So I've been puzzling together on how to build an online campaign engine to add narrative stakes to games of Armada and X-Wing, possibly even Imperial Assault, while modeling the sort of conflict that the Galactic Civil War represents (insurgency/counter-insurgency). Using an online engine means that I can put both fog of war and complexity into the game mechanics without it being too complex for players to play. However, I'm running into a quandary: how much will people care?

I think there's a big division in tabletop gamers: those who call the background "lore" (or something similar), and those who refer to it in a more pejorative term, such as "fluff". I don't think that a campaign of the nature that I would ideally like to put on would appeal to anyone who refers to that as "fluff", because that's not where they get their enjoyment.

To that end, I'm trying to understand what share of any given tabletop miniatures community embraces lore, or is just in it for the "crunch". There are many people here with a lot of tabletop experience, and I'm wondering if you can share your thoughts on the matter.

"Fluff" is a pejorative term?

News to me

I think the Vassal community here would gobble it up quicker than Demo goes thru TRC90s (That's fast)

"Fluff" is a pejorative term?

News to me

You don't think so? To me 'fluff' suggests something that is ephemeral, non-substantive, and disposable.

I think the Vassal community here would gobble it up quicker than Demo goes thru TRC90s (That's fast)

That makes sense, given that people's experience with it is online anyway. I haven't given it thought because I don't want to play on Vassal. (I want my gaming interactions to be in-person, because so much of my professional life is online.) But, if I do get something going, I wouldn't mind sharing the set-up with the Vassal community, provided I have a partner in crime to organize it.

"Fluff" is a pejorative term?

News to me

You don't think so? To me 'fluff' suggests something that is ephemeral, non-substantive, and disposable.

No. I've forever been a fluffmonkey, and I've never considered it an insult.

"Fluff" is a pejorative term?

News to me

You don't think so? To me 'fluff' suggests something that is ephemeral, non-substantive, and disposable.

No. I've forever been a fluffmonkey, and I've never considered it an insult.

Hehe, I think if someone called me a fluffmonkey, I'd be wondering if they meant something by it. (Of course, the alliteration between loremonger and whoremonger....)

But the terminology aside, as a 'fluffmonkey' I'm sure you recognize that there are people who exist for narrative stakes, and people who couldn't care less.

Indeed. I am not discounting you on that point at all!

Just that I never considered "fluff" a pejorative term... Fluff was what it was described to me as in the old days of Dragon Magazine... Fluff was Story, Crunch was Rules, and neither was more important than the other... I believe the statement was: "You couldn't have a delicious Marshmallow Fluff and Peanut Butter Sandwich without both, after all..."

Generally speaking, I think the amount of Lore appreciators in gaming is lower than what you'd find on these forums, for example... Star Wars seems to have something with it that encouragesa certain amount of lore appreciation... Without it, I'm sure the whole Legends / Canon furore would have answered fairly quickly in comparison.

I think an appreciation of Star Wars comes inherent with a Love of Lore, as the Lore itself is Star Wars, the Movies...

Present it here, and it will be successful in some way, shape or form

I've never heard fluffmonkey before: there's loremonger/canon queen's for the relevant setting related authenticity, then fluffbunnies like me who care more about the narrative than almost any other consideration. And yeah, 'fluff' or 'fluffy' tends to be a pejorative term used to contrast 'WAAC', not that I tend to find either of them that accurate. But hey, it's not up to me.

Honestly, I haven't a clue. You get different regional attitudes for different games and to a degree you can subdivide them as well.

Locally I know that people respond better to map-based narrative framed campaign. That tends to mean that fog of war and cooperative gaming along set factions/fronts tends to be received fairly well. It promotes a competitive atmosphere for players, tends to allow unique one-off events, and still provides reasons and validations for the conflict in the first place. To that end, the Corellian Campaign seems to be going along that route, as did some of the older GW style campaigns (Armageddon, Storm of Chaos, Albion, Eye of Terror, etc). For that, the dispatch campaign giving a 'medal' is often well received as an incentive: player with the highest MOV, player with the least amount of losses, player with the most amount of kills, 3 consecutive weeks active, etc.

