Hey,

Since there seems to be a thread every other week about wanting a narrative campaign type thing for X Wing, I thought I'd share the files from one I just finished running for anyone that might be interested. It took the group about 3 months to get through it, but it was really only 6 nights of games, we all just decided to pick that period of time to travel overseas at different times. Basically it was 3 Rebel players against 3 Imperial, with a prescribed fleet to pick from. If things die, you can't use them next time. Everyone had a mission to fly. Sometimes everyone was playing on the same table, sometimes it was two or three separate ones.

Read the About document first, for the details. In reality you couldn't run it again using the same mission lists, as it was written so the results of one week would dictate what each side would do the next week, but maybe it'll give you some ideas and you'll come up with something way better for your gaming group.

Overall, it kind of worked out as a draw. The Rebels weren't able to remove the Imperials from the system, but did escape in the end. So I don't know how to call it. It did swing a bit as the campaign went on, and some people adapted to flying missions better than others. If nothing else, it gave people a chance to fly things that we don't see too often. The final mission had a Gozanti, Raider, CR-90 and GR-75, but most impressively, a HWK with predator!

Anyway, files are in google drive attached.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Sz1F7D07DrVmg5b201azIwd0E

Shamelessly stealing this... Now I just need to get a group together...

Go for it. If you have any questions about set up for various things that I did along the way, feel free to send me a message.

Hey,

Since there seems to be a thread every other week about wanting a narrative campaign type thing for X Wing, I thought I'd share the files from one I just finished running for anyone that might be interested. It took the group about 3 months to get through it, but it was really only 6 nights of games, we all just decided to pick that period of time to travel overseas at different times. Basically it was 3 Rebel players against 3 Imperial, with a prescribed fleet to pick from. If things die, you can't use them next time. Everyone had a mission to fly. Sometimes everyone was playing on the same table, sometimes it was two or three separate ones.

Read the About document first, for the details. In reality you couldn't run it again using the same mission lists, as it was written so the results of one week would dictate what each side would do the next week, but maybe it'll give you some ideas and you'll come up with something way better for your gaming group.

Overall, it kind of worked out as a draw. The Rebels weren't able to remove the Imperials from the system, but did escape in the end. So I don't know how to call it. It did swing a bit as the campaign went on, and some people adapted to flying missions better than others. If nothing else, it gave people a chance to fly things that we don't see too often. The final mission had a Gozanti, Raider, CR-90 and GR-75, but most impressively, a HWK with predator!

Anyway, files are in google drive attached.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Sz1F7D07DrVmg5b201azIwd0E

If they failed to dislodge the Imps, objectively it's a loss.

Hey,

Since there seems to be a thread every other week about wanting a narrative campaign type thing for X Wing, I thought I'd share the files from one I just finished running for anyone that might be interested. It took the group about 3 months to get through it, but it was really only 6 nights of games, we all just decided to pick that period of time to travel overseas at different times. Basically it was 3 Rebel players against 3 Imperial, with a prescribed fleet to pick from. If things die, you can't use them next time. Everyone had a mission to fly. Sometimes everyone was playing on the same table, sometimes it was two or three separate ones.

Read the About document first, for the details. In reality you couldn't run it again using the same mission lists, as it was written so the results of one week would dictate what each side would do the next week, but maybe it'll give you some ideas and you'll come up with something way better for your gaming group.

Overall, it kind of worked out as a draw. The Rebels weren't able to remove the Imperials from the system, but did escape in the end. So I don't know how to call it. It did swing a bit as the campaign went on, and some people adapted to flying missions better than others. If nothing else, it gave people a chance to fly things that we don't see too often. The final mission had a Gozanti, Raider, CR-90 and GR-75, but most impressively, a HWK with predator!

Anyway, files are in google drive attached.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Sz1F7D07DrVmg5b201azIwd0E

If they failed to dislodge the Imps, objectively it's a loss.

At the same time they escaped with their lives, so that's a win.

I feel like the imperials failing to wipe them out is at least a bad a failure as the Rebels not getting rid of the Imperials.

I say it's a draw.

I'll have to check this out! It would be good to put Babaganoosh on it, as well. He's excellent when it comes to scenario creation.

I don't think I can comment on the scenarios directly, without more details about the specific setups. Generally speaking, since both sides were working with finite resources (they seem to have had a limited amount of ships that they could use, and if ships were lost in battle that loss was permanent), these scenarios should at least have not been negatively affected by Suicide Run Syndrome. So that's a very good thing.

I'm wondering what function the map that's in the google folder served. Were you using it as a territory map in the same way a game of risk or diplomacy uses a map, where you can advance and retreat, and move the front line closer or farther away from the enemy base? If you were, that might be part of why you had what you feel was an inconclusive end to the campaign. Hard to say without reading through more of the documents, though.

Sometimes, games with that sort of territory system can fall into near-endless tugs of war, or see-saw effects. Especially if you make things harder for the team that is getting closer to the enemy base.

For my own campaign and narrative event design, I like to work with one of two models. In a free-form campaign that is not being administered by any GM, I prefer what I call the 'race to the finish' model. This is when both teams can independently move closer to their victory conditions, like runners in a race. I usually also include a provision for the losing team to be able to turn things around at the last second. For example, let's say one team has gotten to their last mission to win the campaign - almost always some massive assault on an enemy base. If the attackers win, they win the campaign. If they lose, I like to then turn around and let the defenders have a shot at launching their own massive base attack and winning the campaign. That way, there's always a credible chance to win the whole shebang, even if you have been beaten in the race. But winning the race gives you a much better chance at winning the campaign.

