|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 1, 2005 19:03:18 GMT -5
There is a thread in the Wargame board which I consider to be extremely important to the future of the ASP, and I was hoping that this reminder would get more people working on it. Basically it is a means by which the campaigns of the ASP can be fully represented as an intermix of the various game 'resolutions' (i.e. Inquistor, 40k, Epic, BFG and, ultimately, RPG). We need more movement on this topic, for those that are familiar with all the different game systems...
Minister on Portent was posting some fantastic ideas, and it would be great to see that kind of thing going again.
For me the campaign system is at the heart of getting the two communities - the more detailed RPG with the rich and fun wargaming side of things - working together. If you're a wargamer and haven't thought about this, perhaps you could begin to do so. If you have thought about this then post your ideas and opinions.
And just in case you missed it, check out the Tir'asur SR and Tryphon Appendix for a representation of just why I consider this to be so important! (To such an extent that I'm in the midst of trying to get a hold of the various rule books... Of course, I'm not going to play the games and that is what we really need. People who know how things operate and can create what we need out of that experience and knowledge base!)
Kage
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 2, 2005 21:39:40 GMT -5
Althought we have concerned with the Wargamming side of a Campaign system I have not forgotten about the RPGers. In the Thread in the wargaming section I have been getting very side tracked away from that, but KAGE i promise I won't forget about it. Perhaps it should be moved out of the wargame section so that its easier for the RPGers to contribute as well. Giving suggestions for Campaign ideas could be useful but I worry that it will become rather ristrictive. RPG are much more better at the narative aspect then campaigns for wargames. I have been trying to get away from the 'fixed mission' approch; having the suggestions turned into one off senarios rather then a flowing campaign. I am aiming for a much more freeform system. The emphasis on the narritive side of things will allow a much easier intergration with the RPG games. To get around to the point is that I think that the 'Stories' that each of the campaigns is based on should be planned out before hand. If it is done right the events of each could impact on each side, sending the narative into random directions rather then forcing the outcomes. And this is not just for the future prospect of the "online campaign" for the website but for people running their own ones. Any that are run have implications that must be cosidered. An example could be that if a genestealer cult is found on a world in a RPG it is only then aproprate to have a wargame campaign their. However you could not have it the other way around since the threat has not be discovered yet. I hope this is sort of thing you had in mind
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 2, 2005 21:58:20 GMT -5
Parden my ignorance, but how exactly does freeform RPG work? Or, what do you mean by freeform? A bunch of orks in the ork capital, without any mission or agenda, and all the opportunities in the world? Do you leave it up to the participants to find goals? This could work in some settings, I imagine, but in other settings it might be appropriate to have an active game master that sets the mission... or not..?
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 2, 2005 22:16:35 GMT -5
Freeform NARATIVE. This does not exculsivly mean for an RPG. What I mean by Freeform is that althought their is an objective, its up to the partisapants on how everything pans out. RPGs are by their nature less restrictive in this area then wargames; which is why I think its important to tranplant this element in.
If you need an example of how freeform works; Your objective could be to assassinate an emermy leader, however its up to you how you do it. The intel says they are currently living inside a fortress armed with hundreds of guards. One option would be to go in guns blasing, using space marines to wiped out everyone in their way. Another way would be to get commandos to sneak in, carefull get past all guards and to the deed. Or the fortress could be nuked.
However how this could work in a narrative setting is that each of these options have consequences for failer. If a full frontal attack fails the enermy could increase the defences tenfold, equiping the towers with heavy laser cannons and so forth. A failer by a commando team would be less drastic, that more troops are drafted into to secure the grounds. A nuke strike could backfire and kill innocent civillains in the process, and since no one when in to make sure that the bad guy was in the building before they did it, it may turn out they were not their at the time.
