Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35150 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20826 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3498 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2076 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2583 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2255 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2496 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3016 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3692 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2625 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2290 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2506 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

There are too many Dungeon Crawlers. There are too few Dungeon Crawlers.

More
23 Oct 2018 06:11 #284536 by Matt Thrower
OP is spot on about there being too many. I've long thought that the essential problem here is that while there's a huge appetite for dungeon games, the appeal of them simply doesn't fit well with the appeal of board games. A dungeon crawl needs to involve exploration and co-operation, and physical board games simply don't do those things well because they interfere with the desire to have some strategy to leverage.

DungeonQuest is great, but it's a push your luck game: the dungeon crawl is thematic icing.

Dungeon! is ... okay, I guess? I played it a lot with the kids but I found it too simple to really satisfy.

Gloomhaven owns everything in this niche, in my opinion. And you can play a game with the random dungeon generator in an evening. But without the campaign, it loses the sense of exploration.

I think the best one-shot games are still the D&D adventure system games. Silver Tower has more narrative and the great mini-games but those D&D tiles have more old-school atmosphere and a bit more strategy and work better in stand-alone sessions.
The following user(s) said Thank You: stoic

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2018 09:35 #284539 by GorillaGrody
I've discovered through hard experience that, without a deep pool of playtesters and a lot of extra time available, it's simply not worth beginning design on a game. But, if I were to design my Near Perfect Dungeon Crawl (heretofore known as the NPDC) here are some of the principles I would work with:

1) Discovery vs. Exploration: A sense of exploration is hard to pull off ("this board has...more monsters on it"), but generating a "discover-able atmosphere" is possible. The blips in Space Hulk are a great example of this. The NPDC would have a pre-set board, but feature "light levels" set at the start of the scenario, with certain figures better able to hide in the light, or function in certain light levels. Traps would trigger more often in low-light scenarios. Massive Darkness is one of the few games I can name that attempts this, but it's really just an extra power you get by standing on a certain square and waiting for the AI to catch up with you. It's not very good.

2) No/limited AI: AI is more often than not disappointing. I guess that Gloomhaven has the most comprehensive AI, which suits its puzzle-like gameplay well. DDAS has the most user-friendly AI, and this is important, because AI really doesn't do much, simple or complex. In most cases, you could either follow a discreet set of programmed rules, or just say screw it and do what you would do if you were playing the monster yourself. I think the best option for AI would be a semi-cooperative format, in which players are encouraged to use the not-quite-AI monsters intelligently in order to mess with their fellow players and gain rewards in the process.

3) Skirmish Play: Above all, however, I prefer an equally-matched skirmish game. Not one-vs-many, which tends to put the GM in an awkward role, but a game with balanced points values for the figures. Could be 3 vs one, or 2 vs 2, but there's no emphasis on having the GM fudge imbalances in order to make the experience fun (at that point, yeah, just play an RPG). This would allow for variety within a limited pool, too, instead of always just playing the paladins or the demons.

4) Big Loot: You work toward finding one big piece of loot, not 100 little pieces. That IV drip is important, though. Perhaps each figure has a quest to assemble the three parts of an item only they know they're working on. Crafting elements would be wood, metal, leather, stone, and necromantic ash. Stopping to craft would be a big risk.

5) No Puzzle Pieces. None. Hate 'em. The same effect can be had by just blocking out a big Dungeon Quest like board, or using Claustrophobia-style tiles.

6) No learning, no growing (unless you're the player). I'm pretty indifferent to campaigns. I definitely don't want to write little plus-ones down on a sheet of paper, unless I'm playing in a real RPG. The NPDC should err on the side of being a board game, plain and simple. If the only excuse for it to exist is that you don't have time to play a real RPG, I mean, Gloomhaven takes longer to set up and play than many real RPG sessions, so who are you fooling? People above have described the ecosystems of Dungeons as being thematically weird (and I agree, with a quick aside to say that with Skirmish Play, you're competing with each other, not with the ecosystem of the dungeon), but I find equally weird this idea of point-based EXP. Really, you learned exactly 30 points worth of general self-improvement today? Perhaps instead there are types of warriors, and you learn something whenever you land a blow on one type of warrior a third time in a single session? As long as you don't have to track a bunch of little numbers between games.

