Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 12-18-25 Is solo wargaming still a viable endeavor?
- Thread starter Mad Robot
- Start date
I don't think we're really asking "how much of a requirement is magic in a setting?".
I think the real question is "how much removed from established reality/history should we be in a setting for it to be successful, either in engaging us or in providing justification for mechanics?"
People saying that taking zombies out of zombie apocalypse survival games makes it dull; I'd argue that it removes the driving narrative expected of such a game, maybe one or two mechanics, but little else; you can still have groups of people with a certain level of technology struggling to survive, like a giant Battle Royale situation. You have historical battle systems making the rounds that can have optional magic in them (Lion Rampant versus Dragon Rampant, for example).
The "solar flare taking out technology" is just another way for an apocalypse to occur and justify the setting, as is robots taking over the world (who could also lurch about trying to kill humans, like zombies). You don't need to replace technology with magic, or similar, to make a setting work.
For reference to the "technology just stops" idea, try to find/watch Revolution, hits a lot of similar notes:
I think the real question is "how much removed from established reality/history should we be in a setting for it to be successful, either in engaging us or in providing justification for mechanics?"
People saying that taking zombies out of zombie apocalypse survival games makes it dull; I'd argue that it removes the driving narrative expected of such a game, maybe one or two mechanics, but little else; you can still have groups of people with a certain level of technology struggling to survive, like a giant Battle Royale situation. You have historical battle systems making the rounds that can have optional magic in them (Lion Rampant versus Dragon Rampant, for example).
The "solar flare taking out technology" is just another way for an apocalypse to occur and justify the setting, as is robots taking over the world (who could also lurch about trying to kill humans, like zombies). You don't need to replace technology with magic, or similar, to make a setting work.
For reference to the "technology just stops" idea, try to find/watch Revolution, hits a lot of similar notes:
Electricity was inhibited by nanomachines that were unleashed across the globe. Before the series was cancelled, they had certain people finding out how to control the nanomachines, which was going to become the setting's "magic", and have devices that could harness or negate the nanomachines, or "magical artefacts".
I tend to agree with this, I think the game writer has to be able to figure it out to their satisfaction and go with it.
On the "zombie" idea, the challenge would seem to be figuring out a way to keep players interest in what they're trying to accomplish without the danger of zombies always being present. You could have people struggling to survive without the zombies, but I'm not sure that would cross the threshold of a "fun" idea. You're right in saying it could be done, I would question whether it should be done.
Lastly, Revolution was excellent and deserved a lot more love than it received when it aired. Like the short-lived Jericho, it was ahead of it's time IMHO.
Last edited:
The zombies (or something similar) could also be a simple mechanic in the setting to help reinforce the vibe. For example, your team is trying to accomplish something, with no zombies. After a certain amount of time, the zombie hordes show up. If I remember right, some ORB scenarios had the Arbites show up to end a game.
Zombies could also be an ever present danger that starts showing up in singles, then groups, etc. depending on how noisy the heroes are being.
Zombies could also be an ever present danger that starts showing up in singles, then groups, etc. depending on how noisy the heroes are being.
Casual topic today about initiative and activations.
I think it's generally accepted that the alternating activation is the best way to handle things. That keeps all sides engaged and interested in what's happening on the table. That being said, I have seen different ways of working initiative into the mix. Some games have you roll when the turn starts and then you just go back and forth. I've also seen an example of rolling after each activation to see if the current player keeps the initiative or if he loses to his opponent. I think both are perfectly acceptable and they are really up to the designer and what kind of flow they think works best for their particular game.
That being said, I think it's still an interesting topic to explore. As players, do you have preferences for initiative and activations? Any specific examples you may have played that stand out?
I think it's generally accepted that the alternating activation is the best way to handle things. That keeps all sides engaged and interested in what's happening on the table. That being said, I have seen different ways of working initiative into the mix. Some games have you roll when the turn starts and then you just go back and forth. I've also seen an example of rolling after each activation to see if the current player keeps the initiative or if he loses to his opponent. I think both are perfectly acceptable and they are really up to the designer and what kind of flow they think works best for their particular game.
