"Narrative in Wargames " Topic

It's occurred to me that wargame and miniature produces spend a significant amount of time creating rules, playtesting them, manufacturing and designing miniatures. I think the industry has that part of the hobby down as evidenced by the plethora of rules and miniature manufacturers out there.

The third element that seems missing or under-represented is narrative. Sure, many fantasy games will come with their own universe to accompany the game and historical games can just rely on history to provide the narrative. However, our games don't tie the narrative into the table-top or from one game to the next, we tend to play games as individual distinct events with no relation to one another.

Of course we have campaigns, leagues and tournaments that attempt to provide narrative into our games. But if you look at the time and money that's put into the development and production of rules and miniatures, they outweigh by a great margin the effort put into building a narrative around and into the table-top experience.

I think that narrative, or layer of gaming above the table-top level is extremely important and fun. Not only from a game design and historical relevancy perspective but also from an entertainment point of view. Almost every form of popular entertainment has some kind of narrative to it, and it seems like it is largely missing from our hobby.

I agree.
I have started a blog about my 6mm games and there is a narrative in the form of a diary style entry from an infantry soldier after each battle.
The entry helps move the story along and recap on the last battle/game.

Michael.

I have no interest in refighting the Napoleonic Wars from Valmy to Waterloo. Or WWII from Mokra to Berlin.

Campaigns provide a framework on which to hang a series of games, and as such have their own internal narrative.

What else is there?

Isn't that what the Scenario Description is for ? After that there's plenty of narrative about what the players are doing or thinking and why they're doing that, it just doesn't get written down most of the time.

Could the "narrative" you are referring to, be additional detail which one could add to an AAR?

MH

While I agree with Conrad that I usually do not want to refight an entire war from start to finish, I also do not find much pleasure in playing this all to common scenario: 1500 points of army A have set up in the standard deployment area on the opposite long side of the table. Your mission is to deploy 1500 points of army B in the standard deployment area opposite them and lead your troops to achieving a majority of victory points.

Compare that to the following: The enemy has seized the crossroads at the village of Notmuch-in-Tablecentre.You are tasked with driving them out of this objective.

A scanty scenario brief to be sure, but it still sets a narrative mood. A look at C S Grant's Tabletop Teasers articles will show further examples of how a short bit of narrative can be used to introduce a Wargames scenario.

I think Bottom Dollar is right that most of it doesn't get written down. Even when I am playing a solo campaign I don't usually write down any of the narrative portion.

I enjoy narrative very much and use it in my games. See my site here oldspaceways.com/forum to see my use of narrative.

Interesting thoughts. I guess much depends on what that narrative, which you've defined as being "the layer of gaming above the table-top level", would encompass.

I suppose it's generally considered to be incumbent on us as gamers/players/modellers to come up with our own backstory/framework; but as we're freer to do that in a fantasy/sci-fi/alternative history setting than we are in a purely historical context, I – like you – find myself playing lots of separate, unconnected, 'historical' battles when it would be more satisfying to have those games form part of some larger psuedo-history.

That though is my own fault, and there are plenty of campaign systems that could be used to provide this kind of context.

But as gamers are a diverse lot I think it would be tough to establish a 'narrative context' for a commercial historical game system that would appeal to a large enough section of the playing and purchasing public to make it worthwhile. Skirmish gaming might be different, however.

How would you see something like this working?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Cheers,
Aaron

While I agree with Conrad

Mr Saeg – he's winding you up

I'm a big fan of campaigns and have run them for the last few years for my playgroup.

But there is another level of narrative, the importance of which is underappreciated: the group dynamic

We don't have rules to nail down this narrative, but it is real and plays out, whether we read it or not.

Friendships are built above the table, players learn, improve, develop playstyles, build and try new forces and strategies. There are arcs and plots.

I consider a campaign a form of narrative. But my point still holds in that campaigns don't get nearly the attention as table top rules and are often tacked on.

That's a good point. It would be nice to have a tactical set of rules that was thoroughly integrated with an operational level campaign game. I think part of that is for most getting the table top battle vis-a-vis the rules to "feel" right is a lot of work and time in and of itself.

