Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: Awesome Adam on 12 October 2015, 09:45:19 PM
-
Anyone who is familiar with such games as Mordheim, Necromunda, and Bloodbowl is used to a Handicapping system of some sort to reward lower leveled teams who are fighting greater forces. Forstgrave's lack of such a mechanic is one of the only criticisms I have ever heard about the Frostgrave Game.
I have an idea for such a system and would be interested in your thoughts on it's validity.
0-9 levels difference, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
10-19 levels difference +1 to spellcasting check by the underdog wizard, 1 extra treasure, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
20-29 levels difference +2 to spellcasting check by the underdog wizard, 2 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
30-39 levels difference +3 lto spellcasting check by the underdog wizard, 3 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
Extra treasures are placed by underdog, after deployment, but following the standard treasure guidelines for placement.
Underdog must make earnest effort to earn bonus XP. Routing without earning XP will cause underdog to forfeit bonus XP.
If you get use out of this, or want to offer suggestions on how to improve it, I would look forward to the feedback.
-
Handicapping should only be on the pro tour. Like golf.
-
That's a good idea. There was an underdog bonus in Mordheim. A lesser warband got a bonus for taking on a more experienced powerful warband. Could be the same in Frostgrave comparing levels of the Wizards.
-
That's exactly what I was thining. It's always been one of the biggest complaints about campaigns, in my experience, that the people ho don't get to play enough fall hoeplessley behind the fanatics who do, leaving very little incentive to play between new and veteran players.
At least this way, underdogs will still benefit playing against a superior force, even if they are likely to lose.
-
Extra experience sounds good, as does the amount: a single level difference isn't all that big a deal, meaning just a single difference in a casting value or stat. Larger differences add up though, and by this system, so does the compensation.
Not sure if placing extra treasure is a good idea - there is a risk that it may only further empower the stronger warband. This is especially true as treasure is placed before each warband's table edge is selected, but even if this extra treasure is deployed later (as with the reveal secret spell), a crafty opponent may still benefit.
As one of the risks is that a more experience warband also has better soldiers, perhaps give the underdog some guaranteed extra gold after a game (to more easily replace dead soldiers, or hire stronger henchmen), or perhaps re-rolls on the treasure table or when rolling for the survival of troops?
-
I didn't want to automatically reward them with extra gold. It could create a situation where a player just deploys and retreats taking the gold and XP without doing anything other than running of fthe board the first turn.
We could just ammend it so that they place the additional treasures after deployment. That way the treasures are closer to them, but it's not automatic gold.
-
If there is only a level or two, I don't think there should be a bonus. If the difference is significant (4+) then an underdog bonus would be appropriate. Just my opinion.
-
While I agree with you that a level or two gap doesn't necessarily need an XP boost, I think the virtue of keeping the mechanic simple outways anything gained by complicating the mechanic further with exceptions.
-
A simple way to encourage actual gameplay while still rewarding the underdog is to increase the Treasure XP the same way as previously suggested. Make each Treasure counter secured by the underdog warband worth an additional 20XP per level difference.
So the underdog wizard still needs to try to accomplish the mission, but the risks are much more worth the effort.
-
That vastly increases the potential reward. Which could easily reach absurdity.
If they were able to grab the 3 closest counters and run they would get 60x the level difference in additional XP. For something like a 10 level gap, they would get 6 levels worth of bonus XP in a single match up.
I do appreciate the suggestion though.
-
That vastly increases the potential reward. Which could easily reach absurdity.
If they were able to grab the 3 closest counters and run they would get 60x the level difference in additional XP. For something like a 10 level gap, they would get 6 levels worth of bonus XP in a single match up.
I do appreciate the suggestion though.
Then divide the bonus by three, so at least you have to work for it.
Istm simply getting stuff for just turning up is exactly what's wrong with younger warbands today. In my day we had to adventure into a frigid wasteland and search for treasures with the ever present threat of wandering monsters and belligerent rivals. Then we had to drag the treasure off at half speed while risking ambush and any number of dangerous spells. These days newcomers just expect to turn up and get experience for free on the back of our endeavour without putting in the hard work and facing the same hazards.