Naturally, an organized community and a large enough standing playerbase is needed to really make that work to its full potential. Vassal would be the ideal set up, but a store/region based event could work just as well if you have those organizers. For a store based campaign, 6 players, like the Corellian Conflict, seems to be something of a compromise between that and the branch based campaigns. Fog of war is a very possible thing to implement with an online system, so long as the map is set up to allow a degree of connectivity between regions without spreading the territories out too much, or creating too many choke points. That's really more the cartographers responsibility.

Personally, I prefer branch because the effects of battles tend to be more narrative and fundamentally molded to a particular campaign. No inherent need for maps, no need for more resources, it's following along a set timeline with a definite number of games that you either win or you lose. If you need to ensure things stick to a timeline, if you have a smaller group, or don't want the unwieldly responsibility of the map based resource/territory management, then branch works great. People tend to respond less enthusiastically because it feels less grand.

Just in general, people like influencing outcomes or the illusion of affecting outcomes more than just winning, so using the narrative as a frame rather than the driving element often leads to better results. But as for the lore, characters, backstory, etc: it's often just a form of white noise.

Now, as it didn't post the first time, lets see if it did this time.

Hmm, les see.

I have read just about every EU thing there is. I've seen every single thing on video Star Wars related, except perhaps the odd fan film. I'm considered somewhat of a Star Wars expert, if there is such a thing, amongst those that know me. I'm even a member of the 501st Legion.

With all that said, while I recognize the value of a lore based campaign, I seriously doubt the feasibility of one. I've seen so many campaigns die off for lack of interest or time. I'd recommend if anything, that you find some fanatics on the level of our misguided Rebel friend so that they have the will to finish.

First of all, I also didn't knew that fluff was pejorative. It might have to do with the fact that I'm french and learned the term in a positive context. I'll try to be careful when using the term.

Now, regarding your question. As a community (and here I'll also include the x-wing players if you don't mind), I think that in general gameplay is more important than lore. I know that some players started playing without having seen a Star Wars movie, or it was too long ago to remember or care. But, even those players were interested in the campaign coming (or were jalous that there was nothing like it for x-wing). So, even if for some players the gameplay is more inportant than the lore, a campaign has a charm of its own that can touch both kind of gamers (they might just play the campaign to win though and won't care about the story being told, just like in Imperial Assault when they don't care about the introduction, they just want to know their objectives).

Now, as a player, lore is what it's all about. I know I would not have buy into this game (or X-Wing or IA) if it was not Star Wars. It's not to say that I don't care about gameplay or balance, but there's nothing that piss me off more than reading "Gameplay>>>>>>Fluff" on these forums, have some respect for the source material and what it means for some. I believe that you can have both. That might be what is turning me off from x-wing these days, gameplay might have started to be too important and it doesn't feel as Star Wars as it used to do, now it's more some stats on a card and dial than an actual ship from the universe.

But even if for me the lore is more important, I'll never impose it to any players. But for my part, I'll try to make my own story from time to time. For exemple, I just started writing some battlereports, and I try to report is a story more than by a turn by turn basis. It also got me to make my own little story: The fleet from the first report split up for the second and now I'll build my next list as a continuity, what happened to the other part of the initial fleet? So I will have to take ships I didn't take for my second game and won't be able to take those that I took for the second game. So, I make my own little xampaign without imposing it to my opponents. And When playing casually, I'll try to ask my opponent which faction he wants to play and I'll play the other.

Anyway, all that to say that Lore is important for me, but I'll never impose it to anyone. We all play for different reasons and I got to respect that. As long as we have fun.

"Fluff" is a pejorative term?

News to me

You don't think so? To me 'fluff' suggests something that is ephemeral, non-substantive, and disposable.

No. I've forever been a fluffmonkey, and I've never considered it an insult.

I think 40k players would disagree with Mikaels interpretation of Fluff. . . those guys live and die by their fluff.

Hmm, les see.

I have read just about every EU thing there is. I've seen every single thing on video Star Wars related, except perhaps the odd fan film. I'm considered somewhat of a Star Wars expert, if there is such a thing, amongst those that know me. I'm even a member of the 501st Legion.

With all that said, while I recognize the value of a lore based campaign, I seriously doubt the feasibility of one. I've seen so many campaigns die off for lack of interest or time. I'd recommend if anything, that you find some fanatics on the level of our misguided Rebel friend so that they have the will to finish.

