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

[Punktaku]

Krosmaster Arena and Krosmaster Quest have character cards with punched out slots that you only remove when you advance or spend gold. You can then fill those slots with other stuff. I like the look of the gaming pieces, but the sheer complexity and number of tokens and counters put us off it. It’s almost like playing a video game without the electronics…

 

[spafe]

Depends on the game you are making. I dislike (would downright hate modern necromunda bar the tools here that let me print my gang fighter cards) things that want you to have a fighter card, if that card will evolve (gain exp, lasting injuries etc) between games. If it is a static game, like malifaux, I love the reference cards for fighters, as it makes life easy, you can track wounds taken during the game etc on them, jsut really good.

But anything where I have to update, nah, I was a single roster, registry or sheet that covers the entire gang, team, fleet, other. I can track updates on there and keep a single sheet with my models, but lots of cards, they go everywhere, easy to lose one, jsut... hassle.

Tokens, I actually like the newmunda way of adding activation markers, flesh wounds etc, and depending on mood will either add them to the fighter card or next to the model.

I'm less fond of tactic cards or similar that you have to play with, although random decks for setting out deployment, mission, random events (the sort you flip and decide before the game and leave those few off to one side) are fine.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I wish I had something significant to contribute to this topic, but I have no experience with counters in skirmish games. I have a board game with counters, chips and about 10 decks of cards. It helps in that game, but you don't have the complexity of minis and positioning and everything else that comes with skirmish games.

That said, it is very definitely aimed at gamers who like crunchy games. My wife is willing to play but her mind boggles at all the tokens. Even after 4 or 5 games she doesn't get what everything is, and requires walking through it.

So again, it depends on the details. If you want to aim for a simplistic, easy entry game then one or two tokens could be good, but that is maximum. If it's for crunchy loving players, then go to town, so long as you understand that each layer of complexity concentrates the appeal to a smaller audience.

The main take away though, is that the tokens need to contribute to making a complex rule simple.

Even if it is for creating random events or something. Like in the new Necromunda. The aim of the cards was likely (at least according to the PR dept) that the designer really wanted off-the-wall events and tactics, but in limited amounts and that if it didn't appear in that game, the rules for a certain card weren't necessary to learn (if it doesn't appear on the table it doesn't count). That is a lesson I learned from this game that I have.

 

[Mad Robot]

What about using cards for something like scenarios? Every card has a different scenario, setup, etc. Probably be just as easy to do some kind of chart and roll dice for that. Or, what about using standard playing cards and assigning them values?

I'm really trying to test the idea of using cards but I do agree it's dependent to a large extent on the audience you are trying to reach.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

What about using cards for something like scenarios? Every card has a different scenario, setup, etc. Probably be just as easy to do some kind of chart and roll dice for that. Or, what about using standard playing cards and assigning them values?

I'm really trying to test the idea of using cards but I do agree it's dependent to a large extent on the audience you are trying to reach.

My first thought is "how would you get all the information you need onto a card?"
If the idea is to use playing cards in connection with a chart then that wouldn't simplify the game (unless it is an interpretive system, like if player one draws clubs they are taken by surprise, player 2 drew diamonds so there is loot available).
I could imagine that if the cards are used to add elements or events, that could work. Could sell them along with minis to go with it.

 

[Mad Robot]

Hi friends! This week let's talk about solo gaming. I am assuming that most people do some solo gaming these days and they are looking for something that offers a narrative, something that tells a story. What do you guys look for in solo play? We discussed enemy AI but I assume that there needs to be something there, in terms of a story, to keep your interest.

What do you think? Any good examples?

 

[Punktaku]

Adventures of the Buttercup here on Yaktribe! It’s a 5 Parsecs from Home campaign and the way he’s done it is fascinating and enjoyable. So much so I went out and hunted down a copy, but I haven’t been able to play it yet…

 

[Biggle_Bear]

Calling @Lyndon

 

[Mad Robot]

Adventures of the Buttercup here on Yaktribe! It’s a 5 Parsecs from Home campaign and the way he’s done it is fascinating and enjoyable. So much so I went out and hunted down a copy, but I haven’t been able to play it yet…

Yeah 5 Parsecs has a great narrative solo system, and @Lyndon's battle reports are effective that's for sure.

So it's safe to say you like the ideas of having lots of tasks to keep things interesting? What about story itself, do you like the way things sort of write themselves as they progress? What about some actual writing/text that helps to set the scene and move the story along between scenarios?

Also, is it possible to take the narrative thing too far?

 

[Punktaku]

I like the way Lyndon’s story has been progressing. I’ve wondered how he’s done some things, so I think maybe he’s taking some license (which is fine) and one answer I stumbled across during a reread as it wasn’t very clear originally. (I may have been too excited on the first read through?).

