I've learned that Descent is easier to organize, and have more fun with with just three players. One OL, and two players controlling two heroes. That way, if the OL is beating up one hero, you don't have a person freaking out or feeling picked on.

It's hard to find four players for the heroes, that are good sports and understand the competitive nature the game should be played in.

-Cursain

I agree. A four hero game, with 2 players only is really better. That's the way I've been playing (actually one person = four heroes, sometimes)

This is a somewhat mixed bag for me. Especially the first games and the later games were your heroes have a lot of skills are imo harder on the hero player controlling all 4 heroes, because he has so much (or so much new) to remember compared to the OL. Combined with something I've read a few times and start to see myself, namely that small mistakes are more problematic on the hero side, I feel like the hero side is a little bit harder to play in a 1v1 game with 4 heroes throughout the campaign. What's your opinion on that?

I myself like the challange and happily play the hero-side, but I know I would feel somehow a little less engaged in these games on the OL side and would point out some mistakes to the hero player to even the playing field.

With 1v2 I think the whole thing gets much more managable, however it only adds one more brain to the hero side and makes it possible for the OL to listen in on the strategy discussions, so I guess the team needs a few games to cope with that problem.

As OL I found games against 4 heroplayers the hardest so far, because details almost never are forgotten and 4 people are activly plotting against you. Then again I only played 2 encounters vs. 4 players so far.

After a team of four players loses a few times, especially in a campaign, the chances of a complainer cropping up increases as well as the risk of the campaign being terminated prematurely. It's hard to find five die-hards that play the game for competition.

Trust me, I've been the OL in three campaigns that have quit because a complainer on the hero side. I've learned my lesson. The investment in the game (I have bought everything) and time lost because the campaign was quit isn't worth it. I'll do other things with the bitching/complaining friends, but they're no longer invited for game night/day when Descent is being ran.

A lost campaign just isn't worth it to me.

One more thing of note. An OL vs 4 players is easier for the OL.

Let's be honest, you only need one or two smart and tactical hero players to run the heroes successfully. Generally a full hero team will have 2-3 players with all kinds of bad decisions; that the other more tactical players need to ignore. From my point of view and experience as an OL, the more vocal and non-tactical heroes, are what screw up the hero's success.

-Cursain

One more thing of note. An OL vs 4 players is easier for the OL.

Let's be honest, you only need one or two smart and tactical hero players to run the heroes successfully. Generally a full hero team will have 2-3 players with all kinds of bad decisions; that the other more tactical players need to ignore. From my point of view and experience as an OL, the more vocal and non-tactical heroes, are what screw up the hero's success.

-Cursain

I think you made good points, but I have to say that I have canceled a few 1v2 player campaigns when playing OL, because one player felt that the OL is simply overpowerd and convinced the other that this is the case and thus the game isn't exciting for them, because to them in the end the OL always wins.

So now I've taken over the heroes' side and I often face decisions and options, where I would really welcome other well informed tactical opinions, just to minimize the time it takes to finally play out the turns and to feel more like a hero-party. I however have no problem to call out stupid ideas and drop them without generating hard feelings, because I have the most expirience with the game.

I've learned that Descent is easier to organize, and have more fun with with just three players. One OL, and two players controlling two heroes. That way, if the OL is beating up one hero, you don't have a person freaking out or feeling picked on.

It's hard to find four players for the heroes, that are good sports and understand the competitive nature the game should be played in.

-Cursain

I agree. A four hero game, with 2 players only is really better. That's the way I've been playing (actually one person = four heroes, sometimes)

This is a somewhat mixed bag for me. Especially the first games and the later games were your heroes have a lot of skills are imo harder on the hero player controlling all 4 heroes, because he has so much (or so much new) to remember compared to the OL. Combined with something I've read a few times and start to see myself, namely that small mistakes are more problematic on the hero side, I feel like the hero side is a little bit harder to play in a 1v1 game with 4 heroes throughout the campaign. What's your opinion on that?

I myself like the challange and happily play the hero-side, but I know I would feel somehow a little less engaged in these games on the OL side and would point out some mistakes to the hero player to even the playing field.

