Hi everyone,

Just getting into Descent lately, and I've been a longtime Imperial Assault fan.

One thing that's clearly different about Descent is the lack of hidden information (I think my heroes are going to like that change).

As of now, I'm considering the following, just to help both with narrative development and speed of campaign (some of my heroes suffer from analysis paralysis, and reading through each quest before deciding on what to do could literally take well over an hour just to decide):

Heroes will have access to the current quest's information. They will not, however, have access to any other information for quests that they are not currently on.

So, I have some questions-

1) Do you think this will negatively affect the experience to the point where I'd be better off not doing it?

2) How could I have the heroes choose a quest, then? Is all the info they have to go off of simply the quest's title?

3) If I do this, should I give the heroes access to information for multiple encounters for a quest they're on? Or could I restrict it only to the current encounter?

Thanks everyone, looking forward to any suggestions you can give me!

I really like the open information that Descent has.

I find Imperial Assault's approach more frustrating. Experienced Rebel players who have already played a quest before will know what surprises are in store for them, giving them a clear advantage over their less informed counterparts.

Playing as the Rebel side I feel really annoyed when the Imperial side pulls some reinforcements out of nowhere or changes the quest objective in a way that I had no way to foresee, causing the loss of the quest. That kind of uncertainty just feels cheap and unfun to me. In fact, when I play that game I usually house rule that the Rebel side should know about the surprises in the quest that influence gameplay. For example, as an Imperial I would tell the Rebels: "When you finish opening this door, I will have the option to either activate this group, gain X threat, remove a strain counter from the Imperial play area, or move this objective token to this location." (Narrative surprises like "Then Darth Vader chokes the life out of the sentry, and then reprograms the security system.." are fine to keep secret)

Descent levels the playing field of knowledge, which just makes sense to me for a competitive tactical game. The "Influence" approach of Nerekhall is a much better idea in my opinion. Everyone knows the options available, but they don't know which option the Overlord has chosen to use.

As for your questions:

1) Depending on your players, some would prefer not to know anyway, for narrative purposes. To make things a little more fair though if you have a competitive bunch, the Overlord probably shouldn't read too deeply into later quests either. The side that has had a chance to analyze a quest and plot out their strategy, contemplate which monsters/skills to bring and what quest is most suitable for their loadout and get to 'sleep on it' will tend to have a significant advantage over the side that doesn't have that option.

2) When the heroes have to make a choice about which quest to play next, I think they should be allowed to read all the quests they have available to them. Maybe consider giving them the quest book for a day to read before the session (instruct them to only read the quests they are actively considering, of course). This may help with the analysis paralysis problem as they need to have made a decision before the next session.

3) I believe it is *critical* that the heroes fully read both encounters prior to starting a two-encounter quest. The outcome of the first encounter often directly impacts the second encounter in significant ways. They need to be able to consider: How worthwhile is winning the 1st encounter? To what extent should the heroes focus on the 1st encounter objective, vs. acquiring the search tokens? How long can they draw out the 1st encounter without allowing the Overlord to draw too many cards? Sometimes winning the 1st encounter makes little difference as to how the 2nd encounter turns out and other times the opposite is true.

Again, if you want to preserve narrative surprises, maybe you can selectively read the quests to the heroes? Or present a 'spoiler-free' copy? For example, if the story says one of the Overlord's lieutenants dies forever based on the outcome of a quest, you could instead tell them: "If you guys win this quest, then I can't use this Lieutenant anymore. Otherwise, I will have him in the final quest of the campaign.". They can infer what they will from that of course, but they will not know the details. They will however, know the gameplay ramifications and the stakes.

Thanks for the feedback!

I like the "spoiler free" idea. I think this may be my philosophy going forward.

1) Heroes will know the rewards and ramifications of a quest when choosing, but not necessarily the specifics of the quest mechanics itself.

2) I see what you mean about encounters. That's still a lot of information for the heroes to process all at once. I'm considering something like this: I will tell heroes how many encounters a quest has at the beginning.

I will outline the win conditions of each quest before the first encounter.

I will not bloat the game with specific details for later encounters.

Another thought riffing on your "spoiler free" idea- making a copy of the quest page, but editing out and spoiler details. That way, the heroes could have something to directly reference for rules, and won't have to constantly ask for clarifications.

19 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

1) Heroes will know the rewards and ramifications of a quest when choosing, but not necessarily the specifics of the quest mechanics itself.

As a hero player I would want to know all the quest gameplay mechanics, including rewards for winning, and all triggering conditions. This is required for a tactical experience where both sides are on equal strategic footing.

Quote

2) I see what you mean about encounters. That's still a lot of information for the heroes to process all at once. I'm considering something like this: I will tell heroes how many encounters a quest has at the beginning.

I will outline the win conditions of each quest before the first encounter.

I will not bloat the game with specific details for later encounters.

I would also include what the outcome of the 1st encounter does to the 2nd encounter. For example: "For every objective token still in my play area at the end of Encounter 1, I will have an additional Goblin reinforcement in this part of the map at the start of the 2nd encounter."

If your players are overwhelmed by such details, then it sounds like tactical balance may be less important to them, so you may be able to play a little looser with the information rules. They should at least be aware of the advantage you have over them though. Knowledge is power, and the game is balanced and tuned with the assumption both sides have equal knowledge.

Yeah, our group is relatively laid back. We enjoy IA a lot, and they're actually quite good at that game. Even so, they start to get a little confused on more rulesy missions- and those seem to be pretty much run of the mill for Descent.

Agreed about knowledge being power. It's certainly an advantage for the Imperial to have hidden information, and I'm sure it's no different here. Thanks for what you've written- I may need to adjust this game somewhat for my group's needs, but it's probably going to be a while before we play anyway. I'd like to have collected and painted all expansions before we jump in.