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

[Punktaku]

I don’t know if there’s a way to do that for solo play without loads of charts. An administrator could do all that for co-op or PvP campaigns….

Parsecs has patron and rival and they’re pretty vague. Patrons throw you jobs and rivals get in your way. You can lose either one, especially by jumping worlds. But there’s no real mechanic for becoming exalted champions your patron depends on or bitter hatred from rivals.

 

[Mad Robot]

I do agree, if you’re talking about a campaign where you’re simply stringing together a bunch of scenarios and not so much worried about the narrative in between, using a determiner like your reputation would work quite well.

Ivan, the guy that wrote 5 parsecs, wrote another game, I think it’s called space scumbags or something like that, that uses a rep system to determine what missions are available to your crew. It’s an interesting system.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

What if you design a tree campaign based upon the gang but the factions only gave mechanical benefits, then there was a chart at the end for different ending depending upon who you have more rep with?

As an example, the crew of the spaceship are doing their underhanded business for the first scenario, then they become entangled in conspiracy against the government and win or lose the campaign. That wouldn't impact directly on the factions.

But...

Post missions, you use your tabletop gains to favour one outlaw faction over the other (all intractable factions being against the government, either directly or indirectly). They offer different rewards which will affect how your gang feels (such as a militant unified group or ragtag psychic cult or whatever) but not the events that directly affect them (they aren't doing missions for a faction but are making their own story that happens to have these factions in the background).

Then whichever faction the player chooses* will come out on top and give a different narrative ending to the overall setting. That way the rewards from the factions don't need to all be equal, so long as the feel-good factor of the ending justifies choosing the hardcore mode of backing the good guys.

Does that make sense? Explanation isn't my strength.

*edit: via gaining rep points with them

 

[Mad Robot]

That’s interesting, so everything between the first and last scenario sort of builds up your reputation, one way or the other, but it doesn’t have any real effect until the final scenario?

 

[cronevald]

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.

I think original Necromunda had some elements of this without having a formal system for it. New territories were rare and they would only change hands if specific conditions were met in the Gang Fight (Stand Off) scenario. The Raid (Sabotage) offered a way to interrupt access to or destroy a defender's territory. Certain scenarios increased the chances a gang could be outlawed (which could be a pretty significant drawback). Looters or The Heist (from WD/Battles in the Underhive) were good ways to get a needed cash boost due to the income tax system. I think most of these examples are scenario dependent. There wasn't a system linking them, instead they seem to be written as logical outcomes for certain conditions or circumstances. For me they always enhanced the between game narrative.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

That’s interesting, so everything between the first and last scenario sort of builds up your reputation, one way or the other, but it doesn’t have any real effect until the final scenario?

That's one way to do it. I got the idea from Fallout two, in New Reno

Edit: although it doesn't work like that in fallout 2. I don't know why that concept and fallout 2 are connected in my brain, come to think of it.

 

[Mad Robot]

Have any of you played a skirmish game with NPCs that play alongside you in a scenario? Not hard to pull off but I'm just curious about how much it's been done before.

 

[Punktaku]

Do you mean a game where you control your characters, but other models on your side are controlled by an “AI” type thing? I’ve never played one.

 

[Mad Robot]

@Punktaku could be AI or player controlled.

 

[Punktaku]

Wouldn’t player controlled be the henchmen from Mordheim, the Wizard’s followers from Frostgrave, and the hangers-on and hired guns for Necromunda?

 

[Ardavion]

Have any of you played a skirmish game with NPCs that play alongside you in a scenario? Not hard to pull off but I'm just curious about how much it's been done before.

Most NPC stuff I've seen is AI controlled and neutral, unless you win a roll at the start of a model's "turn" to determine who gets to act with it.

That would then include models affected by various psychological effects in Necromunda, Blood Bowl etc.

"Pure NPC" situations aren't that common, but as you say would be easily managed; take traditional NPC mechanics and swap your models from being "enemies" to "allies".

