First Game of Frostgrave was Very Disappointing

[Major_Gilbear]

I just don't think I like this game.  I absolutely hate the way damage works.  I hate how it all basically comes down to luck, and strategy doesn't really mean anything.

Just to pick on this one element of your post (which I do in fact sympathise with).

Most games struggle with a campaign system. You need a way for models to improve, and yet the game still needs to be balanced. These are two things at odds with each other, and which can get very complicated very quickly if you try and have a balancing system in place.

One way a lot of skirmish games (especially those which are intended for campaign play) attempt to even things out is to force the players to rely more on luck, or to have a wide range of circumstances that could befall them. Things like wound tables, rare items, random amounts of gold, ect., are all designed to help as much as hinder - whether you win or lose.

I won't muddy the discussion by bringing in other campaign skirmish games that have similar/different woes, but suffice to say that posts like yours are common on all of those games' forums as well.

If very random elements in games are not your thing, then I personally don't think most campaign skirmish games will be to your taste either. That's not meant in a rude way or anything, I'm just giving my personal opinion here!

In the meantime, if you liked the models you bought for Frostgrave, there's nothing stopping you playing different games with them. I appreciate that you may not have the same excitement for their purpose now, but you can still enjoy them anyway.

[Gailbraithe]

Maybe that could have been solved with that "wizard and three additional thugs in one go"-rule?

but ... just guessing

This is what the board looked like at the end of turn 3:



So I'm white, he's red.  The A is my apprentice, the t is my thief, R is ranger, W is wizard, T's are Trackers, H's are hounds, B is a bear.  On his side W os wizard, A is apprentice, i is Infantryman, a is Archer, tg is thug, M is marksman, I is summoned imp, and ? is I forget.  Another infantryman I think.  EDIT:  The darker brown squares were full of forests and rough terrain, and the terrain was a bit denser than I illustrated.

Then this is the end of turn 4:


I messed up this map -- it was his Imp that got the treasure, not the mystery solider.

This is the end of turn 5:


Except my wizard and the ranger and tracker had got off board.  Maybe it was turn 6, my memory is fuzzy.  But the point is I basically had two choices:  I could try to grab the treasure with my apprentice, or run my apprentice off the board and give him the treasure -- in which case he would have shot my tracker, and assuming he made the exact same role, the final tally would have been 5-1 rather 4-2.

So no, I really don't think he had better tactics.  He just beat me in every single die roll.  When I attacked him, my soldiers died.  When he attacked me, my soldiers died. He did more damage to himself with failed spells than I did with my archers.  He won initiative every turn for the first four turns, by the time I won init I was already retreating. It was pure luck.  You can't accuse me of bad tactics for exposing my apprentice to a single round of fire from an archer with multiple targets, especially when the potential reward was a 3-3 game.  You can't play the game living in fear of critical hits.

[Malebolgia]

You can also choose NOT to use critical hits and just use a 20 as a 20 and nothing more. Should help with extreme luck too.

[Captain Blood]

He just beat me in every single die roll.  When I attacked him, my soldiers died.  When he attacked me, my soldiers died. He won initiative every turn for the first four turns, by the time I won init I was already retreating. It was pure luck.

Again, this happens to me all the time
It's not exactly an unusual wargaming experience to lose because you have bad dice.

Are you saying that Frostgrave is even more dependent on dice rolling than most other wargames rules? (Which are nearly all, let's face it, dependent on dice to a greater or lesser extent).

If that's really the case, and you're someone who's not keen on the random factor continually screwing up your strategy and tactics, it sounds like the game is certainly not for you.

[Calmdown]

Gailbraithe, you're going to extreme lengths to prove how right you are that the game is impossible to enjoy and you dont seem to be paying heed to any of the advice that people are giving. It looks to me like all of your concerns have been answered, and also people do agree with you on how swingy the dice are, which is a personal choice as to whether you're OK with that or not.

I have a question; what are you trying to get out of this discussion that hasn't been answered already?

[Gailbraithe]

Again, this happens to me all the time
It's not exactly an unusual wargaming experience to lose because you have bad dice.

Are you saying that Frostgrave is even more dependent on dice rolling than most other wargames rules? (Which are nearly all, let's face it, dependent on dice to a greater or lesser extent).

Yeah.  I mean, losing initiative over and over sucks, but you can survive that.  But by combing hitting and damage, and using a big die like the d20, a game of Frostgrave can -- as this one did -- come down to five, maybe six rolls, making all the difference.

I could easily compare it to Infinity, which I played a game of right before playing Frostgrave.  Both use the D20 for resolving thing, but tactics and strategy matter a heck of lot more in Infinity than in Frostgrave, and the differences in mechanics mean that the differences between different troop types matter a lot more.

