I just played through and won 'Overlord Revealed' as OL and chose 'Frozen Spire' as the next quest, as I wanted the 2 extra XP more than any trinket only lieutenants can carry.

In 'OL revealed' I told the players that closing a portal will trigger a lieutenant and what his stats are, not to spoil the surprise, which was not much in the way of holding back information.

Now with 'Frozen Spire' there is a lot more to it, as second episode's Frederick (German edition name?) will attack the players, knowing which will probably change their tactics right from the beginning. Do I (have to) tell them? It seems to be antcilmatic .

My German Questbook says that I have to give the players all the information in the quest description if not otherwise noted. But then the quest description of episode 2 'Frozen Spire' says: "When a hero opens the door to the dungeon read the following [narrative box]" This narrative is then followed by the rules for the attacking prisoner.

So far I never had a problem giving them all the rules in advance and only adding the narratives when triggered, but with this quest it seems to be decisive whether they know about the attack beforehand.

Should/Am I supposed to give them all the info except the text boxes? Any help would be fine...

The players are allowed to know and read everything in the quest book. Unless there in information the quest book explicitly says to conceal (like the order of certain tokens or which tokens are which when facedown). They get to know everything.

The players are allowed to know and read everything in the quest book. Unless there in information the quest book explicitly says to conceal (like the order of certain tokens or which tokens are which when facedown). They get to know everything.

Not much fun then at least from a story perspective...

The players are allowed to know and read everything in the quest book. Unless there in information the quest book explicitly says to conceal (like the order of certain tokens or which tokens are which when facedown). They get to know everything.

Not much fun then at least from a story perspective...

You still get to read it outloud in funny accents.

Just because the hero players are "allowed" to read the quest, doesn't mean that they "must" read the quest. What I do with my group is I ask them if they want me to reveal all of the info, or to reveal only the quest rules and leave out any surprises. Most of the time they want the rules but not the surprises.

We are the players, overlord player included, and as such we are right to interpret and use the given rules in the way that makes the game enjoyable for us.

Just because the hero players are "allowed" to read the quest, doesn't mean that they "must" read the quest. What I do with my group is I ask them if they want me to reveal all of the info, or to reveal only the quest rules and leave out any surprises. Most of the time they want the rules but not the surprises.

We are the players, overlord player included, and as such we are right to interpret and use the given rules in the way that makes the game enjoyable for us.

Right. Just don't hide information unless all players agree that certain information should be hidden. If everyone is down for it, go ahead.

This is not about rules interpretation.

This is about houseruling - which is precisely deciding not to apply the rules as written.

Hiding information from the heroes is clearly advantaging the OL .

In Descent, which is a tactical skirmish game, where the OL is not a GM but a hostile opponent of the heroes, this is near to cheating.

I don't find that way of proceeding fun.

But, of course, you can house rule as much as you want, if it fits your desires.

Not the slightest problem for doing that.

But in the present case, it is not playing the game as intended.

This is not about rules interpretation.

This is about houseruling - which is precisely deciding not to apply the rules as written.

Hiding information from the heroes is clearly advantaging the OL .

In Descent, which is a tactical skirmish game, where the OL is not a GM but a hostile opponent of the heroes, this is near to cheating.

I don't find that way of proceeding fun.

But notice the wording of your excerpt from the quest guide, "quests are all written with the assumption that all players know all the rules and victory conditions ..." In general, keeping the "rules" or "victory conditions" from the hero players, would be tantamount to cheating. In Descent, playing with the base rules, it is assumed that all of the players know all of the rules and victory conditions of the quest, and because the maps are completely revealed ahead of time, they know all of the positions of monsters, treasures and objectives.

The issue hinges on what constitutes a "rule" or a "victory condition", and whether the heroes can agree to accept the possibility of a slight disadvantage for the sake of the added fun of a few surprises. To me, the "rules" and "victory conditions" that must be revealed are any pieces of information that, if unknown, would make it impossible to play the quest. And a "rule" of a game, by definition is a "prescribed direction for conduct", it is a boundary setting condition which affects and explains the mechanics of the game.

In "The Frozen Spire" there are rules about how the doors can be opened, and escaping with Frederick is the victory condition. If these pieces of information are unknown, the hero players would not be able to play the quest, because they would not know how to proceed. This is obviously information the players must have from the get go. The one "quest rule" in question is whether the hero players should know ahead of time that Frederick will attack them. It is questionable whether this bit of information is technically a "rule" at all, because it does not affect the mechanics of the game. It does not affect the ability of the hero players to proceed with the quest, but affects the hero players' decisions and behaviors as they go about completing the quest within the boundaries set by the proper quest "rules." One could say that this bit of information is a "spoiler," and not technically a "rule."

The entire issue, given what it says in the quest guide about "public information," is about what constitutes a "rule" and what does not. Therefore, the precise issue is "about rules interpretation," and not a simple matter of "houseruling" or disregarding "the rules as written."

