|
Post by IncubiLord on Apr 15, 2007 23:15:55 GMT -5
Well, now that it's over, let's hear it.
What worked well, what was tolerable, and what outright stank? If you could be the boss and somebody else made it happen, what would you change? What would you demand be left untouched (if anything)?
All serious answers are fine here, even if you'd have run the entire thing differently. Just let us know your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by LordJET on Apr 18, 2007 12:19:33 GMT -5
Could you post a table on the final report as to where each race came in rank as well as the final narrative?
|
|
|
Post by IncubiLord on Apr 18, 2007 19:00:18 GMT -5
That's a tricky little topic - and one I personally dislike. In a narrative campaign, the numbers are there to resolve how well you did in the plot you're advancing, not as an ends in and of themselves. Each faction could reasonably attain their goal, so the numbers are really the mediator when your stories come into opposition to each other and for determining just how amazing the success in an area really is. By the raw numbers, we had: Orks and Chaos at the top (Chaos - surprise!), followed shortly by Eldar and Necrons (ironically, also a bit opposed to each other...), then the three Imperial factions (yeah, they placed in the same general area), Dark Eldar ( ) Tyranids (where'd you go, greyhunter - you were rocking for a while) Tau (I guess Tau don't really exist outside the fluff ) Then how'd the DE do so well (IncubiLord, you biased jerk)? DE held the highest score in the Glasswind Heights 4 of the 8 weeks, had the highest overall score there, and had an alliance of sorts with the Eldar in the Glasswind Heights - who also did well in the area. The numbers are only the beginning of how well factions did, though. The stories were judged for their degree of success, and then each faction was given a (hopefully) fitting end based on how well they reached that goal...
|
|
|
Post by easye on Apr 20, 2007 6:19:00 GMT -5
Perhaps we could keep the batreps hidden from view until new batreps could not be posted for the week. That way, story hooks used in the narrative could not simply be negated instantly by another player. They would have to adjust their plans for the following week.
This time around, it seemed like he who posted last won.
By the way, thanks for the System Map. I tried to integrate it into my batreps/side-stories whenever I could.
|
|
|
Post by kyrolon on Apr 20, 2007 12:42:25 GMT -5
I agree with Easye on this one. Sometimes it did seem like there was too much of an instant reaction time. I'll give you an example that particularly struck me at the time. This isn't meant to be a criticism of anyone in particular, just an example of a hole in the system.
When the Orks were starting to bombard the hulk one of the Ork players (either easye or Witchking) planted homing beacons on the hulk. The next day LordJet did a batrep removing the beacon and planting it on the surface of Tiorl.
I think when someone does something like this there needs to be a delay in their finding out about it, otherwise they are silly not to shape their next batrep to fit the situation. A weekly release of Batreps, plus a single impartial mod (as in one not attached to a faction) who can handle "secret plans" would be a possible solution.
~Dan
|
|
|
Post by IncubiLord on Apr 20, 2007 18:31:47 GMT -5
Perhaps we could keep the batreps hidden from view until new batreps could not be posted for the week. That way, story hooks used in the narrative could not simply be negated instantly by another player. They would have to adjust their plans for the following week. I agree with Easye on this one. Sometimes it did seem like there was too much of an instant reaction time. Allow me to expand upon the Witchking's-beacon example, because I think it is a good situation to discuss. Reading only the players' narratives, the Orks planted a bomb and moved on (witchking) and then the Necrons killed an Ork army and stole the beacon they had. Instant reaction, yes. However, when you read the Weekly Reports you get a full image that: * The Necrons did manage to wipe out a remaining warband in the area and move a single beacon to the planet - where it destroyed one of the gunz. * The Orks planted multiple beacons and still managed to blast away at the Hulk (despite the solitary, countered story). * Both stories happened with a varying degree of success. * Both were part of ongoing plots where the players had done little to counter each other. As such, neither plot should have failed from the filing of one report in Week 6. Now for some behind-the-curtain details: * The Necron plan for the week (actually established weeks before this) was to keep the activation of the Hulk's engines secure. Meanwhile the Orks were pretty much just shooting the Hulk to as many bits as possible. * By the scoring system, the Orks weren't reporting in the Lazaras Belt through Week 6. They weren't there, save for the fact that the Necron player said some Orks were. Not surprisingly, the Orks