Multy Player Campaigns

[Mr Tea]

There is a lot of interest in Frostgrave at our club.  There could be an 8 player + campaign.

Has anyone tried playing this scale of Frostgrave campaign before? Got any tips?

It might work as a kind of ladder contest, but how do you stop run away wizards?

[rexscarlet]

Have not done a multiplayer FG campaign, but have had campaigns fail in other systems.
Here are some common issues with a group campaign.
.
Have a GM for each game. If not GM driven, and instead Tournament style campaign, skip all of this.
.
Have a set number of games and/or game days, and have each member run a game or an entire day full of scenarios and etc.
The reward for a single multiplayer game (in your groups case seven players one GM) was the GM's army/warband did not participate, but got an after game exp and $$ roll.
Additionally, the GM-ing order for a single multiplayer game was randomly chosen. Players all had scenarios at the ready, or from the book at random.
As for reward for an entire game day, well admiration from the group should be thanks enough.
This idea has many benefits, different GMs bring different and interesting scenarios and outlooks to a game, there is quick rules conflict resolution, and etc.
.
No map, even though a map looks great.
A player could win by moving pins on a map better, or be luckier in pin movement or in map capture location, or players outside the game could agree where they were going to move to each others benefit, making other players weaker, etc.
.
Be wary of non rule items, locations, and etc. (no non rule is easier).
If an Item, location, and etc. is to powerful, one player could get so far ahead or powerful, the other players will drop out. This goes for win-loss campaigns as well, so be careful, players always need a chance. We had one game that this happened, and the winning player volunteered to run a seven samurai, magnificent seven, Alamo scenario with his army/warband taking on the other four players, it was spectacular. Then we started the campaign over.
.
No Allying with other players during the game or out of game (see map above).
In game have players roll a test to join opposing models against a common threat NPC.
No trading between players.
The strongest personality in the group will inadvertently and often unintentionally manipulate the others to his/her benefit if Allying or trading.
.
Sorry so long, hope these help.

[Timeshadow]

First thing is if there are a good number of ppl rule that you must play 2 more games against different ppl before playing the same person unless it's a 4 player game. This prevents 2 or three people from just playing eachother and racking up extra games quickly.

Have a max games per week of like 3 (depending on the availability of everyone)

Try to have campaign night to play through the fun scenarios like golem and litchlord.

Be sure to nail down any house rules before starting. ( turn limit/end game conditions being most important)

Wizard power lvl differences don't matter too much 10-20 lvls is no big deal but a minor bonus for underdogs is ok but don't go overboard. Even one reroll  (ingame) per 5 lvls difference is more than enough.

Most important have fun epic games and try to do up reports with pictures. There nothing more fun than relating a good gameing story.

[almic85]

So I have been thinking about this as well because I want to try and get a campaign up and running in my local area but wanted to get some advice on how to stop one warband/player from running away from everyone else and trying to keep it interesting for everyone.

For balance purposes is it better to buff/debuff warbands/wizards with in game rules or modifications or is it better to just give the underdog wizard some better out of game extras?

For in game buffs/debuffs I have been thinking of some of the following options.
1/ the underdog player get some additional mercenaries for this game only (probably equal to half of the difference in gold values between warbands. If at the end of the game he can afford them he can pay them the full price to keep them).
2/ The underdog player gets some additional one use only items this game only (probably chosen at random, limited to low level scrolls or potions).
3/ The higher level player has to reduce his warband cost down for this game only and leave some miniatures at home (could be explained with limited access to whatever area is being explored).
I prefer the idea of buffing the lower players more than restricting the well performing players.
I also don't think that the buffs should ever make up for more than half of the effective difference between warbands.

For out of game buffs or debuffs I have been thinking of some of the following options:
A/ the underdog player automatically gets x amounts of additional treasure rolls, where x is related to the difference in warband cost.
B/ the underdog automatically gets xd20 gold coins, where x is realted to the difference in warband cost.
C/ introducing some sort of warband maintenance fee for larger warbands (i am thinking of something "simple" like spiralling expenses form bloodbowl, where up to a certain gold coin size there are no ongoing expenses and past a certain point the costs start to increase exponentially) If you are unable to pay the ongoing fee you must sell items to amke the GC required or let some members of your warband go.

I have also just been thinking to create an ambush scenario where if two or more players believe another player is getting too far ahead that they can elect to work together and ambush the thrid player.

Basic idea of this scenario would be that all the treasures are placed in the middle of the board along with the players warband being ambushed. The other players doing the ambush then set up on opposite sides of the board (or all of the board edges if there are more players). The wizard getting ambushed can then only exit from the board from one of the edges that the other players have set up on. Anyone can end up with treasure by taking it off the board.

This should mean that the player in the middle has to make a choice on if he is going to try and get away with any treasures OR if he just runs off the board through one or both of the other players.

[Mr Tea]

Some good ideas- though we are likely to playing on a monthly basis rather than weekly (there are is so much going on!)

I like some of the ideas with treasure/ buffs.  The tricky thing is that treasure seems to be secondary- the main difference will be in numbers of spells found/ lower casting values. I think it is more complicated than just wizard levels. The sigalist's strength is their ability to level up quickly and master the aligned and neutral spells. So a level 40 sigilist might be balanced with a level 35-30-20 elementalist. They also need to spend money on scrolls and soldiers to make up for their lack of direct damage spells.

