Hello. I am playing through descent's core game campaign for the first time with two different groups. My work friends and at home with my family. My work group is much more competitive then the family group. My question is; when you play overlord, do you intentionally play easier or harder based on your group? We are at the interlude in both campaigns and in bot the ol is 2-1. But in my family game I have really smashed them twice. And I can tell they are getting frustrated.

Have your noticed the OL seams to have a natural advantage in Descent?

I think I may tone it down at home because I don't want them to quit. But should I just lead them through an adventure? Basically try and make it challenging and/or let them win?

Have any of you run across a similar situation? And what did you do?

I'm playing to have fun and to explore the system. If I'm playing as the OL, I definitely will modify how "hard" I play based on the situation.

If I am with my normal "come at me bro" game group, I will play as mean and tricky as I can, using any and all monster ability combos. I will select Open Groups to be as nasty as possible given the scenario and the hero's weaknesses. This gives everyone a better time and gives me a chance at winning.

If I am playing with my casual friends, I will probably hold back some OL cards for "suboptimal" plays and I will pick some Open monsters that I haven't tried in a while rather than the best-of-the-best. I definitely won't play the knock-down-cycle game with them.

I absolutely cater how I'm playing to the group I am with, and how the campaign is going. Sometimes, this means picking sub-optimal open groups, holding onto (or wasting) my OL cards, or choosing actions somewhat recklessly. However, I do not think the OL always (or often) has the advantage, and more often than not I find myself needing to be ruthless to keep the game interesting. However, depending on the hero group, an evenly matched OL is not what they want, and would prefer to cut through swarms of helpless monsters.

Well, the main thing is keep the game fun for everyone. I guess you need to be a good 'dungeon master' before a good overlord.

I would do so, but not all OL would do the same.

I tend to play Descent as a co-op using RAOV these days. But when I play the OL, I am not particularly "try hard." I do adjust my level of ruthlessness to the group, but I tend to take more of a gamemastery role than that of a direct staunch competitor.

I obviously try to make everything enjoyable to everybody, otherwise nobody would ever come back or play with me, but you have to realize the game has its share of tension and that's by design. It is the result of the 1 versus many competition. In my experience with board games, it tends to be more tense this way compared to playing full competitive, mainly because the game has to be assymetric. Assymetricity means players can blame the game for being unfair between the players, some players have a problem with that when they lose.

But I would make a distinction between playing with completely new - or inexperienced in the genra - players, and playing with your regular group where strategy games often hit the table.

In the first case playing the Overlord is a blessing, because it is a more difficult role to play than the hero role, and you basically have the power to adapt the toughness of the game to how the heroes fare. Sick OL-combos apart, I wouldn't dumb my plays down too much even in that situation (which means web traps are still fired of, monsters still attack etc), however you can be more verbal globally about the game and try to help as much as possible so the hero players get to understand the game and make better decisions. When I introduce this game to my daughter that's the way I will be playing with her. Talking and thinking loud about your strategies is a really good way to decrease in-game tension. Since the information is all open, it makes the game for an enjoyable experience for everybody, and people review their win/loss together, instead of keeping information secret.

In the other case, my view is that at the end of the day your players should be acknoledging the fact Descent is a game about competitivity. I really think holding cards too long for no reason or skipping monster actions just to keep the game "even" is crippling the experience of the Overlord player. At worst you give this to the heroes, they take it, and then they steamroll you all over for the rest of the campaign. You really want to avoid that. But like I said elsewhere on the forums, you can always pick a different monster group or explore new plot decks or OL classes. I don't pick Zachy all the time for instance. I have been digging into the Unkindness class lately and that's also a specialization that makes me (the OL) weak against certain strategies, as opposed to picking the best possible path for me. It makes yourself explore the whole D2E content and I think it's a good thing.

I adjust my style of play by the group I am playing with. And I tend to try to play in a way that the wins are 50/50. I try hard to win the quest where I want the quest rewards and I loose in the quest where I dont care for the reward. What I do for getting the result that I want is mostly this:

• Spending more or less "Thread"
• Choosing hard or soft monsters
• Spending expirience on good overlord card or spend it on the funny ones
• Giving hints to the players or keeping them to myself

I try to get a challange for me no matter who I am playing against. If the group is inexpirienced or just not into competitive play, I give myself a higher "handicap".

