Saxon Shore..........campaign system

[isaanmini]

While browsing for Dark Age maps ,I came accross what looks to be a campaign system,which seems very suitable for the sort of campaign that I have in mind........I havnt studied it fully yet, so cant say much about it, but from a brief glance over, it certainly seems very interesting
I would like to know if anyone has any experience of this system and can pass on any information.........
I would also be interested in contacting the writers, to find out what support and resources they may be able to offer to players

Their names are David Kershaw and Paul Harrington............... Anyone know these guys ?

I would be particularly interested if any of you more experienced guys can give it a look over and advise on things like playability and the possibility of converting the battles to miniatures games,which seems quite do-able to me

thanks

Barry

[janner]

Do you mean this one?

http://www.kerpob.com/games/Saxon_Shore_Map.jpg

[isaanmini]

Yes, that looks like the map.......have you had a look at the game?

[janner]

Depends on what you are after, but it looks like a vaguely historical fun game. 

[Red Orc]

The main problem I can see is that it lists 'Lindsey' and 'Lincoln' as seperate places, Lincoln (lindum coloniae) being the capital of Lindsey (lindinis), and located inside the territory marked on the map as 'Lindsey'. I think that the area marked as 'Lincoln' should probably be listed as 'Middle Angles'. Or 'Leicester' even.

If you really wanna get obscure Dark Age cred points, you could asign it to the (British) territory of 'Calchvynydd' instead. Though that might be more where Middlesex is.

A thought - have you ever seen the TSR Minigame called 'Saga' (don't worry if none of those terms make sense, if you don't know what any of it means, then the answer's 'no, I'm probably not as old as you are!')? That had a map of Northern Europe, more or less from Trondheim to Frankland and Pommerania to Ireland. Ish.

[isaanmini]

The map probably needs to be a little more detailed than that one, but could possibly get one with rivers etc and superimpose

[isaanmini]

This campaign looks like it could be run as a pbem............anyone interested.......particularly if you would like to be the GM
contact me please

[isaanmini]

I have had a brief conversation with Red Orc about this and it seems to me that he is just the guy (with his experience and knowledge of campaign games) to run this for us........so perhaps anyone that is interested should contact (pester) him.

[Red Orc]

I have politely declined the offer to 'run' the campaign, though I'm happy to stand in as an impartial arbiter of last resort. I think you guys (who'll actually be playing in the campaign) need to 'run' things.

However, I have made some suggestions to Isaanmini, and I'll (I hope) get a ball rolling or in the air or something with a few suggestions and observations here.

The first is that there's no problem with people playing different games. Whatever ruleset you and your buddies are using is fine. Not sure what rulesets Early Medieval players use but if one lot is playing WAB and somewhere else people are playing TSatF, that's fine. It's the results that are important to the campaign, the actual action of individual battles much less so.

I'd suggest too some kind of time framework. Perhaps the campaign could kick off after Easter, maybe May 1st, and run for 6 months. This gives people plenty of time to paint up units and also to drum up support, opponents, etc. It also means there's an end in sight (unlike the Atlantis campaign that I never managed to bring to a conclusion).

Scale is important. Not 15mm or 1:72, but 'warband' or 'army'. There's a difference between a skirmish involving 12 guys on one side and 15 on the other, and a battle involving 120 guys on one side and 150 on the other.

Related to the question of scale is the question of time and 'history'. Does the campaign run in 'real time'? Does it represent the 'campaign season' of a particular year? Or does the campaign represent years, decades, centuries? Does the player represent a particular figure - real or imagined - or a dynasty?

That brings me on to the role of 'external' history. If the background is to have real meaning it must be sort of related to the action. Seems obvious. So there may a problem of having Romans fighting Vikings let's say, if there's a 'you can use any army between AD400 and AD1000' clause. That might not be a problem. Or it might. I'd suggest tightening the time frame closer than 600 years, unless enough people can 'evolve' their armies from Late Roman to Late Saxon, let's say. But tightening the timeframe might mean that some people with Vikings can't play in the 6th century, or Romans in the 10th. Which may again cause problems.

Happy to kick any ideas around with anyone who's interested.

[isaanmini]

Thanks Orc
Well there you are.....
My thoughts are for a specific time ....Ie Age of Arthur.......using army lists and background from the WAB book.
Anyone else got any thoughts?

[Red Orc]

I don't have the WAB book and would therefore be no help at all in terms of 'official' background (or lists, but that is more obvious and less of a problem).

I have however been studying the history and archaeology (as well as the legends) of the period for more than 30 years and have tried to game it before (for RPGs at least) so I'm not utterly without form in the area. Happy to help knock up a multi-group campaign system. I've been thinking it over and I think it's much easier than the Atlantis campaign in terms of organisation.

If you're thinking 'Age of Arthur', does that mean more or less somewhere 470-530 ish?

Are you thinking the campaign will last ('in-game time') months, years, or decades? Related to that, I suppose is who the player represents in the game; a particular warleader, or a dynasty? Are you (let's say) Osric Longbeard with his Saxon mercenaries, or are you the Osricingas over many years? Or, even, real people from the (approxoimate) period, but I suppose that will render it all a bit unhistorical probably as no historians can agree as to who was real, who wasn't, and who lived at the same time anyway.

[LeadAsbestos]

If we do a skirmish campaign, maybe one raiding season, I'm in! I'd use WAB, Age of Arthur, maybe the character heavy warband rules our own guitarheroandy made over on the WAB forum!
If we ask him nicely, maybe he will send us the link here!
Great idea all around!

[isaanmini]

see my post about maps and music.....re OS maps............maybe we should wait and see what the Lardy boys have in mind re  campaign rules