Trashdome - Fury Of Dracula VS Castle Ravenloft

My most recent game of FoD was last Saturday. The Dracula player and the player of van Helsing and Mina were both new players, but very experienced gamers. I played Godalming and the fourth player (who played a few times back in '06) was Seward. A lucky card draw put us on Dracula's trail by turn 4, and after a couple of scuffles, Mina went to the hospital. Dracula scored 2 points.

Soon, Dracula scored another 2 points for maturing a vampire, and was close to winning thanks to another 1 point from the clock. Then we got the card that let us fight (and kill) one of his vampire minions, taking back 1 point from Dracula. Still, we were running out of time, as he scored another point from the clock.

At this point, all four hunters were in cities adjacent to Dracula. He should have pounced on a battered van Helsing, but instead fled to the North Sea. After waiting a three turns so that Dracula had to make a choice regarding the Atlantic Ocean, I triumphantly played a card that revealed all of his facedown sea locations. The Seward player made a random guess about where Dracula went to shore and found him, but was thwarted by an encounter. Then van Helsing played that heroic leap card (after a couple of turns of healing) and managed to beat Dracula two turns before he would have won.

First, good conversation all. Nice to see some chatter back in the 'dome.

Shellhead and Uba are right in that FoD does have strategy, depth, and replay value. However, for it to get to that point, there does need to be a level of experience with the game (incompetent is a bit harsh, inexperienced is more like it). From what I've read here over the years, there are a few groups (Shellhead's and Southernman's for sure) that play a lot of FoD. So, fair enough, this is great for them.

My group has a pretty wide selection of games and a somewhat revolving cast of players. So, FoD has never gotten played to that level by anyone with one exception. Me, as the owner of the game, and thus almost always Dracula. There have been many games where I've had do to a little hand holding to keep the game fun, and that's fine, but at that point I'd rather just GM an rpg.

Sure, I could wait and play FoD when the right cast is available, but again CR is good with any number of players and at any experience level.

Additionally, I've found FoD to definitely be a more heads down game for large portions of the session. CR has far more fist pumps and laughs per minute. Both are good depending on what you want. For me, I usually want heads-down in two player wargames, but animation and excitement in my multiplayer games.

Will CR become a well regarded classic like FoD? I'm not so sure. I can see further branding of the line by WotC to dilute CRs stature. However, I would also guess that far more folks are going to be introduced to the hobby through CR than have been through FoD.

My group only started playing Fury of Dracula (FFG) a few months ago. Everyone was totally new to the game. We've played it about five times now, and we have fun every time. We've had games where Dracula rushes in on the first night, and the game ends within an hour. We've had games where Dracula plays keepaway forever and the game takes four hours. It's fun each time! Having a broad range of strategy and outcome makes the game better, not worse.

I'd love to play FoD someday. But I want to play with people who know what they're doing. The requirement of some experience is what stops me from even attempting this game. That statement goes for lots of other games as well.

I introduced FoD to the other group I game with (they are minis wargamers who like doing boardgames on a Friday night, so experienced gamers but not as much on boards) where none of them had played it before. I thought it would be best if I played Drac and drove the game whiel giving them advice - probably a good idea EXCEPT I chose to run and hide leaving them not knowing how any of the cards worked that they picked up and thinking 'where the hell is the game in this'. In the end when I drew the 'teleport' card (can't remember it's name) they all just gave up and have resisted any chance to play it again.

In hindsight I should have given a crash-course on playing Drac to the most confident of my mates and then led the Hunters around. I also remember the first time I played it and it was the same situation, the game owner and only person who knew anything about the game played Drac and easily beat us - I never even had a decent encounter and thought 'what the fuck is this piece of crap' ... how I am a changed person now.

Thank you for being honest in your group's initial experience, Southernman. I'm glad you and some of your group stuck it out, but we've got too many other games higher on the chain to consistently come back to FoD.

I would note that a lot of FoD advice is that the most experienced player play Dracula or _leads_ the hunters. So, you have a Dracula route of the hunters or an alpha player scenario. Both are not good, IMO.

In CR, it's obvious to any player how to play the game and what their options are and they can give valid input right away as a contributing member of the team.

Jeff White wrote:

Thank you for being honest in your group's initial experience, Southernman. I'm glad you and some of your group stuck it out, but we've got too many other games higher on the chain to consistently come back to FoD.