Good GMs always help avoid gaming the system. Frostgrave seems more of a RPG / narrative game and might not work if people go at it with a tournament mind set.   That was the issue that saw 7TV fail to take off at the club. Too many uber characters that could wipe out anything  because they never got hurt.

[Timeshadow]

Unless there is like a 20 lvl difference I honestly don't see much of an issue with runaways. I would allow someone who got multiple wizard deaths and therefore was far below the group average to start again with more money to make up some of the difference. IE If you are in a campaign where everyone is on average 20th lvl and one poor sod had lost his wizard a few times I'd let him restart with 1000GC allowing him to get a maxed out warband and maby a few magic items. If I was playing against a vastly inferior warband I'd put on the kid gloves and let him run with 3 treasures after I got mine :-).... And if he managed to sucker me and take more then good on him.

[rexscarlet]

likely playing on a monthly basis rather than weekly

Good GMs always help avoid gaming the system.

Same, time is always the biggest issue.
This is why large multiplayer game campaigns run smoother, plus everyone can watch each others out of game rolls, as opposed to only one player watching another players rolls etc. because they finished earlier, etc.
.
Start and/or finish the day/campaign with a large all players multiplayer game with a GM driven scenario to get everyone a taste of the system and rules. Multiplayer GM driven scenario to start, does not have to count, just practice.
.
Multiplayer GM driven scenario to finish, is so players that are trailing can have a chance to get revenge on the leader.
.
I ran a campaign with all multiplayer games, worked well, as NPCs are much worse than players units.
.
One game was "rob the wagon train," the players all decided to Ally and attack the NPCs that were around the wagons until the last one was felled, and then attack each other, run away, etc. which was allowed, but no take backs. The next game it was revealed that the NPCs they attacked were actually a group robbers (Robin Hood) and the survivors, that were hiding, point the finger at the last group on the table, and now there are wanted posters everywhere and a price on the winning leaders head. Needless to say he was chased around the table the very next game by players and a NPC bounty hunter.
.
Another was a fountain in the center of the table, when the players models got close, there were amazons bathing in the fountain, who were not going to give up their prized swimming hole without a fight. (rule for beguiling -1 to all attacks vs male attackers).
.
Another was a mysterious shrine in the center, players were allowed to donate, and roll for rewards on a treasure chart, player were lined up while fighting was going on all around them like free iPhones were being given out, guess what, yep, Spanish Inquisition showed up next game, no one ever expects the Inquisition... etc.
.
Or will it be one on one games only?
.
Many times players do not read the rules beforehand, and the player that did not read the rules draws the player that read and committed to memory the rules and then wipes the unprepared player off the table, and the unprepared player/players never recover or get into the game thereafter.
.
So much...

[Thargor]

We're thinking of doing this at our club, but as some people are only available once or twice a month, we were thinking of limiting everybody to "turns".  You can only fight your next battle when everyone has completed their battles for this "turn". We may draw randomly for battle pairings each turn or impose a "You must fight 2 more battles before fighting that opponent again rule".

As for the buff/penalty for fighting a stronger/weaker opponent, we haven't discussed that yet.  I think I'll check back in my old Dogs of War book to see how we did that in Confrontation.  I seem to remember that they had a very balanced system.

[fastolfrus]

One that we'd probably recommend would be a treasure limiter - the one we go with is that treasure can only be got off table if there is more than one player on table.
We actually make it easy by just saying the game ends when there is only one player left.
Stops a strong band from wiping out all opponents and collecting all the loot.
So if you want the cash, you have to grab it and run, if you want to score experience by killing the other players then you may not get any cash.

[Koyote]

I've run a number of largish Mordheim and Malifaux campaigns. It's been my experience that if one or two players get far ahead of all the other players, the campaign will likely suffer some attrition. Players who come to believe that they have no chance of catching up to the leader(s) may simply drop out.  I've addressed this problem by using a multi-player Championship Game to determine the overall winner of the campaign.  Win the Championship Game and you win the campaign.  

The Championship Game is played by the four players who end the campaign with the highest campaign scores.  Under this system players don’t have to spend the campaign worrying about catching the player in the lead.  Instead, each player knows that he or she only has to beat the score of the fourth highest scoring player in order to have a shot at winning the campaign.  Also, because victory in a multi-player game is often determined by a player’s guile, persuasiveness and luck, the player who starts the game with the most powerful warband isn’t guaranteed to be its winner.  Recognizing this may also help improve player moral by giving underdogs more confidence that they can prevail.

To ensure that players don’t simply hide in their corner and wait for the other player to wipe each other out, I'd recommend locating a single, immovable objective in the center of the table. Random game length and progressive scoring are also good tools for disuading castling.

[rexscarlet]

I've run a number of largish Mordheim

Mordheim had a "Individual Battles pg 120" rules section in the back of the book, where players started with double the starting gold (1000) and could upgrade heroes stats at exponential costs, and etc.
http://www.thekeeponline.com/documents/MordheimLivingRulebook.pdf
.
We had one player get so far ahead of the other players he bought an Opulent Coach just because he could, thus the final big bash we allowed the other players the option to use the one time game rules for a "new" warband. Worked out well, one player tailored his new warband to deal with the leading players warband, which made the leading player sweat quite a lot.
.
 

[Thargor]

Confrontation Dogs of War rules don't work.... they had an overall warband cost and if the difference was over 50, then the higher player had to drop miniatures out until the difference was 50 or less.