I wonder who you could be talking about >.>

Interest and consistency is one reason I keep putting my league off. . . I look at Wednesdays for X-Wing at my FLGS and sigh in sadness because I want a league as active or even partially as active as that. . .

I have read just about every EU thing there is. I've seen every single thing on video Star Wars related, except perhaps the odd fan film. I'm considered somewhat of a Star Wars expert, if there is such a thing, amongst those that know me. I'm even a member of the 501st Legion.

I'm glad you said this, because it does strike me that I should make a distinction. The term 'lore' (or fluff) does land us squarely in the rich history of the Galactic Civil War as it has already been told, or will be told in upcoming media. In a way, that's not what I'm talking about and so 'lore/fluff' might be a misnomer for what I'm trying to add to the gaming experience.

What I'm talking about is the value of narrative stakes. To what degree is the gaming experienced enhanced by a narrative that gives meaning to the games played? A campaign, in which one battle has impact on future battles, flows from the logic of a given scenario. That scenario should fit into the history of the SWU, but at the same time not be constrained by it. (ie. Luke can't die, because he still needs to defeat the Emperor at Endor.)

So, to what degree do players in your communities care about having narrative states added to the games you play?

In my community, I ran an X-Wing campaign, in which a variable number of wins/losses by different factions impacted control over systems. In a league, I had people report their wins/losses as well as which systems they fought over. A minority of players cared about the systems, while most just filled out the wins/losses, without deciding on which systems they were fighting over. (That was a little disheartening.)

I have seen the self-imposed narrative fall off a bit recently, but at my local FLGS, we have always used it to set the stage.

Mirror matches were referred to as war games training.

If an ace squadron were destroyed, It is usually described as "he goes spinning, out of control, off into the black".

Rebels vs Imperial matches illicit the best in character trash talk.

I think Star Wars fans just expect some amount of narrative in their games... Even if it is just internal. Thats kind of why we play a Star Wars game. Thats also why historical warming has had a huge following. The fluff/lore exists to allow each player to set up that narrative that makes the battle more meaningful.

Just my two credits.

*cough cough* corellian campaign

I have seen the self-imposed narrative fall off a bit recently, but at my local FLGS, we have always used it to set the stage.

Mirror matches were referred to as war games training.

If an ace squadron were destroyed, It is usually described as "he goes spinning, out of control, off into the black".

Rebels vs Imperial matches illicit the best in character trash talk.

I think Star Wars fans just expect some amount of narrative in their games... Even if it is just internal. Thats kind of why we play a Star Wars game. Thats also why historical warming has had a huge following. The fluff/lore exists to allow each player to set up that narrative that makes the battle more meaningful.

Just my two credits.

We do that in our area still. It is fun! Mikael just needs more. . . though I blame Hero's of the Aturi Cluster. . .

*cough cough* corellian campaign

Yup, quite aware that it's coming, and quite excited for it.

At the same time, kind of deflated in the same way that I imagine Mel is when he just put in a lot of work to create a 3d design for a ship, only to have FFG produce it officially.

At the same-same time, it gives an official sanction to the idea of playing campaigns, so that people can see that it's cool. I think what I'll be doing is trying to build on the Corellian Campaign.

The problem is that my brain cells are working on it now, and I don't know what exactly is going to be included in the box. I suspect that the ruleset is going to be relatively simple, with limited fog of war. I think it's a good idea to keep an out-of-the-box campaign simple and transparent. But, as Lyraeus just said, I want moar. For me, a large part of the enjoyment comes from the realistic (if parsimonious) modeling of conflict dynamics in a fictional setting. That, and how to make it fun and compelling enough to gather a group of people around in order to play games with.

"Fluff" is a pejorative term?

News to me

You don't think so? To me 'fluff' suggests something that is ephemeral, non-substantive, and disposable.

No. I've forever been a fluffmonkey, and I've never considered it an insult.

I think 40k players would disagree with Mikaels interpretation of Fluff. . . those guys live and die by their fluff.

As a (prior, hate 8th ed) 40K player, I can 110% agree. I am a super "fluff-bunny" when it comes to my 40K builds. I will take a fun/fluffy unit over a better one that does not fit the story of my army.

