im not sure if this is a common thing... but I have an idea we take legion xwing and armada to make a story based game where it alternates between the games in one big narrative game! it would take a lot of work but it would be cool!

Many people have had similar thoughts, haven’t seen anyone actually finish such a project though. My approach would probably be to take a look at Imperial Assault’s campaign system and adapt it so that the various missions in the story line are missions using a variety of games. So if one mission is an x-wing escort the senator’s shuttle mission, if the rebels win the scenario, play an Armada game as the imperial fleet tries to intercept the VIP, if the x-wing mission failed, the shuttle crashes on the planet and they play a legion game as stormtroopers are sent out to capture them (which could lead to a prison break IA mission)

You'd need gear and character advancements that apply to different rulesets, forcing players to make decisions about becoming better pilots, or commandos, or whatever.

FWIW I think this is better and more easily done as a GM moderated campaign than a freestanding rule set. It's really hard to come up with a campaign ruleset that works freestanding without intervention and is also narrative. They tend to be either simplistic tree campaigns or have snowballing advantages that run away quickly for one player. That said, have at it.

Brightguy makes a very important point- when you have a self-reinforcing feedback loop it causes winners to become increasingly likely to win and losers to become increasingly likely to lose- meaning they become increasingly likely to STOP PLAYING- this is why many campaigns like this fail out.

I would recommend this strategy- make the things you win be awesome thematic bonuses with no in-game effect. For example: You rescue a captured Padawan survivor in game 1. Your reward is that you can play that padawan survivor in follow-on games as an alternate Luke Skywalker. You can't play the padawan and luke together. Cool bonus- no change on the game.

Another way to do it is if you win, you get to write up a short story of the battle and read it aloud as the opening crawl to the next game.

Or maybe you win the right to always put that cool shuttle you stole on the table as a bit of scenery...

these things increase game immersion and enjoyment for everyone, make you want to strive to win them, but don't make you lose because you lost. Ergo- the guy that's lost a few games doesn't feel hopeless and may continue to play.

Also if a campaign IS going completely one-sided, you may be playing with someone not at your level, and it's a good idea to turn it down a notch if you want it to be fun for everyone. No harm in calling that campaign short to try another one after the poor dude gets a chance to learn a bit more.

Or, to rampantly contradict (or maybe clarify) myself, have a number of initial battles (maybe geographically separated), each of which conveys a small bonus in the next round. Each first round bonus can be used in only one battle of the next round. This means that it takes many wins for someone to steamroll versus one or two.

The risk is that if you say winning one battle means free grenades from then on, and the second half price heavy unit upgrades, things get out of hand quickly.

This can be managed with pure mechanics, but it's more easily managed with a GM balancing mechanics and thematics.

How about adding the opposite?

You have a campaign map/score which tracks progress towards winning for one side or the other.

However every win actually confers a penalty... say you are operating further from your supply base and you have a force size penalty. Or the failure has prompted command to send reinforcements and the loser gets a force size bonus.

If this balancing/catch up mechanism is big enough, then you can also give the winner a smaller one time use bonus which feels fun and gratifying without risking steamrolling...

1 hour ago, Makwiesel said:

Brightguy makes a very important point- when you have a self-reinforcing feedback loop it causes winners to become increasingly likely to win and losers to become increasingly likely to lose- meaning they become increasingly likely to STOP PLAYING- this is why many campaigns like this fail out. 

This is why I suggested making it semi-cooperative and scenario driven like Imperial Assault. Players may be able steer the narrative towards scenarios that play to their strengths, but each individual game is basically internally stand alone.

This is the farthest I've seen someone go through with this kind of idea, though it was made before Legion came out so the ground bits are done with IA.

http://vom-krieg.blogspot.com/p/talathen-sector-campaign.html

I agree. It needs a gamemaster. The GM has to either not-play, or always play against the campaign participants, who never play against each other. The GM can't risk being perceived as being on the side of only some players.

Scarif!