as for the clamoring for random dungeons after a decade or fixed dungeons.. new blood/solo.coop players..attracted to the game for a decaded i've not been able to play the game "Vs OL way" the apps opening these new avenues,,, and other solo coop dungeons games have a over a decade long history of having random maps... Advanced hero quest, warhammer quest, D&DAS games, brimstone, the new warhammer quest

I still belive this shouldn't be a "we want to have X or Y" argument. Instead we, as consumers, would like to have X, Y & maybe even Z (sweet, sweet Quest Vault, let your connectivity to RtL be only a matter of time).

I think they can expand on side quests by having a random room allocation functionality like the PoD co-ops. While maintaining the narrative flow of the main quest line. I'd like to see a whole campaign be just random dungeons for exploring and looting. Just not at the expense of having others tell a coherent story.

You want that cake? I want it!

I'm very much with Zaltyre on this point.

Sure "random generated dungeon" probably sounds really good in your head and seems something worth achieving, given all the possibilities and "endless replayablitiy" this term promises.

However keep in mind that randomly generated dungeons have huge drawbacks and shortcommings compared to fixed maps.

Since this is about Descent, let's keep it on that topic and let's not bring real time hack and shlash RPG-like videogames into the mix, because Descent 2nd Ed's gameplay always was at it's core objective driven, meaning you had to always interact with the whole map (or location formed by all the single rooms) and not work through the map from one closed off section to the next. That's imo the minimum requirement to make Descent work as an objective driven game.

Introducing the PoD Coops, FFG had to try out a compromise between objective based gameplay and randomly generated dungeons, because imo that's the only way they could've justified their asking price ~20$ for one quest. Yet this attempt to combine these formats quickly showed it's limitations: The map lost it's whole feeling of a genuine part or location of a world; everything apart the room you were in, was meaningless for gameplay; the variety of objectives took a huge hit and last but not least the possibility of impossible room-placement was solved by a rule that made the game harder, when this situation randomly occured. And the benefits? Well since you saw all the rooms available in one playthrough, the next time you still knew all the rooms, they just appeared in another order, effects on gameplay were minimal (since every room was a closed off encounter of it's own), replaying the PoD Coop wasn't very enticing, once you beat it and saw everything.

So, then just make more rooms, so you can't see everything in one playthrough, right? Well that would take a lot (twice) as much development time and so you have 1 moderatly replayable dungeon that still has all the other drawbacks of randomly generated encounters.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there are lots of development-resources necessary to make randomly generated encounters work that feel like Descent - given all the programming and development towards keeping "impossible room-placements" to a minimum by smarter algorithems and differently designed rooms that still bring forth a lot of variety. I'm guessing we are looking at 30$ for a 3 encounter campaign, where each encounter is randomly generated, has enough content to be replayable, yet it would still come with a few limitations I mentioned earlier that make this imo inferior to fixed maps on the first playthrough. (predominantly the closed off rooms)

So the way I see it, we could choose between 20-30$ for 3 quest campaigns that feature randomly generated dungeons (with closed off rooms) or 10$ for a 8 quest campaign with fixed maps, where you play on the whole map.

I know what I would easily choose and I think most would feel the same way once they are presented with concrete products and are not driven by the ring of "randomly generated dungeons".

The reason why randomly generated dungeons work quite well in other dungeon crawlers is because they are predominantly about killing the enemies that also spawn randomly and are devoid of fleshed out objectives like Descent 2ed is. So, just like in hack and slash video games with randomly generated dungeons, there is no need to think about how to get back to the cabin in time to fulfill your objective, you only push forward and only go back to visited areas, if it's needed for fighting tactics or for leaving the area.

If you still think randomly generated dungeons are the way to go, have you tried the PoD Coops? and what would you pay for how much randomly generated content?

I would like add that you lose a certain amount of objective play just by having a hidden map-or at least it changes. If your quest objective is "collect the things and bring them back in X turns" there is some amount of "which do we get first? Do we split up? Do we bother with the monsters?" The heroes form a plan. In a hidden (and definitely in a random map) there is not really a plan of action- just go forward, and then react when things happen. I am not at all saying there is no strategy with a hidden or random map- only that it affects the planning aspect of the game.