The next stage in the campaign would be dealing with this. Another aprroch may be better.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 2, 2005 22:45:44 GMT -5
Hmmn, once again must have misrepresented what I was saying. It is integrating the wargame side of things - getting the various 'levels' working together - that is the real problem. Just what does a Strength 3 BFG weapon do on the ground to a Titan, for example? After that is made, then it is possible to get into a wargame campaign system of two forms: (1) a branch campaign (e.g. fighting fantasy) or something similar; and (2) a more general 'campaign system' which allows a bit more complexity and need not conform to the 'story' of the ASP. It is the integration of the wargames and the production of a working wargame campaign system that is the most important things. The 'freeform' wargame campaign system is more an outgrowth of the requirement to determine damage to resources, etc., and the impact upon economy in the Anargo sector that would be interesting to try and integrate mechanically... They are just like the 'campaign setups' or whatever they're called that I have seen throughout the wargame material. Hints and tips. No more, no less. Our main concern is getting the different 'game resolutions' working together and then moving on from there... RPGs tend to downplay the 'battle' side of things, so there isn't really going to be a problem there. This is what I refer to as the 'branch campaign', so yes in this regard I agree. (He realises that this discussion shouldn't be taking place here. <sigh>) This would be the long-term goal, but not the one for the advancement of the ASP storyline. The campaign structure concentrates on the wargame side of things. I'm more than familiar on how to run RPG campaigns... Ultimately, yes. But little steps to start off with. We've already got enough to worry about in reference to representing the often weird assumptions and abstractions of the 40k universe into RPG. (As discussions with CELS by IM proved today, while representation of the small arms of the 40k universe kinda works, scaling this up to vehicular weapons doesn't work; 40k just has wimpy, pea-shotting heavy, vehicle-based weapons. To use CELS term if paraphrased, 40k heavy weapons seem like they come out of the 19th century despite the fact that it is meant to be 40,000 years in the future!) This is also getting into resource management, which isn't necessary at the outset but which is something that we need to keep in mind for the long term.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 4, 2005 4:13:55 GMT -5
I think to get an effective, self-sustaining system working, we'd need another level of simulation: planetary. Something that encompasses the dynamics of a conflict over a whole planet somewhat abstractly; enemy resistance, native resistance or loyalty, destruction of resources, damage to biosphere, troops required for policing afterward, reconstruction and so on and so forth. Making a beachhead is only the beginning. Tying the wargames into the dynamics of the sector needs a melding between the campaign wargame and the world generation mechanics, in my opinion. This looks like just another time sink, however. Who do you think you're kidding?
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 4, 2005 19:54:58 GMT -5
No you haven't, it was just me. I make grand sweeping comments without explaining what I am saying. I just thought that If their was some discussion on the wargame-RPG bridge. Your right about the Thread in the wargame section talking about how all the different wargaming systems can be used together. Thats appropreate for what the thread is for. However getting the RPGers and wargames, helping to create a 'linked' Campaign system is not approprate for that section. However I am guessing this maybe the place to discuss such things now... I have been reading up on all the different wargames (well mainly Epic, which I knew very little about) and have been holding off it for the moments. However while we are on the subject; did have you had a look at the stuff I put on the "Space Combat System: BFG to GURPS and general RPG" thread? (Okay it is a little off topic ;D - but its about intergration of the gaming systems) I am with you on that But where to begin? This I disagree on; they do not have to be mutually exclusive. The Grand ASP storylines might already be set and some sort of direction has been decided to it, but the bits inbetween havn't. Its the journey thats important; not the destination. The Orks are going to invade more castellan worlds eventually, but whether or not they are going to make tangible gains; well that can be left up to fate. Sort of, but the branch system itself is still pretty restrictive. I would prefer a more cause and effect driven system, so that all the different type of games can be intergrated into the workings. Its already sort of been discussed already in the wargame section but in much more simplistic terms. After all few would spend hours working out how different satistics would effect the game. Which is why I am going to wait for the trade satistics to become more concreat before we even begin to really tackle the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 20:13:38 GMT -5
I have always been interested in getting a good, integrated campaign system up with the wargame. It is about the only 'draw' to that side of the game, for me, since the abstractions of the 40k wargames just don't do anything for me... But with a grand-sweeping campaign involving the various resolutions? Yeah, that's something that I would enjoy. It is just rife with potential. However getting the RPGers and wargames, helping to create a 'linked' Campaign system is not approprate for that section. The original point was that wargamers read that section and it is their information that is important there. It has already been, for me, reasonably shown that the 40k game is fine when you're dealing with small arms fire but as soon as you move up the scale it falls to pieces. However while we are on the subject; did have you had a look at the stuff I put on the "Space Combat System: BFG to GURPS and general RPG" thread? I must have missed it. I am with you on that But where to begin? I'm guessing that at first simple conversion ratios based upon army creation rules would be a good place to start. This I disagree on; they do not have to be mutually exclusive. You misunderstand. They are not necessarily exclusive, but there does not need to be a mechanic by which RPG is incorporated into the wargame or vice versa. That it might be done was one of the original premises, i.e. the result of story. The Grand ASP storylines might already be set and some sort of direction has been decided to it, but the bits inbetween havn't. Even when a story is 'set' (and it hasn't been per se) it doesn't mean that you cannot interact with the characters of the story. Its the journey thats important; not the destination. As you say. Again, in terms of running RPG campaigns and the interaction of the storylines there is no problem with it. There just needs to be no mechanic for it in a developed wargame campaign system. Sort of, but the branch system itself is still pretty restrictive. That's why it is narrative, as well!