Gloomhaven has some scenarios which are escort missions (which just has the NPC moving through the scenario towards the endpoint), protection missions (protect the NPC while it sits in one place), and I'm aware of one solo mission where the character gets a bunch of enemy models as allies, but their behaviour is controlled by the player.

 

[Mad Robot]

I was talking more about the idea of encountering an NPC and then controlling them for the single scenario. They would continue on their way after that and leave the group to their own activities.

Not so much about how to control them, more about whether that happens much in skirmish campaigns. Bit of a "novice gamer" question I suppose...

 

[Ben_S]

I'm not really clear in what sense they're an 'NPC' here.

In a solo game, the player will have to move all the models. But I figured that perhaps you meant they would follow some sort of programme, so they weren't really player-controlled. In that sense, they would be the same as enemies, though presumably with different programming.

If you just mean that they're a temporary member of the player's warband, but fully under their control, then I know some Frostgrave scenarios have 'helpers' a bit like that. But then, any of your soldiers are somewhat disposable/non-permanent anyway, so I'm not sure it's such a big difference.

 

[Mad Robot]

I'm not really clear in what sense they're an 'NPC' here.

If you just mean that they're a temporary member of the player's warband, but fully under their control, then I know some Frostgrave scenarios have 'helpers' a bit like that. But then, any of your soldiers are somewhat disposable/non-permanent anyway, so I'm not sure it's such a big difference.

^^^ this is what I meant, temporary member of the warband. I was pondering whether it would be cool to throw some in. Just a random thought I guess.

 

[Ben_S]

I guess how useful this is depends on what the game is like.

In Frostgrave, you're basically your wizard. It's only him, and maybe the apprentice, that you should get attached to. Your soldiers will stay part of your warband until fired or killed, but there's no reason to get too attached to them. So having a 'temporary soldier' who joins for one game only isn't really that much different from the rest of the soldiers anyway.

Matters would be a bit different, perhaps, if your whole party were characters. Say, if you were solo-playing WHQ then you'd have the barbarian, wizard, elf, and dwarf who were all 'characters' (rather than just one leader). In that case, having an additional 'non-character' model could make quite a difference. Though I suspect this would be more down to their non-character status than their temporary nature.

 

[Mad Robot]

I was looking at it from a storytelling perspective. It might be cool to have a soldier from a friendly faction jump into a battle that would be a challenge to win without his help. After the battle is rescolved, he would have to leave and go on his way.

 

[Biggle_Bear]

My contribution would be that since the player knows they will be leaving anyway, the player would likely use them as cannon fodder, unless there are other benefits to them staying alive. For example, a merchant is hiring the warband and if the merchant's safety is put at risk then there is a financial penalty. Otherwise all NPCs would have to be blood thirsty beserkers or risk destroying immersion.

There are hired guns in Necromunda or in blood bowl.

 

[Ardavion]

^^^ this is what I meant, temporary member of the warband. I was pondering whether it would be cool to throw some in. Just a random thought I guess.

Frostgrave/Stargrave have spells/abilities to create additional warband/crew members (summon demons, raise dead etc) that would be temporarily under your control for that game, then disappear.

As @Ben_S says, though, they're mostly just as functional as your hired soldiers, and you're actively getting them, rather than you getting them because of a scenario or campaign mechanic.

There are probably such mechanics in Frostgrave/Stargrave, but I haven't the books to hand.

 

[Ben_S]

@Ardavion
I'm pretty sure there are some scenarios in one of the Ghost Archipelago expansions (and possibly others) where you get extra models temporarily added to your warband.

 

[Ardavion]

@Ardavion
I'm pretty sure there are some scenarios in one of the Ghost Archipelago expansions (and possibly others) where you get extra models temporarily added to your warband.

I don't think I got any ghost archipelago stuff, to be honest. Probably should consider it at some point.