Who is this "Conrad" fellow to whom people refer?

When people are discussing 'narrative' here, are you really meaning background/back story? As opposed to the narrative developed in the game itself (i.e. the story of the game which the players themselves create in their minds as part of the process of playing it)?

As a historical player, I hope that the back story of my games is about as thrilling and compelling as it can get (in my niche world, you can't get more thrilling than episodes from military history, of course) … and, hopefully, the better I write and develop the scenarios (the more tightly they mirror the actual events) the more compelling a 'ride' that will give the players …

Nevertheless, I still recognise the importance of the narrative _within the game – the opportunity that the game gives to the players to develop their own story lines. That is what will make it 'real' … that is what will make it memorable.

Players create this anyway (assuming they care about your game at all): those post game stories … why I did this … I thought you were going to do that … my little men were heroes in that flank action etc., etc. So I think developing this is capitalising on a natural instinct in players – and so hopefully making the game a more complete experience.

John Bassett hosted a very interesting talk on this topic at the Conference Of Wargamers a couple of years ago.

Unlike, say, shooting or combat (where methods for moderating it in a game abound like chewing gum) there are very few templates for 'enhancing the narrative'. It is more intuitive, but giving the player the sense that he drives the course of events by the decisions he makes (even if that isn't true) is a big component.

Phil Steele
ecwbattles.wordpress.com
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com

But how many gaming groups have a person willing to put the time and effort into running a narrative campaign?
I did one set during the Italian Wars as a background to 15mm Armati games, and swore afterwards never to try it again.

Had its set of player and non player characters, secret diplomacy, mercenaries, special events and a fortnightly magazine/newspaper. It went on for about 4 months before a clear winner emerged.

Wonderful, but an incredible amount of work and time to keep it going (and more importantly) keep it fresh and involving.

I think a Confrontation "Dogs of War" or Mordheim/Necromunda style of framework campaign is much more practical and approachable for most people.

I did a similar Armati campaign, Rob, with the players as leaders of the first crusade. There was a fair bit of work involved copying and typing briefings up etc., but the work was mostly done by the history books as the 'campaign' stuck very closely to the historical narrative.

I may have missed your point.

Phil

RobH and Yesthatphil, I think your examples exemplify my point, the player shouldn't have to work so hard to build a narrative into a game it should all be somewhere for you to buy and use.

I actually think GW did some good work back in their heyday with this sort of thing with their campaign books, Mordheim/Necromunda, Blood Bowl, etc.. Unfortunately it was GW.

I must confess that I am still slightly baffed as to what this 'narrative' is?

I understand in-game narrative, I also understand that historical battles have a historical context and that there are a gazillion mechanisms out there to produce some sort of continuity from one engagement to the next (usually various sorts of campaign and/or linked scenarios).

I don't understand what this other thing is that we are supposed to go and buy. Some of sort of campaign guide????

My own narrow understanding of this 'narrative' is that it comes as the result of the research and gathering of details, the'setting of the scene',the unfolding of events in the running campaign, and as the by-product of the system for folding random events into the campaign that an umpire uses to create a rich 'world'--within which the campaign and tactical rules fit. This serves to immerse the players in the simulation and increase both tension and enjoyment. (My own feeling is that tension increases enjoyment!)

Bit by bit I am developing a campaign simulation system,for solo or group play, and hope to offer 'guidebooks' with much of the background work already done free online or hardcopy at cost(1809, then 1815…then more?…)These should be able to be folded around integrated campaign and tactical rules and fit well.I am particularly focused on C&GII, but certainly adaptable and flexible to other systems as well.

A snippet from the intro:
"…the virtual, or actual umpire uses ‘creative realism' to blend events of historical fact and fiction, and generate outcomes and further events, using this system (of probabilities tied to the developing simulation) to add 'alternate history' in the form of precedented yet hardly predictable events to the campaign. These will come to be as desirable and integral to the experience as the proper seasoning in a good dish."

