I wasn't actually going to get into this here and now, but since Max is willing to chat X-Wing, I was interested in one of his blog posts about why Missions, which everyone seems to want, but no one seems to play long-term.

From his blog:

Quote

But for X-Wing, I can confidently say that there’s a lot of content out there that is very high-quality, and some things still stick more than others. A well-executed custom ship or unique narrative scenario will be played and enjoyed, but I can’t think of any that have caught on widely. There tends to be a certain consumability to that sort of content - most people play it once or twice, but don’t make a habit of using it. As a result, they don’t proliferate it by sharing it with lots of other players over numerous games - which means fewer people are exposed to it, reducing its impact.

In an interesting parallel, we even observed this phenomenon for the official narrative scenarios included in many 1st Edition X-Wing products; while many people liked the idea of them in theory, we found that few people played them more than once, and only a small number of people played them at all . And as a result, their impact on the community was minimal even though they were official, well-made, and widely distributed. And this was because they offered a very narrow experience - a specific encounter, set up and played with specific pieces. That meant that people didn’t want to replay them, generally, and didn’t encourage their friends to try them. When I set about designing the scenarios for Epic Battles, I aimed to make them less like these highly specific narrative scenarios and more like “encounter archetypes” that players could approach with lots of different builds and strategies, with the goal of replayability and longevity in mind, and from what I have seen, this has paid off at least to some degree.

There is a definite truth in what Max is saying, but I wonder if there are additional elements that could be added to missions to make them more sticky.

Having played the Epic missions, I guess I'm less inclined to enjoy "encounter archetypes" that essentially change the scoring/win condition, and more interested in "mission profiles" that are a bit more "set up" but loose enough that players can still enter the mission with plenty of choices. They would certainly be able to design 99% of their list, with maybe a small requirement ("you must have a shuttle you are defending"). Also, I would tend to think that a mission should offer a "set piece" that is used as part of the mission, that may not really be generic enough to be used in a pick-up game. Turbolaser towers are a good example of this, or minefields or superweapons. These are not items that are easy to design as generically applicable, but could be very interesting when given a bit more structure inside of a mission.

Also, I wonder if things like the Death Star Trench Run mission might have gotten even more traction if it were made "official" by FFG and expanded to include all 7 factions.

Lastly, I think that missions are more interesting with end-point parameters that aren't 100% tied to a kill score. Ideally, while the game is scored in some way to determine a winner, "how many ships I killed" is not as important as "did I fulfill the mission parameters." And trying different lists and combos and changing side of "I'm the attacker" then "I'm the defender" make it more replayable. Unfortunately, the "encounter archetypes" tended to keep with "Ships Kill + Tokens Collected = New Score".

All-in-all, I think that missions could do this:

Quote

Generally, the tabletop game offshoot projects that seem to enjoy the longest attention are the ones that break players’ out of their preconceptions about how to play the game, and as a result, help them find new fun in parts of the game that were already there.

if they had been made as a product that, say for example, introduced Turbolaser Towers to the game then offered several missions in which this new, unique set piece was applicable to play.

Or, for example, allowed a player to custom design a YT-1300 (multiple base chassis + pilot options + modification) and then run it though a series of smuggling runs. Something like this would allow for a lot of player choice, be mission-based, and be repeatable with "this time I'm going going to kit a YT-1300/1310/1350 this way."

Anyways, just my ruminations on Max's ruminations about an aspect of XWM that seems to be highly-desired and under-utilized all at the same time.

BTW, full blog post here:

https://www.maxbrooke.com/articles/when-is-x-wing-like-skyrim-fandom-creation-and-games

18 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Or, for example, allowed a player to custom design a YT-1300 (multiple base chassis + pilot options + modification) and then run it though a series of smuggling runs. Something like this would allow for a lot of player choice, be mission-based, and be repeatable with "this time I'm going going to kit a YT-1300/1310/1350 this way."

I really like this idea. A lot.

The problem lies in the setup for people that play at a local game store: everybody has a 200 point list they can play with, but it’s sometimes difficult to tell people “build these points for this game next time,” when those people may not all be there next time. And it’s generally impossible to build a list on the spot at the lgs, unless you’re in the habit of bringing all of your ships all of the time.

34 minutes ago, Matanui3 said:

The problem lies in the setup for people that play at a local game store: everybody has a 200 point list they can play with, but it’s sometimes difficult to tell people “build these points for this game next time,” when those people may not all be there next time. And it’s generally impossible to build a list on the spot at the lgs, unless you’re in the habit of bringing all of your ships all of the time.

This is a really good point to consider - extra prep is absolutely a barrier to entry for missions.

