So my playgroup is pretty unhappy and I'm not really sure as how to appease them. In fact I'm kinda downright upset myself because of the stuff I am being told. I am the GM/OL player. This campaign has been a way to introduce them into the game, though we've done a few quests now so I feel a bit more confident in playing a little more aggresively.

The last quest we played was Death on the Wing. I used Beastmen for the open group. We only made it through the first encounter, it lasted a couple of hours, and one person didn't even want to play anymore. Now to be fair, I did use a few Tripwires and a Pit Trap to slow people down during the first round or two.

There were complaints however about the reinforcement rule. In fact, there is one who is saying I should totally change it to a random dice roll to see if I get a master monster or not. Basically I am hearing about how I should change it to make it easier on them. I agree that Beastman can be pretty vicious ( it was either them or Ettins), so I am going to not use them again. They don't want the game to be "Easy mode", but that " I shouldn't be trying to win".

Other then that, I could use some tips on seeing as to how I can speed the game up, for the most part. I should note they all did win the encounter.

Descent is a strategy game. Both sides try to win. It's not a showcase of monsters and tiles for heroes.

I would explain that to them so they can decide to either man up or play a different game.

Expectations going in are important. If the heroes are expecting you to roll over as OL, they will be disappointed when you don't. My only advice is to keep the number of moving parts to a minimum. For example, don't use a plot deck for the first campaign. It is just one more thing to learn, and it will increase the heroes' feeling that you are playing unfairly, even if you aren't. Keeping it simple will also speed things up.

To that end, we have a habit of giving the heroes a pre quest planning session. After travelling, the OL leaves the room for ~10 minutes, allowing the heroes to make a plan. We have found that this helps cut down on some of the overanalysis by the heroes during the quest, since they already have a vague idea of who will be doing what.

I am a bit confused why they were so upset if they won the quest.

This unfortunately sounds like bad players are bad players (this doesn't mean terrible people, just that they are either A) not very good at the game or B) want something completely different from the game - like a pen and paper RPG. Had some similar issues with my group.

There was always a mechanic that wasn't right, or was unfair, or the quests where all races or i should not be trying to win.

Assuming that you are more experienced then the heroes you can ease up a little bit but honestly traps like web trap and trip wire are powerful but avoidable, or at least manageable. They just haven't clicked onto it yet.

Web trap is about positioning correctly and moving in the right turn sequence (strong guys first, then snaking through heroes), trip wire about moving in the right sequence (High awareness first then snaking through heroes) and moving in the correct fashion (stamina move all but cripples this card).

There were complaints however about the reinforcement rule. In fact, there is one who is saying I should totally change it to a random dice roll to see if I get a master monster or not. Basically I am hearing about how I should change it to make it easier on them. I agree that Beastman can be pretty vicious ( it was either them or Ettins), so I am going to not use them again. They don't want the game to be "Easy mode", but that " I shouldn't be trying to win"

This, this right here is the most obnoxious paradoxical thing to hear, they don't want an easy mode? Then play the **** game RAW.

But the OL cant try to win? So what should you be doing, aside from giving them an easy mode?

Oh no, the OL can reinforce a monster a turn? What happens when heroes kill 6 in a turn with multiple attacks or blast because the ol makes a single mistake, suddenly my single respawning master monster is not so impressive is it? So instead i should roll a die and maybe get 0 monsters a turn while heroes slaughter everything under the sun?

As much as we all love the game here there are times that you have to sigh, shelve it and look for a new play group who 'get' the game.

Maybe letting one of them play as the OL so that they 'get' what you are doing, and how difficult that that can be, would help?

Alternatively have one of them play OL and see how much fun they have being told that they are objectively there to ensure that everyone else is having fun while they do nothing for a few hours at a time.

End OL togetherness rant.

Actually this is the biggest problem with descent. Played for a lot of years D&D, being the DM. As any rpg 'pen and paper', the DM is not suposed to 'win'...that's why I take easy on the guys, or hard, depending on the situation. I had this issue with 1st edition, and sure I´ll have with the second. That's why I'm trying to figure a way to play descent as a rpg, instead. Besides, I dunno if I want to be the OL forever. Playing this game alone made me feel interested again in be a player.

