It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.

Thats the point. It's not a matter of "just some new rules". Redesigning just isnt as simple as that. It's a matter of "entriely new rules and entirely new cards.". The components that have nothing to do with rules are of course reusable. It would be an entirely new game that uses the same bits and shares the same background, that's it. End of story.

A tweak here and there to make it a co-op would just stink. To repeat myself, it would be a disservice to either design esthetic for reasons already stated.

You dont have to agree with it, but you make it sound so simple to basically make an entirely new game so easy, when that expectation simply and factually is not.

Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest.

Nothing wrong at all with people mewling for co-ops everytime a new game is made. I never attempted to say that they shouldnt. I am just pointing out the flaws in the logic in their pleas.

It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?

Its okay if you dont comprehend it. The reasons for why I have already stated. No need for more redundancy when simple reading comprehension will suffice.

Ebonsword said:

Ok, replace that suggestion with Ravenloft/Ashardalon/Drizzt then. Or Warhammer quest, etc. Plenty of options already out there.

I really need to go visit chess sites and whine about why chess is not a co-op. I demand that my needs must be catered to.

Descent has been my 2 group's game of choice BECAUSE it is about people vs other people. Competition. It is what makes Descent the great game it is. The very substance of the game is the struggle of wits between the players and the OL. Without this struggle, Descent becomes somthing else. It is not without co-op though. The four players do a LOT of cooperative planning and adventuring, at least in my groups. But what makes that cooperation so rewarding in Descent, is that if the players won, they did so in the face of a worthy (if I may call myself so) adversary. I would hope for a focused effort on continuing this vein in the Descent portion of Terrinoth.

Hellfury said:

Hmm, I don't recall saying it would be simple. I *do* recall saying that most of the components (which contain most of the variable cost, as far as I am aware) wouldn't have to be redesigned. Which means that creating a co-op option shouldn't be financially prohibitive.

I also don't recall saying to make a "tweak here and there". Of course, maybe that is all it would take. I don't know (and neither do you, for that matter) since neither of us has seen the revised rules.

Finally, it's not like there isn't a precedent for FFG to release different versions of rules to appeal to different audiences (see Dust Tactics vs Dust Warfare).

Hellfury said:

Man, we sure need a "sarcastic eye roll smiley" on this forum...

Just pretend that we *do* have one and I used it here.

Hellfury said:

Why the hostility, dude? You would think that I had asked FFG to throw out the game's current setting and move it to the world of My Little Pony.

And, I'm sorry, I just don't think you've made a very convincing case. I don't see where having co-op *and* adversarial rules automatically makes a game not worth playing.

Kartigan said:

It is that very thing that sets this game apart! Other coop games are players vs. the game mechanics. (And yes - the mechanics are a baseline for the OL) BUT - Descent adds that human element you cannot get from other coop games. Having an actual person - a human brain - actively working and thinking of ways to destroy the heroes make a hero win so much more satisfying in my opinion.

Sure - its not for everyone. But hey - if they lose any of that flavor in 2e... it will be a big loss for the game.

Ebonsword I think the point of what most of the "anti-Descent-coop" group on here is saying (though that is a broad generalization and not an accurate term) is that having the design team put effort into making Descent co-op would take that effort away from making it what it is. If they did a co-op expansion, then that means that they didn't do a regular one. If they were to change the base game, then every card that they add or change to make it playable solo or co-op is one less card for the rest of the game (skills, treasures, Overlord cards, etc.).

