Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 12-18-25 Is solo wargaming still a viable endeavor?

[Biggle_Bear]

Why not? I really want to do more of it but there’s always something important to do. Right now I carry a sort of game of solo Microscope in my bag for lunch time. So I would say that if the game is pick up and go then that increases it’s appeal.

And when a colleague was telling me about their favourite game he related that during their last session he had a unit on oversight on a cliff edge, and the opponent ran in the cliff to flying kick him in the head and send him flying off the edge. Those kind of storytelling points is important.

The ability to tell those stories would be good. Especially in text on Yaktribe.games

A YouTube channel that I’ve seen that does solo play RPGs is Me, Myself and Die

 

[Wasteland]

I am looking forward to the time between Christmas and New Year´s Eve because during this period there will be a few solo games on the schedule:

- Axis & Allies (Zombie version)
- Space Hulk
- 2nd 40K
- Legions Imperialis

I usually paint during the rest of the year so to have a dedicated time slot for gaming is necessary.

 

[Mad Robot]

Well, I was watching an interesting video by Professor DM about a system he uses for combat that is very simple.



there is a melee zone in the center and a ranged zone right outside of it. This is where I wondered if solo-play miniatures games could use such a thing effectively. It would reduce the need for full tables of terrain and allow the combat process to be much more streamlined. The potential disadvantage is that it requires the player to be into a "theatre of the mind" type of game as most of the setting is explained in the text of the adventure.

Small pieces of terrain can be added for cover and obstacles but there wouldn't be a huge need for lots of buildings and other large pieces. That seems to fit in with a certain type of player that either doesn't have the means for a ton of terrain or the room for it either.

I wonder if it removes too much from the gameplay side of things to keep it interesting. Any thoughts on this type of thing?


Here is the full video:

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I just watched it. If looks like a cool concept. I think I would need to see it in action though to understand if properly.

 

[MedMos]

I watched it back when he released it. While I do like it for rpg's, I'm not sure I'd find it compelling for skirmish miniature games. My group always played straight theater of the mind for D&D, but I get the advantages of having some sort of representation of distances and placement. For actual miniature games, the terrain and navigation around it is a big part of it, for me.
Now, as a curve ball, solo skirmish games fall somewhere in between... You're probably role-playing quite a bit (I know I would). So there is definitely a chance it could work, depending on your approach and mindset.

That was a whole lot of waffle to say "might work". Personally, I think I would miss the terrain to set the scene. But not having to build a lot of scenery is also a definite plus... (Oh look, more waffles!)

 

[Biggle_Bear]

My initially thought is that was to make it into quadrants, then he said that it wasn’t a good idea. But I can totally imagine the party saying that they will move towards a certain structure on the peripheral and moving the terrain Da Chase style.

But even then it would need to be conceptual. I can imagine a scene where players are playing a PUBG game wheee they are in a field and decide to move towards a house in one quadrant for loot and concealment. Then in that section they have cover for shooting/sniping at other teams in the surrounding field. But if the NPC team moves into the house too then there are ‘close range’ mechanics where the fighting is deadlier. Could work well with a hex map. Terrain would need to be scaled to fit the quadrants.

As he demonstrated it with the Frankenstein’s castle it might feel like railroading as it fixes the focus of the scene. If the heroes wanted to draw the fight to a different area then the terrain would need to be reassessed and moved around.

Edit: quadrants or a hex surrounded by a ring of hexes.

10mm scale terrain with 28mm scale miniatures, then zooming in and out in scale/scope of the battle.

 

[Mad Robot]

So my idea for this concept would really be focused on ranges. The center circle is Melee and the outer circle is Ranged. In the Melee zone any melee weapon is in range and every mini within that zone can attack any other, no worrying about base to base contact or anything. In the Ranged zone, it's the same idea; any weapon classified as a "ranged" weapon can be used against anyone in that zone. You would still need to roll to hit and everything else.

The player always starts in the center of the melee zone and then the rest of the space is set up depending on what the scenario calls for. One of the advantages of this would be that the focus is tightened so less actual terrain is necessary to set the flavor of what's going on. If you're defending a building, the building goes on the center and then some other pieces of scatter can be placed around, again, according to the specifics of the scenario.

