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.

Hi Dakka folks,

I've been meaning to join this forum for awhile but never got around to it. So Hi, I just joined.

I am working on my thesis in game design and am currently doing some research for a new game I am developing. One of my main questions of research is to find interesting rules or styles for campaign play of tabletop wargames. Essentially I am looking for what you think are the best games that use campaign play.

For example, one of my favorite campaign games is Mordheim. I think the gameplay is excellent and fast while the campaign system is complex and can create interesting characters.

So if you would like to participate in some research I would love to hear what your favorite campaign games are. These can be any kind of game, although I would prefer to hear about non-digital games.

Thanks for your help and I'm glad I finally joined Dakka.
Cheers.

I find home baked, semi-narrative map based campaigns preferable.

I did an article for The Watchman (download it from Warseer. Issue 3 I believe) about expanding Mighty Empires a bit.

I can't say that I've been overly impressed with any campaign game that I've played. Necromunda and Mordheim were both fun for a little bit, but rather quickly the game broke down as one band/gang took over. Add in things like poorly balanced equipment (mordheim armor sucked and crossbows were wayyyyy overpowered) and the game took a turn for the worst fairly quickly.

The inherent problem is that in any kind of campaign system, you need to reward the winners right? Well if you reward the winners, they get more powerful and the losers don't (or at least not so much). In the next game, the more powerful winners are now even more likely to win. So the rich get richer and the poor stay poor so to speak. Some systems are better than others at this, but over all that's how all the games end. Whoever takes the early lead more or less just becomes unstoppable and the game stops being fun.

What I would be much more interested in seeing is a return to the original rogue trader way of playing, where instead of having 2 players play against eachother, you had a GM and some players. This allowed for much more varied scenerios as well as allowing the players to progress at whatever rate they progress without alienating any of them by having them get dropped into situations where their power levels are just too low to be effective.

I back up a GM or Organiser as a good idea. Most important, is that they not actively participate in the campaign. They are there to produce scenarios and generally victimise the Gangs!

i think necromunda as well as warhammer warbands are the best...

also, map based fantasy//40k campaigns...
a guy avian i think on warseer cooked up some real nice rules for simple but good map campaigns, ill see if i can find the link...

Thanks for the replies. I also have found that many campaign games result in a progression to one player being dominant. Thats actually part of why I am researching this topic.

I'm wondering what campaign systems players like, those that I am not aware of I plan on taking a look at. And possibly more important is what players like about that system.

Some of my friends have pointed to Heroquest and the early GW boxed games as campaign games that seemed to have very good progression for the player and (as they remember them) fairly balanced throughout the campaign.

So if anyone has more games to add that would be great. Or maybe another question would be

What don't you like about certain campaign systems?

in this case, name the game and give some examples of what didn't work well.

Cheers.

It would be helpful if you would define what you understand by a campaign game.

shartmatau wrote:Some of my friends have pointed to Heroquest and the early GW boxed games as campaign games that seemed to have very good progression for the player and (as they remember them) fairly balanced throughout the campaign.

Like I said, the reason these games work well is that they are not a player vs player system like normal 40k / fantasy. They are set up as a Players vs Game Master sort of system and I think that's really the key to keeping an interesting campaign going. Not only does it allow for even player growth but it also allows for the GM to pull all kinds of interesting tricks that the players have to deal with which could not be inserted into a player vs player game.

As far as a base system goes, it almost doesn't matter. You could easily use the mordheim or necromunda base rules so long as you modified the game play to not be player vs player. Both could also probably due with a few equipemnt tweaks here and there, but that's nominal.

I know you only wanted to hear about non-digital games, but Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is a first person shooter with semi-persistant unlocks and rewards. A campaign consists of 3 maps, over which players can earn unlocks and abilities, but after the 3rd map, everyone gets reset to baseline.

If a player joins during the middle of the 3rd map, he can earn stuff until the 3rd map is over, then everything is reset to baseline.

Contrast this with Call of Duty or Battlefield, where people earn persistant unlocks that they keep from server to server, for all time.

The ETQW method allows for rewards, but at the end of the 3rd map, the newest player is on the same playing field as the most veteran player.

This mechanism could be recreated for table top by giving rewards that only last for the next game or balanced out a bit by giving a 1 in 6 chance that it won't work or does something bad.

shartmatau:

Could you post your thesis proposal here for consideration?

Nurglitch wrote:shartmatau:

Could you post your thesis proposal here for consideration?

Yes please. Or how about an abstract?

Battletech had some amazing campaigns available for it along with integrated rules for running them and tied that into unit cost as well, Now that its back I look forward to starting it up again.

Nurglitch wrote:shartmatau:

Could you post your thesis proposal here for consideration?

Hi and thanks again for your replies.

So part of our thesis is continually revising our proposal in more defined or finite terms. Here it is in its current form. Also note that I am slowly putting together a website to show my work, I'd be happy to post a link to that once I get the basic site set up.

-----------------
Thesis Concept Overview
The goal of my thesis is to create a tabletop wargame that plays equally well as a single game as it does a campaign game. Its possible to break down the genre of tabletop war games into these two categories, single games and campaign games. The difference between the two can be vast but the single most important differentiation is some sort of advancement.