In the case of "The Frozen Spire" my group would want to know the "rules and victory conditions", but they would not want to know the "spoiler" about Frederick. And considering the amount of information the hero players have about the quest, withholding it for the sake of surprise does not seem like a significant disadvantage. Further, the fact that Frederick is represented by a villager token in quest setup and not a zombie figure from the start, suggests that this is meant to be a surprise.

That said, there are probably cases in which something in a quest that could be interpreted as a "spoiler" could put the hero players at a significant disadvantage. So a group of players needs to use their discretion and decide for themselves what is an acceptable amount of sacrifice for the sake of surprises for the heroes. And overlord players should take issues of "fairness" seriously, particularly when considering whether or not withholding certain "spoilers" is taking "unfair" advantage of the hero players.

Especially the note on using the token until the door is opened makes me think again.

This is not about rules interpretation.

This is about houseruling - which is precisely deciding not to apply the rules as written.

Hiding information from the heroes is clearly advantaging the OL .

In Descent, which is a tactical skirmish game, where the OL is not a GM but a hostile opponent of the heroes, this is near to cheating.

I don't find that way of proceeding fun.

But notice the wording of your excerpt from the quest guide, "quests are all written with the assumption that all players know all the rules and victory conditions ..."

Notice the remaining wording - "in short, unless noted, none of the information is secret". "None" is pretty clear - not just rules and victory conditions, but all of it is available to all players unless specifically prohibited.

Frederick attacking is definitely part of the quest rules. It's not fluff/story information, and it is specifically under "Special Rules".

This is not about rules interpretation.

This is about houseruling - which is precisely deciding not to apply the rules as written.

Hiding information from the heroes is clearly advantaging the OL .

In Descent, which is a tactical skirmish game, where the OL is not a GM but a hostile opponent of the heroes, this is near to cheating.

I don't find that way of proceeding fun.

But notice the wording of your excerpt from the quest guide, "quests are all written with the assumption that all players know all the rules and victory conditions ..."

Notice the remaining wording - "in short, unless noted, none of the information is secret". "None" is pretty clear - not just rules and victory conditions, but all of it is available to all players unless specifically prohibited.

Frederick attacking is definitely part of the quest rules. It's not fluff/story information, and it is specifically under "Special Rules".

Agreed that none of the information is "secret." But because a piece of information is not a secret, does not mean I necessarily want to know what it is.

Saying that the information is not "secret" does not necessarily entail the further rule that:

"All information MUST be revealed to all players, even against their will and even if it will detract from the playing experience."

And yes, the part about Frederick attacking is found in the "rules" section of the quest. That is not at issue.

Even if one considers that players MAY not have all the information, if one of them wants to have it, one MUST provide it.

But, of course, a group of players can apply a houserule as it likes.

Even if one considers that players MAY not have all the information, if one of them wants to have it, one MUST provide it.

If the players decide they want to read the entire quest, the public information rule permits them to do so, and the overlord player would be wrong to prevent them from reading it.

Whether or not the players decide to read the entire quest, the decision is not a "houserule," because it is not changing anything about the game, it is not changing any of the rules. It is interpreting the meaning of the rules, which is also at the discretion of any group of players.

Even if one considers that players MAY not have all the information, if one of them wants to have it, one MUST provide it.

If the players decide they want to read the entire quest, the public information rule permits them to do so, and the overlord player would be wrong to prevent them from reading it.

Whether or not the players decide to read the entire quest, the decision is not a "houserule," because it is not changing anything about the game, it is not changing any of the rules. It is interpreting the meaning of the rules, which is also at the discretion of any group of players.

If the entire group agrees to do it that way then that's fine, but it's not an interpretation. Let's be clear here: the rules are very clearly written on this. It is absolutely fine to agree to play with a modification, but the rules as written in this instance are very easily understood.

Need to also remember that the quests are balanced with the assumption in mind that the players have access to the guide and know every part of the quest.

If you were going to hold information back in certain quests you would be better served creating your own quests with this in mind.

Even if one considers that players MAY not have all the information, if one of them wants to have it, one MUST provide it.

If the players decide they want to read the entire quest, the public information rule permits them to do so, and the overlord player would be wrong to prevent them from reading it.

Whether or not the players decide to read the entire quest, the decision is not a "houserule," because it is not changing anything about the game, it is not changing any of the rules. It is interpreting the meaning of the rules, which is also at the discretion of any group of players.

If the entire group agrees to do it that way then that's fine, but it's not an interpretation. Let's be clear here: the rules are very clearly written on this. It is absolutely fine to agree to play with a modification, but the rules as written in this instance are very easily understood.

It appears we reached an epistemological and linguistic impasse on what "understanding" the rules may mean, its affects in this context. But you are right, that it is up to the players how they proceed with the game.

Need to also remember that the quests are balanced with the assumption in mind that the players have access to the guide and know every part of the quest.

