First Game of Frostgrave was Very Disappointing

[Gailbraithe]

One of the guys in my wargaming club brought Frostgrave to our attention and has been trying to get some momentum for the game.  As an old fan of Mordheim, I was excited by his initial description and ordered the book.  Once I got the book, I decided on an initial warband and ordered the miniatures for it.  While waiting for them to arrive, one of the other guys in the group invited me to play a game, so I grabbed so minis to use as proxies and we went to town...and I was bitterly disappointed by the game.

Here's my biggest issue:  With no handicapping method to balance inequal warbands, the game is severely punishes casual players and makes it impossible to join a campaign already going on.  The player I played against only had three games under his belt, and the difference between his warband and mine was staggering and left me completely demoralized and regretting the money I'd spent on the game.

His warband:
Wizard (Level 3) + Staff of Power +1
Apprentice (200)
Apothecary (100)
Archer (50)
Barbarian (100)
Infantryman (50)
Templar x2 (200)
Thief (20)
Treasure Hunter (80)
Total: 800 gold

My warband:
Wizard (Level 1)
Apprentice
Marksman
Treasure Hunter
Thief x 3
Thug x 3
Total: 500 gold

The scenario we played was The Worm Hunts.
In the first turn, I secured the two treasures closest to me and he secured the two treasures closest to him. 
In the second turn we engaged each other at the board's midpoint (18") and things turned bad for me.  I was completely outclassed and watch my army die without offering any challenge.  The only challenge I was able to offer was sacrificing my Apprentice to cast Mind Control (he blew all his health empowering the spell) and taking control of his Infantryman and turning it against his apprentice.
In the third turn, the Worm appeared and he killed it very quickly (gaining 100 XP), then proceeded to wipe out the rest of my thugs and thieves, none of whom survived even a single round of combat or inflicted a single wound on his army.
In the fourth turn I had gone into full retreat and was routed from the board.

In short, it was a brutal and unfair game in which I had no chance of winning and was left feeling humiliated.  His 300 gold advantage -- the result of having 3 games on me -- was game-defining.  Then it got worse.  In the post-game phase, his apprentice got a full recovery while mine died (I rolled a 2), and I was down a thief and thug.  I got 130 gold for my treasures, but had lost 240 gold worth of models.  This means that in my next game I would be fielding a 390 gold army.  Meanwhile he gained another 2 levels and could afford to upgrade his remaining thief to another Treasure Hunter or Ranger, and both his Infantryman and Archer to 100 gold soldiers.

After the post-game phase, I tore up the sheet for my warband.  I am now left wondering if I have completely wasted my money, because it appears this game is unplayable.  If I play a new warband, then I will still be down 400 gold on the other players, all of whom got a three week headstart on me -- which has now grown to a four week advantage.  If I stick with my original warband, then going into game two the advantage they have will be even greater, with their armies being worth more than twice the value of my army.

Compounding this problem is that I live an hour's drive from the FLGS where my club meets up, and thus I only come down once a week for our weekly game night, while several of the players interested in Frostgrave live a few blocks from the store, are students with tons of free time, and can get in three or four games for every one game I can get in.  At this point I have almost no desire to play another game of Frostgrave, though I do still find the idea of the game interesting.  The game seems like it would be fun for one-offs or in a carefully managed bracket system that ensured everyone involved got the same number of games, but absent some sort of handicapping system to balance out the advantage of playing more games, it's utterly brutal to players who can't play every day and the campaign play simply doesn't work.

The other players are promising me that I just had bad rolls, and that over time I will eventually catch up, but I'm not sure I see a point in playing a dozen or more games I'm guaranteed   to lose when I have the option of playing a dozen other games that aren't entirely lopsided.

[JamWarrior]

As the levels increase the difference in effectiveness between them lessens.

The jump from level 0 to post first game is the biggest.

Your opponent should really have played a less experienced band against you.  It takes five minutes to knock up a new one after all.

[Gailbraithe]

As the levels increase the difference in effectiveness between them lessens.

The jump from level 0 to post first game is the biggest.

I hope so, because I was so excited pre-game I pre-order Thaw and bought miniatures for two full warbands, which adds up, so I feel like I have to keep playing to justify the investment, but I don't see the game expanding beyond the four people currently playing it -- every week, the gap between those already playing and prospective new players just keeps growing, and the period in which you just have to take your lumps and lose gracefully, praying your warband doesn't get worse before it gets better, grows longer.  And "The game gets really fun after you spend a few months suffering one humiliating defeat after another" isn't a great selling point for a game.

Your opponent should really have played a less experienced band against you.  It takes five minutes to knock up a new one after all.

Maybe.  I think we need to wait until we have 8+ players before starting a campaign, and need to use a bracket system.  But I understand the desire of the other guys already playing it to just leap right into campaign mode.

[Darnok]

Seems to me to be a problem of the opposing player, not of the game. Who did come up with the idea to let a levelled up warband fight a "newcomer"? That's insanity in any game.

I suggest a game with an even playing field.

