The new Castle Ravenloft game looks really good. For those who got to try it at Gencon, how does this verson of Dungeon Quest compare? Can't decide which I want and can't afford both right now.

Thanks for showing this. It helped me a lot to decide against Ravenloft.

Yep, totally uninspired by Ravenloft. No contest against Dungeonquest, especially when expansions for DQ kick in!

Ell.

Funny!

I feel the exact opposite - Ravenloft looks better and better the more previews we get.

If I were to choose only one, I would get Ravenloft.

But they are two very different games, in the same genre. Dungeon Quest is a competitive game and Ravenloft is co-operative. That's a big difference right from the start! Based on my experience with the Scandinavian versions of Dungeon Quest, I expect the D&D titles to be more expandable and thus longer lasting than Dungeon Quest could ever hope to be. But FFG might prove me wrong...

Yes I am of the same mind as DBC, the more previews that come along the more I moved to Ravenloft. As said however they are different games, and would be pointless to compare them.

talismanamsilat said:

I am entrigued by this though, I havent heard any of plans for the expansions, please share any details you have

Thanks

I played both at GenCon. Purchased Dungeonquest and really enjoyed it.

Ravenloft really compares to WarHammer Quest, a game I really like. The rules could be tighter in places, and I like the components in Dungeonquest better. I'm still deciding about Ravenloft.

I played both at Gen Con. Loved them both. They are different games that should be bought for different experiances.

First I demoed then bought Dungeon Quest played it 3 times at GenCon. Only one character got out alive with the Dragon Treasure, but to be fair it took 3 games to get the combat right in the game. DANGER around every corner. My faviorte room is an empty room. You can't go wrong with this one and can be played in 45 min to an 90 min. Also be prepared to have Char die on first turn.....

2nd I demoed Ravenloft with a group of people that I did not know, but they were awesome to play with. The game is not like Dungeon quest at all, but was good and more like Decent with out a GM.

Hope my little thoughts help.

Play! Play! Play!

BillStivers said:

That's what I want to hear! My favourite aspect of the older DQ editions was the inherent risk of brutal death at every turn. If the newer edition didn't have that kind of difficulty I would have been sorely disappointed.

Personally, I think Ravenloft looks much better than both Descent and Dungeonquest. It looks like the new Warhammer Quest!

Karazax said:

Very different games sharing a well-known theme. The co-op versus ultra-competitive thing is the most obvious difference, as already stated here.

I'll be getting both, but I expect them to be different experiences.

Steve-O said:

right,right,right!

I agree 120%.

For those interested, Wizards posted the Castle Ravenloft rules .

I was looking for another solo game to try (besides Arkham Horror). One that might not require as much time or space investment as AH, as well as one that might be worth introducing to my current cult of co-op crazies.

DungeonQuest is not that game. It's isn't co-op; it's indirectly competitive (competitive solitaire), so that'll never sell to my cult. But I could still play alone...if I don't mind dying all the time. Even if I take out the death, I'm still looking at heaps of misfortune with little chance of strategizing my way out of it. Once the delight of "new game" wears off, which could be as quickly as a few games, I'm either stuck waiting for an expansion, or stuck with dead weight in my closet. I'm not saying I wouldn't play DQ. I'm not even saying I wouldn't enjoy DQ. But if I play it, I'm playing someone else's copy of it with their group; I'm not buying DQ myself.

Ravenloft is co-op, and optionally solo. Everything I have researched indicates that it is practically Descent without needing to put someone out as a DM. It's quicker and a bit more compact than Arkham. Wizards seems to like the system enough to already plan an expansion (maybe it's more like a sequel or a facelift), which bodes well for future add-ons. I only need to test it to see if it's satisfying to me personally, and I believe I'm willing to pay for that test. After that, it will come down to whether or not the theme and presentation can beat Lovecraft in the eyes of my cultists.

Wizards released some free scenarios for Castle Ravenloft this week here . Unfortunately the release date was pushed back to the 31st. You can combine Wrath of Ashardalon for more heroes and monsters or play either game seperately. It does look like both dungeon quest and these new D&D games could be worth adding to the collection for similar themes but completely different game play.

I agree 2 different game experiences, both worthy of my hard earned dollars.

