Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 3-12-24 AI for Enemy Abilities & Powers

[Mad Robot]

I think it could work, definitely. I’m more curious about whether you guys think it would work. Is it better to go with what everybody else is already doing/expecting or is it better to try something different and make it factionless?

Seems like having no factions and relying more on skills to define your characters fits in a lot better with the idea of a solo narrative game. Those can almost be considered playable stories. I think those work better when factions don’t play such a predominant part.

However, in PVP, factions can play a huge part in enjoying that game. Maybe that’s where the line is drawn?

 

[Punktaku]

I think solo play requires roles to define the characters instead of factions. But for PVP factions help define what’s going on in game. Gangs of humans vs gangs of mutants, etc.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I think solo play requires roles to define the characters instead of factions. But for PVP factions help define what’s going on in game. Gangs of humans vs gangs of mutants, etc.

I think you have it there. Factions are kind of necessary fluff to say why two players' teams are going head to head and be immersed in the setting, but you COULD let the players make there own fluff. The difficulty would be drawing the players in in the first place.

 

[Ardavion]

In most tabletop and skirmish games I've played faction defines your team. But what if it instead defined the individuals that make up your team? Could this even work in a skirmish game? Maybe it's too much Fallout talking, but this seems like it could be a good twist for a post-apoc game.

Last Days: Zombie Apocalypse might be similar to what you're referring to.

There's three "factions/alignments"; Selfless, Selfish, and Trained, each with their own starting leader character (The Everyday Hero, The Merciless Thug, and The Professional). There are model types that align with these - a Gang Member is Selfish, a Soldier is Trained, a Paramedic is Selfless etc. There are also Neutral models, like a Kid, Dog, or "Survivor".

Traditional group creation is that each group has to have a minimum percentage (half?) of models whose type aligns with the leader, and no more than a quarter can have a different alignment to the leader - you can take as many Neutral models as you want to fill out your group otherwise.

There is also a supplement called Chaos Theory, that allows for random group composition that can break the normal group restrictions at gang creation (a Merciless Thug surrounded by Selfless people, for example). It can also be used mid-campaign, but it means you don't recruit who you want, you get the opportunity to recruit whoever randomly turns up.

As a post-game action, the leader can persuade a model with a different alignment to change to the leader's alignment, so you can over time get more models of a different alignment in your group (make a Gang Member believe in working for the greater good of humanity, persuading a paramedic that they should take advantage of the apocalypse and screw everyone else, convince a Survivor they've got what it takes to be in the military, etc).

From a "faction" perspective, you can have anyone or anything using those rules:

A biker gang that survived the Apocalypse is generally styled as Selfish in LD:ZA, but it's mini-agnostic, so your Everyday Hero could be a biker with a heart of gold that is slowly finding and persuading other bikers to work for the betterment of humanity.

A Trained group would usually be military or police, but your Merciless Thug could be a corrupt cop that is showing his fellow officers that in this new world, might is right, and they have all the training to take it.

Your Trained group might also be a bunch of doomsday preppers that follow a military command structure, working out of their camping site in the woods.

Your more "traditional" factions, like Goliath, Orlock etc. have a place in games in different ways, like the skill access as mentioned before.

Stargrave and Frostgrave haven't got "factions", but you do have your leader/wizard and second-in-command/apprentice that can be the "flavour" of the group or influence the group composition.

In terms of factions as a playing mechanic, it still has legs, but only if it doesn't hamstring the game; letting players branch out from those "factions" should be possible to keep the game interesting, but by no means should they be thrown out as old hat - at a basic level they provide a solid basis for people to start playing and experience different play styles.

 

[Galtarr]

I think factions are over-used. Or at least pre-defined ones are. Tightly controlled factions only serve a role when a) miniature ranges are predefined such as Newmunda. This is artificial on the part of the model seller and serves no actual in game purpose. Why can't an Escher ganger get a hover board since they exist in world. Only because GW only made them for the van Saar model.

And b) where factions are intrinsically separated by species/race etc... An Ork and a Human have different stats/technologies etc..