Single games can be replayed many times and while each individual game’s outcome may be different there is no sense of advancement or continuity between games. Essentially the game starts anew with every play, previous games have no impact on future games.

Campaign games create a series of games to be played. Each game played is like a hand of poker and the campaign is more like the whole night of playing poker. After each game played the players advance in some fashion towards the larger campaign goal. A winner of the campaign can be determined in many ways but in every campaign each individual game is a factor in this determination. In poker, for example, the winner of one hand wins the pot but the player who wins the most hands is not necessarily the winner of the campaign. The winner of the campaign is the player who won the most money.

In tabletop games the difference between single and campaign games can be precisely pointed out. This difference is if some form of advancement is specified in the rules. Single games don’t need any form of advancement to be played, so it won’t be included in the rules. While this makes a game that can be played by many without any need for coordination it also lessens the dramatics of the game, players are not as invested in their pieces/miniatures/armies and the game as a whole as they could be. On the other hand Campaign games require an advancement system and in most campaign games the advancement system is very prominent and often a very fun part of the game. These games exaggerate the dramatics of gameplay; players participate in the growth of their characters. But campaign games require a great deal of organization from the players. Another problem with campaign games is caused by the structure of the game; players generally start a campaign with meager resources and grow larger, this means that if players wanted to play a single game instead of a campaign they would only have access to the weakest possible units. In other words campaigns are set up to be campaigns, not single games.

This is where the two styles play come to a crossroads. What is fun about the game? The players of single games and campaign games are not different people, after the entire tabletop genre is not so wide of an audience. These two styles of play attract players from the same pool and often players will play several different games to satisfy the desire for both.

So what is the problem then? It could be said that there is no problem just two different kinds of play. As mentioned, many players like to play both styles and will alternate between single and campaign games. From my experience this is common among tabletop war gamers. My question is why should they have to change games? Can't a game be made to provide both Single and Campaign styles of play, then let the players decide which style they want to play.
--------------------

This is my second draft of my proposal and part of my thesis questions paper.

and to answer one more question I saw here. My definition of a campaign system is simple. Any form of advancement system written within the rules, this can be advancement of players/units/narrative or any combination of these.

Cheers.

shartmatau wrote:Thanks for the replies. I also have found that many campaign games result in a progression to one player being dominant. Thats actually part of why I am researching this topic.

I'm wondering what campaign systems players like, those that I am not aware of I plan on taking a look at. And possibly more important is what players like about that system.

Some of my friends have pointed to Heroquest and the early GW boxed games as campaign games that seemed to have very good progression for the player and (as they remember them) fairly balanced throughout the campaign.

So if anyone has more games to add that would be great. Or maybe another question would be

What don't you like about certain campaign systems?

in this case, name the game and give some examples of what didn't work well.

Cheers.

I know that you didn't really want us to mention electronic games, but I feel this really needed mentioning. If you are looking for Campaign based games I would seriously go take a look at all of the incarnations of the total war series. (Especially Shogun: Total War and Medieval: Total War as they are province based and play more like a board game.) But they are the premier campaign based game that has come out. And they have acutally solved the early domination problem. When you get big, you start running out of resources, and the number of fights you are in increases at a higher rate than which you can pump out armies. So it forces you to fight multiple battles with one force. They certainly take losses but the units themselves get much better individually. Sure, they may be at half strength, but what they lack in numbers they make up in morale modifiers and higher attack/defence values do to their veteran bonues. So if you are studying that kind of thing, I would highly suggest you give them a look.

oh I'm not ruling out digital games and in fact the Total War series is one of my favorite games in terms of the campaign. I'm not too big on the actual realtime fighting but the campaign is great.

I simply ask for non-digital games here because its the main topic of the forum and I'm looking for more non-digital examples to read up on and play.

Oh one more thing. I hope nobody minds me using any comments here in my writings or presentations. If so please let me know and I will not use your comments.

yeah I was that dominant clan in necromunda. it was great fun untill I bought a melta gun.

as far as games I'm more worried about how fresh the gameplay is. modular terrain for table top, map editors for computers.

I played starcraft for years simply because there was always something to do.

having lots of different options, and small bonuses that can be counteracted are better then the same game with big bonuses.

say its a 'kill team' style game in a building. say that player 1 can set up an auto heavy bolter (with armor of some sort) that fires at anyone in range. and say player 2 has something where they can choose to set a peice of the building instead of player 1 setting up his. (you have to start in a hall and you 'explore' from there)

just make it so that the bonus's aren't just out right amazing. they have to be used right.

or I think thats what I"m trying to say.

Ratbarf wrote:I know that you didn't really want us to mention electronic games, but I feel this really needed mentioning. If you are looking for Campaign based games I would seriously go take a look at all of the incarnations of the total war series. (Especially Shogun: Total War and Medieval: Total War as they are province based and play more like a board game.) But they are the premier campaign based game that has come out. And they have acutally solved the early domination problem. When you get big, you start running out of resources, and the number of fights you are in increases at a higher rate than which you can pump out armies. So it forces you to fight multiple battles with one force.