And get off my frosty lawn!
-
This hasn't been an issue for my group yet but I feel the some thing simple like an extra 25 XP fro every 5 levels difference is the way to go. I haven't seen too many games with a significant level imbalance my own wizard is level 7 after 3 games in one game I was equal level to my opponent, in one game I was two higher and another I was one lower those minor differences has little impact on the game as far as I could tell.
If you have a significant level imbalance say level 0 or 1 vs 10 the the sporting thing to do would be to run a level 1 war band, rather than make the rookie take on the champ in his first fight.
-
I get what you are saying about being sporting, but if you are playing in a league, like at a store, it's not fun, or practical, to expect people to create new warbands every time a new player, or a player who only shows up occasionally, shows up.
No one is arguing that small level gaps are imbalancing at all. 20Xp is a single round's of successful casting. It's not a big amount, but it is a tanglble reward.
I do want to avoid a situation where they can just show up and rout to collect free XP, but I don't want to make it a complicated mechanic.
Applying it per treasure it too much.
25 XP per 5 levels is not enough.
Okay, so I think we are all on board that they need to apply at least a minimal effort before earning the additional XP. I originally thought of a turn limit, but that seemed overly artificial. How about they need to earn at least a minimum of 50XP ? That's one treasure's worth, or 5 successfuly cast spells. That way thney have to be actively engaged in the game, but the match could still go brutally against them and they still have something to show for it.
Lower Level Wizards, that have earned at least 50xp this scenario, will recieve an additional 20XP per level difference between thier and the opposing wizards level
-
I know what you're saying, but istm this might not be the best way of going about things. To be honest, I think you're using the wrong tool for the job.
I guess first you need to decide exactly what you're trying to address. If you're trying to increase the rate of progress of lower level wizards then something like extra xp will be the way to go, but if you're trying to redress the gap in power between different level warbands on the table, then xp will have no bearing on that (on the game you're playing at that moment).
A tenth level wiz will have the same advantage over a first level wiz whatever xp reward you give them. And if there is a significant advantage (and I'm not actually sure there is too much of one) you're effectively handing the extra xp to the more powerful wiz. Eg, if there's a 50xp bonus going and so the weaker wiz is content with getting only two treasures, then the strong wiz effectively gains the extra treasure (so you're not only giving him the advantage of a one-sided battle, you're rewarding him extra xp on top of what he would earn in a fair battle). If the weaker wiz gets three treasures then why is he getting an xp bonus any way?
Istm if you just want to redress the power difference and make the fight fairer then the best way to do that is give the weaker side an advantage in the battle there and then, eg, an extra man. Say, let them field an extra soldier, over their normal maximum, up to the cost of 10 gold per level difference. That will have a real effect on the game.
If you want, instead, to make a weaker wiz advance more quickly to match the stronger wizs in the game, then I don't see why you need to bother with an in-game mechanism, you make as well just give them extra levels out-of-game to help them catch up.
-
I get what you are saying about being sporting, but if you are playing in a league, like at a store, it's not fun, or practical, to expect people to create new warbands every time a new player, or a player who only shows up occasionally, shows up.
Actually that's exactly what I expect of myself at least(and what I have done for when and if it happens in my local group). Mind you I am not saying I'll play my low level band against them forever but for their first game or two.
I don't really understand the "not fun or practical" Objection. Addressing piratical first I use the same figures after all so its not any additional work other than printing off an extra reference sheet for my war band at level 0. If you are saying the game is only fun with your high level wizard then I guess I just don't understand that feeling.
-
In think all are over-thinking it.
Tim in S in other topic (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=83369.msg1023259#msg1023259) says:
Yes, it is a house rule we are using that was inspired by a rule in Mordhiem whereby if you are fighting a warband that is much more experienced than yours you earn more experience from the encounter (from being schooled by the best!).
Basically if a wizard is fighting against a wizard of a higher level, the lower level wizard earns 10 extra experience per difference in level at the start of the game.