When it comes to the design teams time, effort, energy, and component budget it is a zero sum game, anything going in the co-op direction directly subtracts from the adversarial direction. I am not opposed to co-op fantasy crawls, but I do hope if FFG does one, even if they put it in the Terrinoth setting they do so as a separate game built from the ground up in that direction. Descent wasn't ever meant to be that kind of game, and though that sort of game is fun; mixing it with Descent would make the adversarial version of the game less of a game, no matter how you did it.

if they do a new game, it will be a cardgame (rune age?), simple because of the material cost. you can't expect someone to buy descent AND another dungeon crawl just for the coop - not in the pricerange descent is.

like every expansion, it would be optional. no one was forced to play midnight when was released for runebound, it was "just another expansion", it won't dilute the base game or aspects from it.

and from a business perspective, it makes more sense to try to get all the people that already have descent at home, instead of putting out another game with new minis, map tiles etc., takes more work, is more expensive, and more risky. for what it's worth, a coop expansion could be just another (huge ) stack of cards you draw. faster/easier/cheaper to produce for an already established customerbase.

Gray said:

Yes, this option would be allright IF the co-op expansion is unofficial fan made thing and it doesn't use any of FFG's energy and resources. The no-co-oppers (like me) in this thread have pointed out many times that they wish Descent to remain purely adversarial and all the official expansions to support this. This is not because we hate co-op games and dislike them. It is because if we are asked FFG should focus all their energy and best designers to make Descent shine in OL vs players - mode. Adversarial should be the focus and no thought should be wasted on creating co-op rules / expansions. Even if the co-op rules would be made by Corey and Kevin in the evening after work I wouldn't want that as they would be tired and not so innovative the next day to create great D2 adversarial expansions. Fans have made amazing co-op stuff for original Descent, why isn't that enough?

The reason for me to be against the co-op is stated above and also because I find that winning over the game isn't that satisfactory. Competing against another human, see him laugh and cry is what the games are for. Descent is one of my favorite game so I wish it to be tons of fun for me and my friends. I guess this is everyone's wish, but seriously there are quality co-op games available in every genre. If winning over the game is your thing go and play those, don't come and ask them do make Descent something it is not.

For what it's worth I for one might even consider buying the co-op expansion if FFG chooses to release one. But I hope there will not be. Even if it would make sense business wise.

Keep Descent as it is.

Mordjinn said:

so, you are implying there is only one designer/team with the sole purpose to churn out descent expansions? 0_o

it does not matter if they make a coop-expansion for descent, or create a new game like descent, but with coop-rules. the development effort for FFG is the same - there are only so many people working at FFG, and time is limited. from that perspective ANY other game/expansion released from FFG cuts time from creating another descent expansion.

in case of descent, It's probably faster doing an expansion than creating a new game (like I said before). which gives FFG more time to create another OL expansion for descent, which would be even more in your and the others interest I guess.

not wanting a coop option just for purity's sake of the boardgame-line is kinda.. I don't know. kinda like saying FFG should never provide optional solo rules because of the team/competitive aspect. "more of the same instead of something different with options for everbody".

I mean, I can understand your point, but the co-op crowd is out there. or the crowd where no-one wants to be the OL (like my case) - having coop-rules would give me the option to play descent, instead of another game (which might not even be from FFG), just like it would be an option not to use coop-rules. official ones would strengthen the game as a whole, for you and me. more games sold = more love for the game from FFG. it's a business after all.

in the end, it goes both ways. I can play without coop-rules, so can you (if they get released).

I think one point that has not been made is: the way the game is made up now, in order to continue playing with an OL, you have to have expansions (or something similar to RtoL) in order to keep playing. The OL cannot create his own dungeon for the heroes (aka other players) to go through. So let's say your group (not considering solo play here) has played through ALL dungeons released. We really didn't like the pacing of RtoL. So now Descent sits on the shelf until another expansion with more dungeons comes out. An OL-less rule set would allow us to play again. Although a rule set that allows the OL to create a dungeon with say a point system (say starting conquest tokens) for resident monsters/traps/terrain/rooms would be cool!

ilikegames said:

Says who? There may not be a formal system for creating homebrew dungeons, but you can still wing it. Maybe you'll need to makes some adjustments after a couple of plays through, but that's not biggie.

If you're hardcore about the idea of only playing a dungeon once for some silly reason, just go online and look for other people's homebrews which have already been played and tweaked. Honestly though, I don't find that the game loses very much just because the heroes know what's coming. Unless they're playing the same quest six times in a row, of course, that would probably get annoying.