However, as long as the mission only requires extra components for one player (and the other player can play it with their normal 200-point list), you could dodge around this a bit. You could probably even do something similar for 1 vs Many and other games of that sort - one person brings the "mission stuff," and other people can just use the lists they brought for standard games (or even one ship of X value or lower from that list).

Food for thought, anyway.

2 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

The problem lies in the setup for people that play at a local game store: everybody has a 200 point list they can play with, but it’s sometimes difficult to tell people “build these points for this game next time,” when those people may not all be there next time. And it’s generally impossible to build a list on the spot at the lgs, unless you’re in the habit of bringing all of your ships all of the time.

I guess I was lucky to have a pro-active group that posted what was going to happen on FB. You could look online ahead of time and see what you should plan for, even if you weren't there last week.

2 hours ago, Stormshrug said:

This is a really good point to consider - extra prep is absolutely a barrier to entry for missions.

However, as long as the mission only requires extra components for one player (and the other player can play it with their normal 200-point list), you could dodge around this a bit. You could probably even do something similar for 1 vs Many and other games of that sort - one person brings the "mission stuff," and other people can just use the lists they brought for standard games (or even one ship of X value or lower from that list).

Food for thought, anyway.

Certainly a nice way to do this would be to design larger missions at 400 points per side. It would be a "baby epic" mission for 2 players, a mission control vs. 2+ players, or team play for 4 players with standard lists.

Team play is a lot of fun, and also seems to be an under-emphasized way to enjoy the game.

2 hours ago, Stormshrug said:

This is a really good point to consider - extra prep is absolutely a barrier to entry for missions.

However, as long as the mission only requires extra components for one player (and the other player can play it with their normal 200-point list), you could dodge around this a bit.

This is perhaps one of the rare instances where I look at 40K as having positive game design: at least in the editions I played, multiple mission types were a baked-in feature and common expectation. You’d be expected to roll for the scenario type as part of game setup, with the option to short-circuit that and just play the scenario of your choosing if both players agreed.

On the surface, those scenarios tended to have a bit in common, and for many lists it didn’t matter overly much which you ended up with. 40k is also not a game of depth and balance, but of endlessly chasing power creep. But by baking that uncertainty into the game setup process, it did have an influence on listbuilding choices overall. You had to have an answer for the goal of taking & holding 6 objective markers, even if that was just to prevent your opponent from doing that—and even if that wasn’t the scenario you rolled in a specific game.

Warhammer Fantasy had the same "objectives as default" game design and it was awesome. You incorporated the scenarios in your army building choices, with no additional complexity.

The same exact thing could (should) be part of X-wing. If the tournament organizers wanted, they could say "only death match".

10 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

The problem lies in the setup for people that play at a local game store: everybody has a 200 point list they can play with, but it’s sometimes difficult to tell people “build these points for this game next time,” when those people may not all be there next time. And it’s generally impossible to build a list on the spot at the lgs, unless you’re in the habit of bringing all of your ships all of the time.

This is definitely a major factor. Not unlike what I was saying about fan community choices splitting the fandom by forcing them to have to choose to begin with, a large variety of mission options means that not everyone is going to be on the same page by default. One mission could be universally agreed to be the best thing ever by those who have played it, but the average player is still going to play it safe and gamble on the "default" being chosen because unless that alternate option becomes insanely dominant, you can't rely on it.

Some of the other points are good as well, though. I've always considered myself a narrative player. Not just here, but in video games as well. I want a good story, and if I ever have the choice between playing a story I've already seen or one I haven't yet, I'm going to pick the one I haven't.

At some point, however, I realized there are some really important exceptions. Sometimes I want something that is extremely repetitive or is something I've done before, precisely because it's repetitive or because I've done it before, since it makes it all blur together in my head and I don't realize how much time I'm spending on it. When I want to relax, sometimes that's way more appealing than something more interesting, but I actually have to pay attention to.

With X-Wing, I'll admit I'm torn. The idea of something with more of a theme, like a Trench Run or Hoth Defense, are very appealing, but I actually don't know how much I'd actually play them. Given what I've said, I think the best thing to do would be commit to just one of them, and also to actually plan for them to be somewhat repetitive.

1 hour ago, Jokubas said:

Sometimes I want something that is extremely repetitive or is something I've done before, precisely because it's repetitive or because I've done it before,

With X-Wing, I'll admit I'm torn. The idea of something with more of a theme, like a Trench Run or Hoth Defense, are very appealing, but I actually don't know how much I'd actually play them. Given what I've said, I think the best thing to do would be commit to just one of them, and also to actually plan for them to be somewhat repetitive.

I think this is a fine line that quotidian missions need to walk.

