Naturally now when there's not much info about D2 out yet everyone is trying to influence FFG to make somekind of last minute changes to the system (although it's too late already I think) and writing their hopes and dreams here. It would be interesting to hear what kind of game people are expecting and hoping to get? I'm aware I'm asking things that probably won't happen. This thread is not about what you think thing the game will be like, this is about how you hope it will be.

The biggest problem with 1st edition was the amount of time needed for one game and that even after playing all those hours you felt that not much happened. So I really hope these factors are completely fixed. Faster game with much stronger adventure feel to it.

My biggest wish is that FFG delivers a solid and faster to play - ruleset, which is balanced and throughoutly playtested and offers deep tactical gameplay with various available strategies for both sides. Also I wish that the quests will have much stronger story driven feel to them, a bit to the direction of Mansions of Madness. Also I hope that the designers come up with a way to explain the sudden hero resurrection or come up with a system where the heroes don't die thus making the game thematically a lot tighter.

I hope that the game scales to include also the sixth player as there's six of us in our gaming group.

My last wish is that the monsters won't be mix and match random bunch as in the 1st edition. I hope that the adventures are designed in a way that the monsters fit thematically as adversaries. Or at least an explanation why the hell the hellhounds don't eat the goblins Each successive new campaing (=expansion) will give us a new "boss" monster and her minions to fight against. This is minor, but again would make the theme of the game much stronger.

What do you hope for?

Honestly I am hoping for a very slightly tweaked 1E. I know a lot of people had problems with the game time, frankly that was never an issue with my group and I could not care any less if it still took 4+ hours to play (It rarely if ever took more than 4 for us to do a quest anyway, usually was about 3).

I do want a lot of balance and scaling issues corrected though. Like how despite how many shop items there are a lot of them are total crap and are never used. Skills are the same way, though you don't choose those so it doesn't matter (except for the campaign). Or how the Overlord's treachery is completely screwed up so that some amazing cards are dirt cheap and some crap way too expensive. Or how you have to play with 4 heroes for the heroes to have much of a shot in 90% of the quests. Or how some quests are nigh impossible for the heroes.

The general clunkiness and ambiguity of the rules would also be something great to have cleared up. To be able to not first have to check the +20 page FAQ, then the GLoaQ and then the forums (in two separate places no less) would be very nice.

In short I'm hoping for a only slightly tweaked 1E, and one that mainly deals with these two issues.

I was actually hoping for a last expansion with Zanaga heroes and with the same Quest design that we saw in ToI, before this switch to 2nd Edition. Even though I still have a long way to go before being tired of 1st edition (never played an Advanced Campaign!), I have some hopes and expectations.

1) First was mentioned by Kartigan. Streamlined, consistent and well playtested rules. This has been already announced and they won't let us down if they've been working on this for a year or so.

2) Balance and scaling (quoting Kartigan). While Mordjinn has a gaming group of 6, I have a gaming group of 4 and one of them is not so regular so we seldomly get to play Descent with 3 Heroes. It would be nice if we could play with ANY number of players and still get a satisfactory game experience, with no difficulty issues. In 1st edition they forgot that DOOM had variable monsters on maps depending on players, they thought that giving 1 extra Life or so to each monster would be enough to scale the game for multiple players, and the Overlord gets less threat with less players... but he can discard for threat and draws always the same no. of cards! How could they have overlooked such things? Not to mention Treachery costs, Threat costs, impossible quests, useless shop items, useless skills, extra powerful Overlord tweaks (Dark Glyphs). FFG should never make such mistakes again. We love Descent even though it has so many flaws.

3) Monster features. I hope not to see extra-powerful monsters (Beastmens, Master Kobold, Blood Ape) along with useless monsters (vanilla Razorwings, Hell Hounds, Bane Spiders, Ogres, Giants). Each monster should be efficient and meaningful in some way. It's a pain to see a Giant die without a single attack because he's so slow, you don't have Charge and they shoot with Gold Items; to roll zero damage with the Hell Hounds every time is also annoying. If a monster has a weak attack he should be extra tough to survive multiple attacks, or should be easy to spawn and frequent on the map. An Overlord will soon learn that a Beastman War Party is 10 times better than a Hell Hound Pack, and it costs 1 less threat!

