"Writing fictional historical or Fantasy scenarios" Topic

When I began wargaming, years ago, most of my games were simple encounter battles. Not because I preferred them, but because I had little access to published scenarios. If I wanted a battle, I put two armies on the table and got on with it.

Over time I bought the odd scenario booklet, found ideas in magazines etc and later discovered a wealth of material on the internet. Gradually I began writing my own scenarios, and now scenario design is a major part of my enjoyment of the hobby.

A scenario trying to re-create an actual battle has the hurdle of scaling back: numbers, battlefield size & time. Fictional scenarios have different hurdles.

I've found that a well-designed scenario can transform a game. Different objectives, asymmetrical forces, uncertain reinforcements, awkward terrain, time pressures and command problems often create far more interesting decisions than a straightforward "line up and fight" battle or even a re-creation.

For those who write their own scenarios:

What inspired you to start?
Where do you get your ideas?
What elements do you think make a scenario memorable?
Have you developed any rules of thumb or design principles over the years?
Do you prefer historical, fictional or completely self-generated scenarios?

I'd be interested to hear how others approach scenario design and whether it has become a hobby within the hobby for them as well.

For me it Is a story. I have heard or read writers say that they create a character and then are surprised at what that character does.

Scenario stories are often inspired by terrain. The Texas ranch house invites multiple scenarios, as does the blockhouse and the trading post.

And my miniatures, especially the characters, beg to have their stories told.

I generally prefer historical scenarios, but I will often tweak them somewhat to make an interesting game.

These days I'm quite lazy so a lot of games are based on published scenarios, which I then re write.

"I generally prefer historical scenarios, but I will often tweak them somewhat to make an interesting game.'

The master of this, IMO, was Charles Grant. His "wargaming in History" series is wonderful.

"A scenario trying to re-create an actual battle has the hurdle of scaling back: numbers, battlefield size & time."

I'd have to disagree here. You're talking about the consequences of a rules/battle mismatch. Use a set of rules around 1"=150 yards, for instance, and most SYW battles, or corps-size Napoleonic engagements, go neatly on a card table: most of the effort is in the transcription. It's trying to fight Leipzig with 1"=10 yards rules which create the "scaling back" problem.

Anyway, for non-historical battles, I usually fall back on Grant: There are lots of them, and Grant's assumptions about troop types, unit sizes and table dimensions haven't changed much, so once you have a decent formula for converting a Grant scenario to a given set of rules, it goes on working.

At skirmish/RPG level, I'm still looking.

Fair point. Perhaps I should have said that many historical battles can present a scaling problem, depending on the rules and resources available.

A suitable ground scale certainly solves much of it. As you say, many SYW and Napoleonic actions fit comfortably onto a modest table if the rules are designed for that level of command.

That said, I still find there is usually some degree of adaptation involved. Even when the battlefield fits, terrain may need to be compressed, units amalgamated, arrival times adjusted or victory conditions rethought to produce a satisfying game. In that sense, I think most historical scenarios are interpretations rather than direct transcriptions.

I completely agree regarding Grant. One of his great strengths was producing scenarios that contained a problem to solve rather than simply opposing battle lines. Many of them remain remarkably playable decades later.

Always include a twist.

Consider asymmetric goals— not just "kill everyone else" or "get the general" or even "break half of the enemy's units."

Always allow for the creativity and resourcefulness of players; don't assume that any maneuver is inevitable or impossible.

When I write non historical scenarios, they are often a departure from history at a certain point. An example is a officer in an Indiana cavalry unit exceeded his orders when shadowing Prices Army. This caused the rebels to force march, upsetting the trap laid by the union commander. I assume that the lieutenant followed orders and the battle that did not occur is then fought.

Hmm. Well, "some degree of adaptation" is certainly true, given historical generals are seldom blessed with absolutely standard unit sizes, precise troop quality ratings and the mathematical probability of the bridge blowing. Creating a historical scenario is seldom just a matter of photocopying a map and OOB.

It's the skirmish/RPG end I find the most troublesome, despite owning Much of Mersey, Lambshead's "Sci-Fi Skirmish Scenarios" and Sfiligoi's "Rogue Stars." (Terrible rules. First-rate ideas for scenario generation.) I suspect what I really need is a humongous stack of maps for such things, to at least give me something TO adapt.