I'm very much with Zaltyre on this point.

Sure "random generated dungeon" probably sounds really good in your head and seems something worth achieving, given all the possibilities and "endless replayablitiy" this term promises.

However keep in mind that randomly generated dungeons have huge drawbacks and shortcommings compared to fixed maps.

Since this is about Descent, let's keep it on that topic and let's not bring real time hack and shlash RPG-like videogames into the mix, because Descent 2nd Ed's gameplay always was at it's core objective driven, meaning you had to always interact with the whole map (or location formed by all the single rooms) and not work through the map from one closed off section to the next. That's imo the minimum requirement to make Descent work as an objective driven game.

Introducing the PoD Coops, FFG had to try out a compromise between objective based gameplay and randomly generated dungeons, because imo that's the only way they could've justified their asking price ~20$ for one quest. Yet this attempt to combine these formats quickly showed it's limitations: The map lost it's whole feeling of a genuine part or location of a world; everything apart the room you were in, was meaningless for gameplay; the variety of objectives took a huge hit and last but not least the possibility of impossible room-placement was solved by a rule that made the game harder, when this situation randomly occured. And the benefits? Well since you saw all the rooms available in one playthrough, the next time you still knew all the rooms, they just appeared in another order, effects on gameplay were minimal (since every room was a closed off encounter of it's own), replaying the PoD Coop wasn't very enticing, once you beat it and saw everything.

So, then just make more rooms, so you can't see everything in one playthrough, right? Well that would take a lot (twice) as much development time and so you have 1 moderatly replayable dungeon that still has all the other drawbacks of randomly generated encounters.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but there are lots of development-resources necessary to make randomly generated encounters work that feel like Descent - given all the programming and development towards keeping "impossible room-placements" to a minimum by smarter algorithems and differently designed rooms that still bring forth a lot of variety. I'm guessing we are looking at 30$ for a 3 encounter campaign, where each encounter is randomly generated, has enough content to be replayable, yet it would still come with a few limitations I mentioned earlier that make this imo inferior to fixed maps on the first playthrough. (predominantly the closed off rooms)

So the way I see it, we could choose between 20-30$ for 3 quest campaigns that feature randomly generated dungeons (with closed off rooms) or 10$ for a 8 quest campaign with fixed maps, where you play on the whole map.

I know what I would easily choose and I think most would feel the same way once they are presented with concrete products and are not driven by the ring of "randomly generated dungeons".

The reason why randomly generated dungeons work quite well in other dungeon crawlers is because they are predominantly about killing the enemies that also spawn randomly and are devoid of fleshed out objectives like Descent 2ed is. So, just like in hack and slash video games with randomly generated dungeons, there is no need to think about how to get back to the cabin in time to fulfill your objective, you only push forward and only go back to visited areas, if it's needed for fighting tactics or for leaving the area.

If you still think randomly generated dungeons are the way to go, have you tried the PoD Coops? and what would you pay for how much randomly generated content?

I would have written this if I was better at words.

Well you all got good points guys.

I do understand the benefits of having arandom generated dungeon. It should be an alternative on RtL imo.

However there are things that simply CAN'T be done on a random generated dungeon:

Lets say you have opened a door, in that room there is an objective token you have to interact with, you don't know what it does, you just know it is needed to continue the quest. When you finally interact with it it changes the previous tile adding a door where an Endcap was.

In a random generated Dungeon, mechanics like that would be avoided, simply because a random tile added to the map might not always have the shape a certain mechanic needs to work properly ( It might have just 1 entrance, or be too small, or too big.. etc etc..!).

So, in order to keep every tile you pull out of the box important to the quest, a random generated dungeon should be avoided.

I do believe, the FINAL solution is just the addition of content on RtL. A lot of content from FFG and from the community, so we can always play a new dungeon everytime whenever we want.

PS: We live in an era of free software..! Why isn't the RtL code released so the community can make it evolve? Maybe I'm wrong, but my feeling is that 1234412323 heads think better than 10. Or maybe the Plan of FFG is just keeping it to themselves so the only thing feeding the app is their pay-to-access content.

I bet in a similar approach from Imperial Assault system. The story campaign will be fixed, but they will increase the number of side quests avaliable in every release.