A “guided” campaign could be interesting as far as setting and opponents go. But I think it can definitely be taken too far, like if it’s too set and not so much sandboxy. I think 5 Paraecs has done a pretty good job with having a good sandbox with tools (making a ship, big bad galactic opponents the characters aren’t supposed to fight, a way to develop your own Rivals, etc.)

 

[Mad Robot]

2 other games that I have heard a lot of good things about, in terms of their campaign systems are Warcry and gloomhaven. Anyone have experience or thoughts on the way they handle campaigns?

 

[Lyndon]

One thing from 5 parsecs that isn't too clear from my write ups, at least in the earlier turns, is that sometimes things don't click into place until a lot later.
Mechanically it's all there, but some of the what and the why aren't obvious until a few turns later so I've gone back and "updated" the story a little.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

The feeling that I get from 5 parsecs from home is that it is a solo narrative game first and a skirmish game second. So it is ok that you have a lot of management to do, as that is the game. The battles are there to make an episodic feel.

Am I right? I can only go off @Lyndon 's bat reps.

 

[Ardavion]

2 other games that I have heard a lot of good things about, in terms of their campaign systems are Warcry and gloomhaven. Anyone have experience or thoughts on the way they handle campaigns?

As (seemingly) "the guy talking about Gloomhaven", at the most basic level you (as a party) choose to do a specific scenario/location that you're allowed to do (you've unlocked a location earlier in your campaign by completing an earlier location, and sometimes you also have the right "keyword", like "destroyed the altar" or "enacted the ritual at the altar"), you do a road event (that can sometimes unlock a location), and you complete the scenario at that location to unlock another location or locations.

You can also sometimes open chests that can randomly give access to locations while doing a scenario ("you find a map detailing a hidden temple"), and there is a concept of "town prosperity" that, as it increases, gives access to scenarios.

The ways that a scenario can become available are reasonably varied and allows for player input on direction, but it often isn't a great amount of choice (the most choice we had was early on when we had unlocked a few "quests" by accident; that choice hasn't really shown itself again, other than branching A-B choices, as the scenarios have been completed) and you can't, strictly speaking, go back and redo a scenario if you've completed it to see what the other scenario branch is like. There's nothing stopping you, though, except you and your playgroup.

You can also do solo missions, unique to each character that can provide powerful character-specific loot, and random missions that don't expand the story with random layouts, enemies and loot.

My group is quite a ways through the "campaign", and have done roughly three/four discrete "quests", that had a beginning, a middle and an end, with the undercurrent of an overall campaign becoming apparent as the town's prosperity and the group's reputation has increased.

By comparison, Five Parsecs is a lot more loose/generic/repetitive, but gives the player(s) a lot more freedom in what happens. I'd say that Gloomhaven has more cinematic situations which can be cool, but it *will* come to an end and you will have to either restart and replay the box, or you buy the expansions/sequel, whereas your traditional campaign system can theoretically keep going/be expanded until people are no longer interested.

From a skirmish perspective, lifting scenarios from Gloomhaven and decoupling them from an overall forced narrative would be reasonable, but the campaign system itself is like taking all the Stargrave or Frostgrave extra books (with their campaigns) and putting them together in one place.

 

[Mad Robot]

The feeling that I get from 5 parsecs from home is that it is a solo narrative game first and a skirmish game second. So it is ok that you have a lot of management to do, as that is the game. The battles are there to make an episodic feel.

Am I right? I can only go off @Lyndon 's bat reps.

That's a great point. I think that's the right order; story/narrative first, fighting second.

By comparison, Five Parsecs is a lot more loose/generic/repetitive, but gives the player(s) a lot more freedom in what happens.

It seems like that's what many folks want from a solo game. @Biggle_Bear explored this a little, I believe, and discovered that players want the ability to be lead down a path, but they want to be able to interact with the environment and play an active role as they move along.

My surface research on Gloomhaven made it feel very much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, very linear; whereas in 5 Parsecs, your direction is more varied than "left or right".

 

[Ardavion]

My surface research on Gloomhaven made it feel very much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, very linear; whereas in 5 Parsecs, your direction is more varied than "left or right".

Very much so. With Gloomhaven, part of the "fun" is the personal quests where you get to unlock new characters (that are often much better than the starting ones) by doing certain things while playing your current character, to help add variety to a playthrough.

I'm actually stuck in a rut and considering dumping my current character to start fresh because my personal goal is to kill 15 specific enemies that, according to my "GM", we'll never fight again in the campaign as we've already done all the campaign locations with those enemies, but my current character is a big help to the party (apparently the third best in the game, and the best support character) and hence my reluctance. Meanwhile, my friends have been unlocking several other characters.

