Some people like Monty Haul dungeon crawls, some don't. Sounds like D1E was the former -- although I haven't played it -- and they tried a different tack with D2E. Personally I think most games put too much emphasis on gear & not enough on skills. If you take away Conan's +9 Sword of Compensation , does he go from hero to zero?

To be honest however, finding potions (majority of Search cards) -- and buying items -- does seem backwards to me. Looting trash (level 1) gear -- shield, armor, etc. -- during the run would make more sense to me than finding an undamaged potion bottle … and then drinking from the **** thing without having it identified by the town alchemist?! I can kind of understand why they did it from a design / playability standpoint, but I think I'd have made different decisions.

Relics are the rare exception of gear acquired during Encounters, aside from the occasional chest, which does seem right to me.

Triu said:

What doesnt seem right though is you are assumed to sell all potions etc when you return to town at the end of a quest… Why is that?

Sausageman said:

Because they're like milk, they go bad if you don't keep 'em in the fridge. Besides, with all these monsters roaming his lands, Baron Greigory is afraid of terrorists, so he does like all flight companies do: he confiscates every bottled liquid that enters his town.

For those who didn't get it, this game is supposed to be an evolution from Descent 1, and evolution, a.k.a growing up, is supposed to go this way:

Kiddie who likes cool stuff => Nerd who likes to think

So: evolve or stay with Descent 1.

Sheldon Cooper

I'm in blissfull ignorance.

Having not played DE1 I don't know what I'm missing and enjoy DE2 purely for what is there - rather than bemoaning what isn't there.

The search tokens serve as the principle loot gathering mechanic in DE2 - and that is adequate enough for me, for now.

Macnme said:

Actually, the first edition still had all the thinking you are mentioning, plus better dungeons. The treasure cards where split into 3 decks; bronze, silver, and gold. Each dungeon had a starting point which would have only bronze treasure chests (or 1 chest), then a silver level, etc. The chests were further randomized in that you had to draw them out of a face down pile of chits while setting up the game. On the back of the chit it would tell you what you got to draw when you landed on it. Sometimes it wasn't treasure but something else. In the first edition, you start out weak, and the monsters are stronger than you; you almost have to get the chests if you want to survive each level. Each level got progressively harder than the last. And it was a further challenge to outwit the OL by figuring ways to get to the treasure chests around or through the monsters, obstacles, etc. The first edition had both plenty of strategy and thought, plus the fact that you had to get to the treasure to get equipment. You could, (and sometimes had to), try and solve the objective without the treasure. The treasure decks were also random, so a lot of times, you'd get stuff that you couldn't even use! So for those of you who haven't tried it, please take the time. It's really a lot of fun, and very challenging. I think of the second edition in this way: remember how great 'Dragon Age: Origins' was? Then you got all excited when you heard about 'Dragon Age: Awakenings'. But 'Awakenings' was dumbed down and not as fun, right? That's how I felt about this game when I went to play it at the demonstration. I'm not saying that it's not a fun game; I'm saying that it was a disappointment when compared to how much fun I have playing the first one. Having no treasure cards not only takes away the possibility of loot, but also a really fun part of the over-all experience which I feel is a necessary component.

nathrotep said:

Dragon Age: Awakenings was Citizen Kane when compared to Dragon Age 2. What the hell did they do to that game? It was AWFUL

You know, you're absolutely right. I meant Dragon Age 2, not Awakenings. I was really excited about it, pre ordered it, and then it was just not that great. I'm glad I got to play this game first instead of buying it. I'm going to wait and see if they fix the treasure card problem before I sink any money into collecting it.

nathrotep said:

I doubt very much they will do any such thing, as it only seems to be a problem only for you, it's not broken, you just don't care for it.

You obviously have never played the first edition then, so don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Why should one need to play 1st edition to give an appreciation about 2nd edition?

You have a problem, because you are trying to compare two different games.

But the problem is subjective. It is in your mind. Nothing wrong with that, but don't present your search card pet peeve as an objective problem.

I think you're misunderstanding me; I'm comparing the first edition to the second edition. They share the same name, the same art work, and many of the same concepts. It's not in my mind-they've been marketing this as an improvement over the first edition. Which, in my opinion, it is not. That's my argument. Therefore, if you have never played the first one, then you have no reference to understand what I'm talking about. The second edition is an okay game; it's simply been dumbed down to appeal to a wider, and perhaps younger, audience. Much like what they did to Dragon Age with Dragon Age 2. I believe that they are holding back the better cards for release with the next expansions. This second edition is just a base game with no frills, and they plan to include more cards with each expansion. That's just an educated guess based on what they've done in the past with re-issued games. I guess you could say it was a pet peeve, but since you haven't played the first edition, how do you know it's not actually a valid complaint?

nathrotep said:

There are some aspects that I believe are better in 2nd Edition, but comparing the two, I would say that Descent 1, WITH the Road to Legend expansion, is the much better game. With that being said, I completely understand that Descent 2 is just the base game, and comparing base game to base game, 2nd edition is much better (not to say there aren't things I miss of course - treasures and off-hand bonus' being things I've already mentioned).