4) Items (copper, silver, gold) and Hero power-growth: the Overlord needs to be scaled according to the Hero party power. RtL has shown the way by introducing the concept of campaign level, but in a Dungeon the most obvious thing to to is to change the Overlord deck according to the items accessible to Heroes. With shop items/copper treasures the Spawn cards are less efficient, Traps less dangerous and Power cards expensive to play (even if they stay in play all the quest). When they can get Gold items there is nothing the Overlord could do, but if he has a new deck with heinous Spawns, deadly traps and cheaper Power cards there might be an insteresting final showdown.

5) Enhanced Hero customization. Less randomness and the chance to play a 100% balanced Hero according to player's desire, with no detriment for the Overlord. There are some hints about "classes", perhaps this is just under way.

The_Warlock said:

I agree with most everything that The_Warlock said, except for this point. Many people mention it but I have never understood why, it is something I've always enjoyed with Descent. Heroes are supposed to grow more powerful as time goes on and they get better items, that's why they are the heroes. Three of the biggest things I enjoy about RPG-type games are the Story, Character Customization, and Character Advancement . I like the feeling of my character going from zero to hero over the course of the quest. I like that the heroes are weak and scared in the beginning and a force to be reckoned with in the end. If they made the overlord's power scale with the level of the heroes items I think it would be a deterrent to opening the next level of chests.

Having said that I do understand that many boss battles were anti-climatic for people and I can understand that since most of the time by the time the heroes had Gold Items they could one-shot a boss. If they wanted to make boss battles a little more epic that'd be OK with me, I just don't want everything int he dungeon magically every time the heroes "level up" in terms of items, skills, or experience. This line of reasoning is almost the sole reason I did not ever buy or get into Elder Scrolls:Oblivion the CRPG. The idea of monsters constantly growing in power to match the character seemed, well a bit silly.

Kartigan said:

It isn't the concept of character advancement that he (and I, for that matter) object to. It's the fact that the OL MUST crush the heroes early if he wants to stand a decent chance of winning himself. Yes, the heroes should get more powerful items, yes they should grow and advance in power and ability, but only so that they can face larger and more powerful threats (which are roughly equal to their new power level.) NOT so that they can easily devastate everything around them and win without breaking a sweat. One of the more revolutionary aspects of D1e, something which set it apart from all the other dungeon crawls when it first came out, was the fact that it's game engine did not favour a hero victory. The OL was allowed to win, too. Sadly, in order to do this, he had to fight really dirty.

To be clear, I'm not complaining about the idea of the heroes winning, I'm just saying it would be nice if the fight could go either way right up to the end. It should be able to go either way right up to the end, per the concept of giving either side a fair shot. To that end, I'm hoping the D2e rules will make the OL weaker in the early game, and the heroes weaker in the end game (or vice versa, really.) So that it's a fair fight all the way from start to finish. That way the game remains entertaining for BOTH sides. The OL doesn't need overtly destroy the heroes while they're in copper if he wants to win, and the heroes can't just waltz through the final battle.

You say you appreciate Story as a concept, so surely you must recognize that the best stories are the ones where the heroes are challenged (but not overwhelmed) all the way through.

xxxx

Getting back to the OP's question, what I'm hoping D2e will be is a smoother, more thematic adventure that keeps things tense from start to finish. Streamlined rules are a good start (and something Descent sorely needs.) Campaign mode in the base box should do wonders for the idea of a continuing story and character development. It sounds like the heroes have a lot more options in terms of stats to boost and class options to explore, all of which can only be a good thing, IMHO. More options means less chance that any one element will provide a huge boost in power, which in turn means the power curve can be more granular and advance and a slower pace. I don't see how that cold possibly work against the above-mentioned desire to see the game move away from "early-crush-or-heroes-win" syndrome.

