So after a few games...

[Roger]

My buddy and I have had a few games, our levels are within 2-3 around the low teens.
And the results are all depending on the dice, if you have the treasures so spread out that the grab and run
tactic works, then all your playing is a treasure hunt with maybe a little bit of fighting.
I had a sleleton take out my thug and take my treasure hunter doen to just a couple of points of health.
my archer took out his Wizard. he only survived coz he managed to get a decent roll on recovery.
Had the recovery rolls gone differently I'd have had to replace my men and him his wizard.
If you're managing to get 3 or 4 treasures off the table, without having any of your men in the sin bin,
then maybe its the way you're setting up the table that wrong and not the game ?
Roger

[monkeylite]

Off-topic, but no, it's not about "permission", but I've found in games like Mordheim, if I'm playing a skaven gang I want skaven figures, similarly I want Beastmen figures for a Beastman gang.  The same with the people I game with.
I could make a Skaven warband out of random figures from my collection ("these dwarfs are the night runners, the wizard is the seer, the elf archers the slingers etc etc" but, for us at least, it wouldn't feel right.

Yeah, turning up with an army that your opponent can readily understand in regard to the rules and what troop types they represent should be the least a wargamer does to help the game go well, imo.

[agent_pumpkin]

If you mean Calmdown's list, then I'd like to use them, but others have said that it brings to much "baggage" to a streamlined game. 

Trying to find a happy medium.

We have been using Calmdown's stuff from http://www.bad-karma.net/frostgrave-campaign-change-recommendations/ for the last 5 battles now. There is little extra baggage and we are seeing a much more balanced game. I highly recommend you guys try it for your self and then amend it to how you guys want to play.

[mcfonz]

I commented in the big sticky thread at the top of the frostgrave section but found some similar findings to the OP. By our third game (2nd in the campaign) we had already started using some of the errata stuff. This is my summary, sorry if some people find it a little harsh in places:

Hi all, myself and a buddy have played our first three games of Frostgrave - so I thought I would give my thoughts and findings, sorry if I bring up any issues already raised and answered - 34 pages is a bit intimidating to read through to find what I am looking for in some cases!

We played a 'warm up' game to get to grips with the rules before playing two campaign games.

Issue: Treasure Placement - there seems to be no reason not to place two of your treasures very close to the two neutral edges and 9" out from a player edge. Why would you place treasure closer to one deployment than another unless you wanted to gamble on winning that edge as yours - put all of your eggs in one basket. If both players do this (which we did initially) then it is possible to have all of the treasure off the table by the end of the soldier phase of turn three if not sooner (circumstances allowing).
Possible answer: Treasure is placed randomly. Establish the centre of the table and use a scatter dice to determine direction and 2d6 to determine distance in inches. Treasure can be closer than 6" of other treasure.

Game play is fine, no issues with that as far as we could see, combat and shooting work nicely as does the spell casting etc.

Scenarios:
Issue: In one game we played Genie in the Bottle along with the random encounters rules. The genie and encounters never occurred which was a bit of a let down, especially when it is a scenario and it simply doesn't happen!
Possible solution: The first treasure is picked up as normal and the roll for the genie is made, if the genie doesn't appear carry on until the next treasure is picked up. The roll is now made with a +1 modifier, this occurs incrementally until the genie appears. So the 2nd time treasure is collected the die roll is made with a +1, 3rd time +2 and so on. The maximum modifier is +5.
This only applies to the genie and not to random encounters. So if the third time a treasure is picked up a player rolls 13, the modifier of +2 takes the result to 15 and the genie is summoned. As this modifier is only for the genie and the roll is 13, it is not high enough to trigger a random encounter. However, should the roll be 15-20 naturally, both events are triggered - if the genie has not already been.


Post game is a different issue. For me, I was attracted to this as people said this was the new 'Mordheim' or fantasy's answer to Necromunda. Sadly, and again "for me" - this game fails to hit the heights of either of those (especially Necromunda) for several reasons.

The character development and emotional attachment to your characters as a result, just simply does not exist. After two campaign games our warbands were virtually unrecognisable from the ones that first ventured out. The thugs, thieves and other low ranking types were all replaced with barbarians, men at arms or marksmen etc. Both our wizards were level 4 by that point as well - partly in thanks to one of the scenarios we played (the well of dream and sorrows).