With that I mind, I keep reminding myself that it IS just the base game, and in 3 or 4 expansions time, it may well be the game I hope it becomes.

Or at the very least, I really hope the Overlord gets some love.

Well said. I agree. I still like the first one better, but with more expansions, it could well rival the first edition some day.

nathrotep said:

I don't need to have played D1 to understand that your discontent with D2 is based on the comparison between both games and, specifically, about the possibilty that the first edition gave of looting heaps of treasures.

At least, that is what I think I understood from your complaint.

I personally don't care the least about the fact that D2 is not an upgrade of D1.
I did not purchase it with that in mind.
All I know is that I would not have purchased D1, after all I read about it - not that it is a bad game in itself, but it certainly would not correspond to my expectations.

I think there is still a way to incorporate treasure into search deck. Just randomly choose 5 treasure cards and include it into the search deck prior to each quest.. Have someone shuffle the deck behind their back so they can't see the cards (or blind pick them from an enclosed pouch) whenever search comes up.

To balance this, eliminate gold from items searched. When it is time to shop, the only way to get gold is to sell back equipment. Also, to slightly balance it, instead of no. of players +1 for shop cards, do no. of players - 1 to limit the selection.

Foo 82- Sounds like an excellent idea.

Robin-There was no "looting heaps of treasure". Treasure was randomly and strategically placed as I have already explained. And, this edition is a re-issue of the first edition. Or maybe I'm reading your comment wrong(?) Anyway, I think you'd have to play it to get the feel of it. Saying that you already read about the first edition but didn't like what you read about it is not the same as playing it. The first time I played it, and this was after only one dungeon, I immediately went on-line and purchased all the expansions. It was just that good. This new one was okay, but I haven't bought any of it. My playing experience with this one was far different from the first edition. It was still fun. It just wasn't so much fun that I wanted to purchase it until they added more elements, which they will be doing soon. For example, the first dungeon gives you an ettan and a handful of goblins. You have to kill the ettan and stop the goblins from leaving the board before 5 escape. There were 3 search tokens. Two of them gave potions that were completely unnecessary since the dungeon was so ridiculously easy to beat. There were no treasure items at all. The whole thing was over very quickly. After that, we were allowed to buy items from the store, but all the items were basic equipment more or less. I can understand that, from a campaign point of view, this is more of the ideal since it's a slower and more realistic build up of the characters strength. But from a stand alone dungeon crawl point of view, it was pretty disappointing. The first dungeon in the base game of the first edition had you braving the depths of a four level dungeon. Your goal was to kill a giant called Narthak. Along the way, you have to deal with beastmen, skeletons, giant bats, hell hounds, giant spiders, wizards, and the giants henchmen. In level one, there is one copper chest. In level two, there are one copper and one silver. In area 3, there is one silver. In area four, there is one gold chest. The contents of each chest are different, but each contains at least one treasure item card among other things. There are 22 copper item cards, 18 silver item cards, and 16 gold item cards. None of these items can be bought from the store deck, which is separate. When you are instructed to get an item, you draw it randomly from the specific deck. And the items are pretty cool. Way better than the new 'search' function, which gives you nothing to really get excited about. This dungeon, the first dungeon in the base game, was way more fun, 100 times harder to get through, and much more rewarding to play in general. Now can you see what I'm talking about?

nathrotep said:

First Blood is rather a "tutorial", introductory encounter, which clearly favors the heroes.
Now D2 offers a much slower progression for heroes than the usual dungeon crawlers.
The potions become more usefull in a 2 encounter quest - you can save them for healing or stamina recuperation in the second one.
Their gold value allows to buy equipment - and there, too, you won't find super duper equipment in the Shop (even if there is a progression with Act II shopping).
The XP are the best way to progress, with new powers, etc.
But I reckon that things are more progressive.

I do like the "do the best with what you have" philosophy of D2.
It challenges tactical skills more than yearning for a quick improvement of available equipment and a fast progression of the characters.

But I can understand that it does not fit some players' expectations.
That understanding does not so far as heading to a demand of making treasures more powerfull or easily obtainable within a quest.

Robin said:

The thing is, D2 doesn't give you ANY treasure - not by my interpretation of it anyway. Potions were, in D1, the 'booby prize', by and large, of a treasure chest, and the fact that these make up most of the 'search deck', it leaves us feeling a bit flat.