Well you all got good points guys.

I do understand the benefits of having arandom generated dungeon. It should be an alternative on RtL imo.

However there are things that simply CAN'T be done on a random generated dungeon:

Lets say you have opened a door, in that room there is an objective token you have to interact with, you don't know what it does, you just know it is needed to continue the quest. When you finally interact with it it changes the previous tile adding a door where an Endcap was.

In a random generated Dungeon, mechanics like that would be avoided, simply because a random tile added to the map might not always have the shape a certain mechanic needs to work properly ( It might have just 1 entrance, or be too small, or too big.. etc etc..!).

So, in order to keep every tile you pull out of the box important to the quest, a random generated dungeon should be avoided.

I do believe, the FINAL solution is just the addition of content on RtL. A lot of content from FFG and from the community, so we can always play a new dungeon everytime whenever we want.

PS: We live in an era of free software..! Why isn't the RtL code released so the community can make it evolve? Maybe I'm wrong, but my feeling is that 1234412323 heads think better than 10. Or maybe the Plan of FFG is just keeping it to themselves so the only thing feeding the app is their pay-to-access content.

While I don't care that much about user generated content personally (because I don't plan on playing the app so much that I run out of FFG content) I can see why this is interesting.

Imo the only problem is that the base app is free and that a free user quest vault would maybe cut into FFGs plans to earn back the development-costs via dlc. Also FFG could fear that subpar quality free content could undersell the capabilities of the app and the paid-campaigns, while high quality free content might cut into their profits.

Regardless I hope FFG opens up the app for users, once they made their investment on development back, imo it would be a great feature.

I would have written this if I was better at words.

I second that motion.

Very eloquently put DAMaz.

You can make everything "randomly generated" but in reality you'd just be gathering a pool of possible rooms, a pool of possible monsters, and a pool of possible objectives and shifting them around. Eventually you'll see everything.

I say, rip off D&D, create a campaign dedicated to exploring an ever changing dungeon ala Undermountain with it's own flavor text and then let people grind to their hearts content.

Just please don't stop putting out the narrative, objective based quest Descent is known for.

I would have written this if I was better at words.

I second that motion.

Very eloquently put DAMaz.

You can make everything "randomly generated" but in reality you'd just be gathering a pool of possible rooms, a pool of possible monsters, and a pool of possible objectives and shifting them around. Eventually you'll see everything.

It would certainly take us a lot longer to "see everything" than the current system. Besides, we already have seen the entire possible pool of rooms and monsters. That doesn't keep the game from staying interesting and fun. When you sit down to play a randomly generated quest, even though you know all the possible monsters you'll face, all the possible rooms you'll face them in, all of the possible objectives to complete, and all possible random dungeon encounters, you still don't know which ones you'll be facing in THIS quest, and that makes ALL the difference.

Having the option to play randomly generated quests IN ADDITION to the role play style campaigns they're currently offering would give players a choice in how they experience RtL and would enrich the experience without taking anything away. Additionally it would keep the app relevant, useful, and fun even when no new campaigns have been released for a while. The utility and marketing potential of such a feature is so basic and obvious it baffles me that FFG released RtL without including it, and baffles me even more that so many people seem opposed to the idea.

"Having the option to play randomly generated quests IN ADDITION to the role play style campaigns they're currently offering would give players a choice in how they experience RtL and would enrich the experience without taking anything away. Additionally it would keep the app relevant, useful, and fun even when no new campaigns have been released for a while. The utility and marketing potential of such a feature is so basic and obvious it baffles me that FFG released RtL without including it , and baffles me even more that so many people seem opposed to the idea. "

1) It really does make very little sense that people are arguing on behalf of reduced functionality.

2) Why Fantasy Flight didn't include the feature is anyone's guess. Inclusion was the obvious choice.

If Fantasy Flight doesn't act quickly, interest in this app will fade.

1) Releasing the app with no content beyond a pre-scripted tutorial quest with little-to-no replay value was a huge mistake. People rushed to download, played through the tutorial, and now have nothing to do. For a product that was meant to revitalize interest in the game, they've given people very little to do; this will result in many people losing interest and moving on. RTL should not have been released without a more well-developed tutorial and at least one ready-to-go in-depth campaign for purchase.