Most of all, I'm hoping the new rules won't be blatantly illogical in so many places. I enjoyed D1e for what it was, but I had to shut off a part of my imagination to avoid the urge to tear it apart with house rules (which I had neither the time nor the inclination to do.) I'm hoping D2e will allow theme and mechanics to co-exist and create an atmosphere as powerful and motivating as the engine which drives the game play forward, without the OL player needing to give up on the idea of winning himself and just "play like a GM." Nothing wrong with RPGs, but if I wanted to play an RPG in the Terrinoth setting, I would play an RPG using the Terrinoth fluff and a proper RPG game engine (and, in fact, I have.)

Steve-O said:

That's my feeling exactly. What's the point of getting more powerful if you're just going to continue to face things you've already been able to defeat all along?

Kartigan said:

Steve-O summed up and expanded the feelings and game issues that support my point no.4. I like that the Heroes get more powerful, but I don't like the Overlord to be always the same for an entire quest. Playing 1-2 hours with Heroes that are so powerful to one-shot any monster (no matter how big, no matter how many extra wounds and armor and abilities) just to finish the game, tossing some monster swarms that cannot possibly hurt them, is not interesting for anybody. For the same reason, is not very interesting when the Overlord crushes the Heroes within the first half of a quest.

Perhaps my RtL quoting mislead you. I do not mean that monsters should be silly-wise increased in power, just to counterbalance the heroes. The Overlord should be rescaled in what he's able to do, that's the purpose of changing the OL deck. This is a common mechanic from Old D&D: 1st level of a Dungeon is easier compared to deeper ones. The (feeble) reason of this is that the inner sanctum of a dungeon is usually better guarded and crowded than the outer sections.

What I was suggesting is: while in the "copper phase" of a dungeon the OL is allowed to play less traps, minor Spawn Cards, etc..., in the final part he should have only powerful spawn cards (i.e. place Demons, Dragons, Giants, or BIG groups of lesser monsters) and deadlier traps. In Descent 1ed the expansions added Treachery and a lot of nasty cards, but this was not scaled according to the Heroes' growth. The OL could receive from the beginning the deadly trap or demoralizing spawn card and get a victory all of a sudden. And if he doesn't, he usually can do nothing after a certain point of the quest.

And to have a deterrent in opening the next level of chests is nothing bad, IMO.

Like Steve-O, I hope that the new ruleset will make up for some more realism in gameplay. Not that it is vital for a game, but it helps imagination and increases enjoyment a lot. However, balance is at the top of my wishlist.

The_Warlock said:

I absolutely concur with that, too, btw. Balance is tops. It would be nice, however, if the rules were balanced AND thematically consistent. =)

you know what i dont understand. I've read through these forums on more than a few occasions looking for rule clarifications and help. which ive always found. and ive really got a kick out of this descent community and a few laughs as well. you guys seems to disagree with each other while still respecting each others points of view, and staying true to you own. which is a rarity these days with online forums. from what ive notice there's a great deal of love and appreciation for descent despite all its flaws. and an even greater knowlede of the game in this community. ive read over more than a few great and simple ideas and suggestions as i lurked my way through the forums. and it seems the FFG really listens to this community for the most part taking in what it can and putting an honest effort into correcting or updating certain flaws. what i dont understand is why didnt they pull from this community as a resource bring in 1-2(or more) fans that have been down in the trenches sort of speak and really get that nitty gritty feed back only hours apon hours of playing the game and seeing the mechanics unfold and those un forseen errors develop. sure they have play testers. but some times the best thing is a fresh set of eyes. someone from the outside looking in. im sure DE1 was play tested why didnt they catch or address all flaws before it went to print? sometimes when you play with passion your able to see past the artwork and mechanics past the design and cost and see into what it really is. i just think that FFG really missed out on a huge resource that is this community and could have really used it to its own advantage. i hope that DE2 will be what DE1 was trying to be.

I really liked the balance between the OL being much stronger early, and the Heroes being stronger later (but still probably not as strong as the OL, sadly).

