I love Descent but am questioning my commitment to purchasing new products due to the increasing incoherence of skill interactions between each passing expansion. FFG has up to this point taken the design position that the rules as shipped in the box are immutable and any questions that may arise will be handled in an offical FAQ. Currently the FAQ has reached 19 pages. The core rules of (DJiT) are 24 pages, two of which are art (front and back covers). When the FAQ is almost as long as, or soon to be longer than, the core rules perhaps it is time to abandon the FAQ and move to a living rules model. Essentially what I'm suggesting is: assume only that the play materials are immutable, and revise the core rules to a new version with clearer terminology and retooled resolution resolution mechanics. Theoretically a revision would address all the issues in the FAQ and create a better internal logic structure for design decisions of future releases. Any thoughts from the community? Would a living rules set that resides on line be any better or worse than the current static rules with a FAQ that resides online?

I have actually been pushing for this with the people at FFG for over a year now, whenever I help them with the FAQ. I am very much a supporter of the concept of a Living Rule book or at minimum making an online comprehensive rulebook.

There is always a spark of interest at first, promises of "we'll think about it, it sounds like a great idea" and then nothing ever happens. So unless there is a coordinated effort from the community where we basically badger FFG into doing it by sheer numbers, I highly doubt FFG will take the initiative and do this.

One thing to remember, the FAQ may be 19 pages, but it does cover 6 products (base game, 3 content expansions and two campaign expansions). The addition of the expansions have made the FAQ grow over the years.

That said, I would love a online living rule book, in PDF form, that I can download and search. However, I don't see FFG doing this because there is no financial incentive for them to do so. They are extremely busy putting out new, revenue generating product. A consolidated, living rule book would take time away from other efforts and generate no revenue. Sure it would be great at generating good will from the Descent customer base, but no revenue. Also, if they did it for Descent, would they be pressured to do it for their other large games, Runebound, Tide of Iron, Battlelore, etc?

Again, I would love it if they were to prove me wrong and make a consolidated, living rulebook, but I can't see it ever happening.

I think that Descent's core player base, ie the ones who usually buy multiple expansions, said that they intended to stop purchasing new content then they would have a financial incentive to update the rules. I for one am pretty sure I'm done buying new content. I'm tired of spending countless hours reading opinions about what the meaning of [term here] means and how it effects [ability here]; then when an official answer comes out in the FAQ it spawns countless new opinions threads about the implications of the FAQ answers on some other ability.

Caleban said:

I'm not convinced a living rulebook would do away with this issue anyways. Descent is just too complex to be completely balanced short of rewriting the whole thing like Antistone did, cards and all.

"Magic the Gathering" goes through regular revisions to its core rules. Why, because it helps them put out a better (more coherent) product which is in their financial interest. Why would it not be in FFG's financial interest to do the same. I also don't buy the argument that Descent is to complex. If you want a very complex game for comparison to look at "A World At War" from GMT games. A game that DOES have a living on line rules set which can be found on the page I linked. A World at War goes through revisions several times a year after almost every major board gaming convention. I don't think that would need to happen nearly as often for Descent; perhaps only after each expansion was released.

I completely agree with you, the Legend of the Five Ring CCG does the same thing.

I just know from experience that FFG has shown itself to be very reluctant to do this since like edroz said there is zero incentive for them to do it. Since we're all so used to the flaws, its takes a lot of problems before we go the "we're not going to buy this" route.

Look at the Quest Compendium. That thing is a utter nightmare of rules problems. I will never purchase that book because after flipping through it and seeing that the FAQ/errata practically reprinted half the book due to problems I won't waste my money on it.

Caleban said:

I disagree. Boycotts from people who have already purchased their products will not help. We on the forums are a very small minority of the FFG customer base. FFG seems to be selling enough copies of the game in its current state to warrant continued reprints. See the Upcoming page as it lists reprints of both the base game and Tomb of Ice. (Shoot, they list reprints of the Sir Alric and Lord Merrick figures, something I would have never guessed would happen.) If every person on the forum pledged not to buy a single Descent product ever again, I think FGG would probably not even notice. FFG probably has a good revenue steam with just the current product set and may never publish another expansion. However, if they do come out with a new base expansion with more minis and scenarios, I suspect it would be hyped by a majority of the fan base and gobbled up quickly.

So basically you are saying: Descent players are too easily distracted by shiny objects to care that their rules aren't compatible, and Fantasy Flight Games doesn't care what kind of crap they put out as long as they make money. I know that is flame bait but I'm discouraged about the state of the game. I would like to buy future products in the Descent line but I am not willing to accept the sub-par suport they seem to be putting into keeping their expansions compatible.

I'm only stating my observa... ooo... look... minis.

(Note: I own all the Descent products along with a butt load of other FFG products. So I can joke about it.)

Caleban said:

No, the point I'm trying to make is that the general game buying public normally does not think about FAQs, much less consolidated living rules, when making a game purchase. You think people picking up a Descent box at their local game store look at the box and say "I hope there's a good, updated rulebook covering all these expansions." or do they say, "Look at the cool minis". Just look at the number of questions here and on BGG that are easily answered by the FAQ, yet people don't even look for it before asking a question. Think a consolidate rule book is holding them back?

FFG, like any business, is going to try to maximize their resources and profit. If they think a consolidated rulebook will help sales, they will make one. Current observable evidence seems to indicate that they do not think that. I think that FFG is run by generally good people and they are trying their best. I also think that like many companies, sometimes they bite off more than they can chew (see Descent Quest Compendium). I don't think they are making "crap" products just earn a buck. Look at Runewars, Battlestar Galactica, Chaos in the Old World. They just need to make sure they don't rush products out the door just to meet a deadline.

edroz said:

I think that's rather overstating your argument. If the entire forum population doesn't represent a group large enough for FFG to care about, why would they have forums in the first place?

If the goal is just to integrate all official changes into a complete rulebook, I doubt we need FFG's involvement at all; if someone set up a wiki for the purpose, I bet it would happen almost spontaneously. Heck, individual people already publish their personal rewrites of the rulebook on BGG from time to time.

But I suspect what we really want is not merely to have the official errata in-lined, but to actually have the rules rewritten to be fundamentally better: expressed more clearly, better organized, and possibly even with better terminology (if we're willing to partially break backwards compatibililty). And there, we have a serious problem: if it's written by anyone other than FFG, it's unlikely to gain widespread acceptance, but by all indications FFG is incapable of writing that book.

That may not be surprising; my understanding is that there's a lot of overlap between the skill set for writing game rules and the skill sets for much higher-paying jobs. But it doesn't appear to leave many options. Perhaps some sort of democratic committee, but I doubt I need to enumerate the many difficulties that presents...

Antistone said:

Word of mouth is free advertising, so anything a company can do to encourage people to talk about their product is good. Prospective customers may visit the Descent page on FFG's website and see the link to the forums. Visiting the forums and seeing other people talk about the game could make that potential customer much more likely to actually make a purchase.

Strictly based on numbers, I doubt there are enough people actively using these forums to really matter. The people on the forums are the vocal and visible customers, though, and that might make FFG care. I doubt it would help the sales of their products if the official forum was filled with negative posts.