"Campaigns unloved or underestimated ?" Topic

Are rules neglecting campaigns ? I was looking at the Dux Britannarium campaign system and it seems to me that this is still mostly uncovered ground with a majority of rules.

For me I think underestimated. I have been trying to find a set of rules that I could use that actually takes into count what happens on the game table. I have seen most systems play out like tournament rules where you score points, then go on to the next level to play another battle with your army back to the level it was before the last game.

Campaigns are a different beast to tabletop games and there are a bazillion different models ranging from the extreme complexity of umpire moderated multi-player campoagns taking years to play (yes, I have done those) to simple linked scenarios with some carry forward of losses/gains or even simply victory points. Different players and groups of players will want different things at different times.

It is hardly surprising that many rules don't even bother to include a campaign element, just another dimension of complexity.

The main problem is commitment.

Then the campaign model itself. Bookkeeping is always a problem. Also you may need more models than if you were playing one shot games.

Duz Brit has the right idea about campaign. The core system is kept symple.

I've found that players who started early on the "line them up and argue" games have great trouble grasping the concept of the campaign.

Everyone else is "too busy".

Personally I like to have something bubbling away in the background of my brain to cackle maniacally about at inappropriate moments.

I'm not sure that the issue is that there aren't campaign systems out there, or discussions of campaign methodologies, but rather – campaigns sound great to all gamers, but there's a nearly universal apathy about putting effort into them. The campaign GM does the work, players play, that's usually about it. It's nice to see games tied together, but in my experience, the less busy work there is, the better the campaign holds together. We've done a variety of campaigns in our group (ACW, Napoleonic), and they've all worked really well. But then again, they've used systems I've published (Theatre of War) or homebrew systems that require even LESS bookkeeping.

I think the overused expression about saving the army to fight another day is really just an expression. Put figures on a table, and gamers around the table, and the game is a game. I've seen little strong evidence that the campaign setting changes gamer's attitudes.

PKay pretty much hit it on the head.

Most gamers have a hard time wrapping their brain around trying to save their army to fight another day or fighting certain scenarios like a fighting withdrawl.

If they play the first game of a campaign and decide to risk everything and lose what are the implications? They just ask the GM to start another campaign. In reality if that would happen you'd probably be saluting a new flag and/or king in 6 months.

In my experience it takes a special breed to play campaigns the way the GM probably intends them to be played.

I got restarted (post-Army) in miniature wargaming playing campaigns back in the '70s, first SYW, then Renaissance, finally ancients, with a brief side journey into Napoleonics, using the playtest version of Avalon Hill's War and Peace to generate battles. The campaign rules were home-rolled and required a. players who were committed to a hard and fast schedule of reporting their strategic moves, b. players who were willing let a few die rolls decide the outcome of battles that weren't crucial to the conduct of the campaign and, c. a GM who was willing to inflict plague and famine on players who didn't abide by a. and b. We had a couple of campaigns die for lack of one or more of these elements.

Then I moved to New Orleans, intellectual cloaca of the universe, and found most of the locals in thrall to the Evil Empire and the "min-max army lists" approach to gaming.

I am bemused to note that even GW's own campaign system Mighty Empires didn't do well with its target audience.

LT

Pity, because Mighty Empires (at least the original version) was very cool.

Those willing to put in an effort for a campaign are more than likely doing role-playing games.

"I think the overused expression about saving the army to fight another day is really just an expression."

Depends on the mechanisms you use. KISS Rommels loss carry over system works very well, after a couple of battles players realise that you really did mean it about entire divisions vanishing from the order of battle. In my long running Normandy infantry tactical campaign, the companies are down to reinforced platoon strength now as for some reason replacements just don't keep up with the losses. It does induce a degree of caution.

I agree the comments re simplicity, often simply some narrative linking of scenarios is all you need to maintain a higher level of immersion that one off battles.

I haven't been able to talk the locals into a campaign game beyond things like Mordheim. My old group did the thing with "War and Peace" where the GM picked the most balanced looking battle for us to game on the tabletop.

The problem with that was that we were playing "Empire" and put too much force on the table.

That said, we ended up playing a lot of those late-war style battles where the armies bumped into each other, shed a lot of blood, and then marched to the next battle.

I was usually on the losing side because the Russian player was incompetent. That's the real problem with a campaign system: your allies can spoil your fun week in and week out, and you can't play AGAINST them to balance it out.

Those willing to put in an effort for a campaign are more than likely doing role-playing games.

That is an interesting comment – why do you reckon that is?