If you were going to hold information back in certain quests you would be better served creating your own quests with this in mind.

In the context of the rule a group would have to discuss if maintaining some surprises in the context of individual quests is "unbalancing". In the case of "The Frozen Spire" I do not think withholding that single surprise unbalances the game, and that it is not necessary to only withhold some surprises in custom quests. Players are discerning enough to have this kind of conversation. That is why Ser Folly started this thread.

If the players wish to forgo having all the information they are entitled to, I as the OL will be licking my chops.

The broader question is how do the players know what they don't want to know unless they already know it? Does the OL read the whole quest and decide what information not to share with the players?

The broader question is how do the players know what they don't want to know unless they already know it? Does the OL read the whole quest and decide what information not to share with the players?

Right. That is why the OL has to be willing to really consider if it would be unfair. It does give the OL the opportunity to be a jerk. Just don't be a jerk. Nobody likes playing with a jerk.

The broader question is how do the players know what they don't want to know unless they already know it? Does the OL read the whole quest and decide what information not to share with the players?

Right. That is why the OL has to be willing to really consider if it would be unfair. It does give the OL the opportunity to be a jerk. Just don't be a jerk. Nobody likes playing with a jerk.

I don't see why the OL would be granted that big daddy profile in a competitive, non rpg,game.

I would also anticipate heroes contesting his choices when things turn sour for them.

The broader question is how do the players know what they don't want to know unless they already know it? Does the OL read the whole quest and decide what information not to share with the players?

Right. That is why the OL has to be willing to really consider if it would be unfair. It does give the OL the opportunity to be a jerk. Just don't be a jerk. Nobody likes playing with a jerk.

But it gives the OL a paternalist role.

I don't see why the OL would be granted that big daddy profile in a competitive, non rpg,game.

I would also anticipate heroes contesting his choices when things turn sour for them.

Exactly.

What if, because of one of your "surprises" (= quest rules that you kept for yourself), you win a quest? Maybe that one attack from Frederick knocks a player down, and because of a domino effect, the players lose. What if, because of that won quest, the heroes must play the harder finale and lose it?

Then what if, at the end of the campaign, one, just a single one of the hero players, tells you, "You won because you didn't play by the rules"?

Would you at least admit it, or would you try to talk yourself out of it by saying that this surprising Frederick attack was a really small thing that wasn't a factor?

Or maybe during the game you notice that your surprise actually was a factor for determining the winner. Will you then play badly on purpose to compensate, like a referee who gives a questionable penalty kick to a team because he gave another questionable penalty kick to the opposing team previously?

I'm just saying that going the paternalistic road as a OL is a risky thing. I don't dare taking that risk and read every single line aloud. It is safer to play by rules where it is impossible for one side to feel deceived, and it allows me to play without holding back at all, exactly like the heroes do, which for me is the most fun way to play.

Even if one considers that players MAY not have all the information, if one of them wants to have it, one MUST provide it.

If the players decide they want to read the entire quest, the public information rule permits them to do so, and the overlord player would be wrong to prevent them from reading it.

Whether or not the players decide to read the entire quest, the decision is not a "houserule," because it is not changing anything about the game, it is not changing any of the rules. It is interpreting the meaning of the rules, which is also at the discretion of any group of players.

Well sure, it's like with any game, you don't generally give the rule book to other players and tell them to read it. You teach and in any moderately complex game, explain some stuff as you go along, that's not cheating. But just like any game, you also don't want to be 'that guy' who two thirds of the way through the game, explains a 'new' rule right at the point he uses it to win the game. I'd say the Frederick thing fits in to that category.

Also worth noting: Nerekhall has an entire new mechanic specifically to add hidden information back in.

Hi folks,

thanks for the input. Actually I just wasn't sure what information I was supposed to keep secret (from a rules pov). I've seen loads of misleading translations in rulebooks and wasn't able to lay hands on an English Questbook. Thus my OP.

I think everything has been covered so far and try a summing up:

1. The only things kept secret in Shadow Rune are some marker placements (secret for both sides)

2. Some monsters are triggered with the heroes knowing monster, room and trigger but not the exact placement

3. If the group is willing to play more rpg-like the OL might withhold some special rules but:

a) the group has to completely agree (all of the players)

b) he/she has to carefully consider how much of an impact the lack of information will have (e.g. telling the players that there will be a lieutenant and his stats without the name doesn't seem to be a problem - not telling about a sneak attack by Frederick is a (minor?) problem)

That being said I think this thread can be closed, as arguments seem to be repeating over and over (and we might find more interesting matters to attend - like rooting out that hero infestation, muhahaha).

Cheers, Folly

About the arguments being repeated, the thread itself is an iteration of many other ones asking the same thing...

About the arguments being repeated, the thread itself is an iteration of many other ones asking the same thing...

Sorry for that, obviously i used the wrong terms for my preliminary search