With 1v2 I think the whole thing gets much more managable, however it only adds one more brain to the hero side and makes it possible for the OL to listen in on the strategy discussions, so I guess the team needs a few games to cope with that problem.

As OL I found games against 4 heroplayers the hardest so far, because details almost never are forgotten and 4 people are activly plotting against you. Then again I only played 2 encounters vs. 4 players so far.

After a team of four players loses a few times, especially in a campaign, the chances of a complainer cropping up increases as well as the risk of the campaign being terminated prematurely. It's hard to find five die-hards that play the game for competition.

Trust me, I've been the OL in three campaigns that have quit because a complainer on the hero side. I've learned my lesson. The investment in the game (I have bought everything) and time lost because the campaign was quit isn't worth it. I'll do other things with the bitching/complaining friends, but they're no longer invited for game night/day when Descent is being ran.

A lost campaign just isn't worth it to me.

OL vs. 2 is the easiest for the OL in terms of game balance, OL vs. 3 is the hardest for the OL, and OL vs. 4 is the most fair.

As a OL player, to play just one hero would be too frustrating, so i love the 1vs1 option, i playing 3 heroes (I think 4 becomes too difficult). It is equivalent to play OL side with a plot deck. It permits to test new heroes and abilities.

True, it is easier to have a good tactical approach alone as you don't argue with others (but in this, it is less fun).
It is a more competitive approach because poor players or those who don't cooperate is what mess up heroes side. Here no excuse.

Yeah, it's hard to remember a lot of things this way. No to tell being the OL AND the 4 heores. Yeah, I'm that kind of aberration, lol. But it can be done. It's all a matter of experience with the rules, monsters and classes.

In my opinion, it's the best way to play the game. If you can manage this all, you'll be an excellent OL or player

I've learned that Descent is easier to organize, and have more fun with with just three players. One OL, and two players controlling two heroes. That way, if the OL is beating up one hero, you don't have a person freaking out or feeling picked on.

It's hard to find four players for the heroes, that are good sports and understand the competitive nature the game should be played in.

-Cursain

I agree. A four hero game, with 2 players only is really better. That's the way I've been playing (actually one person = four heroes, sometimes)

This is a somewhat mixed bag for me. Especially the first games and the later games were your heroes have a lot of skills are imo harder on the hero player controlling all 4 heroes, because he has so much (or so much new) to remember compared to the OL. Combined with something I've read a few times and start to see myself, namely that small mistakes are more problematic on the hero side, I feel like the hero side is a little bit harder to play in a 1v1 game with 4 heroes throughout the campaign. What's your opinion on that?

I myself like the challange and happily play the hero-side, but I know I would feel somehow a little less engaged in these games on the OL side and would point out some mistakes to the hero player to even the playing field.

With 1v2 I think the whole thing gets much more managable, however it only adds one more brain to the hero side and makes it possible for the OL to listen in on the strategy discussions, so I guess the team needs a few games to cope with that problem.

As OL I found games against 4 heroplayers the hardest so far, because details almost never are forgotten and 4 people are activly plotting against you. Then again I only played 2 encounters vs. 4 players so far.

After a team of four players loses a few times, especially in a campaign, the chances of a complainer cropping up increases as well as the risk of the campaign being terminated prematurely. It's hard to find five die-hards that play the game for competition.

Trust me, I've been the OL in three campaigns that have quit because a complainer on the hero side. I've learned my lesson. The investment in the game (I have bought everything) and time lost because the campaign was quit isn't worth it. I'll do other things with the bitching/complaining friends, but they're no longer invited for game night/day when Descent is being ran.

A lost campaign just isn't worth it to me.

OL vs. 2 is the easiest for the OL in terms of game balance, OL vs. 3 is the hardest for the OL, and OL vs. 4 is the most fair.

I think both me and Ieewroy were only talking about OL vs. 4 heroes and the different expiriences we had with 1,2 or 4 players controlling these 4 heroes.

Yeah, that's it. However, never played (2nd edition) with more than 2 other people.