Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Help wanted.jpg (20KB, 338x264px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 338x264px
Some friends and I are designing a board/wargame, based on an old RPG series we liked (Exile by Jeff Vogel, if it matters). And one of the mechanics we were bouncing around was some sort of interaction between regular military units, who take and control areas, and some sort of adventurers, who would undertake some kind of special actions, blow up vital infrastructure behind the lines, gain or break alliances with the native cavefolk, assassinate important leaders on the other side, that kind of thing.
Obviously, there needs to be some degree of interaction, but we didn't want the adventurers running up to military units and destroying them, and quite probably have only a limited ability to hurt the regular units (the reverse not really being true)
I was just wondering if anyone had ever played or seen systems similar to this, something I could draw inspiration from when trying to balance this.
>>
>>50499422
Hopeful bump.
>>
>>50499422
Maybe handle them as spies/ninja in the Total War series? They can go anywhere and do stuff, but they don't directly fight ever, and if they are discovered they are dead.
>>
>>50500799
Well, we kind of wanted them to do more than that; something much more finely grained. The broad balance of the game was supposed to be that the Empire will win the conventional war, eventually, they have more and better troops. However, the Exiles have better access to these adventuring groups, and they need to get a few major tasks done to swing the balance back around before the roof falls on their heads.
I suppose you could do it with like a movement and roll to succeed mission, but I did kind of want to have something where there would be several (maybe even numerous) different areas, of different difficulty; and surviving their missions (even if they fail) give the advens more XP and thus power to do better on alter rolls.
Also, kind of wanted to have a more active defense on the part of the regular troops to slow down and stop the adventurers. At least from what I remember in the TW games, you just kind of have your chance of succeeding or failing a mission, and that's that. Piling a city with twice the garrison doesn't alter the odds of an assassin sabotaging a building. Here, we wanted to have, especially for the Empire, an operational choice as to whether to spend more time and troops on counterinsurgency or just to move forward and smash things and try to win the game.
>>
>>50499422
I think that you need to provide more information. If you really want this to be crunchy, then there are systems to use for that. If you want it to be less crunchy, then there are systems to use for that.
So what are you going for, more roleplay or rollplay?
>>
>>50505349
I mean, this is going to be crunchy, but it's going to be a wargame, not an RPG. There isn't really "roleplay", except whatever narratives you want to tell over the course of a game itself.
You'd be sending an adventuring party to go do such and such mission, and they score a result (however it winds up being determined), which can range from good to bad, but there's not actual character sheets for those adventurers, nor do they have parties or personalities or whatnot.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1