| |
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > I think the three hour time slots would work well for the game I have in mind.
> >
> > What I've come up with so far is a TL2 game for mulitple players broken up
> > into three stages each consisting of three missions. Each of these missions
> > can be done at the same time by different participants. The participants
> > would control the good guys while NELUG would control the evil warlord and
> > monsters. This will allow us to adjust our game play to let the
> > participants win without making it too easy for them. I also like to design
> > games where the participants are working together and not fighting each other.
>
> I agree, especially for a Gaming Con where non-AFOLs will be invited to
> join, that it would be nice to have the players be allies versus NPC
> opponents. Having NELUG play the NPCs would work nicely. This creates a
> nice scenario where teamwork is encouraged. Plus with NELUG as NPCs/GMs, it
> offers the out-of-character chance to teach newbies the rules during gameplay.
>
> > Now you notice that all of these missions end up with a happy ending. That
> > is because I plan on adjusting the number of evil creatures attacking the
> > participants to let them just win each battle. Nobody likes to lose.
>
> I must disagree with this part of your thinking. As a GM, I have known many
> players who actually enjoy getting their characters/units killed, especially
> at Cons where they aren't losing characters/units that they have invested a
> lot of time in. Other players like to see that losing is possible because
> it makes the game seem more real or more challenging.
>
> Modifying early missions to ensure the players survive long enough to
> experience later missions might be reasonable. But I don't think that it
> should be guaranteed that the players will win. As GM, I believe that a
> good game should include some easy encounters, some challenging encounters,
> and an occasional difficult challenge. I don't aim to make them lose, nor
> win, but try to offer chances for both. That's just how I would do it
> though. If you wish to develop this scenario your way, don't let me stop
> you. I just thought you might want some food for thought. :)
I always appreciate other options, because they let me see things that I
might have over looked. In the end I usually take all the feedback I get
and modify the game to try and meet as many of them as possible.
I agree that losing troops is a great way to learn and is the heart of
playing Brikwars. For each mission I want the participant to start with a
squad of troopers and end up with just one trooper to complete the mission.
To do this I figure I will need to adjust how hard the different encounters
will be based on the participant's progress. If he is defeating the
ecounters easily, I will make them harder. If he is barely making it
through, I will have an extra squad of forestmen or hunters join his ranks.
Is this closer to what you were thinking? If you really want to have a
possiblity of mission failure then I can do it two other ways as well. One
would be to send another squad to try again. This could be a problem time
wise though. Or two we could simply start each stage as though the missions
before were completed. This again has a problem with story line, but I
would probably still do it anyways just to keep the game moving.
Now the final stage could be done as a win or lose scenario, but like you
said the battle needs to be created so that the participants have a chance
of winning, but not a guarentee.
> > To create this game I will need to size the layout so that I can have three
> > participants playing at the same time without them getting in each others
> > way. I will also need to game test the different missions to make sure that
> > they can be completed and that they don't take longer than 3hours.
>
> As I said, I should be able to contribute some scenery elements for an
> OurCon showing. Although I will also be developing a Space Display...
Landscape and troop design are going to be two of the biggest parts of this
game so any help is appreciated.
> > Anyone interested in doing this? Or at very least to play a mission every
> > other week.
>
> I am almost certain that something as often as twice a month is beyond my
> ability currently. But I would love to hear about how this develops if any
> of you choose to meet that frequently. :)
I'm not asking that you come every two weeks just that a game will be held
every two weeks. Since the game is broken into smaller parts you don't need
to play each mission. If only two people show up that will be enough to
test the missions. It would however be helpful to have someone who knows
the rules there to keep things accurate.
Jonathan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brikwars at OurCon 04
|
| (...) I agree, especially for a Gaming Con where non-AFOLs will be invited to join, that it would be nice to have the players be allies versus NPC opponents. Having NELUG play the NPCs would work nicely. This creates a nice scenario where teamwork (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.gaming)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