You all will see them on a blog to start (and evaluate/comment/judge them!) I hope, over the next 1.5 to 3 years, assuming I don't shuffle off the mortal coil!

Narrative is a very open term. As a wargamer and table top roleplayer. I enjoy wargames that have a story, aim, effect.. Its simple to turn up, plonk and equivalent number of points or units on the table and toss dice till someone wins. But I prefer a "story", be it a campaigne, or a single scenario, with goals, objectives etc.

I do think, it is something, that in my early gaming years seemed common, Rogue Trader for example. But now days, we have systems that are more, about table layout & points, than specific objectives/narratives/stories.

I think a good narrative or a good scenario, makes it memorable. Especially if the game was close, or something fun or calamatous occurs for one side.

I don't know if this is the Roleplayer part of me, but I enjoy the narrative of linked games, wehre ones decisions have consequences that are lasting/on going.

I am planning a startship troopers campaign, where, the MI player (I am playing arachnids) has to basically lead an MI fleet inc ground forces and complete a series of objectives in a system of a number of planatoids. He only has limited forces so must spread them about, the story is what holds the missions togather and, makes it more than just a few random games on club nights, and hopefully makes it memorable by adding to tension and risk perception during the campaign.

That is how I look at "narrative" in a gaming sense. I wish we had more of it, in systems. Rather than the more competition style. Despite my disslike of the Force on Force et all, system. I do like the fact the missions are scenario/story led.

I can also accept however, as much as I like this type of gaming. I know there are many, who will particularly not. They prefer a more competative/points v points setup.

I am also looking for a rule system, to blend my RGP gaming style with my wargames. As I have a large collection of Dwarven Force, that I use for table topping, and fancy running a fantasy skirmish campaign, with multiple players, running "bands" of figures through a story/campaign. But i want them to have the option to do more RPG esq type actions when required. Not just hit or dodge etc.

"…there are very few templates for 'enhancing the narrative'. It is more intuitive, but giving the player the sense that he drives the course of events by the decisions he makes (even if that isn't true) is a big component."

Yes, agreed…I hope to create a usable template where much of the time consuming background work is done, and a player commander certainly does influence the course of events…but no more so than is/was actually possible in our world, where there are so many more variables to account for, and so many intrinsic variables to human thought, will, and action…The best plans,etc. :)

Ah, OK, that makes it clearer. I suspect I didn't understand because I can't imagine gaming without a 'story'.

We usually rely on the umpire and game briefings to provide it, but really, historical battles write their own narrative (as do plausible alt-history, like 70s/80s WW3). I'm not very interested in points based hypothetical matchups.

My own narrow understanding of this 'narrative' is that it comes as the result of the research and gathering of details, the'setting of the scene',the unfolding of events in the running campaign, and as the by-product of the system for folding random events into the campaign that an umpire uses to create a rich 'world'--within which the campaign and tactical rules fit. This serves to immerse the players in the simulation and increase both tension and enjoyment. (My own feeling is that tension increases enjoyment!)

This is the exact definition I was thinking in my head without being able to put it into words quite so well.

GQG Can you please provide a link to your blog?

My group did a set of 3 English Civil War games where each game's result affected the forces and situation in the next, sort of a mini-campaign. It went VERY well, and the fact of a looming "next battle" forced decisions that one-off games don't have.

Narrative is pretty basic and almost always there in historicals, even with imaginary battles. We always explain the bigger picture in the intro to our games.

What IS in short supply at times is historical writings set at the level of the game you are playing. This is especially true with battalion/regiment level games. Divisions and armies are covered well, and skirmishes can be had from memoirs, diaries, and the like, but the mid-level is often sparsely reported.

link

This is very basic to date-a little background,some links-most of the writings are essentially drafts or informational… just some seeds of the tree we hope to grow- Thanks

I'm with Martin: I can't imagine playing (or having much fun) without a "narrative," a back-story, or something to "set the scene."

Yesthatphil wrote:

When people are discussing 'narrative' here, are you really meaning background/back story? As opposed to the narrative developed in the game itself (i.e. the story of the game which the players themselves create in their minds as part of the process of playing it)?

