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

I've returned with another design question for you fine folks. This time, it's about procedurally generated scenarios. These are scenarios that are randomly thrown together using dice rolls and some tables of different options.

My question is about a "defend" scenario. Does the idea of a defend scenario need to be clarified by determining what you are defending? Does it matter if you are defending a building, or a person, or an item you found? In all of these, you would basically be in a specific area, defending whatever that area has in it. I'm wondering if it's worth adding that clarifying element to make the scenario more enjoyable for the player. Perhaps it adds to the narrative of that random scenario?

What do you think? Any other thoughts on procedural scenarios in general?
Generating scenarios randomly with no regard to the previous one is okay to quickly get models on the table although it does not add to the storytelling.

If you want to have some sort of campaign regardless of it´s length I would highly recommend investing some time and effort into a map. How this map is generated is entirely up to the individual and my take was to use the vintage Planetary Empires set for 40K. You can track progress by shooting pics of the general layout of the map and via paint program make notes which kind of battles were being done in the past with the result. This makes the return to the campaign very easy even months after the last scenario as all information has been saved.

Here are my three campaign maps with two having had scenarios so far. New Mars still needs proper terrain to see battle:

- Dust Bowl (Ash Wastes/Gaslands-Hybrid)
https://ibb.co/album/GWrPXV

- Paradiso III (Good old 40K)

- New Mars (30K/40K)


Defending question:
The objective of what is supposed to be defended is off course vital. This may be a NPC or an area of terrain. So a party could make their last stand on a rooftop waiting for a helicopter while fending off assailants. Another classic would be for the attacker to leave the battlefield with one or more units on the defender´s side of the board. I used the latter for great fun in a scenario in which four Imperial Knights defended a city from a horde of plague zombies. The shambling dead would win, if a single undead creature would make it to the other side of the board.


Producing scenarios:
That´s how I do it: I take a look in my figurine cabinet what to use in a future scenario. Then I take a look at the campaign map and choose a sector where the action takes place. After that corresponding terrain is needed to show that the battle really takes place in said sector. So if you have a river in the sector it is advisable to have one too in the scenario. And at the end I come up with an appropriate mission.

Example:
I have played Riftbreaker (video game) a couple of week ago and enjoyed killing aliens with a mech. So my next scenario will take place on Paradiso III (infested with Genestealers) fielding again the above mentioned Imperial Knights. This time around they won´t fight undead but gribbly, icky aliens. Action will take place in an still unpacified sector which according to the map will be one with a swamp. As the battle will be again asymmetrical warfare the xenos will need to survive by fleeing the battlefield while the IKs need to destroy them all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Robot
@Wasteland Not quite the type of answer I was looking for but you make good points, nevertheless. My map currently has about 40-50 adventures plotted. A vast majority of those are just a single sentence with a seed of an idea at this point. I am very much with you on the importance of that map as an organizational tool.



Another question for the group regarding random events; specifically, clouds. Yes clouds! I have some ideas for various "cloudlike" things floating around the battlefield and I am curious about your thoughts about such a thing. My goal is to add some random interest to a scenario without making it feel bloated. My game is very fast playing and I do no want those extra elements to weigh it down too much. I have decided to make these random events optional rules that players can implement as they choose.

So...what experience do you you folks have with clouds or floating elements in games? Do they add or detract? Any good or less-than-good examples?
 
No real experience with that kind of thing. Might be more interesting than the Necromunda events but to be honest, it doesn't appeal to me in a blitz game.
 
Out of curiosity though, do you mean like poisonous gas cloud that drift in the randomly generated direction of the wide, or maybe alien death clouds that slowly chase people around?
 
Out of curiosity though, do you mean like poisonous gas cloud that drift in the randomly generated direction of the wide, or maybe alien death clouds that slowly chase people around?
I am thinking of a random weather table, specifically a cloud of radiation. It would float randomly. Although, an intelligent cloud of AI-controlled microbots certainly has some potential ;)

My biggest challenge is to figure out how players could represent such a thing. I can come up with rules for it floating around but I want to try and see what thoughts are about having to represent it on the tabletop. Some might like the challenge, others might think it's a pain. That's why I have designated it as an optional rule.
 
So...what experience do you you folks have with clouds or floating elements in games? Do they add or detract? Any good or less-than-good examples?
It depends on the scale you're thinking off. 2nd ed 40k and Necromunda had a couple of blast template sized clouds from grenades that were only really a hassle when the scenery got in the way. Anything much larger than that is going to get impractical quickly.

I've also used cloud markers in Aeronef games (just cotton wool stuck on flight stands) that were nothing more than LOS blockers, but they were just moved or removed if they became impractical.
 
I am thinking of a random weather table, specifically a cloud of radiation. It would float randomly. Although, an intelligent cloud of AI-controlled microbots certainly has some potential ;)

My biggest challenge is to figure out how players could represent such a thing. I can come up with rules for it floating around but I want to try and see what thoughts are about having to represent it on the tabletop. Some might like the challenge, others might think it's a pain. That's why I have designated it as an optional rule.
Use air elementals for the cloud. Maybe multiple elementals on a fairly large base.
 
