"That one #*&#* Scenario" Topic

I was struck by an observation last night. I am putting down my semi coherent thoughts here to see if anyone else has found this same thing occuring to them.

We seem to have come to a point where there is a sort of "formula" for contemporary rules. Part of this formula is that the last section of any rulebook has between three and six scenarios to choose from. In addition, part of the rules system includes the "rolling for scenario" stage in the setup.

The thing that made me think yesterday was playing the Homeland scenario against Mr Elmo (see his post here TMP link).

This is a scenario where you end up playing an attack/defense scenario with what is likely to be no more difference in force size than about 4-8 figures (1 or 2 units). The deployment dictated, along with the nature of the game and limited turns means that the attacker has to be able to make five moves with no interruptions for fatigue, combat, or anything else. Furthurmore the objective is to kill the enemy warlord (who can convieniently hide in the back) or completely wipe out the enemy warband. You have six turns to do this. Oh and the enemy gets to set up in buildings making them harder to kill.

Don't take this as a slam on SAGA. I love the game. However, let's look at another new game (to me) that I have come to like that I almost didn't because of a bad scenario. When Elmo brought over Bolt Action for the first time we ended up with a scenario where my side was the victim of a pre game bombardment. A little bit of slightly above average rolling, and my whole army was pinned. I ended up only ever moving and shooting three units or so the whole game.

This is not an issue unique to these two games. I've seen it with FoW, WH40K, and ACTA Star Fleet among the games I play regularly.

Is this a product of writers needing to get in X number of scenarios for the "roll a scenario" charts? Are the charts there to begin with because people can't/won't make up their own scenarios? I don't know. It is something I've been thinking about.

The interesting thing is that I game with two fairly distinct groups of gamers, and the two groups have very different takes on this. One group prefers "home brewed" scenarios that we can sort of balance out to match the forces available. This group (who play a godd amount of FoW) grumble about the scenario tables. The other group considers a rule set without scenarios incomplete.

So what does everyone else think? I am undecided. I think it's nice to have some suggested scenarios, but making those the six default games to play and if you get scnario X you lose, doesn't sit well with me.

It ultimately comes down to a commitment to intense playtesting with diverse groups of players. It's the only way I've found to develop interesting scenarios that work and people enjoy playing.

DM

I agree with Don. Each game brings its own unique amount of "friction" from the players interpretting or misinterpretting the goals and their style of play. Through in the variable of dice and you *can* have a disaster with a scenario that otherwise works.

So it is not enough to playtest it with your group. To be really confident (but never certain) that you have a good game planned it needs to be farmed out to other groups. Most designers in my experience have neither the time nor the access to diverse groups to do this.

Case in point, with the play-testing we've been doing with Final Argument of Kings the questions we raise or issues we've found are totally different than Dean's other group.

So truly a case where the more the merrier.

I like both. Sometimes it actually helps illustrate the rules better when a few scenarios are included, provides bonus interest and Also motivation. I also like thoughtful scenario creation rules, particularly in producing balanced forces.

Polemos has a good army generator and the peter pig rules dip well in providing scenarios, setup points and then a system for adding some unique attributes to each scenario to give a nice narrative feel.

In both cases the scenarios provides are historically based.

Well, yes, Saga does come with the sample scenarios, and they are useful for just setting up a game and perhaps for learning to play. We've been doing that in my group. I have been wanting to try out a historical scenario, though.

Normsmith has a point about the scenarios illustrating the rules. In Charge! (SYW) and The Sword and the Flame, they present sample games to help the reeader understand the rules.I'd never really thought about it, and was surprised to hear people use those as scenarios for their own games.

Grelber

I've played in some convention scenarios where my forces have either started out significantly damaged (and therefore unable to act) or in a situation where movement from their current location would be effectively suicidal. In the former, I could neither effectively move nor shoot for a number of turns, in the latter, I was just there to be overrun, though at least I got to shoot. Neither situation was made clear when I chose the forces. Needless to say, these games were not fun.

I don't mind losing, if I'm given the option of being able to act tactically of my own volition. Hey, having your tactics beat my tactics (or vice versa) is part of the game. But not being able to do anything to affect the situation, simply because the game master has a too clever (or too scripted) scenario? That's not a game. That's a moving diorama. Heck, I'd rather play an unimaginative straight-forward equal-forces battle to the death scenario than be the GM's robot.