Yeah, that's the question.

If we are talking about the backstory, like that provided by Fantasy games, we already have that. It's called military history.

If we are talking about the narrative of a particular tabletop game/scenario, then that backstory should be set up by the creator of the scenario being played. When the topic of a scenario is an actual battle or 'what if', then the backstory is still existing military history.

However, if we are talking about the narrative created by the game play, that is something that has been discussed and described by game designers, particularly involving computer and role-playing games, for a long time. [Though, most all wargames are role-playing games, as the players, in the game rules, are considered 'commanders' of some sort with the same challenges etc.

That is more of a technical question of how the play of the game tells a story for the players, that includes how it related to any backstory, how the players experience the 'events' of their story in play and how any results act as 'high points' and a 'climax' in that play-induced narrative. Simply type in "Game Narratives" into Google or the like and you will get a wide variety of discussions and debates on game narratives.

If it is a technical question of how narratives are built into a game system, there are any number of ways of doing that for the player.

Bill H.

Perhaps there is something that overlaps here between narrative and the matrix game. In its original form the matrix game was driven by narrative and reasoned arguement to create a change of situation. Bring in a set of cards as we now see in some boardgames so you could start with a scenario and have a narrative turn at the start to play some cards to influence the set-up.

"What IS in short supply at times is historical writings set at the level of the game you are playing. This is especially true with battalion/regiment level games"

Yes, although occasionally you do strike gold with things like contemporary intelligence reports you can work into briefings. My favourite is if you can find copies of the original operations orders, or at least the gist.

It is that whole 'bringing history to life' thing again.

Perhaps there is something that overlaps here between narrative and the matrix game. In its original form the matrix game was driven by narrative and reasoned arguement to create a change of situation. Bring in a set of cards as we now see in some boardgames so you could start with a scenario and have a narrative turn at the start to play some cards to influence the set-up.

That is one way to build a narrative into a game system.

With enough research & time, you can collect a body of historic material to use in the areas of communications, intelligence, and character motivation for campaigns based in history. This would be the background for the ‘campaign narrative.'
On one Level, it makes for a particularly rich and engaging simulation when, for example, a bit of time is taken to consult a printout of Napoleon's addresses and bulletins to the troops which have been copied into Word and can be modified, cut and pasted to create correspondence for the campaign at hand. It is fun when Player Commander Napoleon's resulting communication reads and sounds exactly like it might have, under the particular circumstances.
This type of informational resource, and more, such as lists of actual and/or fictional adc's and other officers or soldiers of note in the command (other than those already in the order of battle) character traits of subordinates, and all kinds of other minutiae of terrain and campaign that both the player and umpire can use to enrich the world of the campaign- is too much to expect of those participating to have to produce on their own--As I think someone said above, it should be handed to them ready to use.
Commander A needs to send a very important message to subordinate B. A knows it is a risky journey that involves some passage of territory where the population is hostile. He also knows subordinate B is prone to inaction and is more likely than some to respond indecisively to an order to press an engagement on the enemy. (He knows this perhaps because he is not new in his command, and therefore the umpire has determined this knowledge should be in his 'command portfolio'.) Commander A also knows that the umpire knows all this as well (or the solo game message response chart will reflect it after percentage modification) and therefore the risk of a undesirable response to A's orders is increased in this situation. What does he do?
He consults his command portfolio, and picks as his primary messenger Major X, a man of energy, persuasiveness and experience to be the bearer (so he must use the very real command skill of using the right man for the right job). He does not select Captain Y, who is his sister's cousin and on his first campaign.
The message goes to/through the umpire, and contains the orders from Commander A, with the notation as to why Major X is carrying it, either as an addendum, or worked into the communication itself. The umpire modifies the message event (or the solo chart is modified) accordingly, accounting for A's planning and activity in trying to assure a better communication outcome. (As opposed to A's ignoring potential problems and letting the chips fall where they may) In the end, Commander A MIGHT be rewarded by the umpire (or by the charts) for thinking like a commander who knows his subordinates and considers how to improve his chances of a desired outcome. Of course, Major X may also be captured or killed due to the umpires outcome matrix, and A will lose a valuable man he may miss in the future….
So, essentially the ‘narrative' aspect has purposes other than to inform, one of which is to enrich the campaign play by requiring players to consider details that can, and did, burden and affect their historical counterparts. The Idea is to build in written role play that is fun, but also results in event modification in a historical context, and challenges players even more to think like their historic counterparts within a campaign. The task is to make the necessary resources to do this easily available, and playable, as a part of a 'package' that can be modified and used any number of times.
I think the problem is that the campaign will bog down be unwieldy to use if the umpire and players don't have easily readable and usable detailed information in hardcopy AND electronic format easily to hand. There needs to be a paper copy in dossier format for each player, and a companion E-version for copy/paste/email ease. This all has to be put together for the participants, and limited to a non-discouraging yet stimulating amount of information for each separate historical campaign.
It only has to be designed and done once, and can then be modified and tweaked by anyone to individual preference if it's their 'cup of tea' to campaign game in such a way…so far, the collecting is proceeding well, and the framework is still formative, but incorporating some proven designs.