 

[Wasteland]

Hi friends! This week let's talk about solo gaming. I am assuming that most people do some solo gaming these days and they are looking for something that offers a narrative, something that tells a story. What do you guys look for in solo play? We discussed enemy AI but I assume that there needs to be something there, in terms of a story, to keep your interest.

What do you think? Any good examples?

I have first started doing solo games in the early 90s with 2nd Blood Bowl on the fabled astrogranite field. You had to do a LOT of upkeeping between matches back in the day though I must add that Blood Bowl isn´t such a good fit as you can hardly outsmart yourself but my younger self had a blast playing several different teams in the past which could be explained with the insane amount of violence (lopping heads off with chainsaws and scoring touchdowns with said heads in order to gain another reroll) happening on the pitch. Too much energy on my part I presume. LOL!

Later I played 4th 40K during 2005-2010 solo which offered an experience point system for units and the Planetary Empires hex-tile set from GW helping to visualize the environment you fought in. Anyway basically any skirmish game is suitable for solo games as long as you are willing to put in the extra effort. And effort is the most crucial thing needed here because you have to do EVERYTHING by yourself which is providing at least two fully painted forces, suitable terrain, complete knowledge of the rules and the energy to place the terrain as well as all the models by yourself for a couple of hours.

However just playing the games by myself isn´t fun anymore and so I started to document a couple of years ago all my battle reports via digital camera. It helps me coordinate what kind of missions should be played in the future and what worked well or not in previous scenarios.

 

[cronevald]

I have first started doing solo games in the early 90s with 2nd Blood Bowl on the fabled astrogranite field. You had to do a LOT of upkeeping between matches back in the day though I must add that Blood Bowl isn´t such a good fit as you can hardly outsmart yourself but my younger self had a blast playing several different teams in the past which could be explained with the insane amount of violence (lopping heads off with chainsaws and scoring touchdowns with said heads in order to gain another reroll) happening on the pitch. Too much energy on my part I presume. LOL!

Later I played 4th 40K during 2005-2010 solo which offered an experience point system for units and the Planetary Empires hex-tile set from GW helping to visualize the environment you fought in. Anyway basically any skirmish game is suitable for solo games as long as you are willing to put in the extra effort. And effort is the most crucial thing needed here because you have to do EVERYTHING by yourself which is providing at least two fully painted forces, suitable terrain, complete knowledge of the rules and the energy to place the terrain as well as all the models by yourself for a couple of hours.

However just playing the games by myself isn´t fun anymore and so I started to document a couple of years ago all my battle reports via digital camera. It helps me coordinate what kind of missions should be played in the future and what worked well or not in previous scenarios.

I did something similar with new Necromunda during lockdowns. It did help me learn the ins and outs of the system and I ended up having some fun with it. It was definitely not as enjoyable as playing with people but it was an excellent learning tool.

 

[Mad Robot]

I’d like to continue this current conversation, but focus it specifically on 5 Parsecs.

I’ll begin by saying I don’t have anything against the game so I don’t want anyone to think that I am being critical of it. What I’m really after is opinions of its style, in terms of the campaign system.

I just watched a YouTube video that went through the “pre-battle phase”. It was 20 minutes long; 20 minutes of checking tables, rolling dice and making copious amounts of notes. In many circles, that is called “crunchiness“.

Frankly, as a casual gamer, the idea of a deep campaign system is very appealing. But after watching that example, I don’t think I really want to sit down and even try to play that game. The jury is still out for me but what about you?

What do you guys think of that level of crunchiness?

 

[Wasteland]

I’d like to continue this current conversation, but focus it specifically on 5 Parsecs.

I’ll begin by saying I don’t have anything against the game so I don’t want anyone to think that I am being critical of it. What I’m really after is opinions of its style, in terms of the campaign system.

I just watched a YouTube video that went through the “pre-battle phase”. It was 20 minutes long; 20 minutes of checking tables, rolling dice and making copious amounts of notes. In many circles, that is called “crunchiness“.

Frankly, as a casual gamer, the idea of a deep campaign system is very appealing. But after watching that example, I don’t think I really want to sit down and even try to play that game. The jury is still out for me but what about you?

What do you guys think of that level of crunchiness?

Randomly rolling on tables might get you a fast result how to structure your next scenario. But what if you don´t like the outcome? Or you don´t have the corresponding terrain or minis at hand to make it work? I prefer of coming up with scenarios on my own which are influenced by previous games so the follow-up games become logical conclusions of past actions.