That being said, I think it's still an interesting topic to explore. As players, do you have preferences for initiative and activations? Any specific examples you may have played that stand out?
I've never had any issue with the old I-go-U-go from ORB and the like. But I am interested in other models, like the new 'munda. I would be interested to hear any experience with This is Not a Test! Testing to activate, and if you fail you get less activation points and pass to your opponent after that minis' go, as I understand it. Adds some activation economy, but I'm unsure if it is really needed?
Controversial opinion; I don't like alternating activation.
Specifically, I don't like one-model-I-go-you-go situations where you get one model downed, but not OOA, and you have to either write that model off as effectively dead, as if you activate any other model your opponent will activate their next model to finish that downed one off, or you try to spend an activation on that model to save them, which leads to your opponent activating to pick off another character instead. You have one lucky/unlucky moment and it becomes impossible to swing it back the other way.
You also have situations where games with uneven model counts can lead to one player taking all their extra turns to finish off the already fewer number of opposing models, leaving them less risk in the next game turn as they have more models to use unopposed.
I've always been fine with ORB/NCE I-go-you-go, to be honest, but alternatives could be interesting.
I recall a game where you rolled a dice for each model and added that value to it's initiative value, then each model was put into an overall order; the model could be activated at any point after their total, but that model had to declare when it was acting and anything with the same initiative number acted first.
Skills and equipment could raise/lower a model's initiative value, and I can't fully recall if you could choose the dice for each model (assign high-rolled dice to specific models, for instance) or you rolled and assigned per model.
The mechanic means that while you might have fast models, you can sometimes have a slower model act earlier from a lucky roll; you could also have a model opt to take fewer pieces of equipment and weapons to be able to go earlier, and balance them against tooled up models that go later. You could even have faster units wait until the end of the round to get two "consecutive" turns, at the expense of potentially getting downed during the turn they waited in.
Specifically, I don't like one-model-I-go-you-go situations where you get one model downed, but not OOA, and you have to either write that model off as effectively dead, as if you activate any other model your opponent will activate their next model to finish that downed one off, or you try to spend an activation on that model to save them, which leads to your opponent activating to pick off another character instead. You have one lucky/unlucky moment and it becomes impossible to swing it back the other way.
You also have situations where games with uneven model counts can lead to one player taking all their extra turns to finish off the already fewer number of opposing models, leaving them less risk in the next game turn as they have more models to use unopposed.
I've always been fine with ORB/NCE I-go-you-go, to be honest, but alternatives could be interesting.
I recall a game where you rolled a dice for each model and added that value to it's initiative value, then each model was put into an overall order; the model could be activated at any point after their total, but that model had to declare when it was acting and anything with the same initiative number acted first.
Skills and equipment could raise/lower a model's initiative value, and I can't fully recall if you could choose the dice for each model (assign high-rolled dice to specific models, for instance) or you rolled and assigned per model.
The mechanic means that while you might have fast models, you can sometimes have a slower model act earlier from a lucky roll; you could also have a model opt to take fewer pieces of equipment and weapons to be able to go earlier, and balance them against tooled up models that go later. You could even have faster units wait until the end of the round to get two "consecutive" turns, at the expense of potentially getting downed during the turn they waited in.
I like the sound of testing to see if you hesitate in your activation, but wonder if that would feel authentic if it doesn't match the tone of other mechanics.
@Ardavion sounds like he is describing something similar to the inquisitor game, but more advanced. My opinion is that the most exciting gaming moments come from balancing high risk / high reward actions with cautious plays. So it really strikes a bad note with the idea about larger groups being able to move their remaining models without risk. A way around that might be mechanics giving reaction moves like overwatch, or like tackle zones in Blood bowl. Or limiting the number of models that a side may field (blood bowl or frostgrave).
Speaking of blood bowl. They had a weird system. It was I-go-you-go but a failed role ended your turn. I loved it as a game mechanic nerd, due to balancing risks, but it felt weirdly inauthentic.
I also love the idea of mechanical benefits of carrying less equipment, like in @Ardavion 's post.
Regarding the problem brought up about activating downed characters, one could introduce cinematic joint activations, perhaps. Such as covering fire, one model uses their turn to shoot and another friendly moves in the same activation.