Okay, that's my 2 gc.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, san il defanso, Frohike, BaronDonut

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2018 19:53 - 23 Oct 2018 19:55 #284564 by Sevej
I prefer co op dungeon crawlers. I think they should learn more from Pandemic. When they look on Pandemic, they though, hey we could have a better "AI" than this game! And then they proceed with creating whole lots of IFs that requires players' brain power to work.

Pandemic "AI" is simple, no questions, and absolute. And, it works. And even deeper, the recycling step of the Epidemic card ensures that each game has its own "behavior". Sometimes Asia got bad, sometimes it's Africa, and other times, it's small spots everywhere. Sure, within Pandemic's bounds it may be not drastic of a difference, but the idea is amazing. In a system that takes almost none of player's effort to execute (or may be that extra 5 minutes seeding Epidemic cards in the beginning).

(that the timing of the Epidemic is hidden in a different, constantly-paced player deck is another piece of brilliance in Pandemic)
Last edit: 23 Oct 2018 19:55 by Sevej.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Grudunza

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2018 21:19 #284571 by the_jake_1973
oWHQ remains my go to crawler. This could be due to the fact that I enjoy using the campaign book and the deep roster of user content that has been created.

Monster AI is simple, but do I need anything else in a game that is about making corpses? The tactics are limted, but the narrow confines of a dungeon render many tactical desicions moot anyways. Some of the open boards in oWHQ do allow for more movement...for the elf at least. The Winds of Magic roll is so very Warhammery in it's keen ability to happen at the worst times. I don't mind the stacks of dungeon tiles, although it can easily outgrow a table.

Loot is to be had and can be generated by lists instead of the deck of cards. What is nice is that the loot is not always permanent or the abilities are limited, so the challenge can remain through the character levels. That leads into the 'In Town' system that can string together the dungeon encounters in a manner that is mirrored by the WHQ computer game and allow characters to level up.

The Campaign book also includes new monster lists appropriate to the character level. It keeps the monsters fresh and challenge intact. I have avoided the price creep by using paper minis for the monsters.

In the end, the game allows me to chuck dice and kill monsters in a nice beer and pretzels manner. If I am lucky, my character will live and progress. Or maybe the whole party will perish when a cave in happens after taking the wrong turn at a t-junction. There are fun stories to be had when the party is able to overcome waves of enemies crowding the halls after repeated 1s when rolling the Winds.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Sevej

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 00:31 #284584 by Space Ghost

GorillaGrody wrote: Perhaps instead there are types of warriors, and you learn something whenever you land a blow on one type of warrior a third time in a single session? As long as you don't have to track a bunch of little numbers between games.


I've been working on something similar to this (at least in spirit) -- tracking this efficiently and easily is a bit of a pain in the ass, but I feel like I'm 85% there.

Then I can have a dungeon crawl that is just as shitty as all these others :)
The following user(s) said Thank You: GorillaGrody

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 08:05 #284589 by drewcula
I'm just baffled no one mentioned HeroQuest.
Or, it's punishing kin Advanced HeroQuest.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mr. White

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 10:03 #284600 by BaronDonut
I have a bit of an allergy to the genre as a whole--I think it's the disconnect, in so many games, between what you're supposed to be doing (adventuring, discovering, taking risks) and what you're actually doing (optimizing, calculating, fiddling). I don't feel like Andy the Rogue, daring the dangers of a subterranean world. I feel like Andy the Battle Accountant, responsible for maximizing my damage and minimizing loss. I think the worst offenders are Descent and Imperial Assault, which are actually good games in a lot of ways but drive me absolutely bonkers in that they lay out this heroic world and basically force you to be conservative and gamey to succeed within it.

I've had a lot more fun with larger-scale adventure games like Runebound and Near and Far, since they abstract away a lot of the fiddlier bits and let you focus on bopping around and doing stuff with your dudes (though they each have their own weird, gamey issues).

Space Hulk is so much fun because of its focus--it's not trying to be some massive modular system, it's trying to do one very specific thing and it does it very, very well. Everyone has one health point? Brilliant. There are like three weapons in the game, all of which feel special and different. The genestealers advance, one space at a time, and you desperately roll your overwatch dice and holy fucking shit your gun jammed? Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. No frills, no fuss, just a laser-tight game that knows exactly how it wants to make you feel and does it.

