Dungeon crawl skirmishes: DESCENT vs. DDM

[Shortman McLeod]

My wife and I want to get a good dungeon crawl skirmish-type game for our gaming group, and Descent is the obvious choice. Yet a friend of mine recently suggested the D&D minis game, which he said is essentially like Descent, yet far more flexible/expandable.

Here's what we want:

1. A game that can be played in short or long sessions. I know Descent has a rep for running a long time, yet if one sets up a smaller sized quest, wouldn't that make for a shorter game? Similarly, my impression of DDM is that it can be adjusted in the same manner.

2. A game that can involve two or more players (up to a maximum of maybe five). I know Descent can handle this, but what about DDM?

*** The collectible aspect of DDM doesn't bother us. If anything, it's oddly appealing.

Comments?

 

[Festivus]

I have seen some variants for playing DDM multi player (http://www.pegasusknight.net/articles/mpffa/MPFFADDM.htm), and generally speaking 2,3 and 4 player games of DDM need to have a bigger map to play on, like the lost temple map (I think that's the name), or you run out of room too quickly.

Another fun thing is the big dragons and running a scenario where folks put together warbands and try to take out the dragons. They can work together or against each other.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I have seen some variants for playing DDM multi player (http://www.pegasusknight.net/articles/mpffa/MPFFADDM.htm), and generally speaking 2,3 and 4 player games of DDM need to have a bigger map to play on, like the lost temple map (I think that's the name), or you run out of room too quickly.

Another fun thing is the big dragons and running a scenario where folks put together warbands and try to take out the dragons. They can work together or against each other.

Sounds cool. What are the rules like for DDM? Someone told me it's a 40+ page rulebook. Is it basically the combat chapter from the PHB?

 

[Festivus]

In it's present form, yeah, very much D&D rules with some minor differences. Damage is static, ranged attacks and spell effects must target closest enemy, etc. Descent is no cakewalk for rules as I understand it too.

There is the new Talisman game coming out this month if you were looking for a distraction that was fantasy flavored.

 

[blargney the second]

If you're looking for something dungeon crawly, Dreamblade isn't what you're looking for. It is a very fun game, just not even remotely crawly.

DDM is actually very scalable. You can adjust the number of points each warband is built with very easily, and you can speed things up a lot by shortening up the starting distance between the bands. I love the simplified AoOs in that game compared to 3.5 D&D.
-blarg

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

My take:

DDM is a much better game.

Descent has the rare distinction of being a board game where clearing a dungeon can actually take longer than in most mainstream RPGs. I really wanted to like it, and it's a GORGEOUS production (possibly worth it for the tiles alone if you don't have a good supply of (American) Heroquest, Advanced/British Heroquest or Warhammer Quest tiles for your dungeon game. But I want fast, exciting 'kick-in-the-door' style play from a dungeon game. If it's slower than BECMI D&D, I'm going to wonder why I don't just roll that with some Pregens - or play Heroquest or Warhammer Quest, both of which I'm fortunate enough to own.

DDM, on the other hand, is really, really good. It's actually what I was hoping D&D 4e's combat would look like prior to trying the (somewhat more complex, but still fast and mobile) SWSE. It has all the basics of d20 combat, but it introduces two massive time savers: it removes variable damage and crops damage down to 5 point increments (the time saved by this adds up more than you'd think), and it puts EVERYTHING you need to know on the cards that come with the minis. A standard game of DDM plays only a little slower than a standard game of Magic, with a similar interplay of randomness and tactics.

On the flip side, Descent is a dungeon-crawling game, whereas DDM out of the box is not. DDM has no rules for equipment or character progression or recovering expendables. It assumes two roughly equal forces rather than one side with multiple players and limited forces and another with significantly greater resources but constrained tactics. You'd have to houserule it or use the rules in the Miniatures Handbook, which seemed to be more about randomly generating dungeons for full-blown D&D.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Descent has the rare distinction of being a board game where clearing a dungeon can actually take longer than in most mainstream RPGs.

I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. What's nice about board games is that even if some of them take a long time to play (5-6 hours or whatever) they are very tightly controlled. There are clear, defined rules that cover every possible situation that could arise in the game. They are thus a lot easier to play for a long time than an RPG, which either requires (a) mastery of 1,000 pages of rules on the part of the DM or (b) a DM who just "wings it" (at which point you have to ask if you're really playing a game at all) or (c) players and a DM willing to have the game grind to a halt while everyone flips through their copy of the PHB looking for obscure rule #415.

I guess my point is, I don't mind playing a good board game that takes 5-6 hours. What I don't like (anymore) are RPG sessions that drag on that long. At least the ones I've been in.

DDM, on the other hand, is really, really good. It's actually what I was hoping D&D 4e's combat would look like prior to trying the (somewhat more complex, but still fast and mobile) SWSE. . . . On the flip side, Descent is a dungeon-crawling game, whereas DDM out of the box is not. DDM has no rules for equipment or character progression or recovering expendables.