So, by "narrative", you mean something like the Fog of War cards used in Ambush Alley games?

Something to make this battle not exist just on the tabletop?

Events that the player will have no control over?

Something to make this battle not exist just on the tabletop?
Events that the player will have no control over?

That is a big part of it, but more that actions taken during the game actually develop and shape events for coming games.

On a rpg level this is handled by increasing stats, learning new skills or spells etc. In the context of tabletop games it is where a castle falls because in a previous game the relief force failed to achieve the objectives set and could not therefore add its weight to the Castle Siege game.

But it can go wider and beyond the tabletop to include players making (and breaking) secret alliances via the controller (umpire/organiser…or whatever you call the guy running the behind the scenes life of the campaign). In our Armati campaign one of the players tried to force march an army containing mercenaries who had been bribed by another player. The mercenaries rebelled, resulting in a game between the player and an NPC commander running the mercenaries. The player eventually won, but at the next major game only turned up with half the expected number of troops.

Pre-game random events (as used in the Peter Pig RFCM rules series) can give a similar background to a one off game, but having it develop as result of the players own actions in a narrative campaign is much more fun.

One of the more interesting tournament ideas I've seen (and it's designed to keep players from destroying their armies) is the 'Ironman' tournament format in points games.

You show up with X many points in your 'pool'. Each game is only a fraction of that pool, but all losses count against your pool, you don't get a fresh army after every game. In other words, if your pool has 4 tank platoons and those platoons have been destroyed in previous games, then you have no more tanks available to you.

The smaller the pool, the more conservatively you need to play each game.

A great topic. Id recently thoufht of ways to design a narrative driven set of wargames rules, but I couldnt quite make it work.

One idea Ive had was a wargame structured like Dungeons and Dragons, where you have a book for the umpire and then players books. Instead of two equally informed opponents youd have a kriegspiel red force / blue force, with one player following a script and acting as umpire for one or more other players. The umpire / red force player would be in charge of designing the scenario, checking if orders are carried out, etc. He would also have the power, like in a kriegspiel, to summarily speed up the game, for instance he could choose to resolve combats at different levels of command, so he could say that a given assault by a corps on a position could be resolved in one turn, or by one die roll (Jackson at C-Ville?), or it might be resolved by the divisions, or by the brigades, or even broken down to the level of regiments. The biggest challenge such a game would face is that it flies so much in the face of existing wargames rules- especially the latest generation of them- not htat theres anything wrong with those, for that matter…

The narrative must fit to the scenario and details of the game, so in my opinion it has to be done by the game organiser(s). It would be quite difficult to write a good narrative independantly of the scenarios and main characters of the game.

A story can build itself around players characters (officers) and familiar NPC characters that players are happy to meet in different battles, even if it's not a campaign. We try to do this in c.1700 / pirate skirmish battles with a bit of role-playing mind:
link

But I don't think it would work well for large battles with very big units.

