Campaign rules, do and don'ts?

[YPU]

I've been in the throws of writing a rule-set of my own for a year or so now. Not really get anywhere fast but its a fun diversion. I'm mostly focusing on prolonged play in fond memory of the Mordheim campaigns I played years ago. while Mord has a lot of flaws I  am keenly aware of the piles of random tables for exploration still stand out to me.
So, I was wondering what your view's on campaign rules in smaller skirmish games are? What systems do it right, which don't?
A few points of interest I wonder on your opinions on:

1. Changing equipment, buying new weapons and armor for your models is a staple of campaign play, but miniatures hardly support it. Having to sculpt new armor on to your just painted leader is a pain. How do you guys feel about this? My system mostly focuses on gangs of "wizards" which allows me to have the models progress trough spell selection rather then equipment, so I hope to mostly avoid this pitfall, but maybe I am the only one who doesn't like this?

2. Recruiting new members, some games have you gain new members every session, others make it a big rare event. Any preferences?

3. Exploration and discovery, I liked mordheims big tables with a lot of options, some others systems allows you more control over what your trying to find.

4. Warband stats beyond the models. I currently have rough idea's on rules for controlling larger portions of territory and being better equipped at scouting or research all round, rather then it being linked to a specific member. (tough some specific members might still improve this) Maybe even a bit of base building?

5. Random encounters and "NPC's". for instance, during your exploration post game you discover a beasty protecting some treasure. You have the option to try and take it using a small number of models on a small map. A quick "mini-game" with the opponent for the previous game controlling the monsters. I can see the NPC player making a kamikaze attack on some valuable member of the group with the monster, as he can sacrifice it without cost. Would this break immersion for you or simply make the monster encounter all that more scary?

[Conquistador]

<snip

1. Changing equipment, buying new weapons and armor for your models is a staple of campaign play, but miniatures hardly support it. Having to sculpt new armor on to your just painted leader is a pain. How do you guys feel about this? My system mostly focuses on gangs of "wizards" which allows me to have the models progress trough spell selection rather then equipment, so I hope to mostly avoid this pitfall, but maybe I am the only one who doesn't like this?

2. Recruiting new members, some games have you gain new members every session, others make it a big rare event. Any preferences?

3. Exploration and discovery, I liked mordheims big tables with a lot of options, some others systems allows you more control over what your trying to find.

4. Warband stats beyond the models. I currently have rough idea's on rules for controlling larger portions of territory and being better equipped at scouting or research all round, rather then it being linked to a specific member. (tough some specific members might still improve this) Maybe even a bit of base building?

5. Random encounters and "NPC's". for instance, during your exploration post game you discover a beasty protecting some treasure. You have the option to try and take it using a small number of models on a small map. A quick "mini-game" with the opponent for the previous game controlling the monsters. I can see the NPC player making a kamikaze attack on some valuable member of the group with the monster, as he can sacrifice it without cost. Would this break immersion for you or simply make the monster encounter all that more scary?

1)  I don't follow WYSIWYG at all - as long as the GM and I agree on what is available then I am good.

2)  Well I think if it happens too often you either A) end up with unwieldy parties or B) you need to account for internal rivalries/divisions (beyond the obvious Goblin/Kobold versus Gnome/Dwarf antipathy type stuff.)

3)  There is a line between too much treasure (how do you safely move 10K of Gold Pieces as one DM had a party in a 'remaining anonymous' FRPG find...) and too much 'work for the reward' for many players.  Either many small rewards or rarer but larger rewards works but it is player dependent.

4)  Not sure of this one, sorry...  Could be very interesting.

5)  Now that tactic sounds potentially really "game-y" to me.  You need a certain quality of opponent to to avoid the game breaker in such a technique.

YMMV and it probably should.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Connectamabob]

1. I'd take page from some video games, and assume weapon upgrade mods instead of replacements. Things like modified receiver to go from semi to full auto, replacing wood/nylon furniture with composite, rechambering for a different caliber, replacing an optical scope with a NIR/thermal one, etc. Basically there's lots of stuff that can be done to make a weapon (or armor) play differently while still plausibly looking the same on the model.

2. Every now and then is better than every time IMO. Every time means you're basically always rotating strangers in and out instead of adding to your group of friends.

3. I like them both, but even in smaller settings with more specific objectives I prefer the player's options be open rather than linear. Open world sandboxes are awesome, but they require soooooo much planning both structurally and conceptually, that IMO outside of special occasions it's best to do them D&D style with graph paper and a GM who's really good at extemporization/improvisation. And remember: just because a system doesn't use a GM, doesn't mean you can't use one.