I will say that an "injured party" scenario can be workable for players who are intimately familiar with the game, or if one player is known to be more capable than his opponents, and thus is handicapped (at his agreement). But as an introductory scenario for casual players or newbies? Dump it. If the game is good, it will be clever enough without the scenario having to be so. If it isn't good, a too-clever scenario won't help.

"We seem to have come to a point where there is a sort of "formula" for contemporary rules. Part of this formula is that the last section of any rulebook has between three and six scenarios to choose from. In addition, part of the rules system includes the "rolling for scenario" stage in the setup."

Actually, I think that scenarios are going out of style, at least historical ones, anyway.

The problem for the author is that there are really two different constituencies to please, and one rarely pleases all of them.

A game can be designed with historical scenarios in mind, and then it usually tacks-on a points system or fictional scenario generator at the end… which nobody uses.

Or it can be designed for points and fictional games, and have a few historical scenarios tacked on at the end… which nobody uses.

i saw the game and the obvious limitations to the attacking player made one ask why play it if there is really no way to win. The fun came with spending time with friends. Also interesting was the after-game analysis of trying to find a way to win. That would indeed be a challenge and I think a whole lot of luck.

This is a scenario where you end up playing an attack/defense scenario with what is likely to be no more difference in force size than about 4-8 figures (1 or 2 units). The deployment dictated, along with the nature of the game and limited turns means that the attacker has to be able to make five moves with no interruptions for fatigue, combat, or anything else. Furthurmore the objective is to kill the enemy warlord (who can convieniently hide in the back) or completely wipe out the enemy warband. You have six turns to do this. Oh and the enemy gets to set up in buildings making them harder to kill.

There is no such thing as the perfect scenario. The second the first die is rolled, imbalance is introduced. Some scenarios are better than others, in that they are imaginative and fun, but even the very best scenarios often fall foul of sod's law.

Sod's law might even make the scenario you describe work once in a blue moon; it might make it the best scenario you've ever played – but, probably not.

I like scenarios, and I like creating them. I find they work best when taylored to the group of players I game with. Scenarios for 'strangers' are very difficult to formulate because of the 'human variables'.

As the OP, I also played the same scenario with my son, to learn the rules. I was the defender (Anglo-Danish) while my son was the attacker (Vikings).

I don't know if it was because we forgot completely about the 6 turns limitation, or if because the story we were replaying in the tabletop, got the best of us, but we had a wonderful time. It was epic. My little band of Hearthguard abandoned the buildings, with my Warlord at their head. I advanced against the Vikings. My little metal s were badly mauled by a group of raving berserkers, before they were able to put them down. My Warlord was wounded in the brawl, but then, he spot the Viking Warlord and defied him to a duel to the death… And thanks to some saint watching over him, he was able to slain the heathen Northman in a single round of combat. The raiders run back to their ships and the field was mine.

It was one of the most enjoyable games I have played in a long time, worthy of mighty songs after the battle!

I understand the point of the OP, but maybe Saga is not a game intended for competitive play, but for creating a narrative with your figures, in the tabletop.

I try to write scenarios to tell a story, with the side effect of having a victor at the end of it. It is a work in progress, because unlike writing a book or making a movie, telling a story with a wargame is done with variables: different people's tastes, "good" or "bad" dice rolling among those variables.

The learning to do it well process has been interesting, though.

Scenarios at the end of rule sets I use to learn the game with, mostly played solo. They've been rather helpful for that purpose.

Are the charts there to begin with because people can't/won't make up their own scenarios?

I think scenarios are a byproduct of army lists. Consider the alternative: no scenarios or army lists with points…it's like the 1980's all over again! But seriously, I know that there is plenty of time in my misspent youth "wasted" on playing someone's brainfart of a scenario that was neither balanced or fun. The problem is you show up on gaming Saturday, "Bob" has a great idea and it isn't until the game is in progress you realize you can't win and playing is now pointless. (Kinda like many convention games still going on, actually)

The whole reason is that "Bob" didn't playtest the scenario 5 or 6 times to verify it would be fun…we just showed up at his boat house for a day of gaming and a picnic or whatever.

With modern time constraints, games can use points to try can create armies that will be balanced. Do points always work? No, just look at FoW Tank Destroyers to see where problems lie. Likewise, a canned scenario tries to give you a game that will be enjoyable. Will a scenario always work? If points have problems scenarios do too I'm sure.