I like a lot of GG's ideas for improving the genre, especially when it comes to exp. I think games should take inspiration from RPGs and consider how modern storytelling games dole out rewards. I love games like Blades in the Dark that reward failure--fuck up a roll and boom, you get rewarded. How great is that? It absolutely changes the way you play the game. The players are encouraged to be bold and reckless because the game wants them to be that way.

All this to say, I want more dungeon crawls to encourage players to be heroic, to do wild shit, to play a character that functions as more than a different spread of numbers as a grid.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Frohike, GorillaGrody

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 10:42 #284605 by Jackwraith
Yeah, I get that. A lot of the grindiness of 1st Ed Descent came about because it could be so lethal and the Overlord had one brain to calculate the proper strategy for his monsters and not four conflicting brains on how best to interact with said strategy. There were a lot of sessions that, halfway through the dungeon, was more about counting out spaces that could be moved and still safely kill stuff and then counting more spaces between there and the next spawn point that the Overlord (usually me) could most easily threaten from. That kind of tactical assessment and then execution doesn't really work with a party of fantasy adventurers looking for glory...

... but it does kinda work in a setting like Gears of War or, for that matter, Space Hulk, where these highly-trained soldiers are moving cover 2x2 formation to try to scour the aliens from existence. And, honestly, I've done a lot of space counting in games of Space Hulk, knowing I can only move so far to the control panel before the blips arrive from around the corner, so SH isn't completely above that kind of thing.

I also agree that the adventuring spirit isn't quite the same as in games like Runebound (as one of its few defenders here.) But I guess that brings up the question: What kind of game do you feel like playing? Dungeon crawlers are almost always intensely tactical affairs, even in low-rules offerings like SH. Games like Runebound and Talisman simply aren't because it's more about the experience of running around the board and doing stuff. Of course, both of those can occasionally become more tactical and calculated with PvP play, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Frohike, BaronDonut

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 10:59 #284610 by BaronDonut

Jackwraith wrote: And, honestly, I've done a lot of space counting in games of Space Hulk, knowing I can only move so far to the control panel before the blips arrive from around the corner, so SH isn't completely above that kind of thing.


This is a good point. I think the reason it works for me in SH but doesn't in Descent is that it feels effectively married to the subject matter--every step matters, it's slow and deliberate and methodical until it suddenly isn't. The details of movement and range and line of sight feel like an essential part of the dramatic tension powering the game instead of being a distraction from it.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackwraith, Frohike

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 11:05 #284612 by san il defanso
I wonder if part of the challenge is that in the primary inspiration for the genre, old-school roleplaying games, there's an ability for time to be compressed and slowed down as the situation warrants. When I'm running a dungeon in D&D I'm not making the players count every single square if they aren't in combat. Like, exploring a room takes maybe 10 minutes, and then you move into the next room. Check for traps and all that, but it's only when combat starts that the whole thing becomes tactical. That doesn't even apply to situations where the combat allows me to run it without a grid at all, which I like doing sometimes if it's appropriate. It depends on the dungeon of course, but in a board game you don't really have that ability. You need to count everything out constantly, and parts that would never be tactical in the original game now become this irritating consideration.

We're throwing Space Hulk in this genre, but I'm not sure it fits very well. It's a laser-focused game, and exploration and loot are not generally the focuses. It's a tactical game at the thematic level, unlike most others in the genre. I also think its strength lies in how combat is never drawn out. Everything dies with a single hit, and making things die is pretty much the point of the game.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackwraith, lj1983

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 11:25 #284614 by Jackwraith
Those are great points, Nate. You're absolutely right about the varying time compression in a storytelling game like RPGs (which mimic actual storytelling in novels; despite how it occasionally felt, we didn't actually see EVERY step that Frodo took toward Mordor) and how that conflicts thematically with a game like Descent.

