Not so favourable reviews of FGV-GA

[Bloggard]

You are absolutely right of course. A ruleset should function by its own merits and not need houseruling.

The fact that FG/GA requires a very particular terrain setup - as Connectamabob rightly points out- but nowhere explains this is one more example of this.

The FG rules thread is by now 109 pages long, by the way.....

and yet imo etc, there are very few (rulesets)*, if any, that aren't adapted / modified / (interpreted) by players, if only to a minor degree. Would you not agree?
(*I should make a distinction - I appreciate that one doesn't expect to 'mod', say, board-games rules - but somehow with miniatures games, and RPGs - the game in question being something of a hybrid - it's often been the way).

I would say again that the author of this particular set stresses, in so many words, that he's presenting a framework for others to adapt / change as suits them.
As a minor example (and I appreciate it's not his main 'beef'): OP's point about the tick stats: he really doesn't like them, fair enough. But presumably for whatever reason that's how the author wanted them and is happy to use them in his games. You don't like it - change it. That's what he recommends.

In GA, btw, the point is made again that the terrain layout should be dense, with LoS no more than 24" at the most etc.
this is a lightweight set of rules, allowing for great flexibility in scenario design etc ('open world' in crpg terms!) while attempting to keep things very stream-lined and digestible. With that basic approach unavoidably there is going to be some experimentation needed to see how the rules work in a specific context.

Also, implied (kind of!) in connectamabob's post above is that the game should be played only with specific 'dungeon' terrain scenarios tightly dictated by the author so that things 'work' like clockwork etc.
I for one am very glad that approach hasn't been taken. I must admit I am very surprised by the degree to which many FG players only seem to have played the supplied scenarios / campaigns (at least going by the admittedly limited forum browsing I've undertaken).

my pov is that this is a beautifully presented and inspiring set of rules that supplies a rpg-lite miniatures skirmish environment for one to experiment with and adapt as necessary. The cost of entry (if you've bought the book/s at least) is potentially very low, given that the use of exisiting figures and terrain is explicitly encouraged by the author.

It (the rulebook) certainly shouldn't be above criticism, but the original OP post's tone is rather determinedly negative it seems to me - I doubt very much, for example, that I'm going to find it 'impossible' or even difficult to make the rules work for water-based play, as suits me (if I have to change anything at all).

Having said all this, I've played a whole 'one' day's gaming with GA, so probably shouldn't be opining at all ! 

[joe5mc]

I think it is safe to say that me and Dalcor have a pretty fundamentally different approach to wargaming.

I see rulebooks, and expansions, as tool kits. Their primary purpose is to get players excited about the idea of painting minis, getting them on a table and creating an narrative filled with adventure and fun. If it comes down to a choice between fun and tight rules, I will generally land on the side of fun. For example the critical hit rule - personally, I wouldn't use it, it's just a tad to wild for me, but I know that a lot of people love that big explosion moment of the natural 20, so I included it as an optional rule and I'm glad that I did.

I have never claimed my rules are perfect, though I have claimed the opposite many times, and I feel privileged and honoured that many people have decided that there was enough good in my books to make them worth buying, playing and tinkering with.

They certainly aren't going to be for everyone. I'm sorry that Dalcor was once again disappointed. Am am certainly no Shakespeare, but I am a writer, with my own personal preference, styles, foibles and quirks. Although I hope to improve with each book I write, there are some deep rooted approaches that are unlikely to change. If you haven't liked anything I've done to date, you are probably unlikely to like anything going forward either.

[LiamFrostfang]

  I like both games AND the crit rule...its...FUN!!!

[spect_spidey]

For example the critical hit rule - personally, I wouldn't use it, it's just a tad to wild for me, but I know that a lot of people love that big explosion moment of the natural 20, so I included it as an optional rule and I'm glad that I did.

A lot of the time the critical hit rule is unnecessary. With most armor values being in a 10 to 12 range, if you hit with a natural 20 and then apply your Fight or Shoot bonus to it, the damage dealt will be enough to remove most warband members. That has been my experience in the games I have played. The extra damage of the critical rarely makes a difference. Ten or twenty damage doesn't really make a difference if the model only has 10 health to begin with. LOL

[Doug ex-em4]

Rules As Written

Thank you. Armed with that knowledge, back to the interesting discussion!

Doug

[Doug ex-em4]

I agree with Joe’s design philosophy although that doesn’t rule out getting pleasure from more tightly ruled games either. If the game’s premise appeals then I’m in, at least to the extent of giving it a try.

This reminds me of playing White Box D&D; now there was a rule set which very much left things to the players’ house-ruling skills. It was more or less a concept which you wrote your own rules around. People seemed to like it though, judging by how things turned out😀


Doug

[Bloggard]

if you mean by that Doug, the original 'basic' d&d set that came out in the UK mid-ish 70s I was going to mention that funnily enough (in the sense of a framework of rules that people then adapted / embellished).

where I started this gaming carry-on (trips to the original dalling rd games workshop et al), and not sure I've ever enjoyed it more since ...

