The group I normally play with are well versed gamers in general, and have played many, many hours of Descent. For that reason, with this group, we tend not to have analysis paralysis. They will discuss various moves/turn order/strategies, but then will execute the chosen one quickly and efficiently.

I also have played with beginners (as it seems many of you have as well). I find that it is important to remember with these players to be very patient and understanding, and allow what would seem to be interminable amount of time for their decisions. The reason I do this is because I want them to understand the nuances of all of the possible moves (in fact I often point out things they have missed - better options, etc.). I want them to understand the benefits and failures (and the reasons for each) of their strategies - it is an effective way for them to learn. The more they understand, the more they become involved and immersed in the game.

That in turn leads to a commitment to the game, and a desire to continue to play - for the opportunity of utilizing tactics they have learned and applying them to future encounters/quests/campaigns.

I have found that if I don't get them to "buy into the game", it often can become a lost cause, especially with games like Descent that can take a significant investment of time to complete.

As I have often told new players, this isn't monopoly, or chutes and ladders, etc. It is a far more sophisticated game, and you will only get out of it, what you put into it.

After a while, all of the various choices available to a hero is most situations becomes second nature, and the time it takes them to plan and execute their maneuvers lessens considerably.

One last thing ... when beginning with new players, we have found that it is really important to play as often as possible, so that the tactics, ideas, rules, etc. become ingrained and learned. There isn't much point to playing once, and then not playing again for several months. They simply won't remember what you need them to remember.

I really need to implement the "no overly strategizing" rule in my next Descent game. My last group game was months and months ago (currently enjoy a better experience of playing solo/co-op variant), and the game was very contentious and end with very bad feeling all around. The alpha gamer constantly dictating to the passive one what to do and even move their figures for them which in turn make the two passive players just sitting there and play with their phones until their turn come around. Then the alpha gamer would take about 15-20 minutes to analyze the move for everyone and when thing don't go as plan ask to take the move back because they didn't realize OL have such and such abilities.

I really like the implement of a real party group facing danger and everyone just choose to do what they think is best and will prevent the over analyzing and keep the game play moving. Not to mention it would help keep everyone engage because they need to see what the other players are doing.

I am confident my play group would never reach a point where I would have to mediate aggressive behavior, but I totally see how it falls on the organizer of the event (which often is the OL player) to play that role. It's funny how a discussion on timed turns eventually becomes one about player attitudes.

On our weekly game night we tried to alter our ten minutes per side rules a little by giving the hero group two minutes each turn to discuss their groups strategy and two minutes for each hero to execute their turn without further discussion or exchange of any hints by the rest of the group until their next two minutes for group discussion. For us it worked wonders, it reduced lengthly discussion to a minimum and the group was more dependent on the skills of each group member than swarm intelligence. Even the atmosphere got a lot friendlier.

I really wish I could get my one group to agree to do something like that. They've consistently turned down anything I've suggested.

I really wish I could get my one group to agree to do something like that. They've consistently turned down anything I've suggested.

Maybe play one game where you take a long, long time strategizing your turn, then have all your monsters attack each other, then look at your players and say "that didn't go as planned, I need a do-over".

If they protest, point out that they do something like that to you.

But of course, that's the passive agressive way of resolving the problem, not necessarily the best way.

I had no problem convincing my fellow player to try out this rule. They noticed by themselves that everything took far to long to finish more than one scene per night and were eager to try out my suggestion. For that to be possible they should understand that such a gaming evening is about having fun for both sides. If one side isn't, than you have to change something.

I´m not a big fan of timed turns in games that aren't articulated around timed turns mechanisms. To each his own I guess, but I can plainly see situations where players make bad decisions and perform silly actions just because they couldn't settle on something decent to do within the time allowed. Yeah but that's the point, you say, and I know, but it also kills some of the experience. You'd win some quests based on your heroes' inability to reach a decision point by these 10 minutes, which must be incredibly frustrating for them. I´m also curious as for how you would mirror the 10 minutes window for the OL since the amount of actions depends on how many monsters you have on the map. I played the "City Falls" recently (finale of the SoN campaign) and I had millions of monsters on the map, so yeah my turns were longer but there was a reason for that. If I twist your time turns rule a little bit for the sake of the discussion, do you suggest that I shouldn't be allowed to activate all my monster groups because time ran out before I could? That would be really wrong.

Plus heroes could say **** it, let's have 10 minutes chat even if they have nothing to discuss, so by trying to limit their time to discuss, you´re in fact enforcing a 10 minutes turn even if there is no discussion to be had. It's hard to quantify how much time you´d "lose" this way, but on average that seems like a lot. Depends on the playgroup I suppose.