Another complication is that canned scenarios have to try and work with all combinations of armies. Sure, the battle was Vikings vs Anglo Danes but what about Byzantines vs Normans. Other games also have to deal with people showing up with a static x,000 point army.

Life's too short to drink bad wine or play a bad scenario. Sadly cork taint exists and points with scenarios also occasionally let you down BUT points and scenarios are the best the industry has right now to allow busy players to show up and start gaming with minimal time spent.

Final thought: do busy RPG-ers have a similar issue with printed Modules vs preparing for the next session? Time constraints is one reason Elmo just cannot role play any more…too much work involved.

people showing up with a static x,000 point army.

You left out "unpainted". It takes far more time to paint up figures than it does to do a bit of research and write scenarios.

Well, perhaps not all is about "winning", in a traditional sense of the word. Say you are re-creating a Thermopylae kind of last stand. You know you are hopelessly outnumbered, and that you will lose in the end. How can that be "fun"? But, somehow, it can… if what you care for is the story being told.

Maybe the problem is that our frame of mind, our expectations, are linked to competition rather than to storytelling. One of the things I liked most of the old "Science vs Pluck" game rules is its approach to how to define victory and defeat: it was not that important that you loose or won in a conventional way, but how you did it. If it was something heroic, it was a victory of shorts… if it was just a massacre of madhists, it wasn't much of a victory, just a slaughter fest. The story was more important than the physical outcome of the game.

I remember a game I played some years ago. It was a refigthing of the "Noche Triste" (the fighting withdrawal of Cortes, from Tenochtitlan). The Spaniards were outnumbered and encumbered by baggage (representing the treasure). To win, we should retreat with as much baggage as we could… We failed, much as it happened in the real thing. Most of our troops were wiped out by our Aztec opponents. The game was unbalanced, and winning was a long shot from the beginning. But, man! what a story we played in the tabletop! In an incident, my troop was acting as the rearguard. I could have "won" my part of the game by just running away, but I decided that wasn't fun at all, so I stopped to try to hold off the Aztecs in my sector… I was wiped out, completely, and "lost" the game; but it was heroic! I can't remember most of my "competitive" games, but I remember every detail of that game.

Maybe if we would roleplay a little more, and compete a little less, we would find more fun in our games.

Just my two cents

Maybe the problem is that our frame of mind, our expectations, are linked to competition

War games being played today are like a fancy version of chess but instead of Black and White you have Space Marines and Orks (or whatever). The idea is to bring your army and have a (hopefully) friendly mental competition with your opponent.

Given that a mirror force on a mirror battle field with no dice is a bit boring, we are left with scenarios and random variation.

Basileus, I see your point, and can agree with it. That's a fine way to play as long as I know going in that that's what we are playing. One of the best games I've played in was a refight of Isandhlwana (sp?) as the brits. It was known going in that it was going to be a slaughter, but the goal was just to do what you could.

The scenario that Elmo and I played was a different set of expectaions. I applaud you for coming out of the buildings when you played with your son. It was a very "dark age warlord" thing to do. When Elmo and I played he did the "smart" thing playing for the win and pulled his warlord back to the farthest building away from me, thus almost ensuring a win unless I used up all kinds of fatigue and activation dice on a single unit.

This combined with the Anglo danes ability to futz with the enemy activations and I was sunk.

Now don't let anyone think I am immune to bad scenario design either. I was doing scenarios for a local FoW tournament and tried to make them so each scenario would balance out in the end based on army type. If you use the basic ones armored lists (particularly in early and mid war) seem to steam roller everything. So in one scenario I added limited visibility, and in another I added limited movement for vehicles. What I forgot to account for was that one of the "spare" armies I brought for those who didn't have time to make a list of their own was an armored car company. The limited movement meant the A/C company could not win in the scenario. Fortunately it was a friendly tournament among people we all knew and with little in the way of prizes on the line.

However, I would expect more of the playtesting that others have spoken of in the above posts for commercial scenarios. That is all.

Dan

I agree with you that the scenario is a tough one for the Viking, if the Anglo-Danish player does the smart thing. What I am not so sure if it has been designed that way on purpose or by accident. My guess is that the designers wanted for the defender to be outnumbered by a factor of 2:1, hence the pre-game "bid", which, if understood it correctly, should confront an attacking force of 6 points (you are not bound by your bid, when attacking, I believe) against a defending force of 5 or less. In most cases, that would lead to an advantage for the attacker not only in numbers but also in Saga dice (in our game, I had 4 dices against 6).

