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 Designers,

Wargames have rules for fighting. However, the Scenario sets the specifics of that fight. Many games come with pre-made scenarios to use the rules in, but others do not. Some games by their nature are considered "Scenario Driven". Books detailing scenarios are as old as Wargaming itself!

For example:
- Force-on-Force/Tomorrow's War refers to itself as Scenario Driven as there are no pre-made Force selections.
- Warhammer 40K had a whole splatbook of scenarios
- Many boardgames the whole reason for the game is the scenario- Escape from Atlantis, Star Patrol

So as someone interested in game design I ask, how important are pre-made scenarios in a game? What makes a scenario "good"? What are some great scenarios you have played or used? What are games that make good use of Scenarios?

Discuss.

I believe that scenarios are important, simply for variety's sake.

I like simple scenarios that are easily understood:
- Capture the Flag
- King of the Hill
- Breakthrough / Hold
- Scavenger Hunt
- Kill Foozle

One version of the Heavy Gear miniatures rules had an interesting scenario generator. Not only did both sides have different objectives that may or may not intersect, but each side could have a different "priority level". So, side A might really need to capture their objective (meaning that they can choose more elite units, and their threshold for morale checks is higher than normal), while side B might need to recce the enemy forces, but it's not a top priority, so they'll retreat in the face of heavy opposition.

I always prefer a bit of backstory to the scenarios I play; Infinity has a good selection, but they're a little "gamey". Partly that seems like the fault of the players, though; I see too many setups with objectives placed with no regard to the surrounding scenery - transmission antennas or even entire buildings in the middle of streets, that sort of thing.

Something a bit more complex is also good (especially in a skirmish game); capture point A to unlock the door to point B; capture point B and retrieve the maguffin, that sort of thing.

40k's Battle MIssions book, and the various Maelstrom mission card decks, are a good way of doing things, I think; giving different armies different objectives based on the sort of missions they'd be carrying out (an armoured spearhead assault, human wave assault or defence line for Imperial Guard, airborne precision attack or "assassination" missions for Marines, etc).

I have heard Malifaux has (or had) a good "random generated" scenario system. I don't know because I have not bothered with this system other than academically study the card mechanic.

I am against randomly generated scenarios because they require 4 times the work and deliver half as good content than a well crafted scenario.

Infinity scenarios can be seen as "gamey" because that is what they are, well crafted scenarios for a game system, they do not pretend otherwise and this is why they are good.

I do not like fine tuned scenarios for wargames like force on force were they require the player to have a specific force, yes they can deliver interesting results, but force the player to a pre selected army list, a relic from "pure" historical era, on the other hand this is great for boardgames especially those that do not give flexibility to the players they deliver a fine tuned experience for the content they provide.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I have heard Malifaux has (or had) a good "random generated" scenario system. I don't know because I have not bothered with this system other than academically study the card mechanic.

Off the top of my head (it's been a while since I played), Malifaux has one randomly rolled for scenario from a list of 6, but then each player (before choosing lists) selects additional objectives, which they can then choose to reveal to the opponent, making it harder to achieve them but getting a VP bonus because of that) or keep them secret, in which case they just get regular VPs but you'll have a few turns of the opponent needing to second-guess every move you make to see what it is you're trying to achieve.

On a broader note, I think scenarios of both the generic and specific kind are essential no matter what the game is. Thus far that's one of the few things that I've not loved about X-wing, it's standard mode is just a 100 point Deathmatch (though there is a whole bunch of both official and fan-made additional content that spiced that up, and a seemingly quite active community that produces a lot of home-made extra material). However, I would also argue that making up a narrative scenario on the spot is often just as fun as playing a pre-made one; so long as both sides go into it with an open mind, even if the scenario ends up being ultimately quite unbalanced then there's still plenty of fun to be had within that narrative. Pre-made scenarios you know are going to have been tested and hopefully as balanced as a standard game, but that robs some of the excitement of watching the game unfold, not sure how it will all pan out.