One approach I've found useful is to start not with army lists but with a situation.

Many novice scenario writers begin with, "What forces should I put on the table?" I increasingly begin with, "What problem are the commanders trying to solve?"

Some common military situations which readily generate scenarios are:

Ambush
Rearguard action
Delaying action
Breakthrough attack
River crossing
Relief of a siege
Fighting withdrawal
Convoy escort
Raid
Pursuit
Reconnaissance in force
Defence of a key position
Meeting engagement
Escape and evasion
Holding action until reinforcements arrive

Most historical battles are really combinations of several of these.

The next consideration is the nature of warfare in the chosen period.

A scenario should reflect how armies actually fought rather than simply transplanting a generic battle into a different era.

For example:

Ancient and medieval warfare often revolved around securing a decisive clash between main armies.
Late Antiquity frequently involved raids, frontier warfare, pursuit and interception.
Viking warfare naturally suggests coastal raids, surprise attacks and relief forces.
The Hundred Years War offers chevauchées, sieges and attempts to intercept raiders.
Linear warfare in the 18th century generally favoured relatively open terrain that allowed formations to manoeuvre and maintain cohesion.
The Napoleonic era lends itself to corps manoeuvre, delayed arrivals and struggles to seize key terrain before the enemy concentrates.
Colonial warfare often revolves around escorts, punitive expeditions, outposts and communications.
Twentieth-century warfare frequently centres on objectives, logistics, mobility and combined arms.

History itself can also provide inspiration even when one is not recreating a specific battle.

"I increasingly begin with, "What problem are the commanders trying to solve?"

Good policy, that. And acute observation about historical battles mostly being combinations. My own suspicion is that at the "maneuvering units" as opposed to "skirmish/RPG" level, there are probably fewer than 50 of those "basic problems." (Notice how when Charles Grant has tried for 52, he doesn't quite makes it and wanders off into "mini-campaigns" or discussions of particular periods?) At the skirmish/RPG level, I'm not sure there are as many as 20 basic situations. But as with other forms of art--and scenario design IS an art--it's the details, the flavoring and the variations on the theme with make each one unique.

BTW "the skirmish/RPG level", I'd love to weigh in Robert & offer words of dubious wisdom but I really have no experience at this level of gaming.

Would you open up a new thread on it? I would read the contributions with great interest.

"Some common military situations which readily generate scenarios are: (short list)"

I completely agree, and using eg Grant or Neil Thomas's 'situation' scenarios as a starting point is an excellent basis for coming up with an interesting game based on history.

I recently ran a game of Operation Aberdeen in early June 1942 using Neil Thomas's Fontenoy scenario (Fortified Defence) as a basis. It is easy enough to tweak the terrain and OB to fit, I used the same basic scenario for Gross Deutschland at Kursk a few years earlier.

Good point, Martin. Re-purposing historical battles is an excellent, & nearly inexhaustible, source of scenarios.

ochoin has it as do others. Hitoirical accounts give some inpriration, and somtimes just an idea of whta sort of terrin and what sort of action I want to play/study. Much of our enjoyment is understanding the drivers for the basic tactics used, training manuals only go so far.

We are in some ways proivelidged in the fact that we own lots of Hexon 2 terrain so our options for taerrin are near infinite. We often use real maps at say 1:25000 or Google saterlite pictures to get an idea of real terrain densities, many wargames get this massively wrong and it can result in unrealistic games as the troops are not in real world terrain which is almost inevitable less dence than the real world.

Foirces are dictated by the scenario and useually or army list which are more credible than some.

Ourt secarios often cover areas not covered by many as there rules do not have the flexabilty to run complex scenarios but to us, say a route reconnisance of lightly held terrain imposes interesting decisions on speed vs safety. It does however require folk who understand real world tactics and the rules. Certainly the player standard re-rules and historical understanding of the period or lack therof can heavily limit the use of chalengeing scenarios.

UshCha has reminded me of another "inspiration trigger" for scenarios – terrain. I will admit to sometimes building games around a special terrain item. For instance, I spent some time building a few lengths of sunken road and immediately found myself looking for ways to use them on the tabletop.