IMO there is a campaign narrative even with big battles. I agree that this is a much under-developed part of wargaming. I have spent the last couple of years trawling the web for the experiences of others and developing my own systems.

I think it is very illuminating that there seems to be much more wishful talk about campaigns than actual campaign activity among players. Most of the commercial campaign systems I've seen have been lackluster, many of the amateur attempts focus on the wrong things (for me).

Brian McCue wrote an IMO thoughtful analysis of the "state of the art" in 1996-7:
kentaurus.com/strattac.htm

rgds
rob

A system I recently used in our online 20mm WW2 skirmish games was a point system wherein players could spend all the points they wanted, but the points they spent counted as victory points for the other side AND the points of the units they LOST also counted as victory points for the other side -- giving them an incentive to 1) don't overspend on points and 2) don't take excessive losses.

AAR here: link

Not long before that, the fellow who began these online games and hosts the game site ran a campaign set in WW2 (France 1940) that was quite long and complex, covered many of the topics discussed here, and really worked extremely well. It took about a year to play, and he's still working on the AARs for some of the games. Those that have been finished can be found here:
link

I think it's worth the effort to try to develop a campaign system that does focus on the important aspects most players would wish to see, and, very importantly, provides ready made resources so it's not such a drastic amount of work.

In my dreams I envision a sophisticated piece of campaign software that among many other things recieves, stores and delivers written messages to the players via email, calculating all the variables, while accepting input from a gamemaster or with solo settings- dream on!

For now, what are the important aspects to model in a campaign for you (anyone)? Which aspect(s) of a campaign engenders the most enjoyment for you?

I like to consider information gathering and dessemination, command and control, movement, attrition,and logistics and supply. For me, (perhaps with the exception of logistics & supply)too much abstraction in the above areas makes for a less challenging and interesting 'command'. I prefer corps and Army commanders to calculate and order movements using a compass and pins in a period map, with an umpire sorting it out on a more detailed master map and sending back "reports". As long as I have to operate with a system of constraints of time, distance, and environment/infrastructure that mark the period, I enjoy it.

Also in the name of fun and immersion, I would like to weave an element of written roleplay in as a way of requiring players to think about some of the aspects of Napoleonic Campaigning that are usually more abstracted or ignored in a fun and challenging way. I would like this to create a narrative with many potential threads as a system of "structured possibilities for 'random' events".

I think this is a situation where more talk does not mean less action, and I hope Napoleonic Campaigning is specificaly a topic more often under discussion on this forum.

"One idea Ive had was a wargame structured like Dungeons and Dragons, where you have a book for the umpire and then players books"

We mostly play WW2 and modern tactical games like that. It is very effective to have a player team with a proper command structure vs umpire(s) as it is a simple way to implement hidden movement as well as to get people to work as a team to achive common objectives.

The largest game I've run like that involved 11 divisions and 14 players.

In my dreams I envision a sophisticated piece of campaign software that among many other things recieves, stores and delivers written messages to the players via email, calculating all the variables, while accepting input from a gamemaster or with solo settings- dream on!

Easy to do -- it's called a gamemaster or judge! i.e. a human being.

In the online WW2 game I linked to above I initially allowed players to send email messages to each other (on the same side) but limited them to 15 words per message. However, I had to end the practice because some players were receiving messages even when they were nowhere near their radios -- of course the sender(s) had no way of knowing that. I suppose it could have been done by having the messages sent to me (the GM) 1st and then I could have forwarded them to those who were in position to receive them (perhaps with a bit of corruption, just to add to the fun!). Didn't think of that at the time.

Regarding the online campaign I linked to above: I should have linked to the actual campaign rules, which can be found here:
chtechnical.com/campaign

Yes, in your link this part is what I think he means:

Situation

The offensive reached this area late yesterday evening. Tanks from your division's Panzer battalions were engaged by this Pak front, another very strong one far off to your western flank, and supporting Soviet armour. The tank battalion suffered some casualties before drawing back when darkness fell. To make its Operation Citadel objective, for which it is a day behind schedule, Division has decided that today's operations will concentrate on this eastern flank and bypass the Pak front to the west.