Gailbraithe, you're going to extreme lengths to prove how right you are that the game is impossible to enjoy and you dont seem to be paying heed to any of the advice that people are giving. It looks to me like all of your concerns have been answered, and also people do agree with you on how swingy the dice are, which is a personal choice as to whether you're OK with that or not.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all.  I never said the game is impossible to enjoy, I just don't think I'm ever going to enjoy it.  If I'm going to extreme lengths to prove anything, it's that I didn't lose because of poor tactics.  I was bit insulted by that comment, and felt a need to defend myself.  I think it's kind of BS to make an accusation like that based on the information I had provided.  My failure to account for the possibility of my opponent rolling two crits in a row is not bad tactics.  Bad tactics would be expecting multiple criticals in a row.

[Legionnaire Bert]

@ 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.

This one simply comes down to a difference in experiences. My group played Necromunda very successfully throughout this year with a roughly equal number of games each because we committed to be around every fortnight - and we arranged games on nights that everyone could make. It depends on the make up of your gaming group, and the commitments everyone has. I'd say if a group can't all play roughly at the same time then it is probably best to avoid playing games which require a camapign system, really. That's the way we work and it was very successful. Fact!

[Major_Gilbear]

I could easily compare it to Infinity, which I played a game of right before playing Frostgrave.  Both use the D20 for resolving thing, but tactics and strategy matter a heck of lot more in Infinity than in Frostgrave, and the differences in mechanics mean that the differences between different troop types matter a lot more.

They are totally different games, with different playstyles, themes and goals though. It'd be like comparing Space Hulk to Warhammer Fantasy Battle because they both use miniatures and D6s.

In Frostgrave, your Wizard and the Apprentice matter; the hired mooks do not. The entire game is based around stealing treasures that your Wizard wants to study and gain power/influence from. It's also a campaign game where you upgrade your models between games.

In Infinity, you have a crack team of elite troops who come together for a mission that must be won at all costs. Each model is effectively a "hero", and has highly specialised skills and equipment. It's also designed as a pick-up game with no upgrading in between games.

The complexity in each game is therefore focussed in different areas; in Frostgrave, it's in the Wizard's spells and the treasure/item accumulation, and in Infinity it's in the combination of skills/weapons/equipment to complete the game objective.

I never said the game is impossible to enjoy, I just don't think I'm ever going to enjoy it. 

Out of polite curiosity, do you play any similar campaign skirmish games that you do enjoy?

[Drachenklinge]

@ Infinity and d20
Infinity does have a far more complex mechanics, that is true. And even the pros at our club do a lot of searching, when some situations came up.
And a d20 sure is finer detailed, than a d6, not?

@ L Bart
You are right, the same commitment sure helps, no doubt here, but then ... no one gets ill? No wifes getting babies? It is not only about commitment. I was aiming at having solutions for this, too, WHEN or IF this happens, not starting, being sure everyone will have commitment to the end.
Maybe this actually is also a question of age. Funny as this may sound.
When beeing student I was commitet to a lot of things ... but not to the end ... and sure not after I moved to a different city.
When beeing at the start of a job, I may be commitet to a local campaign, until I need to search a new one.
When beeing over a certain age, maybe new jobs, kids and moving just do not happen that often anymore. In that case ... when important stuff in real life is settled ... commitment to a tabletop campaign is a lot easier.
Also, no offence, and additional I did not want to be rude with that fact word. I just have a different approach. Being prepared for.

[robh]

You can also choose NOT to use critical hits and just use a 20 as a 20 and nothing more. Should help with extreme luck too.

Absolutely, Criticals are only an optional rule anyway so just ignore them.

Also you could consider rolling 3d6 instead of the d20 giving you a much better statistical variation and a range of 3 to 18. Will make combats longer though.

[Major_Gilbear]

Also you could consider rolling 3d6 instead of the d20 giving you a much better statistical variation and a range of 3 to 18. Will make combats longer though.

Or 2D10, although the same caveat applies.

[Momotaro]

Or 2D10, although the same caveat applies.

Was half way through typing exactly the same thing when I saw you had posted it 

[joe5mc]

Frostgrave was always meant to be a game that embraced the concept of 'barely controlled chaos'. That's not to say it is devoid of strategy, especially in the picking and use of spells, but just that the fog of war hangs a bit thicker over Frostgrave than it does a lot of games. I wrote the game that way, because it's the type of game I enjoy. That kind of gaming experience isn't going to be for everyone, however, and there is nothing wrong with that.

My only thought about the game you mentioned is that, perhaps, you lost heart too soon. A lot of players, especially experienced wargamers, are often shocked by the speed in which events (death, explosions, ravenous monsters appearing) can happen in Frostgrave. It can be easy to assume a game is lost when faced with a couple of early set backs, but generally, you are never more than one really good spell away from being right back in a game.

But hey, life is too short and gaming time too limited to waste on games you don't enjoy.

[nozza_uk]

It can be easy to assume a game is lost when faced with a couple of early set backs, but generally, you are never more than one really good spell away from being right back in a game.

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!

[Darkson71]

It can be easy to assume a game is lost when faced with a couple of early set backs, but generally, you are never more than one really good spell away from being right back in a game.

This - the first game in our club had one bands apprentice one-shotted in the first action (thought he was out of range, wasn't, and the cover and intervening didn't help him), and lost a few more before he did any damage to the opponent - won the game 4-3 iirc (Reveal Secret in play).