EDIT: btw, the other day I was watching a critical play on youtube; the guy made some mistakes, but considering he was playing alone, as the overlord and 2 players, and was a novice in the game, we can say the game went well. At certain point, as the overlord, he was concentrating in knock out widow tahra almost every round. this can be really disapoiting to a person playing the character. In my own board game, the monsters attacks the nearest, depending on the rank they have. Only the strongest ranked have free will to attack in strategic mode (like lich, beholder, dragons, etc). the other monsters are usually 'dumb'. It's a concept that worths think about implementing against players, if they are too pissed by the constant 'deaths'.

I really think of this more as a problem with people and their expectations than a problem with Descent. It's a competitive asymmetrical game. The heroes and the OL function differently- they have different abilities, different restrictions, and different goals. However, over the course of the campaign, they end up with similar power levels. However, it is important to realize that this does NOT mean that the two sides are the same, or that the game doesn't tilt the balance back and forth as it progresses- DYNAMIC equilibrium, not static.

EDIT: I couldn't agree more with the suggestion to put everyone in the OL's shoes. If you're in the middle of a campaign, put it on hold for a few sessions. Run some Act 1 level (3 XP + 150 gold/hero, 4XP for OL) standalones- preferably not using quests that could be part of your campaign- and give each person their shot as OL. Our group came to a few compromises (for example, I gave up a particular plot/OL combo I had picked because that strategy was exactly what was irking one of the newer heroes,) but having everyone else play the OL was a great thing for our group.

I really think of this more as a problem with people and their expectations than a problem with Descent. It's a competitive asymmetrical game. The heroes and the OL function differently- they have different abilities, different restrictions, and different goals. However, over the course of the campaign, they end up with similar power levels. However, it is important to realize that this does NOT mean that the two sides are the same, or that the game doesn't tilt the balance back and forth as it progresses- DYNAMIC equilibrium, not static.

Yeah, that's what I trying to say. When I say problem with descent, I mean in the way the game is, vesus the expectation of people. They're not used to a "DM" trying to stop him to 'win'.

Hey, this will be the official topic.

I just want to note a few things:

- This is the first Campaign we've played ( I don't know if we'll even finish.) That being said I have not implemented Plot Decks and Rumor Cards.

- The hero players have won all Encounters and Quests so far. On some of the earlier ones I gave them a little bit of trouble, but I took a backseat a bit so people could learn. But they know the deal now, so I played a little more harder this time.

- The player who is controlling Avric Albright likes the game. He messed my monster groups up, comboing Shared Pain with Tempest. It killed all of the initial Beastman and he did it again on all my cave Spiders at the end of the quest.

- The Scout found a Secret Room and both he and the Warrior player spent some time searching it.

- Arvic also found a Treasure chest that had an upgraded Bow. I think this is what kinda made the Scout player angry, because I told them how trading items works. He didn't like they couldn't trade right away.... that's kinda my speculation.

-The Mage player was using Shiver as a Geomancer. He's the one who suggested I change the Reinforcement Rules. Every turn he would make a Summoned Stone so he could block the procession of reinforcements up the pathway. Every turn I kept breaking said stones. I guess it didn't help that I Koed him with a Beastman.

Really not sure where to go. Honestly, I was going to ask the mage player to be the Overlord next time, just to show him that all he accomplishes with rule changes is unbalance the game.I don't know if there we be a next time. But they ended up steamrolling me essentially, even if I slowed them up.

I don't mean to burst a potentially delicate bubble, but Tempest can't directly combo with Shared Pain, since Shared Pain specifies that you perform an attack. Tempest is not an attack.

I have no sympathy for the scout who couldn't hold his bow immediately.

Geomancer Shiver is going to be fun later. If said hero is upset that he can't do anything, he really just needs to be patient until he gets some XP.