I had a situation were I had used frenzy to make my Ettin attack twice. I had beating a hero down to 1 hp. I could tell they were frustrated. And in my had I had dark charm but I decided not to use it because I didn't want to frustrate them to much. I ended up loosing that encounter, but it was close and they ended up having some fun. So I think I made the right decision. And they are still playing, so thats the most important part. I am competitive by nature though, so it hard for me to do that. Even though it probably was the right decision.

I had a situation were I had used frenzy to make my Ettin attack twice. I had beating a hero down to 1 hp. I could tell they were frustrated. And in my had I had dark charm but I decided not to use it because I didn't want to frustrate them to much. I ended up loosing that encounter, but it was close and they ended up having some fun. So I think I made the right decision. And they are still playing, so thats the most important part. I am competitive by nature though, so it hard for me to do that. Even though it probably was the right decision.

Great example - I think this is very common, and it's up to the OL to "read the room" and determine if more fun can be had by holding back.

This is an interesting topic, and one I need to pay more attention to. Every play group is different and I think the ultimate goal should always be to maximize the fun for all involved, however that is accomplished.

I tend to play as hard as I can when I'm OL, because that is exactly what I would want from the OL if I was playing a hero. A win against an OL which is pulling his punches isn't satisfying to me, I want it to be a ruthless tug of war of wits and luck.

Unfortunately, not everyone is of this mindset, which has resulted in frustrated and demoralized heroes that don't want to play the game anymore when they get particularly soundly defeated.

This has led to more than one aborted campaign for me. Its especially the case when really powerful cards are used, such as Meticulous Planning from Lord Zachareth denying all the treasure chests for the remainder of the campaign, suppressing the ability to 'comeback' from early losses.

But that is what an OL that is playing to win should do -> deny all possible resources and advantages to the heroes and go for the throat when they are on the ropes. After all, the game isn't over until the end of the final quest and every gold piece blocked and shop card denied might make the difference. This can mean doing things that could be interpreted as "kicking someone when they're down", like knocking the heroes out over and over until the OL objective is completed, so that no search tokens can be acquired.

In the future I think I'm going to start asking my groups up front if they want a more friendly, GM-style overlord, that is primarily interested in a tempered challenge, with back-and-forth. No one side winning 'too much' so everyone feels good. If I know my aim is to facilitate an environment where the heroes are the stars that win in the end in the face of adversity, then I can temper my competitive spirit and focus on being more of a host than a true opponent.

This has led to more than one aborted campaign for me. Its especially the case when really powerful cards are used, such as Meticulous Planning from Lord Zachareth denying all the treasure chests for the remainder of the campaign, suppressing the ability to 'comeback' from early losses.

That's funny because I used that same card in one of my latest campaigns to prevent my already overgeared heroes from getting even more ridiculous gear, as they found the chest in every single quest. It was probably a decisive card in that regard, but at the same time using it prevented me from purchasing other interesting cards from the Zacharath plot deck, so the heroes somehow avoided other kinds of danger.

That's funny because I used that same card in one of my latest campaigns to prevent my already overgeared heroes from getting even more ridiculous gear, as they found the chest in every single quest. It was probably a decisive card in that regard, but at the same time using it prevented me from purchasing other interesting cards from the Zacharath plot deck, so the heroes somehow avoided other kinds of danger.

I view it as by far the most powerful card in Zachareth's deck, as every treasure chest denied is usually worth several regular tokens in gold value alone, and items make heroes so much more dangerous. I usually rush towards it first. Its only a 5 threat investment to get the card purchased and "primed" for use, and once its ready the treasure chests are forever gone so long as you keep a loose threat around to power the ability.

The requisite 5 can be acquired quite early by choosing to take threat every time a hero is knocked out, not spending it on Sole Purpose, and playing rumor cards to get additional threat. I've had it ready to go as early as the second quest in the campaign.

I absolutely play to win and think a lot about which monsters are appropriate for which scenario. I play with experienced gamers and treat them as such. So far, it's been a slaughter, and if they want to win, they are really going to raise their game.

I play to win if the heroes are experienced. If the heroes are new, I think the role of the game facilitator starts to become important. I try to barely lose, or barely win. I'm essentially offering a tutorial. Once they've played a quest or two, I play competitively.

I hear you Omega, and I feel the same way. I am very competitive and it is hard for me not to play my best. But I realized while playing with my family that was just not fun for them. So I ended up toning it down. I think that was the right decision because I want them to keep playing. If I stomp them every game I am afraid they won't play anymore. I just have to hope as they get a few more games under there belt it will get more competitive. Because I like to play all out