Multi-player games

[giles the zog]

Ladies & Gents,

Any advice on a 6 player game of Frostgrave ?

I have 6 players already lined up for a games session twixt Xmas and New Year.

We have a mix of veterans and newbies, so I'll be evening things out a bit anyway - I've run many multi player events before (!) - but want things to run smoothly for the 6 way game scheduled for the afternoon.

I've already worked out the deployment zones, and creature feature entry points, just now need any other hints to keep the game going so people aren't kicking their heels too much.

Ideas in the brain cell include allowing players to form alliances (barring those of Opposing schools of wizardry).

Based on a 6x4' table.

TIA

Giles.

PS: If anyone can make Hereford (UK) on the 29th December, they're welcome too, let me know ASAP.

[Ddogwood]

I’ve played a couple of 5-6 player games. Be prepared for it to take a lot longer than a regular game. Here are my observations:

- Use playing cards or big d6s to track initiative order. Players who aren’t likely to interact with each other can do most of their turns simultaneously.

- Make sure that objectives/treasures are placed so everyone has a shot at getting there. It’s not much fun slogging across the table for two hours to get to a treasure.

- Instead of totally random movement, have wandering monsters head toward a point in the far side of the board if there aren’t any models within 10” - this makes them more likely to engage with a warband instead of meandering around an area

- consider some kind of timer for turns and give a bonus for anyone who finishes their actions quickly

[Coenus Scaldingus]

As far as alliances go, I have found that in the chaotic mess that is Frostgrave (in a good way!), alliances form - and deteriorate - naturally enough (depending on the players I guess). Usually along the lines of "if you won't shoot me with those two guys, I'll let you get off with that treasure rather than send my dog over". Depending on how well those promises were kept, the temporary bond may last a bit longer and/or future promises to other players may actually be believed. Can be worth devising a few rules for combats though: perhaps simply that a figure in base contact with various opponents' troops can choose whether or not to 'support' any with the +2 Fight (and if so, which one). A more organised approach may limit the freedom of players a bit, and if the schools are relevant, some may be at a disadvantage depending on who else showed up or where they are deployed. Also protects against overcomplicating it.

Other than that, I agree with Ddogwood above - perhaps excluding the timer, as it is likely to impact the newbies more. If time is likely to be an issue and it's a one-off game with starting warbands, maybe simply reduce the number of spells (no neutrals) and possibly have a warband cap of 8 rather than 10 guys. Less decisions speeds up the game massively.

Having a central focal point (or at least equidistant to all players' starting points) also helps increase the interaction between different players. For example, I was once involved in a multiplayer version of the mausoleum scenario, with a pile of valuable treasure in the centre of the table (and several skeletons appearing every turn). Very chaotic and equally fun.

[giles the zog]

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestions - many on my list already.

Now its a 7 way game !

We will be having two tables of simple head to head games in the morning, as two players have not played the game, and two have limited experience (Level 3 and 5) so need a refresh.

I am thinking that as well as the no alliances with opposing schools of magic, the highest levelled wizard may not ally with anyone, and the second and third may not ally with each other, this should then spread the alliances out to make things more equal.

The board may well also be expended to 8x6'. I am considering the magic roundabout discs as well, with a golden one in the centre of the table with a treasure worth two rolls on the treasure table, just to make it nice and juicy !

[mikedemana]

My apologies for weighing in with my extremely limited experience, but I have a big group that will be starting up a G.A. campaign soon. My plans are for me, as GM to be "odd man out." In other words, I play if I am needed to even things out. For example, if I have 5 players show up, I'll likely play (four starting in the corners and two at the midpoints of the long edges). If 4 players and me, I'll bow out and start them in the four corners. On the other hand, if I have 7 players, I will join in to make it 8. But I plan on splitting it into two 4-on-4 matchups. I hope that makes sense.

Also, I'm planning on warbands of Heritor, Warden, and 3 crewman. Players will receive 100 gp to purchase specials (if they go with a 75 gp one they "bank" the 25 left over). It should speed up play considerably -- especially considering we'll virtually all be newbies... 

Mike Demana
www.firstcommandwargames.com
http://leadlegionaries.blogspot.com/

[LocalNemesis]

Something to consider will be the number of treasures to place.  With seven players, expect it to take a very long time (compared to a two player game).  You will also certainly run into the problem of running out of locations to place the treasures — especially since you're likely to have over 20 of them.

You actually have quite a bit of space to locate the treasures if you do it optimally, but that will create a rather boring grid of treasures.  My guess is, after the first round of placing seven treasures, you're going to find a lot of "exclusion" zones appearing in the middle of table where you can't place anything.

My suggestion is to either change the minimum treasure placement requirement, or be sure to add a lot of vertical terrain elements to the table and make sure folks know they can place treasure on top of pillars, rooves, towers, and the like.  A minimum placement distance of 3"- 4" would probably work pretty well, but try to make sure there is terrain or something to move around between all these treasures — you don't want a small, quick force of treasure- grabbing vacuums running across the table just because they got to a lucky stash quickly.

[Sunjester]

When we have played with 4-5 players we have found the treasure can get a bit crowded so we are planning to reduce the number of treasures to 2 per warband if there are more than three players.

[mikedemana]

When we have played with 4-5 players we have found the treasure can get a bit crowded so we are planning to reduce the number of treasures to 2 per warband if there are more than three players.

That was my plan, as well...!

Mike Demana
www.firstcommandwargames.com
http://leadlegionaries.blogspot.com/