I'm still at a loss to understand why they're crying unfair- especially now that I know they've won every encounter even. That's just... silly- what it sounds like is they're not asking for easy mode, they're asking for zero resistance mode. Either that or they're just generally displeased with how the game works. If so and they don't warm up to it, this really may not be the game for your group.

To be honest I had a similar experience with my playgroup during our first shadow rune campaign ( we have only the finale to go ).

It started with me pretty much hammering them in the games, but I tended to ease off near the end to give them a fighting chance. Pretty sure neither of us enjoyed this. I'd prefer a good close game to face rolling, and it was pretty obvious I was making misplays on purpose to give them a fighting chance so they didn't enjoy that too much either. There were even quests where I would play with a monster limit aimed at 3 heroes instead of 4 to even the playing field (they didn't know this of course).

However, after a few quests, them winning all but one, they were getting stronger (from the additional XP etc.) so I figured it was time to not go easy anymore. And to my surprise they still won. This continued for the rest of the campaign where I only won one other quest (we're currently Heroes 6, OL 2 with the finale to go).

I think the biggest problem with the group was the familiarity of the quests or the rules. It seemed they didn't quite know what they could and couldn't do, and I usually read out the quest rules for them, but that doesn't mean they would have been as clear on them as I would, or monster abilities etc.

This would often lead to scenarios where they would block hallways but my goblins would be able to get through, or me being able to open a locked door for free because I won the first encounter etc. This often left a sour taste in their mouths because they weren't expecting it and it would be too late to do anything about it. I would often time help them out during their turn, making sure they were aware of all the open information. "Just so you know this monster has reach", "Just so you know that ability gives you +10 range" etc.

If anything I would say this has helped the most in our playthrough. If the OL is more familiar with the rules or scenario etc., then play both sides of the game. Help the heroes out during their turn. No need to show them your hand of cards or anything, but simply making sure they're aware of the rules, abilities and even strategies they could use.

During one game we even had a case where a melee character was immobilized and he felt it was so unfair because he couldn't do anything. I kindly informed them that the ranger could attack, then use a move action to trade her bow to him, he could equip on upkeep and attack twice from range. Getting three attacks between them instead of the ranger attacking twice and him doing nothing. These subtle scenarios and tactics can really open them up to the possibilities in the game and make it more fun all around. Again, I'd much prefer a fair and close game that I lost to an easy win.

Cross-post from the duplicate OP:

I really don't know what to say other than the fact that your players need to get it through their heads that this is NOT D&D. You are not a GM. Your job is NOT to make it fun (in the sense of a GM/DM).

You are another player in the game, competitively struggling to beat them. Quite frankly, it is 4 brains against 1, so you should be the one complaining ...

One of the ways I was able to get some of my old group to understand this fact was to allow them to be the OL. It is amazing how quickly opinions change when they were OL, and had to remember everything about 4 heroes, all of their abilities, heroic feats, skills, weapons, etc., not to mention all of the rules, interactions, etc.

It is also important to understand that there are encounters/quests, especially in the base game's Shadow Rune campaign that are slanted towards heros and some towards the OL.

EDIT: Just noticed that all of this whinning was after they actually WON the encounter. Brutal dude, just brutal. My last piece of advice may be to find a new group to play with ...

Zaltyre- yeah, He has to use two actions to do both moves. I'm not actually sure if he used any move actions during those turns. In anycase, he did pull both special moves off in one turn and it was pretty devastating, specially with monsters that only had 3-4 max Life.

To be honest I had a similar experience with my playgroup during our first shadow rune campaign ( we have only the finale to go ).

It started with me pretty much hammering them in the games, but I tended to ease off near the end to give them a fighting chance. Pretty sure neither of us enjoyed this. I'd prefer a good close game to face rolling, and it was pretty obvious I was making misplays on purpose to give them a fighting chance so they didn't enjoy that too much either. There were even quests where I would play with a monster limit aimed at 3 heroes instead of 4 to even the playing field (they didn't know this of course).

