Jump to content



Photo

Babaganoosh's Campaign System


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#41 Blail Blerg

Blail Blerg

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,071 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:53 PM

 

I'd have to say that this form is seriously constricting.  Some of us WANT to run 4 shuttles or 4 HWKs as a squad because that is cool and squad-like and rather fun.

 

I think the takeaway here is that different people get fun different ways. I know that I get my fun by deeply embedding my games in the SWU, but I also know that I'm a bit of an outlier in this respect.

 

So, the challenge is to connect with the people who share your conception of fun, and build (or find) a structure that allows you to do that.

 

For my part, I join Rekkon in his thematic limitation, though I implement it radically differently.

 

 

Well it kind of stops those who think differently from doing what they love with your shared games, which I think is a little sad.  Of course, compromise is good and I'm sure they will find enjoyment in other aspects too.  Honestly though, I love my singular shuttle.   

 

Also, more complex rules make this game even harder to play optimally. Added complexity is the last thing this game really needs I think.  

You see a lot of complexity creep in MTG up until like 2010 when they realized this and began taking drastic steps to tone it down.   

 

--

 

I would say though, that if the systems work, it should be fun anyways.  


ROLL RED, STAY THIRSTY FRIENDS. 


#42 Mikael Hasselstein

Mikael Hasselstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:53 PM

I'll wade in with my own system.
Http://www.winterdyne.co.uk/maz/bsl_campaign.pdf

Oh wow!

This is a great resource for missions, if nothing else.



#43 Blail Blerg

Blail Blerg

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,071 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 03:56 PM

I really like those missions that have stages, like the asteroid base one where you start with a scouting party, then unleash an assault force.   


ROLL RED, STAY THIRSTY FRIENDS. 


#44 Mikael Hasselstein

Mikael Hasselstein

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 04:08 PM

Well it kind of stops those who think differently from doing what they love with your shared games, which I think is a little sad.  Of course, compromise is good and I'm sure they will find enjoyment in other aspects too.  Honestly though, I love my singular shuttle.   

 

You're right - that is sad.

 

On the flip side, I would find less fun in a game in which a Lamda shuttle is used as a dedicated combat vessel, rather than a VIP transport. It just violates my sense of Star Wars too much.

 

So, ideally, there would be many different types of campaign that people could play in. I think that the campaign designer should try to accommodate the community he's building for, but it's his own fun in building and creating that's going to sustain his creative process.

 

Also, more complex rules make this game even harder to play optimally. Added complexity is the last thing this game really needs I think.  

You see a lot of complexity creep in MTG up until like 2010 when they realized this and began taking drastic steps to tone it down.  

 

I'll take your word for it on the MTG front. For my part, I'm trying to hide the complexity in the computer (ie. insource it into my modest ability to code). That way, the players can do two things which I think makes this game fun:

 

1. offer narrative stakes to our X-Wing battles

2. offer varying combat conditions to break away from the 6-asteroid-100-point-death-match.

 

I think that as long as a campaign offers these two things, without making the interface (be that a .pdf document, a stack of playing cards, or a computer program) too distracting, then all is well. That, of course, is no mean challenge.

 

However, I think the bigger challenge is finding the community that wants to play this with you. In that sense, you're right that there should be certain degrees of freedom. I guess I'm allowling this by having the Empire face very different constraints than the rebels. In my game, you couldn't do 4 shuttles, but you could do 4 HWKs.  The Empire is limited by its rigid order of battle, whereas the rebels are limited by resources.



#45 Babaganoosh

Babaganoosh

    Member

  • Members
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:48 AM

Updated the campaign guide link in the original post with the most recent version.

 

I opted to slow down and simplify pilot progression by having players move their pilots along a PS track each battle.  It slows down after PS4, and the EPT slot is automatic at PS6.

 

I cleaned up in several places and added a new mission and a few examples for clarity.  

 

I decided not to implement a cost increase for increases in PS/ ship upgrades; my thinking is that the slow-down in pilot progression should prevent early snowballing, and players will become more conservative flying heavily upgraded ships/pilots, giving players flying fresh ships a level playing field because they can afford to be more aggressive.  


Edited by Babaganoosh, 12 June 2014 - 08:48 AM.


#46 Rekkon

Rekkon

    Member

  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:10 AM

So, how do/would you guys structure the missions and what/how many ships get deployed to each?

 

In my system each player chooses a strategic target to attack each turn.  If the owner chooses to defend it, a battle happens.  You roll on a table to determine what scenario is played.  Pretty much all of them are adapted from the FFG ones, though I am (slowly) creating and balancing new ones based on original ideas and ACTA setups.  Some scenarios (like regular dogfight) also have you roll to determine the size of the battle.  Once the scenario and point size is known, each player builds a squad from their available ships, pilots and upgrades.  There are also "terrain" variations, though those are typically determined by the strategic target.

 

I'd have to say that this form is seriously constricting.  Some of us WANT to run 4 shuttles or 4 HWKs as a squad because that is cool and squad-like and rather fun.  

Also, shuttles are particularly strong combatants.  So is the Firespray.  They are also interesting and unique to fly.  The firespray is also, not exactly a support ship.  its more of an offensive object.  

In theory, yes (and you can always adjust your thematic restrictions to taste), but in practice not really (as long as you have enough players).  The ship restrictions are done at the faction level, not at the player level.  A faction of six players can have six shuttles.  This does not necessarily mean one shuttle per player.  You could have one with four and two with one, three with two, etc.  This allows people that do not care to fly those ships to "give" their allotment of them to those that do.  And to reiterate, this was not merely a thematic restriction.  Ships with more health can more easily run from a battle gone bad.  The diversity of ships used in a campaign would suffer far more if everyone only used large ships because they offered significant long term attrition advantages than by instituting an artificial limit on certain ship types.

 

A lot of eyes were on the last iteration of my campaign system, up to twelve players at one point, including some World Champions and FFG play testers.  They helped iron out and integrity test a lot of things.


  • Mikael Hasselstein likes this

#47 TurnDamage

TurnDamage

    Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 04:03 PM

Baba, I like this a great deal.  Plus, your campaign manual is crafted quite well :-)

Makes me want to play right now!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS