that was not originally designed for the concepts in question. Trying to do this never ends well. If the game wasn't designed for the functionality to begin with, it rarely works out by adding it after the fact.

They are better off simply creating a D3e with that concept built in from the start.

Just my two cents worth.

I agree up to a point. While there are extreme mechanics that can drastically shift the functionality of a game that should probably be reserved for future editions (for example, I don't know that trying to create a skirmish mode for D2E such as is found in IA would be well advised,) one of the biggest benefits of expansions is to introduce new (albeit less radical) mechanics to the game on top of the new content. For example, the rumor mechanic first introduced with Lair of the Wyrm I think added a new aspect to campaign play that is very interesting. Similarly, the secret room treasure card, corrupt citizen cards, influence- all examples of new mechanics that are positive contributions from expansions. The threat/plot card mechanic is also a really neat addition. While you can argue balance of specific content encompassed by those mechanics, the mechanics themselves are good ideas that have (in my opinion) been implemented very well into the existing D2E framework.

The Coop adventures represent a much larger departure from the campaign playstyle than anything else released for D2E. I enjoy the coop adventures and am surprised by how they take the second edition components and put them to a very different, yet enjoyable use (had you tried to pitch the concept of a loot track or a doom counter to me I probably would have laughed.) Perhaps FFG has just learned to test things a bit more before releasing them?

Most of your initial points, while absolutely valid, are valid because the changes to the base game itself are minimal. Adding in additional "mechanics" or features such as threat, fortune, rumor, secret rooms, etc. all extend the base game WITHOUT changing the base game rules in any material way. That is why they work so well.

Even the Co-Ops really only extend the base game, not really change it. You still play by virtually all of the same rules, it just provides additional ones to automated the OL.

I also agree that a better comparison for D1e-RTL would be something like IA Skirmish mode for D2e. This would drastically change the base game, and would not, in my opinion, be able to work without changing the rules significantly. And thus, it wouldn't work real well.

When I think about D1e, and the hundreds of cards/items involved, and then the attempt to restructure all of the rules to make RTL, with additional items, dice, etc. I just shudder at trying to play test every possible combination/scenario.

So, is Descent dying or not?

So, is Descent dying or not?

I am of the opinion that it is not.

From the reaction this discussion is causing, I tend to agree with you!

I was being a little sarcastic with my question

Personally, I'm not too keen on the mentality that a board game must continue to crank out expansions in order to remain "alive." The game remains alive as long as people are willing to play it, which could well outlast its time in print. I know a few corners of the internet where games like Legions of Steel are still alive and kicking, despite being almost 20 years OOP.

Personally, I'm not too keen on the mentality that a board game must continue to crank out expansions in order to remain "alive." The game remains alive as long as people are willing to play it, which could well outlast its time in print. I know a few corners of the internet where games like Legions of Steel are still alive and kicking, despite being almost 20 years OOP.

Agreed - I admittedly have played Descent probably less than 20 hours total so far, but I see it as an investment - a game that lasts a lifetime. I paint a bit every few months, step through campaigns with equal frequency and plan to do so for decades to come.

However, "alive" is a broad term. Also agreed that it is "dying" in some sense. To me, the # of new expansions for 2nd Edition will probably be very few. To make a bold guess, I don't think there will be any more.

I have been playing descent for almost a year. My game group still loves it, and the fact that you can come up with new adventures and campaings on your own certainly make the game's life span bigger. BUT, when Imperial assault came up, i knew Descent 2.0 as it is can be improved, maybe by "patching" the main rule book or even creating a new rulebook to use with Descent 2.0 ( 3.0 ??? ). Fact is me and my group are using the LoS and movement from IA ( modifying a little bit the rule for movement otherwhise large monsters would be too slow ). The only downside to Descent's life span in my opinion, may be only the lack of update in the rules ( lots of good games are coming up that can kill descent, but Descent can become the ultimate "sandbox" for almost any kind of fantasy game just because of its components, It just need rules, and the community proved it can be done ).

Expansions aren't needed for a game to be alive. I've yet to buy an expansion for chess but nobody is rushing to call that a dead game.

For a game to be dead/dying people should be either unable or unwilling to play it.

If D2e had surpassed D1e in every way then maybe it would be a dead game but as many people still prefer D1e it is very much alive.

I have complete collections of descent 1st and 2nd editions, runebound, arkham horror, battlestar galactica and more. These games are very much alive to me and will remain so with or without new content.

Collectable games like CCGs, star wars miniatures, twilight imperium armada, confrontation etc. Are much harder to keep alive as it requires multiple people to have sets of an OOP game.

D2e is well placed to remain alive after it stops receiving new content, or even after it goes OOP, because of the quest vault and solo mode.

Do you know? The other day I was thinking about something. Not tested yet, but at least, sounds interesting:

What if a knocked out hero put three tokens on the map instead of one? That would mean they will take 3 turns to recover. If in the mean time all heroes are knocked out, the game ends. This would give

a new breath in the game, taking out the 'race' aspect of most quests. And since we don't have conquest tokens anymore, seems a good idea to me.

Plus then you have to start looking into all the other rules, like when a hero some how heals 1 damage he automatically stands up.

We have house-ruled that knocked down heroes can only stand up by using a stand up action or by another hero or themselves. It makes death more serious without tipping the balance and messing around with other rules too much.

I really hope they churn out more campaign books like heirs of Blood, but using content from other expansions and finish the Heroes and monster packs, then i would be happy. I would be even happier if they released a small box to even out the classes

I would like to see a class that has the power to damage certain traits - they can choose to go down the path of adding effects onto dark or cursed monster traits for example, or invest against elemental traits. Maybe use tokens to determine what traits the bonuses apply to.