An idea that I would enjoy exploring is that each model has a speed value plus a gang roll * (so faster gang members go first but each side gets a chance to go first, and sometimes a group from one side gets to go together but not commonly). Activations can be delayed. There are actions that allow for reactions instead (like overwatch).
Edit: "everyone rolls for initiative" that's the idea I was thinking of. But we were writing at the same time. Thanks @Punktaku . But a single gang roll to simplify the system, even though that is a little inauthentic. But it could be justified by leaders having skills to affect it, like roll twice and take the best, if the leader is fielded.
@Ardavion sounds like he is describing something similar to the inquisitor game, but more advanced. My opinion is that the most exciting gaming moments come from balancing high risk / high reward actions with cautious plays. So it really strikes a bad note with the idea about larger groups being able to move their remaining models without risk. A way around that might be mechanics giving reaction moves like overwatch, or like tackle zones in Blood bowl. Or limiting the number of models that a side may field (blood bowl or frostgrave).
Speaking of blood bowl. They had a weird system. It was I-go-you-go but a failed role ended your turn. I loved it as a game mechanic nerd, due to balancing risks, but it felt weirdly inauthentic.
I also love the idea of mechanical benefits of carrying less equipment, like in @Ardavion 's post.
Regarding the problem brought up about activating downed characters, one could introduce cinematic joint activations, perhaps. Such as covering fire, one model uses their turn to shoot and another friendly moves in the same activation.
An idea that I would enjoy exploring is that each model has a speed value plus a gang roll * (so faster gang members go first but each side gets a chance to go first, and sometimes a group from one side gets to go together but not commonly). Activations can be delayed. There are actions that allow for reactions instead (like overwatch).
Edit: "everyone rolls for initiative" that's the idea I was thinking of. But we were writing at the same time. Thanks @Punktaku . But a single gang roll to simplify the system, even though that is a little inauthentic. But it could be justified by leaders having skills to affect it, like roll twice and take the best, if the leader is fielded.
Last edited:
Another edit: for my proposed system. I would also like to see player advice in the rulebook, making players aware of unexpected ways they might get messed up by the system. Such as, if you only field ultra-armed models your individual models might not get the first turn no matter how high the gang initiative roll was (due to their individual speed).
That's another system I really don't like either. One guy gets lucky with all their rolls, they get to trounce the opposing team; that opposing team then tries one roll, fails it, giving control back to the other team who gets a other chance to steamroll with their entire team again.
Speaking as a guy whose dice rolls - even in the PC video game version - were/are consistently terrible, I barely got to do anything unless it didn't require a dice roll...
I prefer a game where I'm at least able to anticipate a certain amount of interaction on a turn, rather than have it be up to the fickle Dice Gods.
Had a look around about the system with the dice rolls for initiative; it was Reign In Hell.
Roll D12s equal to the number of models you have on your roster, and put them in numerical order in a section of the roster sheet. Ties for going first are resolved with a separate roll-off, then alternating activation happens unless you're the only one with a certain number, where you take the actions for that number. An activation requires you taking a D12 and placing it against a model's roster entry, denoting they've activated this round.
At the end of the round, both players re-roll the D12s for the next round.
Not as involved with model initiatives being used, it it does shake up alternating activations a bit.
OK so perhaps this is less casual than I thought, lol.
I think we can at least agree that no one likes to sit there for too long while his opponent is doing his thing. From there, it doesn't seem possible to completely avoid the randomness of the dice roll.
What about having initiative as a stat that can be increased by spending points when the warband is being created? Initiative points could be purchased like skills or beginning weapons and equipment. Only thing is that some models will still have the same initiative values and a roll-off invariably has to occur.
I still like the idea of initiative flowing back and forth with rolls at the end of each activation. Also, what about drawing playing card to decide activation order? Anyone heard of such a thing?
I think we can at least agree that no one likes to sit there for too long while his opponent is doing his thing. From there, it doesn't seem possible to completely avoid the randomness of the dice roll.
What about having initiative as a stat that can be increased by spending points when the warband is being created? Initiative points could be purchased like skills or beginning weapons and equipment. Only thing is that some models will still have the same initiative values and a roll-off invariably has to occur.
