First Game of Frostgrave was Very Disappointing

[Darnok]

Simple solution: everybody keeps the notes from when the warband was set up. You don't have to play the levelled up version. Especially not against a beginner.

[JamWarrior]

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.

You appear to have imagined a rule that says players may only ever have a single warband which they must use in every game they play.  It's up to Bob and his opponent to agree on what sounds like a fun game.  That might be Bob taking a shot as the underdog, that might be Bob's opponent knocking up a new level 0 band, or it might some more complex in game balancing decided on by the players like the scenario recently suggested on the author's blog.

http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/frostgrave-scenario-troll-hunt.html

[ChaosChild]

I think those other players need to ask themselves what they want from a game with a new player. Do they want that new player to come away as a fan of the game, giving them a new, long-term opponent or do they just want a quick, one-off source of XP for their campaign warband.

If it's the former, then they need to put the campaign aside for a moment and play a game using a starting warband. It'll be every bit as fun, it just won't quite be the ego boost they'd get from beating up on a noob. If it's the latter, then they're the wrong people to be playing an intro game against. I'd say they're the wrong people to be playing any game against, but that might just be me...

When it comes time to fit that new player into an existing campaign try boosting their wizard up to the same level as the lowest level among the existing players. That way the new guy can compete on roughly equal terms rather than just getting beat up on.

[Fencing Frog]

That was a poor choice by you opponent.  My plan is to have a leveled up war band when we get rolling and a secondary one that stays level 1 for introducing new players.

Seriously I've played two games with two different level 1 war bands and would be content to always play level 1 war bands for all my games.

[grendal]

"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. "

completely untrue. Just have players also have a list for a "beginner" version of their warband for newcomers. Give a minor XP bonus to players willing to play new guys and you are all set.

[Commander Roj]

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.

I am just thinking that maybe the result of each game could be run through a simple, back of the envelope equation. This would reduce modify the results in relation to the disparity in gold at the start?

[Elbows]

I think my confusion is more aimed at the expectation that players should be able to jump directly into a campaign which is underway.  If Frostgrave (like most similarly themed games) doesn't have an option for that - make one and move on.

I'm not defending the game (again, haven't even played it) but I think it's pointless to judge a game based on a situation like this.  Make a few houserules to fix this, or simply put - don't jump into campaigns underway.  No big deal.

[Dewbakuk]

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.

I think everyone is talking a little cross purposes here. Gailbraithe, the problem people are having with your game isn't that it was the first game of a campaign and that you were out powered, it's that it was your first game ever! Nobody should ever be taught to play a game with mismatched forces, it's just stupid. A new player to the game (not campaign), will make tactical errors and bad game choices even if they've read the rules, and in this game they have the added complication of 80 spells to look at.

I only run intro games with cut down forces anyway so that the game is fast and bloody, that way the new player gets to see all the mechanics and can then go away and make their warband choices.

With regards to the campaign, I would suggest house ruling it in a way that seems sensible, but give it more of a try first. The two obvious options to me are:

A) give the wizard some levels and half a dozen rolls on the treasure table. This should average it out better.

B) for the first few games, have the enemy band match the gold level of the troops. Assuming they have improved their forces, this means they are likely to be outnumbered which should balance the fact that the wizard will be better.

[Darkson71]

Along with the posters above saying that your opponent should have used a starting warband against you in your first game, using one of the scenarios wasn't the best move either, should have been a "basic" game to help you learn the rules.

[Drachenklinge]

Yeah, as mentioned before, the word "lame" sprang to my mind. Don't judge the game, judge the player, honestly. Hope it was just lack of thinking and not calculating on purpose.

However, we had the exact same problem in our campaigns. Not every one has got time to play regularly. So finally we decided simply to make two warbands - and this works for every campaign, btw.

One
The one, the only, the perfect, thought-through, reasoned-out killer thing. Born to generate XPs.

Two
The "I always wanted to try this one"-version, the stupid one, the version with the worthless but beautyful mini/profile (there is always such a profile it seems), the "most likely not working"-version.

