Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings,

Welcome to another edition of Game Design Discussions.

With the recent release and discussion around Frostgrave let's talk about Campaign Games! A campaign game is one that tries to link a series of game results together into a larger strategic/bigger picture perspective. There are many games that try to do this so let's talk about:

1. Games that have a Campaign Component>

2. What it take sot make a good Campaign system.

3. Common drawbacks of a Campaign system.

4. Potential ways to mitigate the drawbacks of said systems.

I think the "Grand-Daddy" of campaign games that the majority of us on these boards will be familiar with are Necromunda/Gorkakorka/Mordheim. However, that is just a drop in the thousands out there.

Discuss!

Not played Mordheim etc myself however have played other campaigns.

The most obvious potential disadvantage of a campaign is that as one side wins usually it gets stronger and finds it easier to win more.

Therefore some kind of balancing system should be built in to help mitigate the effect. This might for example be the need to detach forces to occupy territory, or might arise naturally from the winning side havig to move farther from its supply base.

Campaigns are good if you have ways for everyone to have fun. Obviously there are winners but all people in it should be able to do something until the conclusion.

Also it's good if you can continue where you left of.

1. Games that have a Campaign Component.

I'm currently involved in an Empire of the Dead campaign, and am running a Bloodbowl League.

2. What it takes to make a good Campaign system.

Well, that depends. I think campaigns fall into one of two categories - skirmish and grand.

Skirmish campaigns are like Necromunda/Mordheim/Empire of the Dead/Frostgrave. Small bands of models that are individual equipped and posses their own unique skills and abilities. For these types of games, a campaign system should have good scenarios that aren't just "kill more of the opposing team" so that even underpowered gangs have a chance, good rules for advancement so that models can develop to reflect an ongoing campaign, interesting factions that a their own unique playstyles.

Grand Campaigns are going to be focused on entire armies, like Blucher's Scharnhorst system or Flames of War's Firestorm campaigns. These need to have ways of moving big forces around the table and then reflect the makeup of these forces on the tabletop.

3. Common drawbacks of a Campaign system.

Power growth; what happens when a single gang starts winning too much and pulls out ahead of everyone else.

4. Potential ways to mitigate the drawbacks of said systems.

Like I said, having scenarios that don't revolve around making the other gang break and run is a good way to mitigate their power. Maybe it's defending a VIP until sunrise, or searching for an artifact and finding it before the other player does.

Alternatively, allowing a player to restart after a particularly bad game can help at the beginning of a campaign. Thanks to a misunderstanding of the Mighty Blow rule, after my first game in the Blood Bowl league, I had one player dead, and another 7 badly injured and not available for the next game. Of them, three suffered permament penalties.

Since it was the first game, I was allowed to start over, while the other player was allowed to keep the SPP he gained.

In our EotD campaign, we're starting over, as our gangs are getting to high enough levels that we want to try something new.

Skipping ahead to 3-4

I'd say the biggest problem (other than getting people together at a scheduled time) is the conflict between rewarding players for doing well, and not just giving the good players the better options.

Responses I've seen that work at all include artificially limited campaign length; using regular points (so the veteran force can use pricier but fewer options, say, like a regular wargame), or simply making the game light enough that a little more imbalance won't hurt things (which I consider stopgap at best).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Therefore some kind of balancing system should be built in to help mitigate the effect. This might for example be the need to detach forces to occupy territory, or might arise naturally from the winning side havig to move farther from its supply base.

I think that Necromunda, and to a less extent Mordheim, had the right idea here. The larger the power discrepancy between players the greater the rewards, both in terms of experience and loot. This cushions the likely defeat of the weaker gang and ides some incentive for new players to want to face more mature Gangs/warbands etc.

Personally I am a big fan of campaign games, I find they tend to become mini RPGs with in game events becoming woven into the larger narrative and becoming talking points for players. For example in a recent Mordheim game a Necromancer stole the soul from one of my heroes who has now become a souless automaton completely immune to fear but sadly lacking in ability (in reality the Necromancer cast lifesteal, took my hero out of action and he rolled well on the injury table and my dice have always been cursed).

When I think of a campaign game I think of the progress of historical campaigns.

Two or more sides have gone to war. They manoeuvre their armies, hoping to get an advantage for tactical battles. The result of battles feeds back into strategy, by destroying significant forces, or capturing strategic resources.

The question to me is how much of the campaign you want to simulate. Wargamers usually ignore logistics, which actually is one of the most important parts of war. "An army marches on its stomach".

In reality, campaigns are nearly as destructive to the winner as the loser, even without battles, as causes like sickness, straggling, and mechanical failure reduce your army continuously. Therefore there is a need to supply and reinforce your army.

In this kind of campaign, battles actually might not happen, or at least they could be remarkably infrequent.

However a wargame campaign can be done as a reason to generate tactical battles, ignoring all the logistics. This can be done with a nodal or linear map.

This is the biggest can of worms in game design really.

There are many ways to do a campaign, but most choose to do in a way that makes a balanced (or not) system devolve in a clearly imbalanced system were the 'rich get richer" is usually at its worse.

Unfortunately this is the easiest way to design a campaign system and the one the winning players will find most enjoyable.