2) Not including some method of randomizing dungeons failed to meet the expectations of a large number of RTL's customer base. Failure to include such a basic function (no matter what a vocal minority on the forums contend) leaves most of us feeling letdown and disappointed by a product that was meant to energize interest the game.

3) This looks like a missed opportunity. Hopefully they realize and address that.

1) It really does make very little sense that people are arguing on behalf of reduced functionality.

2) Why Fantasy Flight didn't include the feature is anyone's guess. Inclusion was the obvious choice.

I don't think most people are arguing against functionality. My argument and that of others is that randomly generated quests within the structure of a narrative campaign would be more a negative than a positive. If they include in option to play randomly generated quests outside the structured campaign where the players could choose length and difficulty I think that would be a great addition.

If Fantasy Flight doesn't act quickly, interest in this app will fade.

1) Releasing the app with no content beyond a pre-scripted tutorial quest with little-to-no replay value was a huge mistake. People rushed to download, played through the tutorial, and now have nothing to do. For a product that was meant to revitalize interest in the game, they've given people very little to do; this will result in many people losing interest and moving on. RTL should not have been released without a more well-developed tutorial and at least one ready-to-go in-depth campaign for purchase.

I agree they have bungled the release on this. I don't understand why they even announced this back in March if they didn't have it ready to go. Then they release the app six weeks after the announcement with a free taste that shows it has potential, but have left it in the hands of idiots like myself to speculate on what is to come. This more likely leads to disappointment from the consumer than anything else. Had they released the app with the tutorial quest and then gave us Kindred Fire a few days later the boards would be quieter because we would all be playing Descent.

"Having the option to play randomly generated quests IN ADDITION to the role play style campaigns they're currently offering would give players a choice in how they experience RtL and would enrich the experience without taking anything away. Additionally it would keep the app relevant, useful, and fun even when no new campaigns have been released for a while. The utility and marketing potential of such a feature is so basic and obvious it baffles me that FFG released RtL without including it , and baffles me even more that so many people seem opposed to the idea. "

1) It really does make very little sense that people are arguing on behalf of reduced functionality.

2) Why Fantasy Flight didn't include the feature is anyone's guess. Inclusion was the obvious choice.

First of all, FFG made 3 Coops with randomly generated dungeons for Descent 2ed that weren't met with much critical acclaim, yet may have sold beyond expectations. They are still for sale and can be bought, if you are looking for such a game mode.

Why should FFG develop first and foremost a similar product, instead of a new product that seems to have better gameplay and cheaper development costs?

I'm sorry, but in reality you don't hit the randomize button for the free campaign and it turns into a randomly generated dungeon that is somehow balanced. It's not like they developed a randomized dungeon version of the campaign and a fixed version and just decided against including the randomized version. Offering a random dungeon mode that is balanced requires development resources and FFG decided it makes more sense to use these resources to create more content at a faster pace at first instead of using them to create 2-3 random generated dungeons that they have to sell for ~20$ instead of a full campaign for 10$.

In short this isn't about inclusion, but about efficiently using their development resources to create content and imo offering a complete new game mode with a very low entry price is the obvious choice in this regard.

If Fantasy Flight doesn't act quickly, interest in this app will fade.

1) Releasing the app with no content beyond a pre-scripted tutorial quest with little-to-no replay value was a huge mistake. People rushed to download, played through the tutorial, and now have nothing to do. For a product that was meant to revitalize interest in the game, they've given people very little to do; this will result in many people losing interest and moving on. RTL should not have been released without a more well-developed tutorial and at least one ready-to-go in-depth campaign for purchase.

2) Not including some method of randomizing dungeons failed to meet the expectations of a large number of RTL's customer base. Failure to include such a basic function (no matter what a vocal minority on the forums contend) leaves most of us feeling letdown and disappointed by a product that was meant to energize interest the game.

3) This looks like a missed opportunity. Hopefully they realize and address that.