I've probably got as many if not more than you with dozens unplayed , but our small club and the other group are made up of mostly people who have come from a minis or rpg background and are hard to get to play a variety of games - FoD gets a lot of play because it's one of the few games I can get the different minis & rpg guys to play. I'm really screwed for a proper boardgaming group so play what I can get (mostly, I don't do euros) - hell, I hadn't played for about 6 weeks until last week.

I thought the 'descent is too hard thing' was bit of an internet meme. But now that fury of dracula is apparently too hard I'm baffled as to how people have apparently become so stupid.
I have taught FOD to dozens of people and it has never been too hard for anyone to grasp and have fun with. As Ken said, the only 'gothca' you should prewarn players about is the evation card. As long as they know that (ie tell them that drawing from the encounter deck when on dracs trail is risky) newbies can play - with a chance of winning - just fine. Things like combat and the like you just follow the theme.

Does a player get better the more he plays? Yes. Last time I checked this was an expected attribute that defined a good game. AT wasn't meant to be about playing rote mindless shit.

The whole 'one player is out' is a load of fucking bolloks as well. Just because his hunter is out to sea at the other end of the board doesn't mean he can't contribute. Hasn't he got a mouth to suggest plans and strategies and ideas where dracula is. That's the game right there, not rolling a fucking die. Seriously, this supposed 'alpha male' problem has more to do with you guys playing with appart social fucking retard nerds than any flaw in the design. I've had great games of Drac where I havn't picked up the combat die once.

On the other side of the coin is CR - all players have 'valid input'? What valid input, even the guy whose turn it is just runs through the motions. After 2 games when you figure out the tricks of the game there is nothing to discuss really, stick the monsters on the endge of the tiles, try and explore if you can, then it comes down to not missing your attack rolls and not drawing the shittier event cards if you can't cancel them. 95% of the game sucess has nothing to do with the players. It's a eurofied dungeoncrawl for people who hate dungeoncrawls. They should have reprinted the much superior dragomnstrike instead.

<standing ovation for Mr Skeletor's post>

Shellhead wrote:

<standing ovation for Mr Skeletor's post>

[Wiping a tear from my eye] Hear fucking hear, Skelly-man. 'Bout time someone stood with me on the Descent front.

And I do have to 'fess up to initially being hypocritical. I dinged Middle-Earth Quest because I played a game against a shitty Sauron player who didn't explain shit to us. And the game was horrible. After taking the time to study it myself, it's the same thing as Fury of Drac. No, it isn't as good as Fury of Drac is, but it's a game that rewards multiple plays and studying the way the game is played. It requires a Sauron player who has some balls and knows how to play.

This is a good thing though, right?

Vote: Fury of Dracula

As others have said, there is really something to be said for playing a game repeatedly and getting better at a game. MEQ still falls short for me because it is very procedural --- I am still hoping that they make a small expansion ala Crown and Glory to fix some of the niggling problems.

As for Descent, I actually found it easier to teach than Fury of Dracula, but neither were really that hard.

Again, the complaint with Descent isn't that it's too hard, but that it's more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.

Putting a lot of effort into an awesome game is just fine. Putting 10 times more effort into playing Descent than it takes to play CR when Descent is only marginally less brain-dead? Not so much.

Great speech, though.

I don't think it's a case of being too hard, just that it can have uneven playing experiences.

With CR we've had lots of fun playing with adults as well as young kids. I don't own either, and don't plan on it, but if I had to buy one at this point in my life it'd be CR.

But, clearly, we're fucking retarded.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

I thought the 'descent is too hard thing' was bit of an internet meme. But now that fury of dracula is apparently too hard I'm baffled as to how people have apparently become so stupid.

People have become impatient and unfocused, not stupid.

I had to explain Lifeboat to my group this past week and felt the pressure -- if I don't get the rules fully laid out and the game up and running in under two minutes the iPhones come out and I lose the group. Lifeboat's rules are about 400 words total and I was losing people before I was halfway through. These days I rush the explanation, slamming as much out as fast as I can, and what results is me missing details that are important to play. Someone pointed out a mistake after we played and I suppressed the urge to reply, "tough shit -- give me five minutes to get the game going and it probably won't happen next time."

Vote Fury of Dracula.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote:

People have become impatient and unfocused, not stupid.

People have become rude and foolish. Just because a technology is new doesn't mean that people should discard any and all sense of etiquette. Only two of the people that I game with regularly are guilty of this tech distraction problem, and one of them at least has the ability to still multitask reasonably well. The other guy is fine until he gets a phone call, and then he doesn't mind holding up the game for 15-20 minutes until he is finished with the call. I have been tempted to buy one of those illegal Israeli cellphone jammers for use in my home.