4. I'm not clear on what you mean. I'd have to hear more. Warband level stats would still be applied primarily at the model level, so unless you're talking about meta-scale battles with single counters/minis representing entire units, I'm not clear on how this is different from just having standardized trooper classes segregated into separate units a-la WH40K.

5. It depends on the monster. I wouldn't expect that from an intelligent dragon, but I might from a giant badger. Though with the badger I'd think who it attacks would be up to the badger, not the player. Might want a rule for such circumstances that says if the monster is non-sapient, it will prioritize "important" opponents according to their intimidation stats (or whatever stat might fulfill that role) rather than letting the player decide. If the monster is sapient, then a suicide rush would have to be demonstrated as in-character, with a conservative bias against to guard against player excuses/lawyering. "His race/tribe has been previously established to place a high emphasis on honor, and his faction has been previously established to rule through fanaticism" would be acceptable. "He, uhhhh, has a subconscious death wish, 'cause, ummm, his lady monster was killed by the opponents' faction" would not.

[YPU]

Thanks fore the replies guys, Conquistador, "YMMV" is exactly the reason I am asking here. I know that on these and other topics there are views that differ from mine, and I would like to hear the arguments for them.

4, to explain a little more. Imagine your record sheet would include "accounting" "exploration" and "supply chain" lets say you get 5 points to split between those 3 at the start of the game. You can imagine how having one of those stats high or low would influence post game processes. The stats wouldn't be directly linked to any model but still "shape" the style of your group anyway.


5, I really like this idea as it would allow the other player to cut loose for once. But it is very abusable. Having a restricting flowchart or some-such wouldn't have my preference. Maybe I should employ positive reinforcement with the player receiving some reward for specific things. (each model attacked, item defended, that sort of thing) But then it would feel weird to get rewarded for something your warband didn't do... Maybe flowcharts after all.

[maxxon]

Well, it really depends on what you want. Personally, I've lost interest in the "warband" -style games mostly due to:

1) They pretty much all suffer from the snowball syndrome: Whoever gets early wins (or lucky advancement rolls) gets advantages that make it easier to win and gain even more advantages etc. Soon they are untouchable while motivating the lower rung players to remain in the game becomes more and more difficult. Yeah, you might get extra VPs if you beat a higher gang but if you won't win anyway who cares? And ditching the mauled gang for a new batch of "level 1's" doesn't improve your chances all that much either.

IMHO all these get the advancement thing wrong. When you get better, you should move to tougher challenges instead self-glorification through (effectively) newbie bashing.

2) They typically require far more games than I have the time for to fully realize the campaign potential. Too many games, too little time...

3) They often think the campaign system is a replacement for basic gameplay. IMHO this is just plain wrong. The basic game needs to be fun and then the campaign system can supplement it. You will be playing a lot of games... a lot... the basic gameplay needs to honed to razor-sharp perfection to survive this.

What I've done recently and what I vastly prefer myself is to have narrative, non-competetive 4-6 session minicampaigns.

[Mahwell skel]

1) They pretty much all suffer from the snowball syndrome: Whoever gets early wins (or lucky advancement rolls) gets advantages that make it easier to win and gain even more advantages etc. Soon they are untouchable while motivating the lower rung players to remain in the game becomes more and more difficult. Yeah, you might get extra VPs if you beat a higher gang but if you won't win anyway who cares? And ditching the mauled gang for a new batch of "level 1's" doesn't improve your chances all that much either.

IMHO all these get the advancement thing wrong. When you get better, you should move to tougher challenges instead self-glorification through (effectively) newbie bashing.

This is always a problem. Possibly introducing handicapping for higher warbands. Something along the lines of Them attracting too much attention and a higher power Non playable faction starts to take steps to knock them down a peg or 2. EG hired assassins intervening or some other difficulty such as imprisonment or being forced to pay tributes or protection money. Realm of chaos did this quite well with the fine line between god status and chaos spawn (although the customisation of figures then annoys here).

Remember if you are the elite player being picked on by the GM is no fun either. Subtle penalties that don't come out of the blue is the way forward. Instantly killing a lovingly developed character who has had his share of luck will not go down well.

