Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)» Forums » General

Subject: Question about past scenarios rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Garrett Herdter
United States
Strasburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can you play scenarios from edition 1 and it's expansions with the 2nd Ed rules? Would that make the game shorter?

There is that whole book too with scenarios. Could you play those with 2nd Ed rules?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luke Walker
msg tools
mbmb
Not really. You could play with the conversion kit but given that there are no conquest tokens, the end game would need to be added to all scenarios and this isn't as easy as it sounds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Lennert
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You could take the scenarios from first edition as inspiration for making entirely new quests for second edition, but making "conversion rules" is pretty much out of the question. The games certainly have some overlap, but second edition isn't just a new coat of paint, it's a total redesign.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly Overholser
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I can imagine that they could be converted, but part of the problem is that 1E's only goal for the overlord was to kill the heroes enough to make them run out of CP. Sure, how he accomplished that goal changed, but it was always the same goal.

Beyond that though, creating similar maps with similar themes shouldn't be too difficult.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Hancock-Parmer
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
History Professor; Interested in Co-op Dungeon Crawler Design
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this question and its answers rather prove the point that FFG could have called Descent 2e something else entirely due to its many differences from Descent 1e. For starters, the name of the game rather implies a long journey underground, which Descent 1e supplied in spades. The tiles were clearly all underground caves, temples, dungeons, etc. and the maps were long treks.

That is the first of several reasons why Descent 1e games lasted 4-6+ hours compared to 2e games. Consider that Descent 2e game boards are between 80-100 square "meters" (made of 80-100 1" squares) while Descent 1e gameboards are between 200-350 square "meters." The difference in size alone means that the average Hero, even if they moved their Speed each turn, would just need that many more Rounds to get from one end of the board to another. Add to that the idea that Descent often added puzzles, which often included limited backtracking, and you have Dungeons that your Heroes would need Herculean strength and endurance to complete. Which was rather the point of a game called Descent: Journeys in the Dark, no?

Another reason was the sense of progression and empowerment which existed in Descent 1e, which is absent from Descent 2e. If you'd like to point out the campaign mode of Descent 2e, I admit that does go some distance towards improving what some would call a deficiency. Descent 1e required the Hero Player to make many choices from the beginning of the game, albeit not the cliched choice of "Do you want to be a Berserker or a Knight?" Rather, the choice was how to deal with your randomly selected Hero, whether to keep the three random skills drawn or return one of them for a replacement, and which one to replace, what equipment to purchase for your Hero, and which potions? Compare this with Descent 2e and the differences are clear.

One could certainly refer to this process as streamlined. One could also make the case that this is just a different game, since for many gamers it is the string of choices and their almost immediate consequences that separates this kind of game from others. It can lead to Hero players agonizing over weapon choices from the start of the game -- but that was kind of the point and what made it fun.

Another difference is one that even I grant is likely to be considered an improvement - Descent 2e removes the main time-management resources from Descent 1e. The Overlord players collects "Threat" tokens each turn through various actions, while the Hero players are trying to collect "Conquest Tokens." In theory, this is supposed to manage the time, since Heroes have a finite amount of Conquest, while the Overlord will continue to amass more and more Threat. However, this often leads to late-game overlords facing the choice of whether or not to "let" the Heroes win and meet their goals -or- drown them in an unending deluge of monsters spawned by the judicious expenditure of threat.

In Descent 2e the Hero Players have no Conquest Tokens - Heroes simply "fall down," never dying or otherwise directly leading to party failure. The Overlord Player spawns monsters according to very simplified rules, removing the need for "Spawn"-flavored Overlord Cards, shrinking the deck and allowing for the total removal of "Threat." Again, I think that if one wanted to see a true "Descent 2e," it would likely involve this new mechanic.

More than anything, however, I think Descent 2e is really another game masquerading as Descent 1e's successor. No longer are the Heroes on long journeys in the deep places under ground. They are transformed into some kind of fantasy extreme tourists, flitting from location to location. I think I like that idea, too, but I would have preferred if FFG didn't have to kill the other franchise I love to achieve it. :/

So, in short, one would have a hard time playing Descent 1e maps with Descent 2e rules. Not to say it couldn't be done, but I think that it would be more common to have players wanting to to play new maps with their Descent 1e pieces according to SOME of the Descent 2e rules. This is a project I've announced on these fora. I've made a lot of progress and am about to start playtesting next weekend. I expect this will allow those who want to make manageable little walks instead of epic journeys into the dark to do so.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Smith

New Hampshire
msg tools
miflhanc wrote:
I think this question and its answers rather prove the point that FFG could have called Descent 2e something else entirely due to its many differences from Descent 1e. For starters, the name of the game rather implies a long journey underground, which Descent 1e supplied in spades. The tiles were clearly all underground caves, temples, dungeons, etc. and the maps were long treks.


So, if FFG had release this game with a different name, despite all it's similarities there wouldn't be a massive outcry in the opposite direction?

'Here's our conversion kit from Descent to this entirely different completely unrelated game... don't ask!'
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sylvain BONNEAU
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Draffut wrote:
'Here's our conversion kit from Descent to this entirely different completely unrelated game... don't ask!'


I have understood that the Conversion Kit not only covers every Descent 1st Edition heroes/monsters but also heroes/monsters from other Terrinoth-related games. Isn't that so?

--
Buggy
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Garrett Herdter
United States
Strasburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So...does this mean that road to legend and sea of blood are obsolete for this new edition?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Georg D.
Germany
Höxter
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Garrett wrote:
So...does this mean that road to legend and sea of blood are obsolete for this new edition?


short answer: yes - descent 1 and descent 2 are two different games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.