However, after a few quests, them winning all but one, they were getting stronger (from the additional XP etc.) so I figured it was time to not go easy anymore. And to my surprise they still won. This continued for the rest of the campaign where I only won one other quest (we're currently Heroes 6, OL 2 with the finale to go).

I think the biggest problem with the group was the familiarity of the quests or the rules. It seemed they didn't quite know what they could and couldn't do, and I usually read out the quest rules for them, but that doesn't mean they would have been as clear on them as I would, or monster abilities etc.

This would often lead to scenarios where they would block hallways but my goblins would be able to get through, or me being able to open a locked door for free because I won the first encounter etc. This often left a sour taste in their mouths because they weren't expecting it and it would be too late to do anything about it. I would often time help them out during their turn, making sure they were aware of all the open information. "Just so you know this monster has reach", "Just so you know that ability gives you +10 range" etc.

If anything I would say this has helped the most in our playthrough. If the OL is more familiar with the rules or scenario etc., then play both sides of the game. Help the heroes out during their turn. No need to show them your hand of cards or anything, but simply making sure they're aware of the rules, abilities and even strategies they could use.

During one game we even had a case where a melee character was immobilized and he felt it was so unfair because he couldn't do anything. I kindly informed them that the ranger could attack, then use a move action to trade her bow to him, he could equip on upkeep and attack twice from range. Getting three attacks between them instead of the ranger attacking twice and him doing nothing. These subtle scenarios and tactics can really open them up to the possibilities in the game and make it more fun all around. Again, I'd much prefer a fair and close game that I lost to an easy win.

Yes, I would point some things out. Specially earlier on. I am always going to answer questions honestly and openly as well. And I told them if I see something I think is unfair to both sides, I'll change it. Example: I house ruled the Fire Breath effect to have a cone area of effect, so Breath could only travel certain ways from the original space attacked. ( i did it cause the Scout said it was BS that it could travel backwards.) One of the things I have observed is their tendency not to move sometimes.

I know this situation all too well, except the people that complained to me were constantly losing (by extremely stupid mistakes on their part I might add).

I think the biggest problem this game has with new groups is that Descent is pretty unique in its objective centered gameplay. The game looks like games where your goal is trying to kill all the bad guys which is often packed into a pseudo-objective that in the end has no specific bearing on the gameplay. In Descent the heroes have to plan to fullfill their objective, while killing all the bad guys in 80% of the quests will be an automatic loss.

As people that don't really get this objective based gameplay think their progress towards their win is directly measured in dead monsters and don't see that in this game it's more about where the monsters stand on the board than if the monsters are on the board, they often see the reinforcement rule as unfair and invest immense amounts of resources to mess up your reinforcements (instead of advancing their objective) and consequently lose even more badly making them feel powerless.

I don't know if you can explain this, but I like the idea of starting a campaign with monstergroups for 1 player less than the hero-count, if you don't want to go and find another playgroup.

Another idea would be to get a coop scenario and play together with them a few times. I'm positive that this will make them understand the game pretty quickly (although I didn't play a coop scenario yet).

I also suggest co-op. I particularly enjoy playing official campaigns with RAOV .

Maybe letting one of them play as the OL so that they 'get' what you are doing, and how difficult that that can be, would help?

I just want to add, this helped a lot in my group. We played through an entire campaign with rotating OL, So everyone got to be OL twice (we are four players in total) and then we randomized who would play as OL on the last quest.

Not only did all the players get a better understanding of how the OL-side of things work, which made it easier to strategize as a hero player, but it also helped the attitude towards the OL around the table.

On a side note, we felt that the heroes got a much easier time, because you play with your hero a lot whiles playing as OL did not get as focused or good at it. Also, we decided together how the OL should spend XP by picking a OL class and only getting cards from that one. But we have had a lot of fun, and I expect a lot less whining about the OL around the table in the future.

Lastly, I don't know if your players are used to RPGs? The reason I'm asking is because we had that issue in the beginning. Many elements are similar to RPGs, but this is Descent is competative game where the OL should try to win, while an RPG is more about the story. That difference caused a bit of bad blood around the table when I was the OL (I usually GM when we play RPGs).