[YPU]

This is always a problem. Possibly introducing handicapping for higher warbands. Something along the lines of Them attracting too much attention and a higher power Non playable faction starts to take steps to knock them down a peg or 2. EG hired assassins intervening or some other difficulty such as imprisonment or being forced to pay tributes or protection money. Realm of chaos did this quite well with the fine line between god status and chaos spawn (although the customisation of figures then annoys here).

Remember if you are the elite player being picked on by the GM is no fun either. Subtle penalties that don't come out of the blue is the way forward. Instantly killing a lovingly developed character who has had his share of luck will not go down well.

I remember a system that had stronger warband gets penalized in a different way, the leading warband would miss random members because they were required in other places. Defending other parts of their larger territory or some such.

[Alfrik]

On rewards, make most all of them 1 time use item with the possibility that players characters can only lug around some many points of items? I find that when they are 1 use, players tend to hoard them and not use them 

[Mr. Peabody]

This is where a game like Strange Aeons shines. You don't play versus each other's warbands, but against a 'Meta-foe' that scales to your level / power-potential / score.
Everyone gets to play with some cool bad-ass monsters and villains and everyone can have a decent challenge, game after game.
Folk who want to build or grow their group a certain way are not harshly penalised and the narrative of the thing has room to become something all players are invested in.

[YPU]

This is where a game like Strange Aeons shines. You don't play versus each other's warbands, but against a 'Meta-foe' that scales to your level / power-potential / score.
Everyone gets to play with some cool bad-ass monsters and villains and everyone can have a decent challenge, game after game.
Folk who want to build or grow their group a certain way are not harshly penalised and the narrative of the thing has room to become something all players are invested in.

Very true. I do wonder how players of both Aeons and Kulten experience the difference?
While I agree that the idea of such a meta-force is a strong solution I also do not think its the way to go for me.

[FramFramson]

I like that in Pulp Alley there's a fairly firm cap as to just how much better your heroes can get (in terms of extra abilities etc.), that those additional abilities don't make a league unbeatable, experience accrues slowly, and that most points are intended to be spent on temporary scenario-specific bonuses.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that PA has an extremely conservative experience system.

[YPU]

Bit of  thread necromancy, I was away on study trip to Germany.

You know how they say failure is a better lesson then success? What if defeat gives you more experience then victory. Naturally victory should provide other bonuses, campaign progression and other war-band advantages. (better territory for instance) The only question then becomes will people actually try to win, or will they end up losing on purpose for the xp? I suppose a recovery mechanic which might force a model to miss the next game should favour the victor to balance this a bit. maybe?

[FramFramson]

That's the thing about games - you (usualy) know they're games. And sometimes that means people will "game the system", manipulating it to produce the best possible outcome for themseves, even if it warps the "story" or the plans or ideas of the game's creator.

I like that you also want to provide learning experiences in case of failure - returning experience to it's true meaning. What you want to do is give people an incentive to win naturally. So your idea that all scenarios provide XP, but winning provides loot and advances the storyline is probably the best way to do things.

I would say that winning is also good for experience, so providing experience in BOTH cases is honestly the fairest way to do it. If you want people to avoid gaming it, make it variable! If you're acting as an old-style GM, make decisions! Did the characters have an easy time of things? Low experience. Did they fight on against incredble odds or better yet come up with a new plan or strategy? Lots of experience. 

If you want things to be more mathematical and out of your hands, then pick specific action criteria that will net XP. If you really want to be crafty and prevent them from doing specific things to accrue XP, don't tell the players what the criteria are! Alternately you can tie it to things out of their control, like the number or strength of enemies faced (which one assumes is based on the scenario.

[YPU]

Naturally both sides should get XP, it would be no fun if you didn't. But I can see a system where getting taken out of the fight would actually provide bonus XP for the model, even if they are at risk of gaining a lasting detriment from it. That means that you might actually win and get away with most XP but chances are you are going to under strength next time you fight due to injuries. In a campaign game the effects of getting taken out always provide incentive not to have models taken out, even if it has its upsides so assuming I balance that right somebody would be cursing over having to miss that model next game, but hey at least he got that bonus XP. 

Sure some players might still be glutons for punishment and run their forces to the hilt every game but I can see that as a viable in story tactics, some people just work that way in movies and books as well.

[maxxon]

Most players hate logistics, but those can be a balancing factor.

As the victor expands or pushes into enemy terroritory, his logistics train will become longer and more difficult to manage. The underdog enjoys home territory advantage, shorter logistics train and the ability to hit the weak spots in the overstretched enemy front.

The caveat is that this sort of gameplay can result in endless tug-o-war as assults run out of steam before actually knocking a player out.