I also think this idea could work in a square format and that would allow for another possible level of zone, perhaps quadrants, as @Biggle_Bear suggested. Might also better accommodate the nature of modern terrain like buildings and vehicles, etc.

My preferred way to look at it is like one is setting up a scene in a play. The environment is implied by the setup and a few key anchor pieces of terrain. The combat ensues and then the story continues. Admittedly, this is all within the framework of a narrative solo-play game. I don't think it would work very well for PvP.

 

[Wasteland]

I have posted a 2nd 40K battle report (Battle at Blazing Tower). Anybody who is interested may look it up.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I have posted a 2nd 40K battle report (Battle at Blazing Tower). Anybody who is interested may look it up.

Link?

 

[Biggle_Bear]

Regarding Combat Zones I also watched this and it seems like a good suggestion of how it can be used.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I have a question of my own.

How important is it to known the cause of the apocalypse in a post apocalypse game?

I think it is hard to enjoy the aesthetic or feel immersed without knowing how things got to how they are. Chat GPT thinks that since the characters don’t know it is ok if it is written as a mystery. I can see it’s point, but in a skirmish game it is hard to explore that mystery.

As a third option, what are peoples opinions on a session zero the players decide system? I think that would be fun, but then it makes it harder to use characters from a different gaming group. As in, Jack, Jill and Jo decide in their campaign that there was a fungus that turned people into zombies. They invite Gary to play but in his regular group’s campaign there are aliens roaming the land and his characters spend their days hiding in cellars.

 

[MedMos]

I don't think specifics are important in the post apocalypse. There might even be a case for it being a little mysterious, with hints to what went wrong, without an actual Timeline of events.

As for the session zero thing, if you let the players decide, then late additions would have to adopt that decision, as it is with any system.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

A friend was telling me the lore to Horizon Zero Dawn. That leaves the apocalypse as a mystery at first, but reveals it over the game, as I understand

 

[Mad Robot]

I feel like the present state of the apocalypse is more important than the cause. But, many PA settings have things going on as a result of that apocalypse so it makes sense to give some cause behind it. I think it has to be balanced based on the authors intent. If you're game is a simple skirmish game where you just want to fight it out in the ruins of some buildings, maybe there isn't a need for deep backstory, especially if it's a PvP game. But if it's got narrative and you want to do some world building, the cause is important, I think.

I considered the zero session idea for my game but I decided against it as I figured many people might not see the novelty of it. Certainly worth considering but I think something like a zero session takes the game out of a simple skirmish thing and throws it more towards the idea of a TTRPG.

 

[Punktaku]

For my two cents, I think it’s important for the writer to know the cause. The players don’t have to be told why. This can be a mystery they solve if they want to. Some may be perfectly happy just having gang fights out in the wastes.

 

[Wasteland]

It´s also important to have mysteries in a campaign world. Spelling out and explaining each lore bit to the players leaves them with noting to explore and wonder about. And thinking without knowing about the probable cause of the zombie apocalypse drives imagination into a heightened state.

 

[Punktaku]

One of the best things about ORB is that it didn’t explain everything away. And for some stuff it did explain, it also hinted that the narrative was unreliable.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

To make the concept more relatable I have four settings I was thinking about for a game I was working on. The game mechanics centre on social tension that leads up to a fight more than the fight itself.

Setting one - colonist ships are sent to many planets scattered around the galaxy in the hope of through trial and error finding a new home. The game will focus on one city built by the colonists of one ship. In this city the power grid was destroyed and the population went into survival of the fittest. Nations emerged from pre-existing organisations such as the police.

This goes into the most detail. I like it because I get to experiment with aesthetics. An empty mega-city. What do those organisations look like. Act like. But it does leave some area for imagination. What happened to the other cities? The other planets? What about that orbiting ship on the cover art?

Setting two - colonists again. But this time none of the thousands waking up have memories of before. They live in a ship that supports life but they don’t know how to operate. The outside is a hostile environment. There are zombie like crazy people trying to pull normals of cliffs or into reactor chambers. Why? Even as the author I have no idea.

Setting three - shattered renaissance. A cool opportunity to kit bash empire with 40k. It should feel like Romeo and Juliet IN SPAAACCCEEE . No other context.

Setting four - cowboys