I imagine cotton balls on sticks with bases. It's not too hard to paint them. To help with interacting with scenery, one could have one mass of clouds made up of 2 or 3 human sized clouds that always end movement joined but move individually, so it changes shape and fits though gaps as it collides with stuff.

It might simplify it if it follows a wind direction.

I imagine it would be good to drive play off the ground level and onto buildings. Perhaps in a cyberpunk setting. Or to force individuals to bunker down, causing all sorts of randomness and decision making.

It's very imaginative. I can think of loads of interesting ways you could use it in Requiem and how it impacts on play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Robot
Hi folks, hope you have had a fantastic summer!

Looking for your opinions again, this time on balancing certain game elements.

The game I am working on is narrative in nature, I'm assuming we all understand what that means. All the game play will be in the form of adventures, ranging anywhere from 3-8 scenarios each.

As a way to add some interest and supplemental game play, I am considering a procedural system for one-off scenarios. For the sake of clarity, by procedural, I mean all the elements of the scenario are generated by rolling on different tables. I have two questions for you about this:

1) Does the procedural idea clash terribly with the narrative nature of the rest of the game?

2) These procedural scenarios would not count towards the ongoing campaign game and would not generate any experience or real gain. They would be for entertainment only. Any thoughts on that approach?


Thanks in advance :)
 
My first thought is that procedural scenarios don't clash, so long as the story isn't affected. If the narrative says the enemy use a sand storm to hind their advance but you roll beautiful summer day + jungle terrain, then there's a design fault but I assume you would design a system that avoids that.

And generally procedural systems don't fill me with confidence, as I read that and think that I need terrain for 6 different biomes and miniatures to fill 20 possible types of enemy. So likely better to not go too broad with what players might need. If they might need ruins and shanty town terrain, and dogs, smog clouds, bandits and soldiers. That would be about my limit to what I want to supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Robot
This is way too complicated for my tastes. I am a more straight forward kind of a guy. If I do a campaign series every scenario planned in said campaign will have importance thus squads & characters will be able to earn XP as usual. To clarify things I also don´t play many games a year (less than a dozen across all system I own) so there is a need to make everything of importance when a board is set up.

Here is how I do it: First I construct the armies. Then I have either a vague idea or no idea what they would try to achieve in the following scenario. So I need to roll on the mission table until anything suitable comes up what would make sense right now.

Example:
Today I have started to document my second scenario of the New Mars campaign (40K Iron Hands vs. all kinds of Nurgle opponents). The Iron Hands were successful in defending an archeological dig site from Nurgle Traitor Guard in the first mission. After the battle was concluded a McGuffin (you always need one of those for storytelling when you are lazy like me) had been obtained from the dig site by the IH. It is still under investigation by the Techmarines of the chapter and nobody knows what it is good for. To discourage any further attacks upon the dig site from hostile forces a small Iron Hands patrol was sent into the rocky New Marsian wastes in the hope to make contact with the enemy.

Rolling on the mission chart I got Bunker Assault which didn´t make sense as the opponent this time would be a savage WHFB Chaos army (allowed in 2nd 40K; LOL!). So I rolled again and got Engage & Destroy which was exactly what my made up fluff actually described. Then I rolled the mission for the Chaos Horde and the result was: Assassination. Also perfect as the primitive Chaos Hero could have bragged to the big Bad of the campaign that he would gift him the head of an opposing champion in no time.
 
It’s been awhile and I didn’t reread the thread.. is this for the solo gaming game? If so, I think it’s perfectly fine idea. If people don’t want to use it, they don’t have to. Alternatively, if they like it they can use it frequently. Maybe even make an entire campaign on it?

For something else, it sounds a bit like a “random encounters” type table like you see in pen and paper RPGs. Which are fine, but I’ve had a couple random encounters seriously derail the campaign. (Like the time a pick pocket nicked a characters jewel pouch, but their character loved jewels, so I ended up designing a sewer system and thieves guild…)
 
1) Does the procedural idea clash terribly with the narrative nature of the rest of the game?
It shouldn't, assuming it is generally separate. Most games with a narrative component can have a separate section that doesn't affect the overall narrative.

For example, Gloomhaven has a heavy narrative component; you have certain scenarios that are only unlocked after playing specific scenarios and/or acquiring specific party achievements, and sometimes this provides branching paths (you can decide to help or kill certain people/entities for certain narrative effects).

It also has a procedural component, where you draw a set of three cards to determine a "dungeon" layout, and a set of three cards for creatures that inhabit each layout card. This procedural component in no way affects the narrative, as no scenarios are unlocked, no party achievements are earned in them (although road/city events that bookend it may unlock scenarios/earn achievements, but they're technically unrelated to the scenario being played and could happen with narrative scenarios anyway - the equivalent of "waiting for something to happen"). They can help characters complete their secret goals (e.g. killing certain types of monster), as well as helping characters to level up, gain perk points or earn gold to buy equipment or to upgrade cards.