[Doug ex-em4]

if you mean by that Doug, the original 'basic' d&d set that came out in the UK mid-ish 70s I was going to mention that funnily enough (in the sense of a framework of rules that people then adapted / embellished).

where I started this gaming carry-on (trips to the original dalling rd games workshop et al), and not sure I've ever enjoyed it more since ...

There was a “basic set” (in an A4 sized, mainly red box) that was late 70’s/early 80’s) but the one I mean was in a White, A5 size box and had 3 books in it. Available as add-ons were two books called Greyhawk and Blackmoor both even more incomprehensible than the boxed ones. Sorry to sound like an old fart (I am one so it’s OK😊) but a lot of the fun and pleasure was in the effort you had to put in to enjoy it.

Doug

[Bloggard]

bit OT, but yes, red box I remember - although we had the greyhawk etc supplements too iirc.

I think one can overstate it, but sketchier rules arguably (can) allow more room for the imagination.

[Dalcor]

and yet imo etc, there are very few (rulesets)*, if any, that aren't adapted / modified / (interpreted) by players, if only to a minor degree. Would you not agree?
(*I should make a distinction - I appreciate that one doesn't expect to 'mod', say, board-games rules - but somehow with miniatures games, and RPGs - the game in question being something of a hybrid - it's often been the way).

Interesting, I never have the need to modify Blood Eagle, In Her Majestys Name, Ronin, En Garde, Lion Rampant, Dragon Rampant, Pikemans Lament, Daisho, Freebooters Fate, Dragonlance ADnD 2nd Edition, d20, or Pathfnder, Scion, A Fistfull of Kung-Fu, Rogue Stars, Chain of Command... 

I admit there are certain games I thought about modification. I never played them again.

The biggest question in RPG Gaming is - Does system matter? We shall use same question for Narrative wargaming  The meaning is that you can have fun and enjoy almost any game if you want to. The social skills wins over the rules. Or the Narrator matter, because he know how to do fun game for his players and himself no matter the system. I am DMing for more than 20 years now and believe me I know very well how to handle narrative game, keep players interested and how to handle rules properly.

Joe has right, I do not like how he write down the Rules. I really admire his creativity, because the Ideas are great and I like them. 

I am not telling you, you do not have to play the game, or that the game is bad. Or you do not know how to properly play Skirmish Games - something you are trying to happily imply on us. (guys you have to use LOS, you are competetives, you are.... blah). I am reviewing how the rules are written so the people can decide. This is something I miss in WSS reviews by the way.

The biggest argument here - the game is a TOOLSET. So you are implying that FGV and GA is like DnD 5E, or ADnD 2nd Adition Players Option?You choose the rules... Well still those games are explicit how to handle the rule. Lets speak about FATE for example. Wonderfull RPG, making great toolset to players with narrative approach with all those modern tools like Priority to Player, Camera on Player, shared role of Narrator... Still the rules are explicit how every rule works and how to hand them. Can you tell the same about Frostgrave. With 106 pages of ruling how to handle the rules?

Well, this is more or less all I wanted to tell.

[Doug ex-em4]

With 106 pages of ruling how to handle the rules?

Is that all Clearly you never played WRG Ancients 5th Edition....Now there was a set of rules that needed clarification and some. Yet they were very popular.

Maybe there’s a generational thing here. I guess if you only came into the hobby in, say, the nineties, your expectations of tight rule-writing are higher than those of us who started in the sixties.

Personally, I get a lot of pleasure from interpreting, tweaking, house-ruling etc.; could this be what is meant by “Old School”.

Interesting topic and I enjoyed the review which sparked it off.

Doug

[Connectamabob]

Also, implied (kind of!) in connectamabob's post above is that the game should be played only with specific 'dungeon' terrain scenarios tightly dictated by the author so that things 'work' like clockwork etc.
I for one am very glad that approach hasn't been taken. I must admit I am very surprised by the degree to which many FG players only seem to have played the supplied scenarios / campaigns (at least going by the admittedly limited forum browsing I've undertaken)

No, that's not implied at all. Nothing about what I was describing indicates or necessitates any kind of overdesigned, "planned out" linear game. You're assuming something WAY more extreme than what I was talking about.

[steeldragon]

Of all the games Dalcor mentions on his post I probably played a third of them and have modified them all in one way or another 

Different gamers, different tastes I guess.

Andres

[Ultravanillasmurf]

The FG rulebook does mention (on page 26 where setting up the table is discussed) that "the ruins of Frostgrave are crowded and maze-like, so there should be lots of terrain on the table, and there should be few areas where the line of sight extends more than a foot or two, if that".

There is a similar statement in the GA rulebook, but I do not have it to hand (substituting jungle for ruins I think).

[Edit - oops, I thought I had reached the bottom of the comments, sorry if someone has mentioned this earlier]

[Dalcor]

Lets agree we disagree.