I am going to implement the loot track concept from the co-op adventures into the next campaign. Current thoughts are to award shop cards won in a different way, so as not to imbalance it - basically, heroes draw and set aside shop cards (without looking) as per the reward rules for defeating minion and master monsters; then add these cards to the usual number drawn in the shopping phase, as options to buy. I think this would go some way to addressing the "imbalance" caused by multiple expansions making it less likely for the heroes to draw the great items (like the rune plate in Act 1). I am also considering working gold into it somehow, which might require more tactical choice by the overlord - "do I really want to reinforce the master monster now, as if it is killed, that means extra gold for the players?".

Also, instead of trying to pick the absolute best monster for a situation, I choose from the (usually) few monsters that have both icons corresponding with the scenario icons.

These ideas might engage your players more - particularly the loot track idea, which sees reward given for all the reinforcements they kill (especially the master monsters).

There is no need to expose the heroes to more act 1 items as they see them all anyway. Also, you should be careful wiyh a mechanic like that since depending on the quest, heroes coukd just farm monsters for loot. The loot track only works in practice when heroes are pressed for time.

Agreed - they do see them all anyway - but not until all the Act 1 quests and Interlude are done. By that stage, all but the best items are arguably a bit lacking, such that gold is better saved for Act 2 items. I think wider access to Act 2 items through Act 2 may also improve things (or perhaps horribly imbalance it if I am wrong ).

The loot track only working when heroes are pressed for time? Agreed, as it plays in the automated co-op rules. However, with an overlord brain behind it, I'm not sure that would be the case.

I should mention that I play as Overlord, with my girlfriend playing four heroes - so I play for fun, not to win at all costs.

Thank you for the feedback, Zaltyre. I'll give it a go and see what happens, keeping in mind your cautions for the actual implementation.

I'll also give my quest summary document a run (once I finally get around to finishing it), to present a summary of "the story so far" before each session. It's designed so it details the outcomes of the quests played, and those unplayed at certain points in the campaign. I had plans to post it if anyone was interested, but have to get around to finishing it (I have only managed to get Lair of the Wyrm and The Trollfens, plus half of the Shadow Rune, completed so far).

Any thoughts on the following, as a quest summary document to refresh players' memories prior to each session? Criticisms/suggestions for improvement welcomed, noting it is a rough draft at this stage. There might seem to be some excess information (example: the Shadow Binder stuff), but this contributes to the broader story. The Unplayed elements will only be available prior to the Interlude and the Finale.

Descent Campaign Storylines

• Overlord player – read relevant summaries to all players, when required.
• Summaries to be read between sessions as a refresher on the story so far, if required.
• Summaries to be read before interlude if large campaign in play, and finale quest for large and mini campaigns.
• Read summaries for quests undertaken first, followed by those that were not played (i.e. assuming overlord victory) if playing large campaign.
• If using rumor cards, paraphrase any victories or losses from the relevant campaign summary.

The Shadow Rune

Prelude

The twin baronies of Rhynn and Carthridge lie on the outskirts of Terrinoth, far from the Free Cities. Baron Greigory often hosts his friend and ally, Baron Zachareth, at his seat in the capital city of Arhynn, and, over the years the two baronies have aided one another in times of both war and peace. But now, both baronies are in peril. Monsters stalk their forests and mountains, moving with more purpose and coordination than ever before. A new Overlord is rising, a wicked and dangerous foe, hidden in the shadows, manipulating events according to his master plan. If the Overlord isn’t stopped, Rhynn and Carthridge alike will fall into darkness, and the rest of Terrinoth will soon follow. Fortunately, a small group of heroes are on the road to Arhynn…

Summaries

Introduction – First Blood

• Played. On the road to Arhynn, you came upon the smouldering remains of one of Baron Greigory’s caravans. An ettin, Mauler, was sending his goblin minions to attack Arhynn via what should have been a secret path.

• Hero victory: Your slaying of the brutish Mauler stayed the progress of the cowardly goblins and you continued your journey to Arhynn.