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 4, 2005 20:47:38 GMT -5
Just to clarify; your talking about 'what strenght 3 means' when transposing it between the systems, or something else?
It does not have to be 'mechanics' as you say but some sort of guildline is needed to breach the gap.
At what point is playing either the RPG/Wargame within the campaign? What would doing this (insert idea here) within a 'story' usally mean? what effect will it have?
Thats why something is needed, other then 'its part of the story'. Their needs to be some sort of aggrement on how it would work before anything like this could ever set in motion. Thus the guildlines are needed.
But think what happens if one of these characters are 'killed', even a well though out story can unravel if they was important to the narative.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 22:59:24 GMT -5
Just to clarify; your talking about 'what strenght 3 means' when transposing it between the systems, or something else? That does come into it when talking about, say, calling in artillery that is only modelled in Epic into a 40k game, or alternatively even ortillery from BFG into Epic (or heaven-forbid 40k or Inquisitor). Whether there would be one set of homogenised statistics or just a conversion factor of damage, defensive capability, is the question... I was also thinking about the 'points cost' of a unit between the systems. 1,000 points in 40k is not the same as 1,000 points in either Epic or BFG. This is useful for the initial set up of campaigns, e.g. a force might have 2,000 'Campaign Points', where 1CP=1 BFG point = 100 Epic points = 2,000 40k points... Or whatever. It does not have to be 'mechanics' as you say but some sort of guildline is needed to breach the gap. The thing is that in terms of application to the ASP there are going to be experienced players of both types of game to guide through the process. The same would be presumably present in any group that intended to mix the wargame and RPG aspects of the 'freeform' system. That is why, perhaps beyond the odd paragraph, the inclusion of more detailed information is fairly redundant. At what point is playing either the RPG/Wargame within the campaign? There are all questions that must be answered by the individual GM of wargame/RPG. It's like trying to nail a picture frame to the wall when it is made of mercury at room temperature: it just ain't gonna work! And just like ercury it fits into whatever container you want to put it in... But think what happens if one of these characters are 'killed', even a well though out story can unravel if they was important to the narative. If a GM allows an important character to be killed then either they haven't engaged their brain in the slightest, or they are willing to carry through with a change to the set story. It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 5, 2005 0:08:35 GMT -5
Is there a chance that we could either get Minister dragged kicking and screaming back here to explain his ideas, or that someone (like you, Kage) who's read his ideas could explain them here. I assume they're not to be found on this forum, since you wrote "Minister on Portent was posting some fantastic ideas".
With that said, I'm going to head over to the Wargaming forum, to see if there's any concrete suggestions I can work on.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Jan 6, 2005 20:48:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 6, 2005 22:28:52 GMT -5
As to Minister, he did say that he was going to be around with greater frequency recently... but to little avail. I shall drop him a line at Portent to see what he has to say, since I'm hoping that I can avoid taking Dorvastor away from him.
|
|