First Game of Frostgrave was Very Disappointing

[Kane]

Of course it goes the other way as well!

The game I played the other night, I was all set for a 4 -2 win when I got attacked by a couple of creatures and my warband was decimated. End result was a 6 - 0 loss!

Worst thing I ever encountered in a game was during an apocalypse game of Warhammer 40K. I had 2 super-heavy vehicles stationed next to each other, confronting a Reaver Titan. My opponent took a pot-shot at 1 vehicle, deviating the single shot so it hit both bloody tanks. First tank: 6-6-5-6 big ass Kaboom. Second tank: 5-5-6-6 big ass kaboom. My game was practically lost already but I played on, really hurting him and nearly taking victory from his hands. This was 5 years ago. To this day when we see each other the first question is "killed off multiple superheavies with 1 shot lately?"

Isn't that what makes a game all the more fun? Okay, you're on the losing end of it and it's quite a bitter thing to swallow, but me personally it would make me want to play again and exact my revenge!

In all honesty I think some stuff could be tweaked (but I still need to play-test Frostgrave) but I also think that highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN shouldn't play Frostgrave. It's a game that's based on fun first, competition later. Even when playing a campaign. It's all about fluff and what you want out of a game. It IS, after all, just a game. My 2 cents  

[Gailbraithe]

In all honesty I think some stuff could be tweaked (but I still need to play-test Frostgrave) but I also think that highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN shouldn't play Frostgrave. It's a game that's based on fun first, competition later. Even when playing a campaign. It's all about fluff and what you want out of a game. It IS, after all, just a game. My 2 cents  

Ah, I see we are using the Games Workshop definition of fun, which is random unpredictableness.  GW and I have never agreed on what is fun, which is why I don't play any of their games.

I'm not a "highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN" (and kind of resent the way many people in this thread are implying that the problem isn't with the game, but with me).  I just don't like strategy-less wargames where the dice have 100% control over the narrative, and player decision basically count for squat.

And then I don't like campaign systems which rapidly degenerate into one player being the Club Bitch who can only lose to other players, because a few early losses have made it impossible to be competitive.  Nor do I like games that require ground-up, total rewrites to be playable -- I can just write my own game.

[Major_Gilbear]

Ah, I see we are using the Games Workshop definition of fun, which is random unpredictableness.  GW and I have never agreed on what is fun, which is why I don't play any of their games.

I'm not a "highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN" (and kind of resent the way many people in this thread are implying that the problem isn't with the game, but with me).  I just don't like strategy-less wargames where the dice have 100% control over the narrative, and player decision basically count for squat.

And then I don't like campaign systems which rapidly degenerate into one player being the Club Bitch who can only lose to other players, because a few early losses have made it impossible to be competitive.  Nor do I like games that require ground-up, total rewrites to be playable -- I can just write my own game.

Yeah... I am strongly feeling that this game is not for you then.  

If you might take a suggestion, perhaps look at Malifaux if you don't know it already? I think that would be much more your sort of game, and Wyrd have just released both a starter box set and a campaign system book (called "Shifting Loyalties"). Plenty of battle reports online to look a too, if you want to see how it plays first.

[Kane]

Ah, I see we are using the Games Workshop definition of fun, which is random unpredictableness.  GW and I have never agreed on what is fun, which is why I don't play any of their games.

I'm not a "highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN" (and kind of resent the way many people in this thread are implying that the problem isn't with the game, but with me).  I just don't like strategy-less wargames where the dice have 100% control over the narrative, and player decision basically count for squat.

And then I don't like campaign systems which rapidly degenerate into one player being the Club Bitch who can only lose to other players, because a few early losses have made it impossible to be competitive.  Nor do I like games that require ground-up, total rewrites to be playable -- I can just write my own game.

I think that I, like a whole lot of people, got into the hobby via GW. And when you're comfortable in a game at a point, you're not looking for other things. I have the GW franchise for a couple of years now, looking for less standard things. Apart from that, GW did make Mordheim... which, I am told, resembles Frostgrave.

But in all honesty I think unpredictableness is a major factor in any and all table top game involving dice. Neither did I suggest you were a highly competitive person who only wants to win. Au contraire. You were the guy who, in my humble opinion, encountered such a type. Neither am I implying that you are the problem regarding to Frostgrave. Other people did have other criticism and I'm 100% sure Joe, the author of Frostgrave, will take all these points into account.

I don't really mind that the rules lend themselves for houseruling or even serious adaptations. It is a nice base for creative people to do something extra.

I do look forward to your own written rules and I sincerely wish you all the best when you decide to do so.

[marcusluis]

Maybe otherworld fantasy skirmish game would suit you better??

[Gailbraithe]

Maybe otherworld fantasy skirmish game would suit you better??

I hope so, I've got that on preorder.

I think I just need to get some guys in my club into Song of Blades and Heroes, because that's a fantasy skirmish game I really enjoy playing.

[Drachenklinge]

I think I just need to get some guys in my club into Song of Blades and Heroes, because that's a fantasy skirmish game I really enjoy playing.

I have heard saying, that "a fistful of kungfu" is somewhat similar in rules and far more hilariuos.

[Remington]

I am really surprised you like Songs, a game where, if you're unlucky, you might never manage to activate any of your team while the opposition rolls over you. I love the Songs series, but it's one of the most luck dependant games I've played. I don't mean this as a criticism, I am just truly interested in how perceptions can differ.

By the way... That is THE perfect setting to use your Frostgrave minis. Looking forward to perhaps seeing your games on here.

[Westfalia Chris]

Since I this thread isn't really going in a productive direction (although it is keeping the manufacturers of circular discussion supplies in prime fettle), I'm afraid I'll have to lock it.

I strongly suggest folks don't judge the game on lopsided set-ups, although there are certainly issues that warrant addressing, and we already have a lively discussion on these going on in the FAQ thread.