Personally I'd prefer a gang/skirmish game with maybe a more DnD approach. Let me start with a neutral baseline and make choices that define my faction. E.g. select hi-tech and can weapon access but lose access to something else.
Maybe selecting profession or region or race? And each selection adjusts stats and adds or restricts options for equipment/skills etc.. each player can define their own faction without being railroaded down a set choice of 6 or so arbitrarily fixed factions.

In Necromunda the houses live and work alongside each other. If we were still playing street gangs why couldn't some Orlocks and Goliath end up in a gang together or Dalque and Escher. Such a gang might lose access to the most exclusive equipment of either house in exchange for more variety...

 

[Punktaku]

In Necromunda the houses live and work alongside each other. If we were still playing street gangs why couldn't some Orlocks and Goliath end up in a gang together or Dalque and Escher. Such a gang might lose access to the most exclusive equipment of either house in exchange for more variety...

My ORB group toyed with this idea way back. We called it a “mongrel” gang. This was before House Lists were a thing, though. It just allowed you to take whatever models you had and use them together. That was it. Escher models used Escher skills, Orlocks used Orlock skills. Simple.

 

[Mad Robot]

That Last Days system is very well put together, Ash Barker did a heck of a job on it.

This idea of factions came up while I was contemplating the idea of solo/co-op narrative campaigns. And it confused me how you would write a campaign that would be playable by any faction. It’s quite a challenge to write a narrative that suits a faction like ex-mililtary and also something like mutants or cannibals.

Once again, it depends upon the intent of the designer I guess. I kind of like the idea of factions being a type of background. Something along the lines of what was mentioned previously about Necromunda having factions at first but nothing that had a direct impact on the game. It was just fluff and characters were more defined by skills.

Maybe have a system where factions available in a practical sense for PVP, and a set of skills with no factions available for solo/co-op.

Or factions could be shifted altogether into the background only and made to be potential adversaries in a solo campaign. So as one proceeds through the narrative campaign, they run across elements of ex-military, radioactive mutants, cannibals, cultists, etc.

 

[Galtarr]

That Last Days system is very well put together, Ash Barker did a heck of a job on it.

This idea of factions came up while I was contemplating the idea of solo/co-op narrative campaigns. And it confused me how you would write a campaign that would be playable by any faction. It’s quite a challenge to write a narrative that suits a faction like ex-mililtary and also something like mutants or cannibals.

Once again, it depends upon the intent of the designer I guess. I kind of like the idea of factions being a type of background. Something along the lines of what was mentioned previously about Necromunda having factions at first but nothing that had a direct impact on the game. It was just fluff and characters were more defined by skills.

Maybe have a system where factions available in a practical sense for PVP, and a set of skills with no factions available for solo/co-op.

Or factions could be shifted altogether into the background only and made to be potential adversaries in a solo campaign. So as one proceeds through the narrative campaign, they run across elements of ex-military, radioactive mutants, cannibals, cultists, etc.

Even if you have factions in fluff for background and rules you could still give player choice. Like those pc games where you run missions for faction agents. As you run missions you increase rep with their faction unlocking skill trees / equipment etc.. or even unit types if you so wanted.

From memory those games tend to award negative rep for diametrically opposed factions. So as you open options with one faction you close options for another. So rather than each faction having a house list that is a squad builder you'd have a house list that is more like a trading post in that each item be it a recruit or equipment requires a faction rep level. But the system needs to be rigged so that you can only be totally loyal to 1 faction or forced to choose to compromise. I.e. a fixed cap of X faction rep with higher loyalty to one faction bringing hostility to others. So whilst you could recruit gangers from two houses, having sufficient Goliath rep to Hire a Stimmer (Special champ) precludes you from having enough Delaque rep to get a Nachtgul (Special Champ) for example..

I like the sound of that Last Days system, Whilst the Necromunda system has common trading post I wish it had more common units, like hive scum or Outcasts that were available to all gangs, not just via hired hands or hanger on rules.

 

[Mad Robot]

@Galtarr Wow, that's a crazy deep idea for a system I tend to think that something so complex should stay in the realm of video games but if people are into it, then that's fine by me.