We do play regular with our first version, but with players who did not have time to come more often, we use the second version (well, or the first, if agreed to do so).
It actually does not matter, what is version one or two in detail to you personally, but You have the option to almost always have a underdog-version to have it a go. Usually, everyone will stick to his personal favorite, leaving the other one as the not so good.
Problem solved, even with starters, beginners and newbies. Heck, did I say two? Why not three ... numbers are infinite.

And ... playing a beginner test entry game that way ... did I say lame already?

[Dan]

Sounds like a similar problem my group had when playing Legends of the Old West. My gang became a bit of a gang killer which meant my opponents had to raise new gangs which would be unfairly matched against my experienced gang. It was one of the reasons the game fell out of favour.

These days I don't play regular enough to get experience so I could be the underdog. I've just ordered the rules and some wizards so I hope this will be worth the time and effort to pursue.

The suggestion of having two gangs sounds like a good plan to me.

[Daniel36]

There are plenty of solutions. There is also a reason why the phrase "The enemy of my enemy" exists. One player getting too strong? Gang up with two weaker gangs. Works fine, and makes plenty of sense.

[Calmdown]

Gailbraithe, are you still around? Interested to hear your thought now that you've had plenty of responses and maybe some time to think about it.

ie I hope you've been able to fix it and want to continue playing

[Legionnaire Bert]

I think any campaign based game has to have regularly maintained equal forces, and no participant should be playing vastly more games than anyone else.

Campaign games need a GM to regulate these things. My group have just finished a run of Necromunda, and we tried to keep it to an even number of games played per player wherever possible. If everyone is going to be playing games at a different rate that simply is never going to work. And even with a system like Necromunda (or Mordheim) where there are underdog bonuses for taking on a more experienced gang/warband in practical terms it doesn't really help when you are taking a mauling on the table. Yeah, that experience is really no fun, demoralising and even humiliating, and very, very off-putting. I really feel for you .

I'd really urge your group to try to play an even number of games for each player otherwise it is gonna be really unfair on the less frequent players like your good self.

I haven't played the game yet, so I am hoping with regular games between players it will work okay.

Sorry to hear that you've had such a disappointing experience though dude - I hope in future you are able to enjoy the game and have better luck in your games. All the best.

Bert

[Drachenklinge]

@ all having the same number of matches
In my experience, that is not working.
simple question: what to do, if it is simple not working? Kicking out that player?

RealLife gets in the way, a community has to take that into account. It is also nonsense, that everyone is beeing punished, because one player does not have the time. So, IMHO there have to be solutions other than "everyone should have the same amount of matches", because sooner or later, that simply will be the case. Fact.

My version was just an example, which worked for us. Maybe some compensation might be the solution in some other groups and clubs.

btw - I really recommend the "Dogs of War" System, from Rackham's Confrontation (sort of Mordheim for Confro), brilliant thoughts in there, although a little bit to complex.
Just a short insight:
- a troup needed "fame" to get bigger (not gold, important difference!)
- you need gold to buy stuff (also to hire men)
- you need XPs to get better

Fame was used to limit Your maximum in the gang. More fame, more men possible. But men are still bought with gold.
However, one may decide to do a game with a smaler group, getting more fame, because he even tried to fight the enemy.
XPs were generated in battle via fighting or other actions, but that only made the profiles better, not the gang as a whole. But XPs also made the profiles more expensive, influencing the size of the group as well.

To make a long story short, there were always three decisions to make:
Do I want to get XPs for my single members? => so, which to send in?
Do I want to have gold, i.e. mission objectives?
Do I want to increase my fame, i.e. my troup, having more men to choose from
Tactical and strategical thoughts, before even starting the fight, because each had to be adressed differently. If I beat the hell out of a smaller gang, I may win, and all my members got XPs, but for sure, no fame, etc.

Actually I think, there is no perfect system, sooner or later, You needing - and want to have - houserules.

best wishes
DK