I still like the idea of initiative flowing back and forth with rolls at the end of each activation. Also, what about drawing playing card to decide activation order? Anyone heard of such a thing?
The new Doom boardgame uses an initiative system. Models of the same type with the exception of the protagonists are compiled into activation groups. Same could be applied to N17: All ganger activate at X, then the champions at Y, the juves at Z, etc.
That's interesting, but do the different groups still need to roll amongst themselves to see who goes first?
Yes. Example:
3 Marines, 2 Zombies and 3 Imps are on the table. This means there are five different activation groups. So five cards, each representing a group, are shuffled and the top card/group of the pile gets to activate first.
That's like a double layer of randomness. One could add to that by giving every model an initiative value that determines their activation group and then you could spend points to increase that value over the course of a campaign. So rather than spending experience on weapons or skills, they could increase their initiative rating.
One system I liked the idea of was Pulp Alleys, where the player with the initiative decided who activated the next model.
So you could choose to alternate, or I go You go, or some mix of the 2.
Of course then, there's an added element of risk. Do you keep activating your own, or do you force your opponent to activate theirs, and run the risk of them stealing the initiative away from you?
This tends to work better with more players however, and probably isnt that practical solo.
So you could choose to alternate, or I go You go, or some mix of the 2.
Of course then, there's an added element of risk. Do you keep activating your own, or do you force your opponent to activate theirs, and run the risk of them stealing the initiative away from you?
This tends to work better with more players however, and probably isnt that practical solo.
Having individual model agency in a skirmish game sounds good, and would make any existing initiative stat more useful.
Savage Worlds RPG system has playing card mechanics for initiative, and allows for Edges (like talents in other systems) to increase your chances of being earlier in the initiative. Specifically, one Edge allows you to draw two cards and pick which one you want for that round, and another that allows you to discard any card less than 5 and redraw. You can also combine these two edges, although different people have different interpretations of how these two edges interact.
That also sounds like Gloomhaven; enemies have behaviour decks that give them the actions they'll do on that turn, with an associated initiative value that puts them in the track as a group. Enemies on the board have numbers randomly assigned to them (on the cardboard standee), and they activate in numerical order.
I'd honestly just activate all my models trying to take out as many opposing models as I could before handing control over, assuming a traditional 2-player game. More than two (non-AI) players makes it a little tricky, I guess.
I suppose I'm the kind of guy that likes to be able to plan what I'm doing with all my models, and not have to keep adjusting my strategy every few seconds because my opponent moved that model and not the other model or shot the model I was about to move because every turn up to this one was me moving a bunch of other models, probably telegraphing what I'm doing (what else am I supposed to do, they need to move first so that model can move in the first place), making my previous model's actions pointless and potentially putting them in danger.
The only way I can see to mitigate that is to try to hunker down in cover as soon as possible with good sightlines and overwatch, which typically the other player will do anyway, leading to a "no, YOU move a model into my fusillade of overwatch" and a very dull/one-sided game overall.
One cool thing might be to emulate the video game "Door Kickers", where you maybe have copies of the board layout per player, possibly on a whiteboard, where you plan out the moves of all your models, and every model on the board moves simultaneously, shooting at whatever is in the arc of fire as they move, and any opposing model contact becomes a close combat. You could then have skills that extend the arc of fire for a model to allow them to react better as they move.
Probably not practical outside of a video game, but something like that might be interesting.
I've never tried the computer game, but I hear the random number generation leaves a lot to be desired, so you're probably more likely to have problems there than on tabletop. This is part of risk management though. Sometimes it even a safe move (2+ with re-roll) will fail, but that shouldn't happen too often.
I'm another who never really had a problem with IGOUGO systems. I do play games with alternating activations, like Frostgrave, but I'm not sure it really adds a lot (imho) and it can just slow things down with remembering who has already activated.
I'm sure I've seen this kind of thing in some Osprey titles, but can't remember for sure where. I think either Black Ops and/or Kobolds and Cobblestones. I've never played either, but I think the latter uses playing cards instead of dice for everything.
Similar threads