Saga dice are most important than it looks, in all scenarios, but in this one are even more important. Or to be more precise: for the attacker, the advantage in Saga dice needs to be used very aggresively, as they are, more than mere numbers, what can give him the victory.

I wonder if the scenario was designed that way for lack of playtesting -as it looks at first glance-, or the opposite, i.e. it's deliberately tough, to force the attacker to act in a very aggressive way.

Part of the issue is the competitive element of wargaming. To be able to be a "fair" competition the forces must be balanced or there must be constraints on the stronger sides ability to bring all their strength to bear.

To be fair it is almost impossible to create game balance. The terrain coupled with the balance of forces coupled with the victory conditions coupled with any time limit imposed by the scenario makes it a very big ask. Which is why I don't like competion style wargaming.

Scenarioes are fine by me providing that both sides understand that they are unlikely to be balanced. Afterall in real combat the true skill of a commander is to attempt to make the situation tilt in their favour before committing to fighting. So in an unbalanced scenario the weaker side should have far simpler objectives than the stronger. For example prevent the stronger force from gang it's objectives for a number of terms. That way the weaker player can still gain a victory in defeat.

I also agree very strongly with the idea of telling a story through a game. Think back over the games you have played over the years. Which ones still stand out in your memory? Were they balanced competition games, games where you steamrolled a weaker opponent or a tight game where you pulled assorted rabbits out of the hat and achieved results you didn't expect to achieve – win or loose.

It ultimately comes down to a commitment to intense playtesting with diverse groups of players. It's the only way I've found to develop interesting scenarios that work and people enjoy playing.

I agree with DM. If there are problems with scenarios, point system, sample scenarios or whatever, it is the designer's fault. He is the creator and whatever results with the game system and 'extras' fall on his shoulders too.

Whatever reasons a designer includes a scenario, each scenario, whether historical or not, should accomplish what it was designed to. Certainly, playtesting is crucial.

The same is true of point systems. There are some really bad ones out there, and some that work well and consistantly to produce interesting games. Playtesting.

Some scenarios are so wonky, I have to wonder whether they were playtested at all, let alone why the designer included them…

Yes, Basileus, the SAGA dice were very important, but there is really no way (short a very confident opponent) that you will have anything close to 2:1 ratio. In the specific case of the Homeland scenario, I don't think the problem lies in the basic idea of the scenario or on the bidding. I think it lies in the victory conditions.

To put a 6 turn limit on the game, and make the only way to win by wiping out the opposing warband or the Warlord, you set it up for failure. The scenario could be fixed by a simple change or two. You could make the defender place the village closer to the center of the table. With a six turn limit you need to be able to get to any given building in 2-3 moves intead of 5. This allows a couple turns of fighting. Once we get to this step it is down to the tactical aspect of selecting unit match ups and using your SAGA dice. That would be fine.

The other fix would be to increase the turn limit a bit. That too would allow for more than one round of fighting.

In our game I bid six (I was playing Vikings, well suited to offense) and allowed Elmo to defend with Five. He ended up with one less SAGA die than I did since we both had one unit of levies. This wasn't enough difference to make a difference.

Good points, Dan. And I agree with you: seven or eight turns would lead to a more balanced game. Other possibility would be ignoring the bidding process completely, and allowing a superiority of 2:1 (in points, not in figures) to the attacker, but maintaining the 6 turn limit. With less defenders to worry about, the attacker should be able to cover the table in a couple of turns, even though accumulating fatigue in the process. I might try that idea, and tell you how it works.

With the way the buildings work I'd try it as 6:4 to start. 6:3 might be a little much, though at least it is still 1 unit per building for the defender. The funny thing is, even though the idea for the scenario seems to be destroying the village, there is no mechanism or victory condition for burning the buildings. Technically, unless I misunderstood something, the defender could just line his troops along the back table edge.

You're right Dan. Burning the village would have been a reasonable action, if it were allowed, for the obstacles you faced.

the defender could just line his troops along the back table edge.

Bad idea as the defender has to end the game in one of the buildings. FWIW the errata has changed the set up from "no closer than L" to "more than L" so cavalry can't be on you in one activation.

I would also hate to be a Capetian Frank defender: their warlords and hearthguard must be mounted and unable to enter the buildings.