Hmmm. This is an excellent point; my impression is that in DDM all you do is fight (which is, obviously, the point ). But without treasure and skills and all that other goodness . . .

It assumes two roughly equal forces rather than one side with multiple players and limited forces and another with significantly greater resources but constrained tactics.

I'm assuming you're alluding to Descent here. Does the Overlord have "greater resources but constrained tactics"? If so, what does this mean, exactly? One thing I find appealing about Descent is the notion that the Overlord is, essentially, a player as well, just playing on the "other side". He is trying his damnedest to kill the players, but cannot necessarily succeed, since his resources, like the players', are limited. Am I reading it right? (I would be totally turned off if the Overlord in Descent was simply a "referee", like in an RPG).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. What's nice about board games is that even if some of them take a long time to play (5-6 hours or whatever) they are very tightly controlled. There are clear, defined rules that cover every possible situation that could arise in the game. They are thus a lot easier to play for a long time than an RPG, which either requires (a) mastery of 1,000 pages of rules on the part of the DM or (b) a DM who just "wings it" (at which point you have to ask if you're really playing a game at all) or (c) players and a DM willing to have the game grind to a halt while everyone flips through their copy of the PHB looking for obscure rule #415.

I guess my point is, I don't mind playing a good board game that takes 5-6 hours. What I don't like (anymore) are RPG sessions that drag on that long. At least the ones I've been in.

Fair enough.

I'm very critical of board games that last 5-6 hours for two reasons: IMX, that's way more time than most non-RPGers want to devote to a game, and very few board games provide sufficient variety of experience to remain compelling that long.

Hmmm. This is an excellent point; my impression is that in DDM all you do is fight (which is, obviously, the point ). But without treasure and skills and all that other goodness . . .

Correct. DDM out of the box is not a dungeon crawling game like Warhammer Quest. It's a wargame like Warhammer Fantasy Battles. (Actually, it's a skirmish game, more like Warmachine Prime than WHFB, but that stretches the analogy further )

I'm assuming you're alluding to Descent here. Does the Overlord have "greater resources but constrained tactics"? If so, what does this mean, exactly? One thing I find appealing about Descent is the notion that the Overlord is, essentially, a player as well, just playing on the "other side". He is trying his damnedest to kill the players, but cannot necessarily succeed, since his resources, like the players', are limited. Am I reading it right? (I would be totally turned off if the Overlord in Descent was simply a "referee", like in an RPG).

I more referring to the fact that a typical Descent monster has a very limited range of options (and can generally be deployed only under certain circumstances), whereas the PCs all start out in play, have more options and can to some extent control the pace of exploration. Admittedly, it seems to be to their BENEFIT to explore fast, but it's largely their choice.

The Overlord is, in fact, meant to play as ruthlessly and lethally as possible and use the best tactics at his disposal. But those tactics are more constrained than those of the players, if nothing else because Descent takes its inspiration from the classic D&D dungeon crawl: the PCs are the aggressors and the active party, the monsters must react (often without the simple expedient of reinforcing from one area of the dungeon to another). The monsters have (much) more total durability and even more striking power - but cannot bring it to bear on a focused point like the PCs can.

 

[DemonKing]

I only have Descent but aside from a couple of scenarios, it does take some dedication to play...I think our last game took over 6 hours to finish.

There is an expansion coming out this year with campaign rules and shorter dungeons.

I like it a lot - especially the idea of the Overlord being competitve rather than a "dungeon master" type figure ala D&D.

 

[Stormborn]

Having played both I would gladly play DDM again, and have played it several times. I have played Descent once, and wished I had quit half way through. For a competive game DDM is far more fun given that all players start out on an equal footing and the game then plays out primarilly based on ability to choose and run your warband (and there is lots of online help for that) whereas Descent is a group of players playing against the DM (essentially), one in which the DM is at an adavantage and has no reason not to play it Killer DM style, and in my experiance seems encouraged to do so although I will admit I was a player and not the DM. Thus DDM can be friendly competition whereas I found Descent frustrating.

EDIT: Sorry, it's 'Overlord' and DemonKing said:
"I like it a lot - especially the idea of the Overlord being competitve rather than a "dungeon master" type figure ala D&D." Which is exactly what my group hated about it.

Cost is another factor. You can either buy up some boxes of DDM or buy them individually at various places fairly cheap compared to buying Descent. Yes, if you want specifically themed warbands you are going to have to buy a lot of booster packs or shell out for rares and uncommons and thus pay more in the long run, but I think based only on minimal price to play you can start DDM more cheaply.

Somewhat related to this, you can get the cards for most of the DDM sets, and the rules IIRC, and just use minis you already own to start playing. That might be a good way to try it out.

Rules wise Descent is another system to learn with its own quirks. For the most part if you know how to play DnD you can play DDM in only a few minutes of prep. You can also play a lot of skirmishes with DDM in the time you can play half a game of Descent. You can play a Tournament of DDM in the time you can play a game of Descent.

Thus to me DDM is the only way to go.