Rather than starting with an order of battle or a historical engagement, the terrain itself suggested the scenario. How would troops use such a feature? Would it provide concealment, a protected line of advance or become a bottleneck that both sides fought over? Before long, the scenario was writing itself.

The same has happened with bridges, farm complexes, ruined churches, river crossings, and even a particularly impressive hill. A striking terrain piece naturally raises questions: who wants it, who is defending it and what happens if it falls?

Those sunken roads eventually inspired several actions set during the Napoleonic Wars in Belgium, where such features could shield infantry and cavalry movements from enemy observation. What began as a modelling project ended up generating scenarios.

So if you're ever struggling for ideas, have a look at your terrain collection. Sometimes the battlefield itself provides the inspiration.

Thank you, Ochoin. Life is somewhere between very, very busy and nightmarish at the moment, but I'll try to post something yet today, US Eastern Daylight Time.

In the meantime, I'd recommend looking at MW #398--June 2016.

I frequently look to historical battles for my scenarios. The challenge is – the elements which make a battle famous are frequently results of happen stance which no gamer is going to duplicate.

Hastings is a good example, the Saxons are in a shield wall at the top of a hill. Any practical gamer is going to sit on that hill and take the defensive bonus for hill + shield wall, and not move for the whole game. Historically, the left wing chased the retreating Normans who then rallied (or the it was a planned retreat from the start) and crushed the Saxons in the open.

The Lost Battles book has a method where a goal for the Saxon player is placed off of the hill – forcing the player to break their shield wall and go get the objective. Its a great way to motivate the player to duplicate history.

ochoin has a point! One of our recent Battles was based on a configuration of our terrain (Hexon2) done for a show. It was not a configuration I had thought of. Back home I tried it out and built a battlefield around it. We weved a scenario round it using other terrain formations we had never used in anger like small sections of cliff.

Another came out of Issue 2 where we had improved definition of woodland to better reflect the range of tree den cities in real woodland, impacting visibility and ability of vehicles to traverse and fight in these differing terrains. I taught us much more about fighting in woodland when its not all of an identical nature.
Scenarios need an inspiration, we use Ancient or even English Civil war actions to inspire similar start conditions and objectives in a different era.

It not the detail but the inspiration that count. Even looking at the weight limits of a bridge can inspire scenarios where a river is crossable only by a limited weight and there are no other obvious crossing for heavier vehicles. A battle that by definition may limit vehicle weight or require massive amounts of engineering assets to traverse. It defines the scenario including the "army list". Lighter vehicles often scorned by wargames come into their own when Heavy armor is impractical.

Mind you there may be another issue. We are not impressed by the "spectacle" of a game. If it only has a few vehicles and some of those are not always on table, that does not in any way impact or appreciation of a scenario. Some folk however need to see lots of figures on table even if that not the ideal way to play the scenario, in their approach spectacle overrides the game element. We all have our own opinions.

Similarly a game featuring hidden units is no fun at all for a beginner who cannot read the terrain in the way required of the period, analysis p[analysis is no fun to those impcated, but for others it makes the game far more enjoyable and "real".

ochoin said:

UshCha has reminded me of another "inspiration trigger" for scenarios – terrain. I will admit to sometimes building games around a special terrain item. For instance, I spent some time building a few lengths of sunken road and immediately found myself looking for ways to use them on the tabletop.

I was once gifted a couple of orchards. They then appeared in every spring/summer ACW and AWI game I ran for years afterward, even if it meant planting fictional orchards in the middle of an historically orchardless battlefield.

But that cute little anecdote isn't quite what you really meant:

Rather than starting with an order of battle or a historical engagement, the terrain itself suggested the scenario. How would troops use such a feature?

I've planned a lot of games on this basis, and rejected quite a few for being unbearably boring. "Interesting terrain" is usually one of my first criteria for choosing an historical battle to recreate, and nearly always a criterion for creating a "what if" or fabricated/fictional scenario.

Except naval games, of course. Unless you place a naval game in a littoral context with the actual coastline on the table, it's just an empty blue expanse, like a chess match with smoke.