My Armada/X-wing builds do not require as much fluff, but I do enjoy coming up with a reason/story for the battle being fought. The nice thing about Armada is that pretty much any build will still fit. And even in a hero character get's shot down, they don't have to be dead. It's easy to explain that a unique pilot was able to eject, or the crew of a ship made it to an ecsape pod.

Mikael, were I just moved from (KY) there is a guy who put togheter the most detailed narrative campaigns (mostly for GW games, but he did one for Armada too.) he spent obscene amounts of time and effort creating interesting storylines and scenarios, and coming up with viable schedules and pairings.

And there was always a huge drop off of players by the end.

The problem is keeping the players that are losing interested enough to finish. I'd suggest a campaign with a very tight time scale, no more than two to three months at the most, so that interest can be sustained. As well, I'd suggest some kind of support for players who are not doing well so as to maintain their interest.

Just my two Imperial credits, based on over ten years of running or being involved in leagues and campaigns.

For what it's worth, for me function and form are both equally important - but in diametrically opposed ways:

Fluff, or lore, serves as a positive filter: if it's good, it makes me want to try the game.

Gameplay, on the other hand, serves as a negative filter: if the ruleset is not watertight, it makes me want to stop playing the game.

I have zero interest in competition or tournaments, but also zero tolerance for rulesets that are not designed to be tournament-proof. So I play Armada for its lore (or used to, it's been a long time...), yet I'm absolutely down with FFG's competitive-oriented approach. They have done an amazing job. If only AT-43 had had such skilled designers...

I think Star Wars fans just expect some amount of narrative in their games... Even if it is just internal. Thats kind of why we play a Star Wars game.

Agree, I find myself playing the narrative in my head as I play. I would absolutely love an external narrative stake to my games, because I love lore, I love the star wars universe, and I will love playing the corellian conflict. However, that is If I can get a group to commit to it. As a 30 something year old with kids, dogs, wife (singular on that one), job, and all the other stuff it just hasn't been practical to find a single opponent or opponents that can play consistently enough to warrant out of game narrative. I make the laser noises and imagine everything playing out like a movie in my brain, but without a gaming group that is more or less what I am limited too.

Its because in the Game vs Lore parrallel to the Chicken vs Egg system... We know which came first for us.. And it was the Lore... There was Star Wars before there was Star Wars: Armada...

With things like 40k, well, thats a much murkier matter, after all.

But for us, its clear cut which came first, and that inherently biases us towards it.

So I certainly stand by my statement that, if you were to look at gaming populations - Star Wars Gamers are going to be up there in a greater majority of lore appreciators, than in other games...

I mean, M:TG has a Lore and a Storyline, after all... But the vast majority of players are not invested in it (or even know it exists beyond the expansion namings)

I love the lore, I have a friend that I meet with weekly to play games and we rotate through several franchises and games and we always build lore friendly lists and let the game play tell a story. The lore is very important to me and is what draws me into games.

That being said, I do not play competitively and frankly neither of us min/max our lists. We just play to have fun.

Thanks for all your responses.

Now for the follow-up: what sorts of things should a narrative campaign restrict in the players' freedom of choice (who will be the next campaign opponent, what upgrades are available, choice of objectives, etc.)?

How much narrative is too much?

What I've found with the players who are into having their own headcanon is how much they vary. I have a few players who come up with things that I find implausible, but I tend to shrug that off and encourage them to live it up. Of course, with a campaign, there is a necessity for a common narrative, and that, in effect, means a restriction.

So I certainly stand by my statement that, if you were to look at gaming populations - Star Wars Gamers are going to be up there in a greater majority of lore appreciators, than in other games...

My experience with Star Wars gamers comes from two sources: My local group, and the internet.

My local group is VERY fluff/lore driven. I don't even think we've used the new X Wing ships yet, because we don't want to use them alongside the GCW era ships, because that would break canon. No Wedge + BB8 here!

But on the internet? No one cares about the lore. Like, at all. It's not even a consideration unless someone is doing a special mission or scenario, which is vanishingly rare. Smooshing pilots together who were separated by decades, ones who died decades before the others were born, new ships and old ships, no one cares they just want the most effective combination, the lore be damned!