Lately it seems like factions are being co-mingled with the idea of character classes from D&D. Very interesting

 

[Ardavion]

Even if you have factions in fluff for background and rules you could still give player choice. Like those pc games where you run missions for faction agents. As you run missions you increase rep with their faction unlocking skill trees / equipment etc.. or even unit types if you so wanted.

From memory those games tend to award negative rep for diametrically opposed factions. So as you open options with one faction you close options for another. So rather than each faction having a house list that is a squad builder you'd have a house list that is more like a trading post in that each item be it a recruit or equipment requires a faction rep level. But the system needs to be rigged so that you can only be totally loyal to 1 faction or forced to choose to compromise. I.e. a fixed cap of X faction rep with higher loyalty to one faction bringing hostility to others. So whilst you could recruit gangers from two houses, having sufficient Goliath rep to Hire a Stimmer (Special champ) precludes you from having enough Delaque rep to get a Nachtgul (Special Champ) for example..

I like the sound of that Last Days system, Whilst the Necromunda system has common trading post I wish it had more common units, like hive scum or Outcasts that were available to all gangs, not just via hired hands or hanger on rules.

@Galtarr Wow, that's a crazy deep idea for a system I tend to think that something so complex should stay in the realm of video games but if people are into it, then that's fine by me.

Lately it seems like factions are being co-mingled with the idea of character classes from D&D. Very interesting

Stargrave has a faction system of sorts in The Last Prospector; it seems heavily reliant on the campaign scenario outcomes to determine faction standing, but it does a similar job, opening up certain facilities when you have enough standing with a faction.

 

[Ben_S]

I was about to mention Stargrave as (near?) faction-less.

Your captain and first mate each get a background, which determines their abilities, but they need not be the same. And the soldiers available to everyone are the same (in stats), though you can give your crew a particular look and theme if you wish.

There are larger factions in the background, so you can win the favour - or incur the displeasure - of one of these groups. But I didn't think that was really what we were talking about here.

 

[Mad Robot]

I was about to mention Stargrave as (near?) faction-less.

…But I didn't think that was really what we were talking about here.

Nah dude, say whatever you want; open discussion and all of that

Wow, you could use your warbands standing with different factions to affect the narrative campaign. If you have, say, 10 scenarios in the narrative campaign, as you progress through each scenario the results could have an affect on how those factions look at you. How those reactions change could then have an affect on what scenarios come next.

I wouldn’t even know how to organize that for a tabletop game but it’s certainly intriguing.

 

[Ardavion]

I wouldn’t even know how to organize that for a tabletop game but it’s certainly intriguing.

Stargrave's faction implementation is fairly straightforward tbh; start at 0, can go negative but just counts as 0, do certain things in a scenario to increase certain factions' alignment score with your crew. Hit certain thresholds, items/facilities become available. The logic is very specific to the scenario, and only affects access to facilities or items though.

 

[Punktaku]

Sounds a lot like ideas used in World of Warcraft mixed a bit with Cyberpunk 2020. Factions in WoW work like that. Although people on the same side can follow different factions. Cyberpunk 2020 has roles for characters (as does WoW…) through character classes/archetypes.

 

[Galtarr]

@Galtarr Wow, that's a crazy deep idea for a system I tend to think that something so complex should stay in the realm of video games but if people are into it, then that's fine by me.

Lately it seems like factions are being co-mingled with the idea of character classes from D&D. Very interesting

Yeah possibly to much to track. It also probably limits you to 2-4 main alignments, I guess I like the idea of flexibility without just creating free for all.

Maybe it does belong more to RPG than tabletop skirmish.

Sounds like there's a sliding scale between fixed factions with greater backstory, flavour etc.. at one end and freedom of player choice but with less background and narrative provided by the game designer - i.e. more choice but also more work for the player.