While that works out great in a computer game, it tends to fall apart in a table top game. The reason for that is if you have 5 players. The one big guy ends up in 4 seperate battles, one with each of the other players. While this will certainly trim down his power (assuming casualties carry over and what not) by running him low on resources, it isn't much fun. The big guy gets to play 4 games while each of the other guys plays 1. I know I don't want to be sitting around watching people play out 3 different games of 40k (or whatever) while I twittle my thumbs waiting for my turn.

shartmatau wrote:I simply ask for non-digital games here because its the main topic of the forum and I'm looking for more non-digital examples to read up on and play.

I think you may want to look less at what other games do and simply figure out what you want your game to do. H.B.M.C. and his crew (of which I am/was a part of for a bit) have spent quite a bit of time and energy revising 40k to be the game they want it to be for example. You may want to get in touch with him (and visit the message boards) to find out more about it. Lots of changes to the game mechanics and codexes. I don't think they've ever come up with a campaign mode though.

Phoenix wrote:
I think you may want to look less at what other games do and simply figure out what you want your game to do. H.B.M.C. and his crew (of which I am/was a part of for a bit) have spent quite a bit of time and energy revising 40k to be the game they want it to be for example. You may want to get in touch with him (and visit the message boards) to find out more about it. Lots of changes to the game mechanics and codexes. I don't think they've ever come up with a campaign mode though.

I can understand this point but at the same time I am spending quite a deal of time writing out and playing options for what i want to do. The point of looking at other games is to see where they fall short and where they shine, not necessarily for ideas for me to use but for me to foresee problems and implement a solution before it becomes a problem. Also in a thesis (not sure if you have ever done one) a huge part of our process is finding previous precedents in order to point out previous work in this area but also for to expand upon existing theories or concepts of this field. In other words looking at the wheel so that you are not reinventing the wheel.

I feel this is getting a bit off topic. If anyone feels they have more questions about my thesis process/direction I would be happy to talk about it outside this thread. I actually like to talk about my current process with people outside my program so I can better explain myself, refine the language used to describe my project and get new influences.

Cheers.

Blood Bowl in my experiance has the best campaign, well at least the newest edition. A lot of posts have indicated that campaigns only benefit the winners, Blood Bowl has a handicap system to make the loosing teams on the same ground(roughly at least) to make game play more balanced.

Phoenix wrote:The inherent problem is that in any kind of campaign system, you need to reward the winners right? Well if you reward the winners, they get more powerful and the losers don't (or at least not so much). In the next game, the more powerful winners are now even more likely to win. So the rich get richer and the poor stay poor so to speak. Some systems are better than others at this, but over all that's how all the games end. Whoever takes the early lead more or less just becomes unstoppable and the game stops being fun.

In a campaign that just involves players, then yes, that is 100% true. But in a managed campaign, with someone running out (they can be a player or not, it doesn't always matter), these problems can be mitigated by introducing new elements that shift the balance back and forth.

For the past few years some guys over at the ClassicBattleTech forums have been running a very large campaig involving about 8 players a side. They have a strategic map, have persistant forces and so on, and while the campaign was running it went back and forth with tactical blunders, incredible victories against all odds, lucky shots, upsets, and daring assaults behind enemy lines.

Very early on into the campaign, one side found their mobile repair facilities under attack and very quickly lost them. This sort of thing would cripple one side, and would create the shift that you mention. The other side didn't give up though, and pressed on, eventually catching the enemy's mobile repair systems and bringing everyone to an equal footing.

When both sides were approaching critical mass with damage (there were numerous forces, but most were virtually non-combat worthly), the GM saw fit to introduce new forces, explaining how and when they would arrive. These weren't just 'free' either, both sides were able to disrupt this flow of reinforcements, stop them from rearming, and generally make life difficult for one another.

Instead, rather than one side dominating early and just powering through, it came down to a few very decisive battles that saw massive damage on both sides, but more to one another. One side had extended their lines too far in making an advance, couldn't repair in time, and found themselves cut off by fresh forces, and the campaign ended. What's more is that the side who won had previously suffered several shocking defeats and upsets, even when they out numbered the enemy, and had looked like they were losing for several campaign turns. It was never a foregone conclusion at any point.

This was all documented and posted to the forums over quite a lengthy space of time and showed how a campaign should work when managed correctly. So yes, you are 100% right when it comes to standard campaigns that just involve players (the old Necromunda problem of one gang running away from the others leaving no one who can challenge them), but when there's someone acting as overseer, these situations are less likely to be encountered as they'll either be managed to the point where they don't happen, or nipped in the bud as soon as they start to appear.

BYE

Has anyone mentioned the General's Compendium yet?

I don't know how legal it is now with all the different versions of Warhammer GW keep making, but I remember hearing a lot of good things about it when it was around.

BYE

PANZERBLITZ UBER ALLES. Realistic rules, historical scenarios, and you could create your own. Large troop formations (larger than EPIC by a shot).

I believe that the game FRAG from Steve Jackson Games has a campaign system. It's a simulation of FPS video games and is a blast to play. I'd check it out.