Wow! Seems there IS some money to be made with good ole Dungeoneering.

Congrats to Rich and congrats to us!

Quote from: Sigmund;515991I've been wanting to play Descent but have not yet had the opportunity.

It's a well-designed game, but I'll never own a copy: It's just like playing a dungeoncrawl with an RPG, but you aren't allowed to be creative. I don't really feel like that's a niche that I need to have filled in my life.

(IOW: Any time when I would play Descent, it would be just as easy to pick up my OD&D megadungeon and play a real RPG.)

Descent isn't really dungeoneering - it's much more of a tactical commando squad game, set in fantasy setting.

Warhammer Quest, on the other hand...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516118It's a well-designed game, but I'll never own a copy: It's just like playing a dungeoncrawl with an RPG, but you aren't allowed to be creative. I don't really feel like that's a niche that I need to have filled in my life.

(IOW: Any time when I would play Descent, it would be just as easy to pick up my OD&D megadungeon and play a real RPG.)

Heh, you have a point I'm thinking the only reason to get it then is if I really must have a dungeoncrawl game that doesn't require a DM... I'll have to think on how bad I really feel a need for that. I've been holding off hoping I'd encounter someone who has it so I could try it, but perhaps I'd be better off getting the CoC board game. I played that awhile back and really enjoyed it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;516172Descent isn't really dungeoneering - it's much more of a tactical commando squad game, set in fantasy setting.

Warhammer Quest, on the other hand...

Honestly I've been under the impression Descent is a dungeoncrawl game. Heck, I thought any D&D dungeoncrawl was also a tactical commando squad game set in a fantasy setting. What's the difference?

Quote from: Sigmund;516174Honestly I've been under the impression Descent is a dungeoncrawl game. Heck, I thought any D&D dungeoncrawl was also a tactical commando squad game set in a fantasy setting. What's the difference?

Descent's scenario are more focused about getting to the boss/objective in relatively unharmed condition, while picking up any necessary treasure to defeat/achieve the boss/objective, rather then go through the usual routine of killing all things you find on your way.

Not that you'd kill every single being in a classic dungeoncrawl - but it's a sure way to loose in Descent. And also remember that Game Master in Descent is actually a hostile force, bent to crush the players at all costs.

Quote from: Sigmund;516173Heh, you have a point I'm thinking the only reason to get it then is if I really must have a dungeoncrawl game that doesn't require a DM... I'll have to think on how bad I really feel a need for that. I've been holding off hoping I'd encounter someone who has it so I could try it, but perhaps I'd be better off getting the CoC board game. I played that awhile back and really enjoyed it.

Descent actually does require a DM. That's why there's really no niche for it to fill at my game table. The play dynamic is literally identical to D&D (in terms of player commitments, complexity, and time required to play)... just limited in its scope and flexibility.

For a DM-less dungeoncrawler, I recommend the D&D boardgames: No DM, less complexity (than any edition since OD&D), and less time required to play. All three allow those games to fill a unique niche that isn't better filled by an actual RPG.

Arkham Horror is also excellent. Completely different play dynamic than an RPG, but very atmospheric and a lot of fun. I think it's definitely the better purchase.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516260Descent actually does require a DM. That's why there's really no niche for it to fill at my game table. The play dynamic is literally identical to D&D (in terms of player commitments, complexity, and time required to play)... just limited in its scope and flexibility.

For a DM-less dungeoncrawler, I recommend the D&D boardgames: No DM, less complexity (than any edition since OD&D), and less time required to play. All three allow those games to fill a unique niche that isn't better filled by an actual RPG.

I have to chime in with some agreement here: the D&D boardgames (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardelon, and the Drizzt one) are great for quick dungeon hacking fun.  Nice components, no need to have one person DM the game, and a nice challenge level.

They are far faster and less complex than Descent.

QuoteArkham Horror is also excellent. Completely different play dynamic than an RPG, but very atmospheric and a lot of fun. I think it's definitely the better purchase.