 

[spafe]

I mean, a scale could work, start neutral (0), move between order and disorder or good/bad or whatever you want. If you do bad things, negative score, do good, positive. Missions will specify who the attacker is based of relative score on the slidy scale. IE. one gang is 'good' +4, the other is bad -3, so when scenario 1 is being played (lets say that is a escort caravan type mission), the faction with the higher 'good' rating is the defender. During the mission they gun down 2 fleeing traders by accident, and also capture an attacker, who they choose to execute (rather than say... turn over to guards for fair trial), meaning they lose x number of points, meaning they are now only 0 or +1. the other gang managed to kill the caravan owner (evil points) and make off with some loot (mission win), meaning they are now -5 on the scale and you g oto mission 2a, prisoner rescue, which as the 'more good' warband as the attacker.

Obvs this is a simplistic example, you could have 2 sliding scales, say order/disorder and tech(inovativeness/traditional maybe or whatever, and have different missions relating to different stats/tied into objectives (reclaim or destroy tech for example), rescue or kill, steal or defend, assinate or capture for trial etc etc.

Equally, have warbands that have say... between -3 and +3 able to choose which they want to do, to allow the player to swing gang development certain ways. This could also be tied to brutes, leaders, champs, that are unlockable/recruitable, and skills and equipment that would be avialable.

Sorry, but of a word dump, but just some pre coffee thoughts.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

I wouldn’t even know how to organize that for a tabletop game but it’s certainly intriguing.

How about treating Faction rep as a side reward/currency? If loot plays a heavy role then you can choose to sell to

the tech clan for 5 creds and 2 rep
The gun runners for 8 creds and 0 rep
Or
The down and out clan for 1 cred and 5 rep

Each offer different trading posts and other rewards like base protection or recruits that only unlock at a certain rep score. Then your gang are first full of dollar rogues.

Edit: *Fist-full-of-dollars

 

[Mad Robot]

My comments about organizing were more about how to use the sliding scale as an influencer on the campaigns. I mean, if you think about it, it would be almost impossible to string together a series of missions when they could take a turn one way or the other based upon your reputation with three or four different factions.

As an example, your first mission in the campaign would be a simple recon where you encounter some baddies. If you are able to kill the baddies, you piss off one of the factions but make the two others happy. That would have a direct influence on which scenario came next in the narrative. But, what if you got your ass kicked? That would offer a different possible scenario to follow up because the factions look at you a little differently now.

Now, take that string of logic and apply it to a narrative campaign that has 8 to 10 scenarios linked together. That’s what I’m talking about when I say it would be really hard to manage.

I dunno, my brain is in “solo narrative campaign” mode right now so that’s the lens that I look at all of this through. It would be challenging to try and create a solo narrative campaign with all of those different possibilities to contend with. That being said, I might be writing too much into it. I have a tendency to go overboard with this kind of stuff, lol.

 

[Ben_S]

what if you got your ass kicked? That would offer a different possible scenario to follow up because the factions look at you a little differently now.

Now, take that string of logic and apply it to a narrative campaign that has 8 to 10 scenarios linked together. That’s what I’m talking about when I say it would be really hard to manage.

You seem to be thinking of a case where the outcome of game X determines the scenario for game X+1. And I agree that this would be very complicated.

What about a system where the player freely chooses the scenario each time, but their past experiences give them certain bonuses or penalties that make some of those choices more or less attractive? That seems like it would be easier to manage.

 

[Galtarr]

Probably doesn't work for such narratively linked campaigns - which I must say I do like the sound of.

I was just thinking of it in terms of the current Necro/Warcry campaigns where the scenarios/missions are very independent. The only outcome being rep & creds & territory. Which in turn affect available supplies, be it from House list or trading post etc... But zero narrative progression.

I wish Necromunda scenarios actually led to something. The only follow up we actually have is the rescue mission but that doesn't get used as it's somewhat borked, the way it's written.

But this is taking the discussion away from factions and into campaign territory...

The fluff of a faction could probably change the narrative campaign. Not so much in Necromunda as the campaign objectives are all the same - claim territory and grow in rep. But say in star wars, the objectives of Empire and Republic are not the same. And narratively the mission objectives should reflect that. Obviously this would dependent on world and faction fluff etc..