D&D Adventure Board Game: Temple of Elemental Evil

I still think it fucking SUSSSUSUSUSUSUSUSSUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS sweaty balls. I abhor it. My dude Frank can't stand that I hate it, but being the kind of dude I am, I play it to the fullest anyhow, despite being bored. It's just so procedural. It's like playing "War", that shit old card game where you try to trump the other guy, but with some bells and whistles and miniatures. The best part of that game is that you can steal the minis for the DDAS stuff.

Keep in mind that I am ~~~~NOT~~~~ a card game guy, ~~~~~~~~~NOT~~~~~~~~~ a CCG guy, and don't like much about that sort of game, although I have made some exceptions because I love the theme (Food Fight, Adventure Time Card Wars).

Dungeon Command is awesome, and Pete is wrong.

Watched Tom's review of this and... the game (Ravenloft) that I traded away doesn't really seem to have changed much at all. Approaching it without the mindset of a dungeon crawl doesn't work for me. In the end it still seems to be a mechanically boring dudes in a hall game where everyone games the AI. Wearing the seemingly requisite "but it's a coop" goggles doesn't make the game look any better to me.

It's interesting to me that these games are so polarizing, and that two distinct groups have emerged. One one side, you have the Doom/Descent/Assault apologists, and on the other you have the DDAS apologists. There seems to be very little crossover. From the look of it, just my limited observations, it comes down to the AI. The Descentites seem to like the 1vALL mode that is reactive due to human control of the bad guys (GM), the DDASites like the GM-less AI, despite it's obvious limitations.

Very interesting. I think future designers should really look at this and try to understand it so that a "supergame" can emerge and do what Descent does, but without a GM.

I think the hard part with designing creature/monster/DM Artificial Intelligence or pre-programmed movements is that it can never replicate a human player. When you play someone in Descent the overlord might make sub par moves. They might try something crazy that the heroes didn't expect. No boardgame AI will ever be able to replicate a human opponent.

I think the way the different monsters move and attack in the DDAS games is basic, but it's scores points for trying to cater to each individual creature. Sure you can "game" the system and figure out who they're gonna attack and when. Figuring that out is part of the heroes' plan. For me I would imagine that the adventurers have knowledge of different creatures and beasts. So you knowing how they will attack just shows the experience of the adventurers.

Again, for me these games are more about what you put in. If you're just going through the motions of the basic mechanics it's not going to wow you. I think embellishing...getting into the game, cheering when you Crit and making up some sad reason for a miss when you rolled a 2...that's all necessary. Since they're so simple mechanically it's easier for me to get into the games. I'm not worrying about the rules and whatnot...they melt into the background and I can focus on the experience.

I realize these aren't for everyone though. I'm just glad they're making more. I'm hoping for a Tomb of Horrors set for the next one!

Anyone tried the Descent coop modules? I love em but haven't played the D&D system so can't compare.

I guess I'm in the camp that likes both the DOOM and DDAS systems. Just depends on what I'm in the mood for.

SuperflyTNT wrote: It's interesting to me that these games are so polarizing, and that two distinct groups have emerged. One one side, you have the Doom/Descent/Assault apologists, and on the other you have the DDAS apologists. There seems to be very little crossover. From the look of it, just my limited observations, it comes down to the AI. The Descentites seem to like the 1vALL mode that is reactive due to human control of the bad guys (GM), the DDASites like the GM-less AI, despite it's obvious limitations.

Very interesting. I think future designers should really look at this and try to understand it so that a "supergame" can emerge and do what Descent does, but without a GM.

I wouldn't over-think it too much. We're just looking for a good game and to me Ravenloft felt very repetitive in the same way PACG did once I had played through the first adventure pack. What attracted me to the DDAS system was the shorter (than four to six hours) play time which meant I could play it more often, the lack of a DM which meant I could play with with fewer players and its accessibility. It came close but, for me, was just a little too dumbed down.

I just finished reading Peter Lee's designer notes on this one and he's put a lot of thought into developing a storyline (after running into a writer at a recent Con)and making it an experience (he's structured it as one story with several acts that lead the hero through a life struggle, starting as orphan (alienated or apart), becoming a wanderer (exploring world trying to find place), then a warrior as a life event makes him take a stand and finally martyr willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. I like the focus on character. He's developed the antagonist (no spoiler alert not saying who) and the game's events to interfere specifically with this evolution. He's tweaked a few mechanics. The addition of a town on a different scale is a nice touch and at least one of the 'nexus' adventures takes place there.

He's structured the game so these hero transitions occur at the end of the game's three Acts made up of 13 missions (2nd Act has two parts). And then he's introduced a campaign system to dovetail with the story so the character evolves over the course of the game. I like the system he's developed there too with tokens that cost you a whack of cash for incremental abilities for (ie: 500 gold for +1 damage) and a character that can level up once during the course of the adventure.

Ravenloft wasn't a horrible game by any means. It just wasn't quite good enough to hold my interest, but with the game play tweaks in this version and a focused storyline, a new campaign system and town adventures, I'm definitely interested.

I always thought that as someone who has done a lot of board game reviews that I would be a shoo-in as a fantasy writer.

No much characterization in it, but the Legend Of Drizzt scenario's follow the story from the book series. It's probably why I like that one because I used to read the books so I know who the characters are and a lot of detail about the setting. I also read a Ravenloft book once so I know about Strahd and that world too. Don't know shit about Ashardalon, which is probably why that's the least interesting for me.

That, and it's the least interesting. I think they know they fucked up there and went back to a narrative.

I disagree with Pete AND Michael here. Dungeon Command is definitely a good game, but Imperial Assault's skirmish game is a much better one.

Has anyone tried this variant to Castle Ravenloft?

www.dndboardgame.com/castle-ravenloft-reversion.html