This appears to be mainly down to the ease in which gold crowns fall into your lap and the relative ease in which you can get hold of things. Having read the FAQ on the FB group I think this could help some issues. However, I wonder if just halving the amount of gold crowns you earn through the treasure table but not the values of characters and items, could be simpler.

So for example d20 x 15gc becomes d20 x 8gc. I rolled 18x25gc in one game, more than what my buddy had earned in three rolls on the same table. And enough in one roll to replace four low ranking characters with, say, four barbarians. Halving that would result in a slower turnover of characters and result in a bit more attachment, emotionally, to them I feel.

Anyway, that is my thoughts so far on the game. It feels a bit raw and unpolished in places, but the actual mechanisms of the game provide a really fun game and we'll continue with it for sure and try to create some 'corrections' in the form of house rules to iron out the parts we find strange etc.

[ragsthetiger]

While the discussion on this thread has for the most part focused on ways to reward a warband after fighting a much stronger one, there is another possible way to approach this.  You could just give the underdog warband a roll or two on the potion or scroll tables for some extra buff-up before the game, to help equalize the situation, then let nature take its course.  Just a thought, but it might make for a more fun experience, especially if you're the underdog in question.
rags

[Argonor]

Off-topic, but no, it's not about "permission", but I've found in games like Mordheim, if I'm playing a skaven gang I want skaven figures, similarly I want Beastmen figures for a Beastman gang.  The same with the people I game with.
I could make a Skaven warband out of random figures from my collection ("these dwarfs are the night runners, the wizard is the seer, the elf archers the slingers etc etc" but, for us at least, it wouldn't feel right.

Yeah, turning up with an army that your opponent can readily understand in regard to the rules and what troop types they represent should be the least a wargamer does to help the game go well, imo.

Neither of this has anything to do with my point, really, of course you should use models that look like whatever they are meant to represent; what I mean is that a lot of people seem to think that if North Star and Joe McCullough had not specifically mentioned that players can use whatever they want, they would have to buy official models to be able to play the game (and a lot of people seem to think have to for other games).

[Captain_Hook]

I'm still waiting on my set of rules. I have not played the game yet, so I can't speak with any knowledge.

It sounds as though Frostgrave may suffer from the same fate as a lot of campaign games. Newbie comes along to play his war-band, experienced gamer with a level 9 Wizard whoops newbie's butt, newbie puts war-band on e-bay.....

I did look at Calmdown's PDF, and it looks to be a good way to balance the inequalities that may take place in the campaign progression.

[Darkson71]

Neither of this has anything to do with my point, really, of course you should use models that look like whatever they are meant to represent; what I mean is that a lot of people seem to think that if North Star and Joe McCullough had not specifically mentioned that players can use whatever they want, they would have to buy official models to be able to play the game (and a lot of people seem to think have to for other games).

I've never thought that, and never said I did, but if there had been rules for elves and dwarves (for example) then I would have avoided using them unless I had those models (in the interest of clarity for my opponent).  Yes, you should always tell your opponent that "the elf isn't an elf, he's just a regular bowman" but in the heat of the battle, it is entirely possible for your opponent to forget (especially if he's not familiar with your warband).

[Darkson71]

It sounds as though Frostgrave may suffer from the same fate as a lot of campaign games. Newbie comes along to play his war-band, experienced gamer with a level 9 Wizard whoops newbie's butt, newbie puts war-band on e-bay.....

I'm due to start my second warband next week (having only played 3 games with my first one [lvl 11]) as I decided 10 levels difference was to much to play against a mate who's only managed one game so far (lots of other games being played within the club).
The upside if I get to try a completely different type of wizard, but I don't think it's good that the game really needs players to put aside their warband like that.

[mcfonz]

The obvious thing to do with late comers to campaigns is to give them a level 'x' wizard that is close or the same as the average in the campaign - and also give them a few rolls on the treasure table - say 1.5 per game everyone else has played rounding up. So if the campaign is three games in and the average wizard level is 5, they get 3 rolls on the treasure table and a level 5 wizard. They'd still be a bit treasure light I guess - but as they are starting out they'd have the crowns not invested in the lower level troops to spend as well. Obviously you could allow them to pick a base as well, as you would normally have one after a game.

[rexscarlet]

"Defer up" just use CalmDown adjustments (as your group sees fit of course)
"I would like to give you a refund Ms. customer, but company policy dictates you must have a receipt..."