While potentially excellent, Arkham Horror can run waaaay long in my experience.  I actually prefer Mansions of Madness (though FFG have botched the printings of its first big supplement pretty badly).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;516260Descent actually does require a DM. That's why there's really no niche for it to fill at my game table. The play dynamic is literally identical to D&D (in terms of player commitments, complexity, and time required to play)... just limited in its scope and flexibility.

For a DM-less dungeoncrawler, I recommend the D&D boardgames: No DM, less complexity (than any edition since OD&D), and less time required to play. All three allow those games to fill a unique niche that isn't better filled by an actual RPG.

Arkham Horror is also excellent. Completely different play dynamic than an RPG, but very atmospheric and a lot of fun. I think it's definitely the better purchase.

Well crap, no wonder it doesn't fill a niche... might as well play D&D indeed. I'll start looking at the D&D boardgame then.

Quote from: misterguignol;516262I have to chime in with some agreement here: the D&D boardgames (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardelon, and the Drizzt one) are great for quick dungeon hacking fun.  Nice components, no need to have one person DM the game, and a nice challenge level.

They are far faster and less complex than Descent.



While potentially excellent, Arkham Horror can run waaaay long in my experience.  I actually prefer Mansions of Madness (though FFG have botched the printings of its first big supplement pretty badly).

Yeah, the Arkham Horror game I played ran pretty (although I don't know if it qualified as "waaaay") long, but was enjoyable enough that I don't mind so much.

Quote from: Sigmund;516269Yeah, the Arkham Horror game I played ran pretty (although I don't know if it qualified as "waaaay") long, but was enjoyable enough that I don't mind so much.

FFG games seem to be designed that way.  Almost a bridge between RPGs and boardgames.  No one can accuse them of making 'casual games', that's for sure.  

Quote from: misterguignol;516262While potentially excellent, Arkham Horror can run waaaay long in my experience.  I actually prefer Mansions of Madness (though FFG have botched the printings of its first big supplement pretty badly).

Arkham Horror is definitely a long game: Expect 3-4 hour play times, and it's not unusual to see games go for 5+ hours. (Tonight I played an unusually short game at 2 hours. But it was also the first time I ever lost the game after playing it dozens of times... so now I'm bitter. Sorry. I digress.)

So, Arkham Horror is a game that requires the time commitment of a typical RPG but provides a very different play experience (and doesn't require a GM).

Mansions of Madness is generally a shorter experience and features a play-style more akin to Descent: It requires a GM. Unfortunately, it also proved buggy. (Certain scenario set-ups can result in unwinnable scenarios as items end up locked behind the doors they're required to open.) I think there's been errata issued that fixes those issues, but it definitely soured me on the game early. The other thing to be aware of is that the game promises a non-linear experience, but generally delivers a linear one which can be very punitive if the players blindly attempt the wrong direction (only to find the "you chose wrong; go try to find the plot somewhere else" dead ends).

Elder Sign provides a very short experience in the same vein. But it's considerably less atmospheric than AH or MoM. It's also proven to be rarely challenging, IME.

Remember though that the DM in Descent is way different then normal DM - the idea is that he is playing to win, using all resources at his disposal to get the party.

Ironically enough, I prefer to play CoC then Arkham Horror, while I'd rather play Descent then a classic one - shot dungeon crawl. Although my favourite is still Warhammer Quest when it comes to DCs

Quote from: Sigmund;515797... which is here has been funded like a BIG DOG! I don't know about you guys, but I'm a huge fan of OOTS, so this is fantastic news to me. I'll tell ya'all this, we RPG geeks can pull together and vote with our dollar when the shit is worthy, I'll tell ya that. So, rather than jump in on all the arguing and speculation about 5e or whatever I just wanted to say huge GRATS Rich and OOTS, hope to be reading it for many more years to come.

Sorry but is this actually an RPG, or only about the stupid webcomic?

If not, it belongs in "media and inspiration".

RPGPundit

Here's also a great example of "text bloat" in webcomics, and why it's presence (though not as fatal) put me off from OOTS for a good while:

http://www.viruscomix.com/page560.html

http://www.viruscomix.com/page561.html

Honestly, I like the artist's drawing here, but the Teeeeeext......it's so small, and so much of it, stuffed into every possible crevice. If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book.