I don't think I really have any objective argument for it. It's just that a game of Descent for the heroes is just like an uphill battle, so to get to the point where you can devastate everything just feels really good. And then on the OL side, the game was really, "can I stop them from getting to Gold?" because generally you were at the end anyway once they got Gold treasure. And those are the clutch OL stories anyways... "Gas trapped the final door, dodged the Mage, then Raged to kill the tank for the win!"

The thing I want most is an index in the rulebook. The rulebook was good for reading to learn the game. But any time we had a question about line of sight or when the OL was supposed to play power cards it was a huge hassle to find.

Also hopefully they can clean up the difference between magic and ranged. Ranged always seemed to get the shaft.
But I suppose that leads me to want the started gear better. The longsword only existed for One-Fist to have a weapon, otherwise Axe 100% of the time because it's just better. Same with the Immolation rune just being better. And finally, the Crossbow was the best ranged weapon, but you were still saying "Guys, we need to open the chest because my weapon sucks..."

Also, to Psuedo Rage:

Yeah, they've been really good about listening to the Descent community I think. I can't imagine RtL coming from anything but the community begging for real campaign rules. And when WoD came out, those quests were heinously in favor of the OL so everyone was throwing around balance issues. In one of those discussions I said "The problem is that the OL can basically determine what the optimal move for the heroes is, but the heroes can't because half of the OL's strategy is in his cards. If the heroes had 'feat cards' or something so they could surprise the OL, that'd be huge." I may have mentioned it a few other times, but I was psyched out of my mind when they were in ToI! My group had actually quit after WoD because the quests were so un-fun. So I got ToI and everyone got back into it, and then I went back to by AoD since we were playing again. (Did the OL really need cursed glyphs, guys? lol)

Pseudo Rage said:

As far as the whole reaching into the community for their thoughts, I'm not saying FFG has done that in this instance (though like you I think it isn't a bad idea). But don't forget there is the possibility of them doing so but making the people involved sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, in which case they couldn't talk about it in this forum anyhow.

As far as the whole hero vs. Overlord power in the early to late game I can see where you guys are coming from, but honestly I still don't think I would mind if they kept things similar to what they are. I don't what an experience that feels "samey" if that makes any sense. Like " Oh I have a shop weapon and this Goblin dies in two hits. " and then a little later " Oh cool, a copper sword, but wait what's this, I'm fighting Orcs instead of Goblins now! Whack, whack....weird two hits.... " much later " Wow, kick butt Silver Bow of Coolness, check this thing out! Hey look, now the Overlord is spawning Ogres, yikes! I'll just pull back on this and......crazy.....it took two hits to kill.... "

I know that's something of an exaggeration but I hope it conveys the sort of feeling I'm hoping 2E avoids. I know many people didn't like the "Overlord wins in the first hour and a half or not at all", but I would think it would be preferable to the "We struggled through this dungeon for 4.5 hours only to lose in the last room...." I've experienced both in 1E and I know which I like better. The former leaves me feeling like "Aww man, let's try again I know we can do better!" the latter is more like "Ugh, I can't believe we lost like that. Well, time to go home...." I have died late in quests or in boss battles or well after heroes have gotten gold weaponry. However I do understand that is not usually the case and I can see why some people don't want it to be that way.

As for the new edition, I also agree that balance is the number 1 priority. I don't mind complex rules, so long as they are clear and unambiguous. And like I mentioned earlier I don't even care about lengthy playtime. Making the rules match the theme and the feel of the game might be a minor issue, but it is one I agree would be nice to have included. Balance for me is more than just both sides having an even chance of winning though (which honestly, wasn't that bad in 1E, and depended far more on which quest you were playing than the game itself). It is also a balance of choices. Making all shop items equally viable, making the overlord's card and treachery (if it's in the base game) equally useful for their costs, having skills that are balanced in comparison to one another. None of these things were true in 1E and I think the game suffered for it somewhat.

Pseudo Rage said:

FFG does listen to the community. In several games, including Descent, I've seen them take fan ideas and make them real. Maybe not everything the fans suggest, mind you, but they do listen.