Not all the people have the time to redo the same quest 5 time in a row because the Overlord crush the heros. I think the new structure of the game will allow the coop mode easier then Descent V1.

I dont want home printed cards, I want a complete rpg game with Overlord less mode. FFG dont want to keep descent like it was, just look the tiles, no heros but class, level system. That will be a real Rpg Dungeon crawls. Am pretty sure FFG can come with something that allow coop mode without a lot of material needed.

Like Gray say, more customers = more love from FFG for the game. So more time making exp. for coop and VS mode. Why people are so selfish these day.

Descent can be a lot more than just a chess game.

Mistersam said:

More to the point of this particular thread, most proper RPGs that I'm aware of are, in fact, NOT co-op. (Not in the same sense as its being used here anyway - in an ideal RPG the DM isn't exactly adversarial.) I don't think you could have a properly interactive experience without at least one human player dedicated to controlling (and speaking for) NPCs and other creatures the hero party might come across along the way. If you really want to create a proper RPG experience in a board game, what you want is not a co-op game, but rather something where the OL player is less concerned about winning himself and more concerned about making things fun for the heroes. You can do that in D1e as it stands, if you really want to, and I'm sure you'll be able to do it in D2e as well.

Just to reiterate my original position on this subject (since the thread seems to be devolving into "for" and "against"): I am not opposed to the idea of co-op Descent. I just don't think it's really necessary; it's not something that's "missing" from the game in 1e, but I also wouldn't be crying foul if some kind of official co-op expansion did appear. I probably wouldn't buy such an expansion if co-op mode was all it had to offer, but I wouldn't begrudge its existence either.

Gray said:

Well, historically that has been how FFG appears to work. =P Kevin Wilson's name was on every D1e expansion that got put out. I haven't looked to closely at the credits to see if the rest of the team was the same throughout, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if most of them were. With 2e, the game appears to have been handed off to Corey (I think?) but I fully expect him to be the lead designer throughout 2e's lifespan.

That said, I do agree with your primary point. The arguement that FFG making an official co-op expansion for Descent would somehow detract from the rest of the game's quality is flimsy at best. The worst that would happen is the non-co-oppers (like me) have to wait for the next expansion. Boo hoo. If D2e sees half as many expansions as D1e did, there will be plenty of love to go around for all those concerned.

Steve-O said:

It might be flimsy, but the fact remains it's still not needed. A co-op game is a different beast, one that has been done in other games (see Ravenloft et al recently). Why try to make Descent something it isn't? Do you want all vs the game rules in Runewars, or all against all in Middle Earth Quest? I don't see how asking for co-op in Descent is different to this.

And for those of you that said minimal component changes, I don't see this AT ALL. Overlord cards now require a trigger to be used rather than the expenditure of threat. Dropping a block on a heroes head is an easy decision for an Overlord to make - do it for maximum disruption to movement, or to kill a nearly dead hero. How on earth would this wor as a co-op? It completely lacks the human brain element, which nigh on all the cards have been created for. And this is ignoring creature tactics (the run, gun, and hide in cover tactic, for example. Or when and which creature to use double attack or double move). I think the belief that this would be simple and require little effort is WAY off...

In short, you want co-op - buy something else. It's that simple.

Sausageman said:

Said very well. The lack of a human OL in Ravenloft is exactly why my copy was traded away on BGG... just lacked the surprise element and strategy and tactics that the evil adversary would employ... felt so stale.

I would hate to play a Descent that played like that. But HEY - I would play a co-op descent if it could somehow recapture what a human would put into it.

Steve-O said:

I gotta laugh at that as well. My group has used almost NONE of the adventures that come with the game sicne our OL doesn't really care for them. The ONE strength Descent retains over all the rest is its flexibility to create infinite dungeon crawl experiences tailored to your own groups tastes.