What I´m doing is that I´m trying to take their hand in the most gentle way possible to make them come to a conclusion. It sometimes involves giving them a little push by making them confirm what action they´re about to take.Or, pointing out facts for them to accelerate the discussion, or even sometimes giving them a hint about the best course of action, or at least a fragment of it. Look, I would never tell them how they can win an encounter because it would destroy my own experience if I revealed my plan, but I could give them a hint as for what to prioritize (like which monsters to fight, what I could possibly do if the heroes did not deal with a particular thing, like a Ynfernael Hulk in range close to lava spaces), but I want my players to play faster by LEARNING the best decisions they can make. If I don't point out there's a monster about to toss a hero or two in the lava space so they don't ignore it, they probably lose the encounter on the spot so my "win" is tainted by the fact they played like fools.

Now they don't ignore this particular ability, so I don't have to mention about it anymore, and as a result they don't discuss for ages as for whether they should be killing this goblin archer or trying to anticipate the Hulk.

It's a silly example because it looks like I think there´s always going to be one "best" course of actions to take, but often there are in fact several viable options for lack of a "best" one. That's what they want to discuss. I think they should be allowed to do so.

Some of my players start to make quicker decisions because they can easily get the bad ideas off the discussion straight away. Like focusing on killing monsters while the Ol is running off with the relic they should be intercepting. It's part of the game to learn how to interact with the quest. The stuff that takes them most time to decide is the hero turn order, but normally they know which actions are going to be best to take.

I also believe players that are control freaks and want the whole sequence broken down by every detail before carrying out the thing come to realize eventually that a % of these things is completely random and/or dependant of factors they cannot control, like the OL hand and the dices. I think it will come naturally that they drop some unnecessary aspects of the analysis of which actions to take as they realize they need to see if everything goes according to plan before jumping to the next conclusion.

In other words, patience and a lot of play should mitigate the issue.

First of, you are implying that I enforce anything on my fellow player which I as a matter of facts do not. The timer works more as an orientation device. Never did either side force the other to break up their turn even once. I do not play with random people I met in a game shop but with friends I have known for most of life and in our group we reached a point, where discussions delayed the end of scene by hours and we tried to come up with a way to speed up and make our gaming time together more efficient. We simply play for fun. If there is reason why the turn takes longer than usual for example when the OL has a large army of minions to move than so be it and take your time. If you finished faster? Great. We also play under the banner of sportsmanship, so if either side is making a grave mistake because they misunderstood something or simply didn't notice a skill which could hinder everything, than we point that out.

If timed turn are not your thing, so be it, nobody is forcing you. It helped us to reduce long discussions to a minimum.

What I´m doing is that I´m trying to take their hand in the most gentle way possible to make them come to a conclusion. It sometimes involves giving them a little push by making them confirm what action they´re about to take.Or, pointing out facts for them to accelerate the discussion, or even sometimes giving them a hint about the best course of action, or at least a fragment of it. Look, I would never tell them how they can win an encounter because it would destroy my own experience if I revealed my plan, but I could give them a hint as for what to prioritize (like which monsters to fight, what I could possibly do if the heroes did not deal with a particular thing, like a Ynfernael Hulk in range close to lava spaces), but I want my players to play faster by LEARNING the best decisions they can make. If I don't point out there's a monster about to toss a hero or two in the lava space so they don't ignore it, they probably lose the encounter on the spot so my "win" is tainted by the fact they played like fools.

I totally get what you're saying, and that is precisely what I've begun to do with new players. It helps a lot to point things out, and everyone has a better time as a result.

Unfortunately, my one group (the slow one) knows the game quite well by this point, and I've attempted on two occassions now to point out that they shouldn't strategize so much due to all the variables. The last time I pointed this out, though, I was told to "sit down" as they continued discussing.

On the flip side... The other day, I played with a different group of friends. We decided that we would NOT tell each other what to do... we would NOT strategize, and work off my house rule to see how well the game played. We had a blast! The game moved quickly, smoothly, and was fun for everyone. Considering that we had a new person playing as Overlord for their first time, and one new player new to boardgames, in general, we accomplished a lot in the timeframe. We played for 4 hours and finished 2 quests (1 Hero win, and 1 OL win).

My other strategy-heavy group took 6 hours to complete their last quest.

sorry. accidental multiple post

I've done that, actually, and it didn't work. Part of their discussions now are theorizing what I could do to them. >.<

He's played one tripwire. What if he's waiting to play the other? Perhaps he only took the one, and instead has poison dart? If that's the case, maybe we should have our knight go open that door, he has high might! No, we need him to attack the ettin, he's the only one who can get there. If he moves up one space, he can use Oath of honor- but what if he get's tripwired? He's played one tripwire...

this sounds exactly same as my group. they just go over every single possibility of actions. one time they talked about one card for 20 mins that i don't even have on my hand.