didn't outscore the Necrons in a locale they didn't contest. This was an ongoing situation where the Orks strove to protect their gunz and the Necrons strove to protect the Lazaras Belt. Neither attacked the other much. * The Orks didn't really get very particular here - they just wanted to blast up the Hulk - and that meant that the bombardment not hitting exactly upon the engines of the Hulk was a minor change to the story, not a massive counter. Throughout the campaign, it was an overall goal to let people do what they say they did - only to channel that story into a reasonable composite picture. Thus, the Necrons didn't stop the gunz, but they did redirect some of the fire away from the key to their own plot. Neither story was ruined, but there remained the chance that one force or the other would come out on top. This time around, it seemed like he who posted last won. I truly hope it didn't seem quite that bad - since I was always the last to post becuase I'd put up my own narrative when I got on to set up the new threads. I think there's some merit to the weekly release of the BatReps, but there would still need to be some way to tell what the other factions were up to - it's not like you wouldn't notice that all the Eldar went to the caves beneath the Glasswind Heights. Any thoughts on this? Perhaps a BatRep should also be accompanied by a short blurb of what the other factions should notice? plus a single impartial mod (as in one not attached to a faction) who can handle "secret plans" would be a possible solution. That impartial mod was me. I was in on the plots of various factions and even helped set up the guidelines for them - some indirectly through contact with the other mods (Orks in particular) and others through direct conversation. The fact that there was nobody between myself and the DE (or Chaos or Necrons as the campaign wore on) shouldn't really matter. Now, if you're saying that the overlord/top mod/whatever shouldn't play, I've got an objection to that - and that means that the people running the show should be allowed to be part of a faction in my opinion. By the way, thanks for the System Map. I tried to integrate it into my batreps/side-stories whenever I could. No problem. It was actually a bit of a quick-and-easy creation, but I was happy enough with the results to upload it and the picture was a nice little addition. Thanks for the suggestion - though next time hopefully the artist on the project can draw an elipse a little better.
|
|
|
Post by kyrolon on Apr 20, 2007 20:01:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, Incubi. It makes more sense now. I understand the need/want for the mod to play as well, it is no fun to run the campaign and not be part of it. Now that you've explained the "behind the scenes" bit a little better, I see how it all went down. The key problem to the whole situation though I think was not what was happening on your end, but rather players perception on this end. (please note that perceptions aren't always accurate). From the reading, without the explanation, it looks like the Orks posted a batrep, and the Necrons went out and immediately did one to counter it. You knew that this only impacted the orks in a minor way, and the orks might have known this too, but the rest of us did not. I know it led to some questioning of the process among my opponent and I. It is also around this time that people started posting less. I know we went from 3-5 Eldar regulars to 2-3 around then. The solution is (I think) better understanding of the process at the outset. In your previous post you talk about people's long term plans. Were these plans that were communicated to you directly, or are you referring to the plans you gleaned from the private race boards? If they were "submitted" plans, then you should make it clear that you'd like this from each faction. If they were plans that you picked up on on your own then I know where the lack of organization for some factions (mine included ) came from. If I were to make 2 suggestions that I would really hope to see implemented for the next campaign they would be: 1.) Have a 2 week "work up period" in which the factions were free to discuss primary plans etc so that the goals for each race were defined at the start. Either that or give each race a "primary goal" and let the players make up their own secondary goals. 2.) Make the scoring system more readily known. For example make it clear that a person that wants to accomplish something in a given area cannot overcome someone who has been there a long time (If I am understanding this correctly now) in the course of a week or two. The only poblem with this is that you can end up in a situation where a race cannot complete their goal if they don't know what to do from the outset. (see point 1) Well, that should give you enough to think about for now. ~Dan BTW -- plaese don't take any of this criticism to mean I didn't like the campaign. I loved it. I just want to see more of them in the future, so it only helps if we make them better.