For example, when I first got my Imperial Knight and wanted to try it out, I had no real idea what it was capable of. Thus, we set up a scenario where it was my army including a Knight against a Necron force that had two portals through which they could respawn units; he won if the portals lasted until the end of the game, I won if I could bring them both down (we gave them AV and HP, though I can't remember what values now). In the end, I think the new Knight won quite easily, but both of us had enormous fun watching just how many Necrons he went through, only to have them pop back up from the portals the next turn. It added a grander scale to things, a sense of urgency, and just made the game play a little differently to a standard 40k game.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I have heard Malifaux has (or had) a good "random generated" scenario system. I don't know because I have not bothered with this system other than academically study the card mechanic.

I am against randomly generated scenarios because they require 4 times the work and deliver half as good content than a well crafted scenario.

Infinity scenarios can be seen as "gamey" because that is what they are, well crafted scenarios for a game system, they do not pretend otherwise and this is why they are good.

I do not like fine tuned scenarios for wargames like force on force were they require the player to have a specific force, yes they can deliver interesting results, but force the player to a pre selected army list, a relic from "pure" historical era, on the other hand this is great for boardgames especially those that do not give flexibility to the players they deliver a fine tuned experience for the content they provide.

It depends what you're after. From this post, I suspect you like playing a game. I like fighting a battle. Which is why I find Infinity's scenarios occasionally lacking; what's in those crates? Why do I want them, and why are they there? Those are all important for setting the scene, along with terrain setup - making the board look like a place, not just a layout for a game. I'm not saying one way's better than the other, but ideally the game will explain what side it's on.

It's also worth mentioning that Infinity and Malifaux specify that you should choose the scenario before selecting your forces. Age of Sigmar does the same, while I'm not sure about 40k (it used to be the case in 3rd edition, as the force organisation chart changed) or Warmachine. While I prefer to do it that way, it makes it a little more difficult to do things "on the fly", if that sort of gaming environment is of concern to you.

Infinity tournament system says make two valid its lists and chose one of them once you know the scenario your secret objectives and the faction your opponent is.

True I like playing a game, I assume by "fighting a battle" you mean "have a narrative experience", this is a valid experience you may want.

But I approach this forum section as a game designer and not as a player and focus on the experience I want to deliver to the players.

Of course I am biased towards the design principles I feel are better in delivering the experience I want, this is different from approaching such discussion as a player.

In WFB 6E, you selected scenario before selecting forces. I think in 7E, GW switched WFB to premade lists.

Then there's Malestrom for 40k - arguably the worst of all worlds.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Infinity tournament system says make two valid its lists and chose one of them once you know the scenario your secret objectives and the faction your opponent is.

That's a special case, though; a compromise because choosing a new army for every round would take too long. It's not the default game rules. Choosing your force specifically to match the mission objectives makes for a refreshing change, and I'm not sure why it gets looked down upon.

Even from the point of view of a designer, the narrative or simulationist aspect requires as much attention as the game aspect, if that's your intent. It can make scenario design more difficult, I suppose. With a "game", you can balance up the sides and be done with it. With a "simulation", that's not going to cover most cases; plenty (most?) battles had one side outnumbering another, so you need to consider other options to balance the scenario. The Persians at Thermopylae, or the Zulus at Rorke's Drift definitely had more points than their opposition, but the scenario there allows the defenders to win if they can only survive for a period of time.

Or a raid; SAS/LRDG raids on Luftwaffe and Aeronautica Militare bases in WW2, for example - a "smaller points value" force attacking a larger enemy; get in, achieve the objective and get out before the weight of numbers overwhelms you. The game ox X-Wing I played tonight was like that; 89 points of TIE Fighters vs 112 points of CR90 corvette, but the TIEs only need to cripple a single section to win, not destroy the whole ship.

I've seen a scenario system which uses a matrix; say, each player chooses attack or defend. If both choose attack, then you get a meeting engagement. If one attacks and one defends, then it's a raid. If both defend ... you call it a night and go to the pub? ( I can't remember the exact details).

I like the idea of an attack / defend matrix; however, there has to be some kind of clear advantage to defending (i.e. more points). More points becomes an issue for list building.

However, if we look at the sideboard concept from Magic, then this isn't too bad:

Each player assembles a core force with two distinct auxiliary wings up to 30% of the core force value.