In my opinion there is room to at least two more boxes. One small, to even the classes as you said, and one big. I would not care in the big one for heroes or classes, just more tiles, based on a desertic theme and snow on the other one

In my opinion there is room to at least two more boxes. One small, to even the classes as you said, and one big. I would not care in the big one for heroes or classes, just more tiles, based on a desertic theme and snow on the other one

Personally, I would love to see a true crypt/dungeon adventure. Think D&D Tomb of Horrors done in Descent style. That would be amazing!

In my opinion there is room to at least two more boxes. One small, to even the classes as you said, and one big. I would not care in the big one for heroes or classes, just more tiles, based on a desertic theme and snow on the other one

Personally, I would love to see a true crypt/dungeon adventure. Think D&D Tomb of Horrors done in Descent style. That would be amazing!

Sure, it would be awesome too. My problem is that I have a crush for pyramids and stuff, I'd buy a expansion like that in a blink. I remember pyramid of shadows for D&D, but unfortunately I never played it. We made some game sessions, a mini campaign in D&D based on the movie 'the mummy'', tough. It was so cool...Imhotep did a great bad ass boss at the end. Good times!

Now I want to play the runebound desert expansion

Runebound was a nice terrinoth game with deserts, jungle, frozen wastes, coastal islands (pirates). All the terrain types that could be included in d2e.

The expansion I'd most like to see would be runebound 3rd edition, with a system included to use it as a RTL campaign system for descent.

Well, since it's in runebound, there is a chance. Let's wait for something like that in the future!

I don't know. I've been visiting the upcoming page for months and months and there isn't any mention of a real Descent box expansion. I really hope they're working on one.

Or perhaps they don't ever started to think about one, due the focus in co-op. But I keep my hopes to see something in the future.

As a few other people have said, I expect them to at the very least balance the hero classes (one more mage and healer class coming.) Just the same, there's nothing to do but wait for an announcement to know for sure.

Honestly, I think they are just focusing on H&Ms for now. There are still heroes they have yet to make from 1e and probably more monsters to port over. They are also still making Co-Ops. All these little expansions are cheap for them to make and focus on while they work on other games. There's alot to buy right now for 2e. Even if you don't have everything, the replay value is enormous. Different combinations of heroes on different campaigns, using different plot decks, Ol cards, monsters etc. And 3 Co-Ops. You could play this game for years and probably never play the same campaign twice.

Indeed...but I can't stop thinking about one new expasion with pyramids and stuff

And crypts with skeleton warriors and archers and a new massive skeleton boss/lieutenant! And a lot of loot!

I think this game can receive virtually any number of expansions to increase variety (heroes, monsters, setting), but there must be a cap in the amount of additional rules you can add to it without jeopardizing balance or make the game too complex so it doesn't run as smoothly as it currently does. Campaign-specific rules are good, for instance. I´m all for releasing monsters with other utility abilities instead of pure combat abilities.

My playgroup is in fact slowly shifting to the D&D board games series, because the last two campaigns we did were just one-sided. We´ll finish the one we have on-going atm but none of us think this is interesting anymore. It's a shame, but that's the consequence of snowballing. It's the game's primary weakness if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, we still enjoy rolling the dices, get to explore new maps and try out the new H&M monsters, but the outcome is so obvious anyways so any form of high-level strategy has become shallow at best and just not worth the effort of trying to plan for doing anything else than let the game roll over you. That's where we should probably stop the campaign and start a new one - once you've hit that situation, but ofc the players winning do not want to be spoiled of their victory, so yeah...

We will go back to Descent, and I will carry on painting the minis, but we need a break. The amount of new content is outshadowed by the balance issues, which is aggravated by the 1 versus 4 feature of the game. I've played this game quite a bit and have been starting to see the issues more than the fun parts. I have my ideas for a third edition of the game, actually if I had more time I would issue a fan-based variant like I did for other games. One man's opinion and implementation of the perfect game basically, which is worth what it's worth

My playgroup is in fact slowly shifting to the D&D board games series

Just curious, what you're talking about? Castle Ravenloft, Legend of Drizzt...or Dungeon Command? I my opinion, you're going to have good time with the firsties, but dungeon command, none at all. Just my opinion.

Just curious, what you're talking about? Castle Ravenloft, Legend of Drizzt...or Dungeon Command? I my opinion, you're going to have good time with the firsties, but dungeon command, none at all. Just my opinion.

I don't own any of the Dungeon Command games, but to me they´re just H&M packs to the other games except the minis come pre-painted. Maybe there are ways to assimilate more of these into the D&D games but I haven't felt any particular interest in doing so. It's also the fact that I don't want to spend my house in buying the 5 dungeon command games, which mind you don't come with "much" in them.

So yeah we play the 4 D&D adventure games, which is a billion components and a ton to carry with me on the train (yikes). But we don't play the game as described in the campaign books. I developed a variant allowing us to play in Epic mode with everything combined. It's full-coop and my players absolutely love it.

D&D adventure games can be compared to Descent in a multiple ways, but it's mostly the co-op feature that makes the difference, coming along with the monster activation (like in Descent co-op). One game is not plain better than the other, they´re just different, but if the only thing you´ve been playing for the past 2.5 years (with one particular playgroup in my case) is Descent then starting something new can be quite refreshing and motivating.

Just curious, but who's steamrolling who?