1.) I'm no marketing expert, but I tend to agree with you on that. FFG should have released this app with the kindred of fire campaign, however given all the complications and unexpected hype since the announcement, I wonder what FFG's plan looked like initially. I guess it's possible that they wanted to release this with only the free campaign so bugs and other mistakes do not occur in your 10+ hours campaign, but in the ~4 hour mini-campaign and can be ironed out without affecting the big campaign. It's also possible that they wanted to capitalize on the hype and kind of rushed the free version.

I also suspect that they want to launch the kindred of fire campaign alongside the steam version of this app and again ran into external delays they didn't think about before.

2.) Like I said, developing good randomized content that in the end resembles Descent 2ed, is resource intensive, won't produce a lot of content and is kind of available already. Since only people who play this a lot would kind of profit from randomized dungeons, FFG probably suspects they already own the PoD Coops and sees a very small market for this kind of product.

Instead they decided to invest their resources in creating a lot of high quality content quickly at first (kindred of fire campaign) and who knows what they will do with it later on.

Also on what data do you base the fact that "most of us" only want randomized dungeons and are let down by the app, while "only a small minority on these forums" prefers a game mode that closely resembles Descent 2ed original gameplay much more? Why didn't "most of us" already own all the PoD Coops? Or do you think that "most of us" already own them?

As I already played the PoD coops, I'm much more enticed by this new format and really feel like a whole campaign with all the flavor they managed to put into this format easily beats 2-3 new PoD style randomized quests.

3.) I don't think they missed anything, but their timing is off. Also I wouldn't rule it out that they release some kind of PoD Coops on the app some time down the line, but I would much rather get a whole campaign for 10$ with fixed quests than 2-3 randomized quests for ~20$ anytime, because I find the replay value of randomized quests much lower than the replay value of a campaign that comes with ~15 quests and one playthrough consists of 8 quests.

I really can´t understand how anyone can argue against implementing things, that would increase replay value tremendously.

But to be honest, after playing RtL a few times, I realized that the fixed map layouts aren´t even the main problem, they are just a symptom.

The real problem is, that there is a fixed script for every quest. Each and every time you play a certain quest, it will basically be the same thing.

The map layout is static, you will always have the same objective and do everything in the same order. The only thing that changes are the monsters and some random decided things (for instance if a search token is a trap or gold). Static map layout and objectives work in classic Descent, because you have an overlord to play against and outwit, but here this simply serves no purpose other than to eliminate replay value.

Ironically, this problem is, to some extend, the same problem that plagues "Imperial Assault" with it´s hidden information approach. Once the players have played a quest, they just know what is going to happen when they play it the next time and they can prepare for it. It´s the same in the app.

Let´s take the 2 side quests as examples. After 2 plays you realize, that the objectives are fixed. This means, that you will prepare for the "surprise" shadow dragon spawn in "Hook, Line and Tentacle".

In future playthroughs, you will position your heroes in a way, that is advantageous to deal with it. Your stalker will pre set trap tokens, your ranged attackers will position accordingly, and you will likely send a shadow walker (specced with shadowstep and a pre placed shadow soul in the treasure room) to get the key. These are just some examples, but this is exactly why it is a bad idea for the player to know 100% what is coming. Solving problems with the ressources you have at hand is what Descent teaches its players. If you know the challenges you will face beforehand, It trivializes these challenges, that are actually meant to surprise the players.

It also leads to odd behavior while playing with other people. The 3rd time I played the campaign, I did so with a friend. He obviously didn´t know what was coming, but I did already know the quests by heart at the time.

So I had the choice: either I could pretend to not know what is coming and make some "lucky predictions" or outright tell him that every room, objective and "suprise" element is pre set, and destroy the illusion of unpredictability.

Now let´s look at the other quest "Soul to save". When we had our playthrough of this quest, it was pretty harsh, as we faced a lot of terrible peril effects.

My friend didn´t think we would make it, as Raythen and 4 bandits suddenly spawned directly behind us. We could have faced this group and we might have won against them, but I knew that the only thing left was to reach the final altar and so I made a run for it (since the peril that damages every hero was already ticking). Needless to say, we won the encounter. His comment: We were so lucky that this ended the quest right there. Luckily he didn´t know, that I knew this from the start. When I told him after we played the campaign he was disappointed like me, but he understood why I hadn´t told him this beforehand. He did enjoy playing this first campaign, but we both agreed that we would wait until the next campaign is released before continuing.