In a narrative event, I like to use mission tracks similar to what we see in FFG's campaigns for X-wing. A set track of missions that leads to one of two finale missions with clear victory conditions. Very straightforward and easy to follow, and usually gives a satisfying end to the event.

I don't think I can comment on the scenarios directly, without more details about the specific setups. Generally speaking, since both sides were working with finite resources (they seem to have had a limited amount of ships that they could use, and if ships were lost in battle that loss was permanent), these scenarios should at least have not been negatively affected by Suicide Run Syndrome. So that's a very good thing.

I'm wondering what function the map that's in the google folder served. Were you using it as a territory map in the same way a game of risk or diplomacy uses a map, where you can advance and retreat, and move the front line closer or farther away from the enemy base? If you were, that might be part of why you had what you feel was an inconclusive end to the campaign. Hard to say without reading through more of the documents, though.

Sometimes, games with that sort of territory system can fall into near-endless tugs of war, or see-saw effects. Especially if you make things harder for the team that is getting closer to the enemy base.

For my own campaign and narrative event design, I like to work with one of two models. In a free-form campaign that is not being administered by any GM, I prefer what I call the 'race to the finish' model. This is when both teams can independently move closer to their victory conditions, like runners in a race. I usually also include a provision for the losing team to be able to turn things around at the last second. For example, let's say one team has gotten to their last mission to win the campaign - almost always some massive assault on an enemy base. If the attackers win, they win the campaign. If they lose, I like to then turn around and let the defenders have a shot at launching their own massive base attack and winning the campaign. That way, there's always a credible chance to win the whole shebang, even if you have been beaten in the race. But winning the race gives you a much better chance at winning the campaign.

In a narrative event, I like to use mission tracks similar to what we see in FFG's campaigns for X-wing. A set track of missions that leads to one of two finale missions with clear victory conditions. Very straightforward and easy to follow, and usually gives a satisfying end to the event.

Yep, finite resources, including pilots, not just ships.

The map was mostly just for me to keep track of where I was putting each mission, and in some cases one side would get a bit of an advantage if they held an area that the mission was taking place in. This only really came up a couple of times, though. I think it is something I'd like to expand on more if I were to do it again, with multiple Imperial outposts protected by garrisoned squadrons/stationary defense objects and that sort of thing.

I had wanted to make the campaign be fluid, with the previous week impacting the next, but as you say, that does lead to a see-sawing effect. It was kind of ok for this one, in that respect, as we didn't really have a date where it needed to finish by.

With the campaigns you've run, how many players in each team have you had, and was it generally everyone playing on the same board at the same time in a large 3v3 or 4v4 type game, or each player has a 1v1 game with their own mission and the opponent with a countering mission? I've also been a part of a campaign which players had a mission they'd essentially play against a NPC type scenario, but I think having each mission having a counter mission is a bit better for building team rivalry

I'm looking forward to getting the Armada campaign when it comes out, and seeing what ideas I can steal from that

Yeah, I'm keeping an eye out for that campaign, too.

In terms of campaigns I've run, I've only done 1v1 battles in 2v2 campaigns. I haven't tried using AI opposition forces yet, but it is possible using HotAC rules. I prefer PvP campaigns for the competitive drama, but HotAC is super fun too. I think a 2v2 battle would be practical, but 3v3 and 4v4 is probably pushing it unless you have a very reliable group.

For the map, as with most game elements, as long as you have a GM running things you're probably fine. I like maps in some contexts, too. Like if you have a map that is mainly a visual reference for the game locations in the context of a star system, for example... but not as a territorial thing where you have to conquer spaces to reach certain other spaces to win.

See-sawing can happen if you have a stretch of territories that both sides are vying for control over, and control over which is necessary to trigger the game end.

Putting my thematic cap on, we should largely be approaching things from the context of the Galactic Civil War. Rebels are badly outnumbered. Few systems openly support them. Rebel forces operate from secret bases and launch guerrilla attacks against Imperial forces that are holding territory, while the Imperials try to ferret out and crush hidden Rebel bases. In that context, I don't like the idea that in our campaigns, Rebels fight Imperials for physical control of territory. I don't know if that's how you were operating, per se, but that's how my thinking goes nonetheless. I don't think that Rebels were very much in the game of taking and holding territory - more like destroying Imperial centers of power, winning hearts and minds, and allowing the civilian population to support them in the vacuum of Imperial control.

So, a map showing the positions of Imperial facilities and whether or not they're damaged or destroyed, and also the possible positions of hidden Rebel bases and whether or not they've been reconnoitered by Imperials would be super cool and thematic, while also being relevant to a thematic campaign. I wouldn't use the map to restrict or even represent the physical movement of forces, so much as show the status of the conflict. And I would avoid setting up the possibility of a see-saw battle over one stretch of territory.

I was pretty lucky with the people in my group being reliable. Having said that, there were a few weeks I had to tweak to make up for only 4 or 5 being able to make it along.

I like your line of thinking thematically. Maybe something like the victory timer in Rebellion would be a way of looking at it. With Rebel victories improving local support, and the Imperials need to find the base and destroy them before the Rebels win the hearts of the civilians.

Plenty of scope for incorporating different elements