For example a level zero wizard fighting against a level ten wizard gets 100 extra experience. A level six wizard fighting against that same level ten wizard only gets 40 extra points.
It's a playing field leveller - for people whose wizard has died, or they joined the campaign later, or they just don't play as much as others...
I like that idea. Simple, not a lot of XP, but enough.
-
I guess first you need to decide exactly what you're trying to address. If you're trying to increase the rate of progress of lower level wizards then something like extra xp will be the way to go, but if you're trying to redress the gap in power between different level warbands on the table, then xp will have no bearing on that (on the game you're playing at that moment).
Since what I have put forth is extra XP, and potential extra gold, I think it is clear that I am attempting to increase the rate of advancement of the lower level wizard.
A tenth level wiz will have the same advantage over a first level wiz whatever xp reward you give them. And if there is a significant advantage (and I'm not actually sure there is too much of one) you're effectively handing the extra xp to the more powerful wiz. Eg, if there's a 50xp bonus going and so the weaker wiz is content with getting only two treasures, then the strong wiz effectively gains the extra treasure (so you're not only giving him the advantage of a one-sided battle, you're rewarding him extra xp on top of what he would earn in a fair battle). If the weaker wiz gets three treasures then why is he getting an xp bonus any way?
You completely lost me here. If the lower level wizard places teh additional treasures to his advantage and then leaves them behind, he's shooting himself in the foot. The point was not to make it a completely free reward for doing nothing other than showing up.
if you just want to redress the power difference and make the fight fairer then the best way to do that is give the weaker side an advantage in the battle there and then, eg, an extra man. Say, let them field an extra soldier, over their normal maximum, up to the cost of 10 gold per level difference. That will have a real effect on the game.
That is a valid suggestion. It goes more to addressing the power balance in game, which is not something I had attempted to address. It's a good start, but I think it needs to be refined further.
For Example: A Knight might be an approriate helping hand for a 10 level difference, but is an extra thug really needed at a 2 level gap ?
If you want, instead, to make a weaker wiz advance more quickly to match the stronger wizs in the game, then I don't see why you need to bother with an in-game mechanism, you make as well just give them extra levels out-of-game to help them catch up.
This would be a fine approach playing with a friend, but fall short in a competive league environment.
I would be fine with Ted making a 10th level wizard to duke it out with my 10th level wizard, when we are playing in my basement, but the approach isn't going to work when I'm running a 10 person league at a FLGS.
-
In think all are over-thinking it.
Tim in S in other topic (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=83369.msg1023259#msg1023259) says:
I like that idea. Simple, not a lot of XP, but enough.
That is who I got the idea of XP per level from, but I didn't think 10Xp per level was adequate
-
Actually that's exactly what I expect of myself at least(and what I have done for when and if it happens in my local group). Mind you I am not saying I'll play my low level band against them forever but for their first game or two.
I don't really understand the "not fun or practical" Objection. Addressing piratical first I use the same figures after all so its not any additional work other than printing off an extra reference sheet for my war band at level 0. If you are saying the game is only fun with your high level wizard then I guess I just don't understand that feeling.
What you are advocating doing is fine in a friendly group play environment. The idea fails to address players who constantly roll up new warbands, or players who don't want to roll up new warbands, which is something that happens in competitive league play.
I'm trying to come up with a system that avoids some of the issues that I encountered while playing, or running, leagues for Mordheim, Blood Bowl, and Batletech.
- You will get veteran players that will not volunteer to play anything other than the team they currently have.
- You will get the guy who rolls up a new team each week
- You will get the guy who only shows up every once in a while
- You will get the guy who will reroll after deaths in their warband
- You will get the guy who starts playing half way through the league
- You will get the guy who plays way more than anyone else
-
What you are advocating doing is fine in a friendly group play environment.
Why would I wish to play in any other?
The idea fails to address players who constantly roll up new warbands,
Why would you seek to reward this behavior? doing it once or even twice because your learning and didn't know what fit your style I can under stand but week in and week out? If your going to do this in a friendly gaming environment then take you butt kicking like an adult, that goes more so if its a competitive situation (more on that latter)
or players who don't want to roll up new warbands, which is something that happens in competitive league play.