Now I always read everybody writing about how "having story driven quests" is better than "having random dungeons". My question: Why do you think these 2 things are mutually exclusive? It is perfectly possible to create a story narrative with certain randomized elements in quests. Also, it really doesn´t change the narrative of a quest, if some room layouts vary. If this is seen as a problem, then open monster groups are also against the narrative. How did FFG solve this? They use fixed monsters in some cases (for story purposes) and open groups as generic enemies. It works perfectly fine. Even it is a bit more complex, the same thing could easily be done with rooms?

But the far more important issue is, what to do with the current fixed quest objectives. Personally I´d have tried to create a system, that randomly decides a final quest objective.

Let´s take "Hook, Line and Tentacle" as an example. Currently 1 thing is happening after the heroes pick up the key: The Shadow dragon spawns.

Now, what if there were 2 other possibilites (let´s take the "Shadow of Nerekhall" influence effects as example)? One possibility could be, that there is no shadow dragon, and instead the dungeon suddenly crumbles. This would mean, that the heroes must reach the entrance in a set number of turn, while fighting and looting on their way back. This would also mean, that the group is rewarded for clearing out the tentacles on their way in.

A third option could be, that the hero collecting the key suddenly gets ambushed by a monster group and taken prisoner, so that the other heroes have to save him, while he can´t be activated as long as he is held captive.

These are just examples, and there could be even more options, but just these 3 possibillities would make this quest so much more exciting and greatly enhance the replay value, simply because it is unpredictable. It would not be boring to play this quest a second or third time. It would be very nice, if every quest in the campaign would have a few variations of this kind.

I´m 100% sure, even with this changes, a narrative campaign is absolutely possible to do. The narrative might be slightly changed, depending on some things that happen in the quests, but is this a problem?

Compared to the work, that already went into creating this app, the effort to create such variations is surely minor, but it would make for a much better replay experience than the current implementation. This is not even a programming issue, it´s just mainly quest design 101.

FFGs current approach feels, as if they don´t even realize yet, what this app allows them to do. It seems like they are still in their "Hero vs Overlord Scenario" mindset, when they could easily leave the constraints of this game mode behind.

I hope it will just take time for them to create better content for this app, as this was the same thing that happened with the campaigns (comparing "The Shadow Rune" with "Heirs of Blood" or "Shadows of Nerekhall" does reveal a lot of flaws).

Perhaps i hoped they would aim higher to create a unique playstyle with this app, and push the limits of what can be done. It´s a great framework for things to come, but currently there is so much unused potential.

I´m ending my rant now

The random dungeon argument perplexes me a little bit. I agree that it would be cool to have some randomized events built in to preset dungeons and scenarios (i.e. the Shadow Dragon as was mentioned above).

However, Descent was never created to be that sort of game, it goes against it's entire rule set and structure. The fact that people will 'know' the encounters after a single run through is no different than what we have today with the campaigns released in box sets. Frankly, most players know the existing encounters BEFORE the first run through, since its all public info.

My hope is that in this medium (the app), FFG can crank out campaigns much more quickly than today's pace. Awaiting the newest 'big box' expansion for a full-length campaign can be painful. I would imagine that publishing electronically, once you have a stable delivery platform, can be much faster.

The bottom line is if you want a random generator in this app, you are probably better served to move on to a different game and avoid disappointment. FFG has never hinted at that feature, nor do I expect it. It really doesn't matter if I want it or not.

DerDelphi - You have a lot of great ideas here. I agree that branches within a story would be great, and so far there is nothing to say they won't do this In fact in the final encounter you do have a choice of which direction to go which results in two different rooms with two different terrain types and different monsters to face. So there is some precedence that there will be options that would allow a different experience on a subsequent play through.

Sorry, I dont see anytime soon a change in the quests with fixed layouts if they not have the appropriate tools for that . Being fair , best not to judge something based on a "demo" version , but since the initial announcement of the app, they only promised to take off the role of the overlord and nothing more, I can assume that the app does not have such capacity.

We can rest assured , if the app has the tools for generate random layouts, otherwise, they will need lots of resources for implement a new feature like that (testing, programming, development) and its not so easy as everyone thinks . The consequence would be a long circle of development and a more expensive product.