• Overlord victory: The might of Mauler proved too much for you, and enough of his minions managed to slip by to sew the beginnings of fear in Arhynn.

Act I Quest – A Fat Goblin

• Played. Receiving news of goblin raids on the farmlands of Arhynn, you hastened north to find a raid in progress. You did your best to stop the goblins from stealing crops. A surviving farmer pleaded with you to rescue his friends and his kidnapped brother Frederick, who was once a Shadow Binder. The farmer remarked that his brother’s friend, Viceroy Pellin, killed in the caravan raid on the road to Arhynn, had also been a Shadow Binder. You tracked the goblin kidnappers to a cave in the Caedwyn Wood, where you overheard Splig, King of All Goblins, setting to discover which of the prisoners was the Shadow Binder.

• Hero victory: Your assault on the cave resulted in the defeat of Splig and his minions, and the rescue of Frederick. Frederick asked to be taken to the Barons, realising the import of the Shadow Binder hunt.

• Overlord victory: Splig proved too crafty for you, finding Frederick and escaping with him before you could stop him.

• Unplayed. Gossip in Arhynn reveals that goblin raids on the farmlands north of the city stole a significant portion of the harvest, and a hungry winter is likely for Arhynn. Furthermore, a member of the former Shadow Binders adventurers, Frederick, was abducted by the forces of evil. Speculation is rife on whether there is a plot against the Shadow Binders, as Viceroy Pellin (a Shadow Binder) had been killed earlier in a caravan attack on the road to Aryhnn.

For example, think of a quest like the intro to Labyrinth of Ruin- there is no time limit, there is just the OL trying to get the captive off the map, and the heroes trying to kill a bunch of monsters (with the OL reinforcing more than 1 every turn.)

Now, it is difficult, but the heroes can set up a stalemate by blocking the exit since the carrier loses "scamper". This causes a situation where as long as the heroes maintain the block, they can defeat monsters, leaving one alive for as long as they wish.

A doom track stops this behavior by imposing a round limit. The OL cannot gather threat this way because he is limited to one threat per hero per map. Your loot system on its own has no protection against such abuse.

What about imposing a single loot track payout per encounter? That is, reach the hero limit once, the heroes get an extra shop card draw for the shopping phase, resulting in maximum +2 draws per quest?

EDIT: Actually using the full draw from coop would work as well. Say the heroes got to draw 4 extra cards into their shopping stack, twice per quest, resulting in +8 cards. This would nearly triple the size of the shop stack, which would be consistent with the growth of the shop deck from expansions (it has tripled in size) that is, it would return the probability of drawing any single card to that of the base game.

Any thoughts on the following, as a quest summary document to refresh players' memories prior to each session? Criticisms/suggestions for improvement welcomed, noting it is a rough draft at this stage. There might seem to be some excess information (example: the Shadow Binder stuff), but this contributes to the broader story. The Unplayed elements will only be available prior to the Interlude and the Finale.

.....

I was planning to add something like this to my campaign tracker (but your version is clearly better than what I had in mind). I've sent you a pm.

Man, you know I've even done that. Actually I get kinda angry when I start to read the story, some of them just keep talking.

Man, you know I've even done that. Actually I get kinda angry when I start to read the story, some of them just keep talking.

Skip reading fluff until they've accepted that it's not an RPG. Summarize the important information they need to derrive (ie: what the heck they're doing here.) Making the fluff an immersive part of th game only reinforces the idea that it's an RPG.

_{Zaltyre, thanks for earlier comments.}

_{Steve-O, Omnislash could go the other way - go full-RPG and tell them storm clouds are gathering, if they don't get the hint to stop talking, lightning bolts start flying and knocking health off heroes.}

I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this...

but I played with a group of friends and i am thinking of buying it, but i am worried about some levels like the first boss fight. (it was a while since I played so I'm not sure as to what level it was. )

It was the one where you have to save the priest guy from the zombies and it felt really unbalanced in the OL favor

If you (I.E any of you) can give me some advice, I would be grateful.