I also agree that there is room to make a division between games that nominally are "RPGs on a board" like Descent 1st Ed, which took steps toward becoming more RPG/campaign-like with 2nd Ed, and games like SH or TMNT: Shadows of the Past. Despite having a couple different "campaigns" that can be played through (and are presented as comics, the original source material), each scenario is set up as a clear tactical exercise. There is story pasted on to another struggle with the Foot Clan, but the type of game is never in doubt: this is a fight game, not an adventure game.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 11:56 #284615 by GorillaGrody

san il defanso wrote:
We're throwing Space Hulk in this genre, but I'm not sure it fits very well. It's a laser-focused game, and exploration and loot are not generally the focuses. It's a tactical game at the thematic level, unlike most others in the genre. I also think its strength lies in how combat is never drawn out. Everything dies with a single hit, and making things die is pretty much the point of the game.


I agree (sort of), so why include Space Hulk? Because Space Hulk does what it does well, whereas Descent, in whatever iteration, does what it does shoddily. And if every game does exploration and loot shoddily, then perhaps loot and exploration need to not always be some form of discoverable text you're only going to read once, and should instead be part of an emergent gameplay experience that doesn't rely on getting to the next typo-ridden prose block.

And there are too many parallels between SH and the genre at large to ignore. My main problem with Space Hulk is not that it doesn't fit my conception of the genre, but that it lacks variety, and the fact that it's scenario-based, which always runs thin for me on a second play (another mark against Claustrophobia).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Oct 2018 20:42 #284634 by Sevej
That it becomes a game of battle of accountants is mostly because the crowd demands it. Like I said, it's an activity that doesn't exist, and it's supposed to be quick, brutal, and all instinct. But how would that translate to board games? So it took the Euro approach (thinking it as a game first).

While I enjoyed Space Hulk every time and it has a lot in common with crawlers, it never crosses my mind as a crawler. If anything, it's much closer to skirmish games. Descent 2.0 kind of falls into this also, but it has campaign, loot and progression that more than enough to make up the lack of exploration. The app helps a lot in this regard. The combat is good enough for me, although the plethora of surge options and length of combat resolution bug me to no end.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Oct 2018 09:44 - 25 Oct 2018 09:49 #284644 by Mr. White

GorillaGrody wrote: And there are too many parallels between SH and the genre at large to ignore. My main problem with Space Hulk is not that it doesn't fit my conception of the genre, but that it lacks variety, and the fact that it's scenario-based, which always runs thin for me on a second play (another mark against Claustrophobia).


I never really understood this complaint about SH. I've replayed missions before and they're still fun. Even Genestealer routes can have dramatic moments making the game worth playing. I guess the dice and random genestealer draws prevent each match from being the same. Still, for more variety, there are GSC rules for SH in WD if the genestealer player needs more options. There were also vent/shaft rules in WD that pretty much redesign each map as the players see fit, busting each scenario wide open.

It's not just SH though. I heard this about DDAS or other games with scenarios. I think it's a psychological issue with the term 'scenarios'. It's like we feel there needs to be many...but that simply isn't true if there are enough random elements.

Many games only have 'one' scenario or way to play, yet they seem to have longer legs. Heck, look as Chess. One scenario, no random conflict resolution, static setup....still played heavily and studied for years.

Any given SH scenario has more variables than Chess, yet I've read it here many times that people think it is simply a puzzle to solve. This is despite the random elements that make any given scenario more dynamic than a game of Chess.
Last edit: 25 Oct 2018 09:49 by Mr. White.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
25 Oct 2018 09:50 #284646 by Shellhead

BaronDonut wrote: I have a bit of an allergy to the genre as a whole--I think it's the disconnect, in so many games, between what you're supposed to be doing (adventuring, discovering, taking risks) and what you're actually doing (optimizing, calculating, fiddling). I don't feel like Andy the Rogue, daring the dangers of a subterranean world. I feel like Andy the Battle Accountant, responsible for maximizing my damage and minimizing loss. I think the worst offenders are Descent and Imperial Assault, which are actually good games in a lot of ways but drive me absolutely bonkers in that they lay out this heroic world and basically force you to be conservative and gamey to succeed within it.


This initially struck me as a great point, until I realized that it also applies to all of the crunchier role-playing games as well, including every edition of Dungeons and Dragons except maybe 5th. The only time you can really get away from that disconnect in even an rpg dungeon crawl is when you are playing a lighter rule system. And then you run the risk of disappointing certain players, because they consider the tactical puzzle to be central to the dungeon crawl experience.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackwraith

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.190 seconds