[Calmdown]

In this case, your warbands aren't that different and the game should actually be reasonably equal. I'd play against his warband with yours happily (although ideally they should have given you a little bit more to start with). The main issue though, is the unlimited game length which means that the better warband can simply wipe you off the table to gain all the treasure rather than bothering actually picking up the treasure - this is Frostgrave's number one issue. There are other issues too which compound this, but they are all easily fixed.

So in short, you're right, but don't be demoralized - just fix the issues. Here's some articles on the subject:

http://www.bad-karma.net/some-thoughts-on-frostgrave-mostly-the-campaign-system/ (this is the one where I agree with your assessment)

http://www.bad-karma.net/frostgrave-campaign-change-recommendations/ (this is the one where I explain how to fix it)


Cheers

Edit: The people you're playing with do need to play ball though. They can't expect to play multiple games a week and then have you play once a week and it work out. This isn't a super-tight competitive rules system, its a narrative system and needs buy-in from everyone involved to keep it reasonably fair. In this case you might want to either talk to them and figure out a solution, or if they're "those guys" who think it's cool to play vs super low levelled warbands for free treasure you're probably better finding a new group. Or suggesting that they go back to 40k

[Dewbakuk]

As others have said, the difference there isn't too bad so bad dice quite possibly played a part. That said, I would NEVER play an experienced force against a new player in their first game, whatever rules set we were using for exactly this reason.

[Gailbraithe]

Seems to me to be a problem of the opposing player, not of the game. Who did come up with the idea to let a levelled up warband fight a "newcomer"? That's insanity in any game.

I suggest a game with an even playing field.

Well, the issue there is that it would require everyone who is already playing to start over every time a new player joins in on the game.  We've got 30 or so guys in our club, with 4 playing right now.  About half the club has expressed some level of interest in the game, but most of them are involved in other games -- like ever since Mad Max: Fury Road came out, a few guys are really trying to get people playing Warlands (and that game is seriously fun, both from a modelling/hobby perspective and as a game) -- so they'll be trickling over at a rate of 1 or 2 a week.  That's a lot of restarting.

I mean, this is the exact reason Mordhiem had a handicapping system.  So you don't have to restart when people join in an existing campaign.

[Calmdown]

I mean, this is the exact reason Mordhiem had a handicapping system.  So you don't have to restart when people join in an existing campaign.

Mordheim's handicapping system was awful. So was the handicapping system for most games. But that aside, there is only so much that the game itself can do for new players joining an established campaign no matter what rules you use.

All you can do is come up with some system that works for your group. Like say, having a "package" of free stuff for new players (gold, xp, etc) that you update every so often in accordance with what current players have. Or having a GM/council of players (if your campaign is big enough) that award free stuff to new players. Etc. You cant just expect people to restart campaigns and you cant expect game rules to be good at auto-balancing. Realistically, you have to get involved at some point and make the game work for you so that you all have a good time and can continue to grow the game's following by not pushing new players away.

[Darnok]

Well, the issue there is that it would require everyone who is already playing to start over every time a new player joins in on the game.

Not really. Just have a "level 1 gang" around for pick-up or introduction games.

Playing a "newbie" with a levelled gang is simply asinine.

[ChaosChild]

The best handicapping system I've run across is in the Judge Dredd miniatures game. Instead of rewarding players for getting beat up by a bigger gang (like Mordheim, Necromunda etc) it gives the smaller gang bonus models as mercenaries to even up the sides. The mercs only join your gang for one game, then they're gone. I'm toying with using something like this when we get a campaign up and running.

[Stepman3]

I always seem to play an underdog. It makes winning that much sweeter...I beat Archeon [WHFB] with a simple sword armed peasant once is a game of 1-on-1. I did have some kind of magic item but it was only to increase my attacks...

[Elbows]

Seems like a very...odd game to judge the game by (I say this having not played the game yet).  If you're going to play an experienced warband/player...even the odds a bit and try again.  No point in trying to judge the game like that?

[Argonor]

I was a bit disappointed by the way the combat system works when playing a couple of turns just the other day.

Actually a bit too much deadly one shot/one kill randomness for my likings. Just now I've more or less stopped readying models for the game and turned my attention to another ongoing project.

[Awesomeshotdude]

His warband:
Wizard (Level 3) + Staff of Power +1
Apprentice (200)
Apothecary (100)
Archer (50)
Barbarian (100)
Infantryman (50)
Templar x2 (200)
Thief (20)
Treasure Hunter (80)
Total: 800 gold

My warband:
Wizard (Level 1)
Apprentice
Marksman
Treasure Hunter
Thief x 3
Thug x 3
Total: 500 gold

Certainly there are some differences here, but I'm by no means seeing a situation where you Warband is in an unwinnable position.

[Gailbraithe]

Seems like a very...odd game to judge the game by (I say this having not played the game yet).  If you're going to play an experienced warband/player...even the odds a bit and try again.  No point in trying to judge the game like that?

Except that, unless we add house rules, it will be the most typical sort of game for new players.  If three weeks from now Bob decides he's finally going to play a game, and the assumption is that he'll be playing a 0-level Wizard against whatever level the first available player happens to be (and that does seem to be the assumption of the rules), then his game is going to be against a vastly more experienced warband.