Frostgrave General

I love frostgrave. I think it's the best thing that's happened to our gaming group in a long time, it made everyone start rooting through their collection, we had awesome terrain building days, people play campaigns and linked games, people are having fun and have weird stories to tell about the games. Getting knocked off a ledge into a giant is FUN.

BUT. The rules could be so much better. Come on. You only have 10 guys, but 8-7 of them have no cool features except their stats? Your knights and thieves can't level up? Weapons are only + or - modifiers that make a tiny tiny difference compared to just rolling really high?

So we made a new game, with blackjack, and hookers, and are having a blast.

So even though I don't agree with the way the game is designed, I am very gratefull to Mr. McCullough for making it. It gave us a reason to break out the 28mm guys again.

Honestly I think the game is pretty bad as is, it's hugely swingy thanks to using D20's and spell balance is practically non existent.

The game is just too easy to break, combat spells are the best and melee troops are basically pointless.

Like any game it's fun with friends but I think it needs serious work to have any true longevity.

Bring any of this up on the official Facebook group though and you best prepare to be shouted down. I just hope Joe has the sense to not listen to the fanboys and take constructive criticism on board.

>Bad as it is

Of course you get shouted down, you think your opinion is objective fact.

We made a new game out of it
because WE believed we'd have more fun if it was different, and we did.

But I think the people who would chose weapon-autism, wound tables, grappling and handgonners and creepy wizards that cannot into fireballs are a lot fewer than the amount of people who like frostgrave the way it is: a rules light excuse to have fun with their friends with a model count that makes sense for 28mm.

Going to the official facebook page and telling them that the game they're enjoying is bad is like going to a metal forum and saying that metal sucks, because classic rock is better. It's just a matter of opinion.

A thing can be good to one person and bad to another person, it's not something that you can, or should try to convince them about, not when it's something as non-important as what particular way you like to have fun with your toy soldiers.

If you're trying to critique the game, keep the designer's intent in mind. The only real way of arguing about the quality of something, is to keep in mind the intent behind it's design.

If you don't like the lack of detail, fine, but that could be a deliberate choice because the designer prioritized ease of play. That doesn't make it a wrong choice, just a different one from what you would have made because you have different priorities.

Except for true line of sight, true line of sight is a bad fit for a game where you often have to put a miniature where it can stand up, rather than exactly where it's the best to be standing from a cover standpoint.

As an example, the swingyness of the D20 might feel silly to some people, other people appreciate that it keeps fights uncertain and makes sure that even the guy with shitty soldiers has a shot, rather than auto-losing the rest of the campaign.

I really can't stand this kind of relativism:
You are arguing that the balance of the rules is just a matter of opinion, but surely they can't be.
I agree that one should always keep the designers intent in mind when critisising a game but you can't defend something as a skewed gold to effectiveness output in the soldiers. Not all choices should be equal but there should be atleast a semblance of balance.

I have yet to play much Frostgrave but I just can't stand modern relativism it's retarded. A game or a book or what ever can have several objective qualities, a subjective opinion can exist without having to corelate to said objective values, but those values still exists.
But please, go ahead and call me an autist.

>you think your opinion is objective fact.

No I don't and I never implied otherwise but you did by only selectively quoting me so good job there.

Don't be such hypocritical dick, this entire post is basically "everyone has their opinions but yours are wrong".

You like the game, I like the game. i just think mechanically it could be better.

You are completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that balance is purely relative, I'm arguing that whether or not you think balance is important is relative.

Someone might make a game and decide that he thinks it's more important for the game to play fast than for it to always have a completely fair outcome. You can't argue against something like that objectively, because the argument relies purely on what you think is important in a game, and THAT is subjective. If the game sets out to be the most balanced game ever, and completely fails, it's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about how it fails and how to improvie it, but if you argue about it with someone who has different priorities than you, you might as well be shouting at each other about which color is the prettiest.

So yes, I am going to go ahead and call you an autist.

Also, pro tip, you completely misunderstood the gold cost to effectiveness output.

The major cost of a soldier is that it takes up a slot in your warband. The high-end soldiers are not priced according to how powerful they are compared to the cheap soldiers, they are priced to make it expensive to have the most performance in every warband slot.

Heads up, the link for the print buildings doesn't work. Anyone got a working link?

So I'm a hypocrite for pointing out that people have different priorities in games and games design? Nice.

If frostgrave would have told me that it's designed to be hyper competitive and the most balanced and deep game I've ever played, I would have said that it's a complete failure. But it didn't. It just set out to be a fairly rules-light skirmish game with rpg elements that focus on wizards. That's it.

You can wish that combat was less rng based, or that there were more options, but you can't say that the game is designed wrong because you don't like the specifics.

We didn't agree with all the choices either, that's why we made our own version, but we're not dumb enough to argue that the designer is WRONG because he has different tastes and priorities than us.

Do any of you guys know of a company that do nice arabian style heavy infantry?
Maybe somebody who has a Crusades range?
Preferably something that would fit to Perry minis in terms of size.

I'm looking for a Knight or Templar miniature for an 1001 nights style warband.

Perry has some nice ones in their metal range, in the crusade section