Lets us talk Mordheim and different Race models and rules;
We played Mordheim for over a decade and only had success with the Basic Books Warbands, which we used for all players different Race models, Human Witch Hunters or Marienbergers represented by Orks or Lizards, etc. We attempted to use experimental or published rules for different Race, only to have the campaign "epic fail," as nine times out of ten, the new rules for the different Races were overpowered (Orks were of course under powered, )
Note; some of the Warbands in the Basic Book were under powered, but there were no surprises or "gotcha" as everyone was on the same page.
"Oh, these net list Skaven Jazeels are range "the entire table," and this is a Pavise shield he is hiding behind, GOTCHA, SURPRISE! "

Frostgrave is a great game, albeit the one time games are smoother than the campaign system, and if Frostgrave is to grow in popularity, there needs to be OFFICIAL fixes especially if players at FLGS want to start "pick-up games" to grow interest.
A) Hello, want to play Frostgrave today?
B) Sure, CalmDown's House Rules?
A) Oh, I have my own fixes I like to use, but rather than going over them for hours, sure, let us just use CalmDown's house rules, and maybe next time, if we "get along," we could try my alternate fixes?
A) Great, of course we could try yours next time, let us play!

For one time non-campaign "pick-up games" I recommend more starting money, if not double. (remember in the back of the Mordheim book there was a complicated system for one time games with astronomical costs for leveling up your warband, which we used for new players to try the game)

Remember, always play how you want, but finding like minded opponents is the real obstacle.

[Awesome Adam]

Frostgrave's XP system offers greater reward for those taking greater risk.

Calmdown's house rules removes the incentive for greater risk taking.

Under Calmdown's house rules you are better off hiding an enchanter in the back spamming enchant weapon than putting yourself in line of sight and attempting a more difficult Elemental Bolt.

It skews the meta towards a game of hiding your wizards, while spamming your easiest spells, and letting your thieves collect the treasures.

[rexscarlet]

Frostgrave's XP system offers greater reward for those taking greater risk.

Calmdown's house rules removes the incentive for greater risk taking.

Under Calmdown's house rules you are better off hiding an enchanter in the back spamming enchant weapon than putting yourself in line of sight and attempting a more difficult Elemental Bolt.

It skews the meta towards a game of hiding your wizards, while spamming your easiest spells, and letting your thieves collect the treasures.

Frostgrave (FG)

1) As a game that uses "Rules" the FG "Campaign" system is littered with issues and problems that need an OFFICIAL fix.
All anyone has to do is look at how many posts there are on this Forum of players having issues and problems. (not to mention other Forums)?

2) As a game that uses "Rules" the FG "pick-up" or "one time" game is just fine.
(but there is always room for improvement, House Rules, and etc. example: double the suggested starting monies)

3) As a game that uses a "GM" the FG "Campaign" system is just fine.

4) As a game that uses a "standardized set of House Rules (in this case CalmDown's) the "Campaign" system will still have some advantages and disadvantages for certain rules, but virtually ZERO of the problems and issues listed. This holds true for almost any set of House Rules for any game system, change one thing, and another thing is changed inadvertently, etc. A ripple effect. (Note; House Rules are usually based on good intentions, and designed to fix issues and problems, create balance, and/or address time constraint.)

Maybe people should read the "why change stuff" explanation on CalmDown's blog (or others) as an example of someone with "good intentions" writing House Rules?
http://www.bad-karma.net/frostgrave-campaign-change-recommendations/

At this point, almost ANY set of House Rules for the FG "Campaign" system are better than the official FG "Campaign" rules as they are written now.

[joe5mc]

Any set of house rules will always be better than the official rules because they are written by and for the people actually playing the game.

I agree that the campaign system is not perfect, but nor do I believe it is so imperfect as to be unplayable. Hopefully, I will have the chance to improve them in the future. However, I think it is better to take my time, assemble as much data as possible, and only start changing the rules when I feel I am actually in a position to make them significantly better.

[Fencing Frog]

Any set of house rules will always be better than the official rules because they are written by and for the people actually playing the game.

I agree that the campaign system is not perfect, but nor do I believe it is so imperfect as to be unplayable. Hopefully, I will have the chance to improve them in the future. However, I think it is better to take my time, assemble as much data as possible, and only start changing the rules when I feel I am actually in a position to make them significantly better.

Well said.