Pseudo Rage said:

As a professional QA myself, I am intimately familiar with the fact that no product will ever be 100% perfect. No matter how hard you try, there will always be a few bugs that slip through. I've been critical of FFG's play testing process in the past, and Descent, in particular among the games in their line up, seems to have suffered from poor quality control in the past. Could they have done better? Yes, they could have. No question. But expecting them to find EVERYTHING is impossible.

Some of Descent's flaws came from poorly considered mechanics or hasty FAQ patches that weren't thought through. Those can and should have been caught. Other flaws came from expansion and after expansion building on the base game and interacting weirdly with each other. Given that each expansion is designed to work with the base game alone, I wonder how much cross-expansion play testing was actually done.

I'm hoping D2e will correct these oversights and think about the problems D1e faced in its initial rulebook. FFG has shown a definite ability to learn from the flaws of past editions when writing new ones, so I am confident that whatever D2e ends up being, it will be stronger than what D1e was, if perhaps not as expansive.

Mordjinn said:

This is exactly what I hope for. I don't have 4 hours to game. If they can really bring it to consistenty play in the 60-120 minute range, that would be great. They should be able to do it. I am excited to see how this pans out.

Descent was (in my eyes) already a fantastic game, but it did have a few glaring issues that I hope are fixed and sorted out for the second edition.

1) Time. This game takes awhile to set up, as making the map, sorting the counters and cards and the heroes takes a bit. Playing the game takes time, as you have o introduce new monsters in rooms and set those up as you go, and packing it up is just as tedious. I want the second edition to be more streamlined and have it so we don't spend an hour setting up and packing it away, and make the gameplay take a little bit shorter.

2) Balance. In almost none of the games I've played, the overlord has gotten a solid victory. It's always by the skin of his teeth and a huge struggle. where the heroes can stroll through dungeons like it's no big deal. It's like the overlord isn't even there to win, but to make sure the hero players have a good time, and thats not fun for the overlord. I beleive the overlords automated now, but I still hope the balance is there. Don't make it where the overlord is too strong (like DOOM, but it fits for that game), I just want the heroes to actually have to plan out and struggle to win.

Those are my two issues with the game, and if they are fixed I will be very pleased.

grim_reaper_zig said:

How many scenarios have you played from the expansions? Have you played Quests 4 or 6 from Well of Darkness? Or any quests from Altar of Despair? If the heroes in your games easily win in these quests, there is only one answer to that: your overlord is a really poor player! I've played Descent 32 times up 'till now, and the score is: Heroes 16 wins - Overlord 16 wins. A perfect tie! Generally, I find the voices that say that Descent has some major flaws, vastly exaggerated.

I'm hoping for the balance too. There's definitely a quicker ramp-up of power for the heroes. Although it seems to vary from map to map, either the OL or the Heroes can stomp the other.

There have been a few times when one side or the other has won by the skin of their teeth, and those were some of the sweetest moments of gaming I've ever had. In the adventure with the Boss who takes away the hero's ability to use glyphs, both the heroes and the OL had thought they won multiple times before the otherside pulled some trick out of their sleeves. The game literally came down to the reroll of a black die hoping for a damage icon.

I also agree that if the OL usually loses, it's a bad OL (or you're misinterpretting some of the rules). Aside from the first 3 or 4 quests (and the trap quest) of the first book, the OL has a much better than 50% chance to win on the first play.

It would be nice if the game were balanced with less sucker-punch adventure scenarios. It seems like there's always something taken away from the player at a crucial time to make things seem unfair for the players. Not only do these adventures almost guarantee an OL victory the first play through, they feel cheap and unrewarding.

Sythion said:

I second this. Actually I wish that the quests would have more story and mystery in them than in the 1st edition. I think Mansions of Madness has a great system with its adventures and I would love to see something similar in Descent 2.

Cato_the_Elder said:

same here. streamlining to easier rules and to a shorter time like 60-120minutes, so that you have either the choice to play several successive sessions per evening - maybe a minicampaign or changing to a different game. Thats the only chance for me that i will buy D2. I have already too many too complicated games on my shelf.