Personnally, I prefer dungeon quest because I can play out of the box with almost anybody. While for the other game, I need to play with players that has some RPG experience for the level of rule complexity.

Second, dungeon quest will probably be shorter, so more likely to get played.

I don't know about that, Castle Ravenloft's rules are pretty simplified compared to regular D&D, no experience there would be necessary at all. The play time is rated at one hour or less, which is pretty short for a game of this type.

Well I have done enough OT last month to buy a few games quite soon (as there have been a few I have my eye on...DQ, Ravenloft, All things Zombie, 7 Wonders) so I will buy both in this case.

I like competitive games and coop so all is good.

Although I am a bit disappointed with FFG updates lately...after a dozen days after Gencon they seemed to have all gone sleep. We have had probally 3 news breaks!

The company still running?

meggypeggs said:

My thoughts exactly. What's happening?!

DungeonQuest is already shipping in certain countries in Europe and FFG says nothing about this? Where is the official update that the game is actually in stock and shipping?

Foligatto said:

My local game store got DQ in yesterday - can't wait to pick it up tonight!

I got DungeonQuest and Castle Ravenloft for Christmas (OK, I bought them but my wife insisted she wrap them and give them to the kids to give to me...)

Anyway, I like DungeonQuest because of the variety of the tiles and building the dungeon. The various cards add fun and flavor. I get the battle system, but I don't like shuffling cards much during a game, so having to shuffle the combat cards constantly is annoying to me. If there were 200-300 cards where they would last for quite some time and only shuffle at the beginning of the game, that would please me more. Then, while it is a VERY dangerous dungeonthe most dangerous in Terrinoth!takes a little fun out of it. I don't mind dying and a 50% chance of survival would be fine. But 15%, to me, takes a little fun out of it. Oh, and we require that to win, you MUST survive with at least one dragon hoard loot amongst others.

So, for Castle Ravenloft, I agree with Bill above, it is more like Descent (which I have) with out a DM. I've only played it a couple times, but we won without much difficulty. I'm hoping the other scenarios are more challenging. The good of this game is the randomness of creating the dungeonlike DQ. The combat is simple enough to be fun and random (dice rolling). Overall, we liked Castle Ravenloft, but have a few desires. First, the rules are not very detailed. Generally FFG has longer rules to cover more esoteric situations. WotC tried to go cheap, I think, and make a small rulebook but it leaves some questions unanswered (no good rules for line-of-sight). I played DDM (D&D minis) for some time so I have a grasp on the D&D movement and combat system which Castle Ravenloft dummies down to make a better board game in lieu of an RPG. Next, most of the monsters have 1HP and die with one hit. I'd like to see monsters stick around a little longer. And last, on every turn there is an encounter. This is "too much" weirdness in a dungeon. Sure there are gas bombs and falling blades and stuff, but on every turn? Little chance for "exploring". OK, those are my cons but overall I enjoyed Castle Ravenloft if you can get through the light rules. I'd like to see aand maybe the other scenarios I'll play do thismore exploring and POOF! a monster or event happens as opposed to an event and monster on every turn (just about).

If you can afford both, get them, they are different enough to enjoy in their own right. If you can afford one...I dunno. They're both different it's hard to compare. DungeonQuest can be played over and over and you try to survive. Castle Ravenloft can be played over and over (due to random dungeon creation) and as a team you help each other beat up the monsters and do the adventure/scenario. Oh, and both can be played solothat's a good thing.

Hope this helps!

P.S. I like Descent but really requires 3-5 people, preferably 5, and I have a hard time getting a crew together to play.

Kijug said:

You say you want a higher rate of survival to make this game more fun, then you enforce a house rule that makes it less likely to survive? What if someone finds the diamond in the catacombs? It's value is more than almost every dragon treasure, yet they still can't escape if they don't have anything from the dragon's horde?

Kijug said:

Don't forget, if you explore a tile with a white arrow, you don't get an encounter. Also remember you can cancel encounters with 5 XP. And several of the monsters have 2 hit points. If you can easily obtain or print off the grey hag card, there's a 4HP monster for ya.

I sold the Castle Ravenloft and buy DungeonQuest)