Situation – Enemy

The Pak front in this area has been identified as being relatively small, 2 76.2mm ZIS-3 guns have been located and as heavy artillery soaked this wooded area before the divisional thrust here yesterday, these may be all that is there. No infantry were engaged, but intelligence from division and other units suggests up to a company may be in support. The Soviet 48th Army's 45th Tank Regiment is known to be operating in the area and is likely set up to reinforce defenses here and it is assumed that it is from this unit that the T-34s encountered last evening came. These were supported by mortar fire, the location of which was not pinpointed but known to be somewhere in the woods of this Pak front. To the west flank, 2 kilometers away, is a very powerful Pak front which is known to have several 85mm anti-aircraft/tank which have line of sight to the edges of this area of operations. The east of the Pak front in your area is very heavily mined and the woods are very thick.

I like to build in some narrative to campaigns as a back drop to add colour and flavour. I have often started campaigns by using a map from an easily available novel and set the campaig some years after the end of the book. Instant narrative becomes available and all I have to do is add a short precis of what happened since the book ended. I have done this with a campaign set in the world of Richard Adam's Shardik which worked well.

I also like to set personal objectives for players that match the feel of the world they are operating in. So at the moment I am working on a Campaign set in Britain circa 795AD. For example the Welch players will get players notes summarising the military objectives of the Welch princedoms as a whole (eg don't loose any more land and try to grab back some Mercian land as a bonus, try not to fight amongst yourselves too much), but also individual objectives that might not be fully realisable in conjunction with the military objective. So that might be to become the richest Welsh player. I am always prepared to have multiple winners at different levels in my campaigns it adds a bit of friction and disunity.

I do use email and desktop publishing to create sources of information like spoof newspapers. Again these help me to move the narrative the way i want it to go. I gain as much fun in umpiring a game like this as in playing in one.

Our gaming group sets narrative front and center in all our wargaming events. We do a lot of Toofatlardies, Sharpe Practice, IABSM type games and the story as it unfolds is more important than the details of what table to consult or what page is that rule on? Often we will have most of the players on one side and have the GM run the other. I will often have my son for instance set up the defense or come up with the opposing plan but otherwise we will game out the situation co-op.

It helps that several of us are retired military so we understand the central role of both friction and lack of clear information which we attempt to interject into all games. This is how our group likes to game. They are willing to let the GM keep the game moving along and also throw out certain monkey wrenches or make decisions on how things should go. The discussions are always informative and entertaining. Egos are left at home as much as possible.

Someone mentioned the immense work in running a full campaign. I have done this a few times and I agree. (Am currently in the midst of running a full blown campaign) But it is immensely rewarding to myself and the players, and ten years later we will talk about the narrative of those campaigns as if they really happened. Many gamers want their fights to matter. There is a very strong roleplaying element in any war game, and in a well put together campaign so much more so.They become great moments in gaming history in our lives. Otherwise just straight up table fights A vs B have much less persistence in our fond gaming memories.

To each his own…

Los

Yep running a campaign is a lot of work and a lot of people design their own. But it doesn't have to be, if we had the right products and publications, perhaps this is the next evolution of the hobby?

Most definitely! For example I would love to see some sort of campaign module for something like Carnage & Glory.

running a campaign is a lot of work and a lot of people design their own. But it doesn't have to be, if we had the right products and publications, perhaps this is the next evolution of the hobby?

Perhaps.
Aaaarrgh :(
Some people still like to do it themselves. I do!

Somebody did/does a series of booklets called Skirmish Campaigns, that supposedly work with various WW2 rules. I don't have any of them, yet, but plan to pick up 1 or 2.

link

Yep running a campaign is a lot of work and a lot of people design their own. But it doesn't have to be, if we had the right products and publications, perhaps this is the next evolution of the hobby?

What exactly are you looking for?

There are various books on the market detailing how to run your own campaign; as well as pre-made campaigns for various periods, including historical or fictional backgrounds.