For me the best campaign systems are the ones that tell a story, were players are guided in a carefully crafted and balanced path of battles, but this is limiting and provides problems with replayability.

A middle ground solution is to give bonuses to players without invalidating game balance, but this requires a really solid and balanced game as a foundation.

Interesting, I am hearing two different approaches.

1. The guided games (which I hadn't really considered) in which a structured "ladder" or similar type approach is used. A system where winning a battle leads into the next scenario rather than a post-game sequence.

2. The Post-Game approach where units or guys gain experience, injuries, and stuff but the next scenario is still open for discussion.

For some reason, I didn't even consider the first option, even though I have played those frequently.

This makes me think of the Aeronautica Imperialis campaign system where you start with a certain number of aircraft at the start, and playing and winning games grants you points. You use these points to "buy" reinforcements. However, the campaign itself has a limited number of scenarios based on if you are going on the offensive or defensive for the turn.

The game store in Oakland, CA (Endgame) runs lots of 40k campaigns, and I like a lot of their takes on how to run them. This time around, they are using a 4000 point list for each player, and that player can only use units from that list in each game. After each game, you roll for units that got wiped out and they may die, and you roll for units that live and they may gain veteran skills (which you still have to pay points for if you want to use).

In this way, the forces evolve and grow (and shrink). Even if you lose a few units permanently, all you've lost is options. For the next game, you and you opponent would still just choose 1500 points or whatever and play your game.

I haven't read all of the campaign system that Wyrd just released for Malifaux, but I believe that they use a similar system to this. Both sides are still limited to the same size force, so the winning sides are benefited by having more models to choose from, but they aren't going to outnumber anybody on the table.

I think that what is particularly interesting about all of the responses thus far is that they assume competition between the campaign participants.

What about campaigns in co-op games? Heck, even Zombicide has a few official campaigns. Even when it comes to player v player games, a strong narrative focus makes the campaign more of a co-op experience.

I think in the market right now we are seeing a trend towards gameplay experiences with a stronger focus on narrative. Frostgrave is only one example. Lots of board games are pushing narrative and even plenty of miniatures games. Wyrd just released a campaign system, and take a look at Icarus Miniatures. The company tag line is "the home of narrative Wargaming."

This is right along with the push towards board games. Most of the big table top wargame companies have developed and released board games in their fictional universes, and often ones with a strong narrative focus.

To me, narrative primarily means co-op. It is harder for a group of people to tell a story everyone finds fulfilling if winning is more important than the story itself. GMs can help to keep campaigns balanced in a way that serves the interests of the narrative, even if it as simple as making sure every participant feels like they are able to make meaningful contributions to the narrative.

We never do a Blood Bowl campaign without someone also playing the role of GM in the guise of the commissioner. The commissioner's job is to maintain balance through narrative. Sometimes companies sponsor a team to further a corporate agenda. Sometimes an entire team gets run off a cliff on the way to a match. That type of shafting only works if the players agree that the story is more important than winning.

At the end of the day, what is the point of a campaign without a desire for narrative? Otherwise you would be happier playing a tournament.

Real life historical campaigns don't usually follow the wargame pattern of winning makes it easier to win again. There are various reasons for this:

Very often the winner loses nearly as many forces as the loser, and reorganising after a victory is nearly as difficult as reorganising after a defeat.

As the winner advances, his supply lines become longer, so more resources are needed for transportation. At the same time, the loser gets closer to his own supply base.

Political interference at home (we've won, so let's reduce the subsidy to the army) and so on. Conversely, the loser's politicians are often convinced to pour in more resources for defence.

Etc.

The above reasons are why Napoleon tried to win his wars by a short campaign culminating in a major battle that destroyed the opposing army and left the state unable to refuse his diplomatic demands. This didn't work in the 1812 campaign because the battle of Borodino was not decisive, and the Russians just didn't give up. Napoleon then gradually succumbed to a combination of logistical and political factors.

The point in wargame terms is that a sophisticated campaign probably needs to be run by an umpire. If you want a simpler campaign, it is easier to ignore losses and supplies and so on, and restore both armies in full after each battle.

weeble1000 wrote:
I think that what is particularly interesting about all of the responses thus far is that they assume competition between the campaign participants.

What about campaigns in co-op games?

Co-op games follow different rules and balance is of a different kind, such game systems do not need as careful fine tuning, as long as the players do not feel they take a stroll to the park, imbalance in favor of the players is actually appreciated, especially if the "environment" is AI controlled as is the Zombiside example.

When a campaign brings players against players the situation needs more fine tuning and it is were most discussion is based around, how to make the game engaging for winners and losers, how many campaigns have failed because halfway players realized there is no way to win and left?

The question still remains valid, I would assume it is because as I said above Co-op is perceived as easier (or in no need) of fine tuning hence of no need of discussion, a false assumption, but prevailing never the less.

I've got to agree. On the "You're playing a series of connected games with real people with concerns outside the game" side of things, the first thing the campaign design has to address is what is going to prevent a player from saying "I quit because my time would be better spent cleaning out the garage. Have fun finishing the campaign, everyone."

If the campaign system doesn't have a mechanism for people to throw their force away and restart (or a mechanism for new players to rejoin) campaigns are only ever going to finish by attrition or apathy. "Everyone else stopped showing up, so I guess I win."