Not sure I understand this objection.
I'm trying to come up with a system that avoids some of the issues that I encountered while playing, or running, leagues for Mordheim, Blood Bowl, and Batletech.
OK but this is not designed as a competitive game like those why are you trying to make it one. This is more like an RPG but with each player running a party and no fixed GM.
I think your rewarding people for some of the same bad behavior you are trying to address.
-
My only reason for adding a bit to a campaign like this is I expect lots of new players to drop in and out. Because it's so casual I'd like folks to be able to come and go as they please and still feel they had a 'reasonable' amount of fun in a game or two against even veteran Warbands.
I think it's more psychological than it is game balancing. Letting people know 'Give it a go anyway, you'll get an extra bit of XP even if you do take a bit of a kicking' encourages folks to join in regardless of when they start.
-
My only reason for adding a bit to a campaign like this is I expect lots of new players to drop in and out. Because it's so casual I'd like folks to be able to come and go as they please and still feel they had a 'reasonable' amount of fun in a game or two against even veteran Warbands.
I think it's more psychological than it is game balancing. Letting people know 'Give it a go anyway, you'll get an extra bit of XP even if you do take a bit of a kicking' encourages folks to join in regardless of when they start.
Now that I can understand I do hope you run them through a few learning games first.
-
Fencing Frog, I can appreciate your stance on the matter, but I really don't want to keep debating "why" to implement it. I'd really rather keep the conversation on "how" to implement it.
----
As for monkeylite's suggestion about adding additional temporary soldiers for the encounter, I was thinking of perhaps 1 additional soldier for every 10 levels of difference.
So something like:
0-9 levels difference no additional soldiers
10-19 levels difference 1 additional soldier
20-29 levels difference 2 additional soldiers
30--39 levels difference 3 additional soldiers
The 0-9 range is too close to warrant additional soldiers.
It works out to about the suggested 10GC worth of Solider for each 10 level bracket.
I eliminated the actual GC amount in favor a model count.
We don't want them spamming a horde of free thugs/thiefs so just awarding them a GC amount to spend is out. Since they would be foolish then to choose a thug, when they could choose a knight, and none of the soldiers cost more than a 100GC, I figure it would be more practical to just let them choose a soldier of any type, and eliminate the additional book keeping.
-
To address multiple concerns brought up, I'm thinking of simplifying by tying everything to 10 level intervals
For every 10 levels of difference between wizards, the lower level wizard is allowed to place 1 additional treasure, field 1 additional Soldier, and is awarded 100 bonus XP.
The additional treasures are placed after deployment, but otherwise follow the standard rules for treasure deployment.
The additional soldiers are employed at no cost to the wizard, can take the war band above the usual size limit, and only stay for that one battle.
-
This all sounds good to me. I have no input as I've yet to launch an expedition. Seems like an exp buff would make a good reward but the underdog must stay the course. They cannot just show up and run away. Stay in the encounter for at least 4 or 5 turns and make a true valiant attempt to beat the stronger wizard. My thoughts...
-
Fencing Frog, I can appreciate your stance on the matter, but I really don't want to keep debating "why" to implement it. I'd really rather keep the conversation on "how" to implement it.
----
As for monkeylite's suggestion about adding additional temporary soldiers for the encounter, I was thinking of perhaps 1 additional soldier for every 10 levels of difference.
So something like:
0-9 levels difference no additional soldiers
10-19 levels difference 1 additional soldier
20-29 levels difference 2 additional soldiers
30--39 levels difference 3 additional soldiers
The 0-9 range is too close to warrant additional soldiers.
It works out to about the suggested 10GC worth of Solider for each 10 level bracket.
I eliminated the actual GC amount in favor a model count.
We don't want them spamming a horde of free thugs/thiefs so just awarding them a GC amount to spend is out. Since they would be foolish then to choose a thug, when they could choose a knight, and none of the soldiers cost more than a 100GC, I figure it would be more practical to just let them choose a soldier of any type, and eliminate the additional book keeping.