My other issue with them (as I've mentioned previously) is you can't even save them for a future quest - use them or lose them. This makes zero sense (other than from a GAME perspective where the search deck resets every quest) from a hero perspective, and leaves me feeling that the quests are slightly disjointed/autonomous.

And as someone said WAY back when the previews of this game were coming out, what's a dungeon crawl adventure without treasure/treasure chests? I completely agree with this - I can count on one hand how many fantasy rpgs I've played in that haven't had some treasure/magical items, particularly from dungeons. And those that didn't were usually Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Sausageman said:

I would tend to say that it is more a tactical fantasy game than a dungeon crawler.
It is more about trying to reach specific objectives than looting treasures and killing monsters.
Typically, in many encounters, if heroes focalise upon killing monsters they will loose.

Tactical games do stress the "make the best of what you have".
D2 is not generous in giving more gold and more gear: it forces players to rely upon their present ressources, without hoping too much additional help.

I do understand that this can be frustrating for players who are used to rains of magical swords and super duper powers falling on their blessed heroes around each corner of the dungeons they explore.
As a (mostly tactical) wargamer, I am less disappointed, as Descent 2 gives me an experience comparable to a tactical wargame - but with a good fantasy theme immersion.

I think you would have to at least try Descent first edition to see that it's quite as tactical as the second one, if not more so. No one is forcing you to try and pick up any treasure; if you want to go through the game and try to win without it, it's your call. The tactical part is very much there, and much better than in the second edition. The building of skills is featured prominently, and that is just one of the choices that you can make while you play. The dungeons can be played as a linked campaign, or, with the edition of the Road to Legend expansion, you can play solely in campaign mode. Nothing is falling out of the sky; you really have to work hard to get the treasure if you want it. The OL has many traps, tricks, and monsters that they use to prevent you from getting it. Part of the OL's job is to stop you from winning, and preventing you from getting the items that you may find throughout the dungeon is a big part of that. If you have fun simply by outwitting the OL and achieving the objectives of the game, well then, good for you, and good luck with that. As for me, I kinda like having a magical sword from time to time. What the heck! I even like seeing my characters grow and become stronger than they were, more able to thwart the OL's growing powers and stronger monsters. I know, I know; it's a novel concept, but I guess I'm a more of a traditional sort of gamer than a cerebral, 'winning is it's own reward' sort of guy. What's wrong with having a nifty weapon and some cool new threads to wear while you're busy making a mess out of all the OL's plans? You want to walk around in that same leather armour and wave an iron sword at the monsters for the whole game? Bo-ring!

Saying that, in DE2 it seems that everytime the heroes are doing a search, they're finding the Treasure Chest card - and then luckily drawing the exact best piece of equipment they need from the store cards…. it has really hindered me as the overlord, as the heroes are getting WAY more value out of the searches than you would expect them too.

Luck can make all the difference in this game… which I like. I like randomness.

@nathrotep: you clearly prefer D1. And you have your reasons for that choice, which are surely good ones.

I don't need to prefer D2 over D1.

I like D2 for what it is.

I won't try D1. The rules were too heavy (I read them) and I am not looking for long gaming time. I also read that, due to the less luck driven combat defense results, D1 hero players could take ages to decide about the perfect combination of moves. That would be a source of deep boredom for me. I hate "chess like" overcalculation.

I am not very interested in changing D2 into something else - but time could possibly show that FFG would create expansions that went in the way of augmenting powers and gears of heroes, as you seem to want them to do.

As long as D2 remains light and fast to play, I will adapt.

Robin said:

That is a fair and appropriate question. And my answer would be, well, not really.

Which I think is part of the problem, as D1 was very much a dungeon crawler. People have upgraded to D2 expecting a more finely tuned game, and actually ended up with an extremely different game to boot. In the same way as buying a sequel to a video game, you expect it to be, by and large, the same sort of game, only with refined mechanics and wotnot, I (and it seems, some others too) were expecting the same from D2.

Just look at the furore that the FPS version of XCOM caused - people wanted the turn based game from before, not a drastic re-imagining. And now we have XCOM: Enemy Unknown…

Hmmm.. I think we are looking at a simple Aestethic goals problem here. If the stuff from the search and store deck would look and be named in a more "high fantasy"-fashion the people missing "cool stuff" would be pretty pleased. Say that the name of iron longsword would be changed to "razor talon" and have some flames on it in the descriptive picture, but keep all stats, everybody would win (except for me who kind of enjoy the low fantasy feel of the gear).

Only problem with doing this is Aestethic scaling and I think that FFG knows this. Its so much easier to top the last expansion if you started out low and worked from there when it comes to "coolness".