The Trench Run is awesome, but like you said, it kinda should be like Christmas: once per year you get the gang together and Do That Iconic Battle.

Ideally, then, a mission should be basic enough to be very repeatable, varied enough to offer different outcomes, and simple enough that folks can "switch gears" into mission night without taking a "standard" list back to the drawing board.

I mean, the above would only apply to "Sticky Missions" that folks play a lot. Special Event missions like the Trench Run are still great options for glorious pre-prepared all-day events.

I'm mostly just stoked that he mentioned Coralskippers.

21 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

The problem lies in the setup for people that play at a local game store: everybody has a 200 point list they can play with, but it’s sometimes difficult to tell people “build these points for this game next time,” when those people may not all be there next time. And it’s generally impossible to build a list on the spot at the lgs, unless you’re in the habit of bringing all of your ships all of the time.

That's a good point and it comes with a corollary related to bringing lots of ships. Our group lost a few players who didn't want to show up with lists already sorted out and pulled and organized even for standard play. You'd get guys who knew ahead of time we were going to do a mission and they wouldn't make time to sort out a list for it and just want to play standard a deathmatch. Unless you've got a pretty big group which we didn't prep time is a big part of it.

On 12/30/2020 at 7:14 AM, Matanui3 said:

The problem lies in the setup for people that play at a local game store: everybody has a 200 point list they can play with, but it’s sometimes difficult to tell people “build these points for this game next time,” when those people may not all be there next time. And it’s generally impossible to build a list on the spot at the lgs, unless you’re in the habit of bringing all of your ships all of the time.

I think the first step to making missions more sticky is to start with missions that can be played with a 200/6 format.

The one exception is Furball. It's pretty easy to come up with a single fighter with certain format restrictions (no lone wolf, X points total, etc) and drop it in your box next to your 200/6 squad.

16 hours ago, Koing907 said:

I think the first step to making missions more sticky is to start with missions that can be played with a 200/6 format.

If that were the case, Environments and the Objectives For Play fan-made option should have taken off.

If I were to get snarky (yep, I'm gonna), it sound like missions will never be a thing because (a) folks will only ever show up ready to play 200/6, and when they do, (b) folks are going to just default to Standard Play because 200/6 + Extra Rules For A Mission just ain't worth the distraction from starting to play.

It does explain why Aces High is so popular: 0% extra prep, 100% different play style.

But that tiny window of accessibility is going to be very hard for mission designers to exploit in creating something for 200/6 that is unique enough to become standalone, sensational, and "sticky."

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

If that were the case, Environments and the Objectives For Play fan-made option should have taken off.

If these came in the core set and the instructions said "step one: pick one scenario and one environment " I bet you it would have picked up, but not in the tournament sphere. They are too busy taking the game too seriously.

I want to engage in this conversation but I'm honestly burnt out of talking about it. I've engaged in it so many times over the past year that reading Max talk about the same things we've said for years was just a hollow climax to it all. I'm going back to the dance party 😆

21 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

If that were the case, Environments and the Objectives For Play fan-made option should have taken off.

Environments and Objectives came out just before the Covid situation. I know my group was interested in trying them. But then we stopped playing because the stores and pubs were closed down.

And I said the first step, not the only step. They also have to have good mission objectives. Fun, engaging, etc.

On 12/31/2020 at 5:48 PM, Darth Meanie said:

If that were the case, Environments and the Objectives For Play fan-made option should have taken off.

If I were to get snarky (yep, I'm gonna), it sound like missions will never be a thing because (a) folks will only ever show up ready to play 200/6, and when they do, (b) folks are going to just default to Standard Play because 200/6 + Extra Rules For A Mission just ain't worth the distraction from starting to play.

It does explain why Aces High is so popular: 0% extra prep, 100% different play style.

But that tiny window of accessibility is going to be very hard for mission designers to exploit in creating something for 200/6 that is unique enough to become standalone, sensational, and "sticky."

I am the only one who bought both these packs where I live, probably because people didn’t think they needed to. That said, before in-person play was cancelled, I would usually ask before the game if the opponent was okay with using a random one of the setup cards, and they usually were.

Making different setup options and controlling areas would go a long way to freshen things up. You can also make missions that don't involve modifying your list. For example make a space station template a put it in the middle of the board during setup. The mission is to destroy it or protect it or extract someone (and make ships be able to dock), etc. Then people make their lists with all possible missions in mind like i warhammer as was said by someone before

4 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

I am the only one who bought both these packs where I live, probably because people didn’t think they needed to. That said, before in-person play was cancelled, I would usually ask before the game if the opponent was okay with using a random one of the setup cards, and they usually were.

The most effective way to make missions stick is to make them tournament official and make tournaments use them