On the other hand, If the app become a huge sucess (read: great sales on digital and physical sides), they will invest more and more and bring new features.

But for a while It is better not hold high expectations for major changes in the short term .

If the app become a huge sucess (read: great sales on digital and physical sides), they will invest more and more and bring new features.

As it stands, I don't see the app becoming much of a success if it doesn't include features people want. Though I have all of Descent 1st edition, I hadn't yet invested in 2nd. This app got me excited and, until I saw how limited it really is, I had planned on buying ALL the box sets. After I saw that each box set only adds ONE FIXED quest and that all the maps are pre-set, I decided not to bother. That's several hundred dollars worth of sales lost.

I may still invest, but not if the campaigns are made up of nothing more than pre-set maps.

(As a side note , it would be really nice if FFG would hop into this forum and give us some detailed information concerning exactly what kind of functions we can anticipate. The silence is deafening. ) [Addendum to side note : I called FFG and shared some thoughts about how lacking the app was at launch. Their response: We are very happy with the number of times the app has been downloaded. They should be paying more attention to frequency of use than to number of downloads. I don't even own the game and I downloaded the app. I'm not sure they understand the potential of their own idea or how to measure its success. ]

Again I'm not against randomisation, but the fact is FFG is not a software company, an when I see the number of apps they have done and the time beetween them my best guess is they have a single developper behind them !
or it's externalised which is from my point of view worse because it's more expensive !

This beeing said, it's like everithing thing else I can see in FFG expansions : let's try !

And clearly here it's : let's try doing Descent V2 coop with the app.
And I'm ready to bet that the apps specifications are resumed to : do the same thing as Descent V2 without the OL !

Now I agree with DerDelphi, having some story modifications would be better and it seems to be to some extent (cf finale) already planned, which means that probably we can see some more (more often?) in upcoming campaigns.

About tiles randomisation.. if it's something isolated, replace one tile for other perhaps we will see this in some time.. but I doubt that a full random dungeon will be seen before long !
... "most of us want" .. I don't know what each people wants so it's always something difficult to evaluate.. but what I have seen here and on other foreign forums is a lot of people being happy to be able to play Descent with their friends, an no more obliged to be the 'bad' OL, and a lot also where happy to be able to be able to play the boardgame now in solo because they have problem finding people to play with! And this is something that can be seen and checked.. but I didn't crossed that many saying 'yes I will have a random dungeon!'.
Note: probably most of these people if asked if they would be willing to have a full generated dungeon they would say yes .. but my point is that's not what attracted these people to the app.

Now it's all about money ! if FFG is sure to recover/multiply is $ by doing a full generator probably it's something we could hope to see in the future ...
But one question I have about that.. once they have done a campaign full random (tiles, monsters, objectives, ..) why whould people buy another? if the campaign is always different, why pay a lot of money to have something that in fact we already have? will not this kill their buisness instead ? . just asking!

but I didn't crossed that many saying 'yes I will have a random dungeon!'.

Note: probably most of these people if asked if they would be willing to have a full generated dungeon they would say yes .. but my point is that's not what attracted these people to the app.

Of course you didn't read anyone saying how happy they are that random dungeons were included. Why would people say they were happy to have random dungeons when random dungeons weren't included? However you have read, multiple times on multiple websites, that people are disappointed that random dungeons weren't included. At least I know I've seen people complain about it here, on Boardgamegeek, and on Reddit.

Now it's all about money ! if FFG is sure to recover/multiply is $ by doing a full generator probably it's something we could hope to see in the future ...

I hope you're wrong and that FFG isn't merely trying to get the most money out of the least effort with this app.

Hi guys!

Maybe this is off the topic but I have a question about the tutorial Rise of Goblins. When the zombies spawn beyond the first door in the 2nd room, who amongst them is the master minion? The one closest to the door one of the hero just opened??

There is a subforum for RTL where this question might have been answered, or it's at least a better place to look for an answer. Good luck!

Really? Where do I find that subforum?

Really? Where do I find that subforum?

On top of the Descent Main Forum

or with this link https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/forum/503-road-to-legend/