That's quite reasonable, I didn't intend to take things off track.
-
If I might suggest another approach maybe we want to give the higher level player an additional challenge. A random monster for example that targets the more powerful wizard but leave the weaker one alone unless attacked.
The Author himself suggested such a scenario here http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/2015/07/frostgrave-scenario-troll-hunt.html (http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.com/2015/07/frostgrave-scenario-troll-hunt.html)
Wraiths or Vampires might be an alternative... they are draw to the stronger and tastier life force of the powerful wizard.
-
Thank you for sharing the link. I can't actually read it at the moment, but the idea of additional monsters got me thinking...
How about, instead of additional soldiers, the underdog wizard has found a way to temporarily bind some wandering monsters to do his bidding ?
Wandering monsters can't carry treasure, but they also won't award additional XP to the more advanced wizard for defeating them. They could spawn during the monster phase of turn 1, and be under the control of the underdog wizard. He could use them to harass the other wizard, or guard the treasures, etc...
-
I think the simple fix is +10 exp for each level difference. so youre 5 level behind you get half a level just for showing up. Just joined the board ill make a thread about exp in general because the elemental bolt wizard getting all the exp for kills will quickly be higher level then any other wizard. in our league the elementalist is now lvl 32 and i just reached lvl 18 as a witch
-
0-9 levels difference no bonus
10-19 levels difference 1 level 1 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 1 extra treasure, 100 bonus Xp
20-29 levels difference 2 level 2 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 2 extra treasures, 200 bonus Xp
30-39 levels difference 3 level 3 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 3 extra treasures, 300 bonus Xp
Wandering monsters some in from a random table edge during the monster phase of turn 1.
Extra treasures are placed by underdog, after deployment forllowing standard treasure guidlines.
Underdog must make earnest effort to earn bonus XP. Routing without earning XP will cause underdog to forfeit bonus XP.
If anyone is willing to play test this, I would be greatful and look forward to feedback.
-
0-9 levels difference, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
10-19 levels difference 1 level 1 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 1 extra treasure, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
20-29 levels difference 2 level 2 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 2 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
30-39 levels difference 3 level 3 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 3 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
Wandering monsters start in the center of a random table edge during the monster phase of turn 1.
(1-5 your side, 6-10 left side, 11-15 right side, 16-20 opponents side)
Extra treasures are placed by underdog, after deployment, but following the standard treasure guidelines for placement.
Underdog must make earnest effort to earn bonus XP. Routing without earning XP will cause underdog to forfeit bonus XP.
Went back to XP scaling at 10Xp per level, instead of blocks of 100xp every 10 levels.
Went back to including a reward for level's 0-9. This is the range where most level descrepencies are likely to fall, and I've received feedback from mulitple sources that feel that 10Xp per level is sufficient in that range.
Clarified starting location of wandering monsters.
-
in the The simplest of balancing mechanisms thread (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=84814.0), the idea of giving re-rolls to the underdog was put forth
It got me thinking about how underdogs are going to be worse at casting spells it gave me a new idea.
+1 to bonus to spellcasting checks for the underdog for every 10 levels of difference.
It kind of reminds me of the sidekicking system from City of Heroes, where the lower level player is temporarily boosted in power level to be roughly equal to the other player.
This may not go that far, but it at least simulates how they'd eventually get better at casting their spells, and evens the playing fieldm, without giving them new abilities, and a minimum amount of book keeping.
0-9 levels difference, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
10-19 levels difference +1 to spellcasting check by the underdog wizard, 1 extra treasure, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
20-29 levels difference +2 to spellcasting check by the underdog wizard, 2 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
30-39 levels difference +3 lto spellcasting check by the underdog wizard, 3 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
Extra treasures are placed by underdog, after deployment, but following the standard treasure guidelines for placement.
Underdog must make earnest effort to earn bonus XP. Routing without earning XP will cause underdog to forfeit bonus XP.