Gloomhaven's secret goals often also, after certain requirements are met, unlock special scenarios that must be played to completion in order to fulfil that secret goal, which retires the character and (usually) unlocks a new character to play as. No overall effect on the narrative, though.

You also get character-specific solo scenarios, where upon completion an item would be unlocked that typically helps that character (a Tank character unlocking a sword that lets them gain a shield whenever they kill an enemy - not overly powerful, but generally useful - or a musical instrument that lets you perform extra actions after resolving an ongoing song - which is both very powerful and very specific to one character's game mechanics). Again, other than making characters more powerful, it doesn't affect the narrative.

If you had "Players can play a random scenario", nothing happens, no change to the narrative, then it works.
If you had "Players can play a random scenario and earn money/items/experience", but otherwise no change to the narrative, then it works.
If you had "Players can play a random scenario, earn money/items/experience and they unlock a self-contained side-quest story", but otherwise no change to the narrative, then it works.

If you had "Players can play a random scenario that means that they didn't turn up for the BBEG fight, stopping them from fighting BBEG", which would be a big change to the narrative, then it doesn't work.

2) These procedural scenarios would not count towards the ongoing campaign game and would not generate any experience or real gain. They would be for entertainment only. Any thoughts on that approach?
As I've mentioned above, if it is separate, then it works. But it could also be, for some people, a problem.

If you're playing a campaign, or a game that is intended to be narrative-heavy, you want your time playing it to mean something. If you take time out of an involved, long-time narrative campaign to play the same game for no tangible benefit, then why not play the actual narrative game and get benefits from it? Why not progress something, if not the story?

You may not get a lot of people playing the procedural aspects until they've worked through the narrative aspects, assuming a defined story. If they're the main part of the game, then very few people will get around to it and sometimes once completed people may stop playing because they've played it a lot.

For example, the campaign of Gloomhaven I am in should be coming to an end soon (currently working through the expansion box). Once we're done, it's getting boxed up and put on a shelf while we play other things, even though not all of the solo scenarios have been completed, and not all of the scenarios have been unlocked in this playthrough. Frosthaven is available, but we're still not touching that for a while either as we're all quite done with that style of game for now.

If you have a procedural game mode that still allows for some kind of advancement, then you're potentially making your own narrative campaign of sorts, just with the need to stitch the reasons between each scenario occurring together.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Mad Robot
Thanks to all for the responses. As usual, my initial question lacked some clarity.

All the narrative content in my game will be in the form of adventures. Each adventure will range from 3 to 8 scenarios, those scenarios will all be carried out within a narrative story arc. Once an adventure is complete, the player can move on to other adventures that are available and play those as well. It’s very similar to the way that I remember dungeons and dragons playing out back in the day with all its different modules. A modern example would be Rangers of Shadowdeep.

The procedural element I’m talking about will offer the player something to do in between the narrative adventures, in the form of single “one-off” scenarios. It serves a dual purpose; it can keep players occupied while I continue to write new content and it also allows players an opportunity to just jump in and play something quickly without having to get their heads into the space of a new adventure.

Hopefully that helps to clarify, lol.

Thanks again for the replies!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Punktaku
So the “narrative campaign” would be akin to the D&D modules, with the procedural games taking place between modules? I think that could work. Especially with an option to make them count: if there’s a long gap between campaigns, it would give models opportunities to grow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Robot
In that sense, you could say there are Narrative campaigns and procedural one-off scenarios? But that don't add to narrative development, only to mechanical advances (exp, standard resources, etc rather than something like saving the chief's daughter from the big bandit group). That's rather neat. So long as narrative campaigns don't require the player group to be of a certain level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Robot
Mad Robot did invite us to ask our own questions here, sooo...

I want to make a skirmish game that incorporates conscience and morality. My inspiration is the film Unforgiven, particularly the theme of whether or not you can bring yourself to pull the trigger.

Any thoughts or examples on how that could be turned into rules?

My first thought is to roll plus natural aggression plus situational modifiers (like are the target is unarmed or they have 'bitter enmity') then compare it to a chart to see if you are allowed to shoot, you keep cool, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Robot
Mad Robot did invite us to ask our own questions here, sooo...
Absolutely!


My first thought is to roll plus natural aggression plus situational modifiers (like are the target is unarmed or they have 'bitter enmity') then compare it to a chart to see if you are allowed to shoot, you keep cool, etc
This seems to make sense; at least seems the best way to begin and see where it goes. The idea is interesting. You could also work in the idea of emotions, anger can be quite compelling in certain situations.
 
Finally got these rules done. Thanks to all of you who contributed to the discussion. Let's keep it going!

https://www.wargamevault.com/product/462778/Requiem

Requiem Cover s.jpg