Regards

I understand Dale's comment, but it is no longer the case for us. Role-playing campaigns are harder to keep going than tabletop wargames ones in my experience, because of the emphasis on individual characters and the evolving storyline. Our group has been finding that we can accommodate periods off for real life reasons in our ancients campaign, and even if someone drops out we can always slot in another player. That's because our campaign is really grand scale. Each player is a great power and a turn is a ten-year period, so almost everything is abstracted. In fact, for most of the time we haven't even had players for each faction, we just pretty much roll randomly for it as we go along – the map generates multi-player battles, and anyone who turns up gets to play. The emphasis of the campaign is on an overarching history, with its main purpose being to set up our usual Tuesday evening battles with a little more to them than just a one-off. We've been playing it since September 2009, and it's still going strong. I have run very long term RPG campaigns in the past, but I don't think any of them has lasted this long. I think the secret is in the abstraction. It isn't going to suit everyone, but it has worked for us!

One or two of the players have tended to identify with a particular faction; as pseudo-umpire (the game doesn't really need one), I find myself utterly uncaring who wins or loses most of the time, including the occasions on which I play a major role. The exception is when a battle result threatens to overbalance the game as a whole, but so far nothing like that has materialised, just threatened to do so.

Cheers everyone, interesting discussion.

I think it is pretty well known in the RPG community that "you get out of it what you put in". At least that was true when I was a part of that community. I look at the RPGers in the LGS and it certainly seems that way today.

I think people see it as a return on investment of their time. With RPGs you are building up your character. I don't think they can make that leap mentally on how that investment of time would manifest itself in a traditional miniatures game.

Given that time is a premium for most people, those that want continuity in their gaming naturally gravitate towards RPGs, as that is what it is all about; building and growing. Miniatures is not *all* about that. For some, the only building and growing is the point size of their armies. Look at the 40K and FoW gamers at the LGS; it is like the singles sex scene – pickup games abound. (It is even worse on Vassal. Who were you again?) People want that because of their time constraints and that they want destruction, not creation.

I am not trying to bash 40K or FoW gamers by the way. I once read a thread on TMP where someone was bashing how much a 40K army costs and the retort was that the average 40K gamer gets far more use out of his expensive army than a historical gamer does out of his many, but cheaper armies. I had to chuckle because I agreed. I have armies that have not seen the table, ever. Yet when I did 40K or Warmachine I was playing that army every week, sometimes more than once a week.

However, I am more the guy that dreams about campaigns, continuity between games, and narrative scenarios. Which means I did not fit in with the 40K crowd at all.

Dale

To the original statement- possibly underestimated – but I think that the time commitment to multiple battles and the ability to fight out the various encounters allowed by the campaign make them difficult to set up.

That being said, even the simpilist of campaigns were generally enjoyable, even if many of them died because of time commitments.

The most succesful campaigns I've played (fun and finished) were those that had a narrative driven by the plumpire and a personalization of units. Units could gain some extra abilities after each battle to personalize them, but the scenarios, campaign development etc., were all decided by the umpire. Players then had time available to write reports, issue declarations, etc.

Such a setup can also handle players joining or quitting.

Having run several campaigns using the traditional approach and using the previous version of the Carnage and Glory computer moderated system I eagerly await the release of the new CG campaign system. The new system is still in development and not expected until mid 2013.

The problem with the traditional approach is a combination of paperwork/bookeeping overload, which wears down the GM over time and the resultant loss of interest by players. The CG system streamlined the paperwork and map movement and allowed for a seamless transition from the campaign to the tabletop and back again.

My experience with both approaches is to keep it simple stupid (KISS)…the campaign should be designed to be limited in scope…should cover a couple of weeks or a month at the most of campaigning.

I've just started a WWII D Day campaign using the Bolt Action rules, following the exploits of Company J, 101st Airborne, beginning on the morning of June 6th, 1944. When its over I hope to generate several dozen or so scenarios but I doubt the campaigns lasts more than a week in campaign time.

db

As one player noted, it's difficult to get committment to a campaign. Most gamers are geared to the table top battle.

The key is understanding that we ALL want to game the table top battle.

The problem with campaigns is that if you make them too complex you wind up "haveing to play a game to play the game" and worse- you have to play the campaign WELL to get to an enjoyable battle/.

The attitude of most players to campagns are "Campaigns are great and I really love them provided YOU do all the work, and YOU do all the bookeeping, and I just have to show up and play a game.

That's why I basically went to "narrative campaigns. The eswence of this is that I am the GM and the players each tell me what they want to do in the next campaign round. Then I tell them what happened from the confluece of all their hopes and dreams and what battles they fight.

It works well.

Lots of good things said. I suppose one other aspect is that many if not most (Napoleonic) gamers put tremendous time and effort into the details of uniforms, formations and tactics, and much less study into how armies get from one place to another. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge that must be assimilated before one can expect players to understand how to do that and most people dont have the time or inclination.