At the start of each game, each player chooses:
a) attack with no auxiliaries (1.0x units);
b) battle with one auxiliary in reserves (1.3x);
c) command with one auxiliary entering from either flank, and the other in reserves. (1.6x)

Double-blind selection, with simultaneous reveal to determine scenario.

That gives 6 different match combinations, which is useful if you want to roll a random scenario.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Choosing your force specifically to match the mission objectives makes for a refreshing change, and I'm not sure why it gets looked down upon.

Even from the point of view of a designer, the narrative or simulationist aspect requires as much attention as the game aspect, if that's your intent. It can make scenario design more difficult, I suppose. With a "game", you can balance up the sides and be done with it. With a "simulation", that's not going to cover most cases

Time, players want a game system that provides them with everything they need to play the game, creating an army list on the spot eats from the game time and is regarded as a nuisance, there is a minority of players who enjoy this but most would rather spend the time they have available in playing the game, this is why list building has evolved into a favorite activity when players are :away from the game"

IIRC battlelore 2.0 expects players to make their army after they have revealed their chosen scenarios and provides premade lists for people who do not want to.

From the point of a game designer it is purely what experience one wants to deliver, simulation or a game, narrative is important, but, it does not need to be deep, ITS are well received and the preferred way to play infinity for anybody I have talked with, because they tight up the game system and provide other thing for players to do that "kill em all", an in depth scenario, maybe even with peralocated forces and "hidden events" delivers another experience altogether and demands another form of game design, one were balance is secondary and story telling is primary.

At the moment I am interested in designing games and provide balanced rules for all participants, I am thinking in the back burner about a possible "legacy" "choose your own adventure" game that could be more narrative, but this is not what I work now or have worked for in the past.

"players"? None that I know; all the games at my club are pre-arranged, so the only additional step is to agree the scenario ahead of time too. It's how I play Infinity (choosing the Classified Objectives ahead of time, too) and Dropzone Commander (a game where if you don't do it that way, you restrict the scenarios available).

Like I said, your idea of "all participants" is a bit limited. That's fair enough, but it's being presented as something more inclusive than it really is. It sounds like you're designing something suitable for a "tournament" game, and that's simply of no interest to me. I might be a minority, but I don't think I'm alone.

But I'm getting off-topic. it just happened to push my buttons, so sorry for that, Easy E.

I feel this type of playing is the exception, most people I have conversed with play "tournament style" games and mostly in pick up and play format, even in arranged meetings, I have yet to see locally (as in my country) somebody playing a prearanged game with preselected lists and set battlefield (to be entirely honest, I did it in rogue trader and once in 2nd edition, but the effort to make somebody agree on that was so massive I quit) so designing for this format seems to be the best way to design games for.

The ones that want to put the extra effort to make their prearanged narrative games will do so anyway and the majority of potential customers who prefer the pick and play tournament format are taken cared.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am against randomly generated scenarios because they require 4 times the work and deliver half as good content than a well crafted scenario.

I think one advantage of randomly generated scenarios is variety. If you add enough variables you could potentially never play the same scenario twice. Of course, adding more variables will mean it is likely the system will creak a little at the edges (some games being very hard for one player or the other to win, for instance) and so it isn’t ideal for tournament play, but for friendly games between regular players it can work brilliantly.

In fact, in friendly games that bit of unfairness can actually make the game more interesting. Life isn’t always fair, and in the real world sometimes soldiers get assigned missions that are really tough. So if you roll up scenario that looks really tough, play it out and see, then talk about it afterwards. And then maybe even swap sides, and see if your opponent can do better with the same mission.

Yes the main advantage of randomly generated scenarios is variety, but they still are 4 times (or more) the work for half as good content and they may in deed crack at the edges or in some odd stellar alignments in the middle.

What you say about friendly games is true(ish) it is debatable how enjoyable such scenarios can be for the player who drew the short stick, or both, but from a game designers perspective and not the players, to have your players end up in such a scenario is bad.

Even in "impossible scenarios" the game designers role is to make the experience enjoyable for both parties making the straggler feel he has a chance no mater how slim and making the obvious victory for the other player something to work for.

Randomly generated scenarios need way too much playtesting to make sure all the combinations are at least workable and even then they may result in really skewed games.

That is why well crafted scenarios are better, they take less effort and work better.