|
|
|
Post by IncubiLord on Apr 21, 2007 3:26:43 GMT -5
From the reading, without the explanation, it looks like the Orks posted a batrep, and the Necrons went out and immediately did one to counter it. That's really what happened. The thing is, there's always going to be somebody who pushes the limits of what should happen in a single story. What the players say has to be in some way moderated to give everybody a fair chance and not create a situation where each story is an example of one-up-manship: Tau - I destroy Orkopolis with a new, experimental weapon. Ork - I destroy the entire Hulk by blasting the experimental weapon with stolen Eldar bombs! Necron - I make the exploding hulk crash into the planet and suicide-bomb all the Warp reactors on the Hulk with specially-equipped Scarabs - the whole planet is sucked into a Warp Rift. Me - Campaign over, see you all later. < vows never to run a campaign again >However, I hate to hear: "That didn't happen, it just couldn't" - I see that as a failing in the imagination of the person responsible and avoid it as best I can. As such, the stories were made to fit wherever possible. They just sometimes happened a little differently than the players seemed to intend... Probably, but it's against my nature. As a sometimes-DM, I'd much rather that people enjoyed the game and didn't even know how everything happened behind the scenes - the numbers just get boring. However, it is very well possible that my inclination towards saying "it works, don't ask how it works" should probably be restrained a bit more next time. Um, yes? Let's see: * Chaos contacted me via PM to ask if a specific plot was viable and then changed to another idea in their private area. * Dark Eldar was me, and was therefore a bit minimalized throughout the campaign. * Eldar had some ongoing plans in their area which were picked up on, but chunks of it got little attention in the BatReps and therefore never grew much (for those who didn't figure it out, the living ammo that was found to be growing within victims and then burst was a trap for Eldar reclaiming their spirit stones - you asked for a reason that this fleet was a specific threat, and this was something that could be added which wouldn't affect the games and therefore could fit into canon fluff). * Imperials had a heck of a time getting a plot together, and then they rarely acted together on a plan - thus their plots didn't really work out well. Scorpio (and sometimes myself or another staff member) tried to goad them into something, but the Imperial players just didn't work well as a team this time around. The plans they had came from their forum. * Necron plotting and scheming all happened over in their secret area. Of course, this was mostly LordJET running his evil plans by the staff to keep them within the realm of possbilities, but it was still pretty neat. Starting in Week 3, there was a rough outline of what he intended to do for the rest of the campaign, which was updated each week. * Orks had their own little infighting scenario come up right off the bat, and Dakkaslag's boyz did their planning amongst themselves via PM with Witchking (their rep) running the plot by the reps in our own secret area to keep it even from the other Orks. * Tau planning was all done in the imagination of anybody who thought the Tau had a plan. * Tyranids didn't really have a plan. Our local bugs were just fine eating away at anything nearby. Then there was a mix-up with the narratives that created a situation where everybody thought the Tyranids were gathering soulstones, and I wanted to develop the potential plot it build off. Sadly, the Tyranids faded out of the campaign and the Eldar never decided to track down their soulstones - so the story never grew from the initial plot-hook. It really happened however players made it happen. We checked out your areas, read your reports, and answered your PMs - any of which was an acceptable way of getting a plot going. A more structured plotting system would probably not be a bad idea. Yeah, I think that would help. Everybody was chomping at the bit to get started this time, and a sort of lead-up to the campaign might have really helped things along. I would never run a campaign where the entirety of the scoring system was known to the players - that just leads to meta-gaming. A few more details are likely needed for smoother operation, but telling the players how to get how many points is in my list of "don't do these things." I would hope that seeing a reminder in each and every reporting thread that your BatRep should be narrative would be an obvious hint, though. I wouldn't go that far. Instead I'd say that you should make your intentions clear for being in an area and set up the situation so the Weekly Report tells how well it went. If you want to cause drastic changes, you'd better have some backing, though. No, nothing is taken too personally here. A first run of a campaign system is bound to have a few flaws (though hopefully nothing major), you just roll with it as best you can. A campaign system is a living, breathing thing, and it needs to adapt to survive.
|
|
|
Post by LordJET on Apr 21, 2007 7:49:53 GMT -5
Im sorry if my battle reps at times seemed reactionary, up untill week 8 that was not my intent. However I was basing some of my Battle Reports on what the other races were doing at times definately the Orks for one but this was because I wanted to keep the conflict plausible, in week 6 I was defending the engines before actiation, I figured it would make little sense for the Orks to launch frontal attacks on entrenched positions if they were planning on blowing the whole area up anyway. (plus they can't loot from Necrons). So ensured that the scenario was more plausible within the plot line.
To be honest I may have been very reactionary in week 8 in Orkopolis but that was mainly due to my panick at the Super Guns fluff that was appearing in the Side Stories in which none of the Hulk would be left by Week 8 if i didnt react.
It's been a good campaign though im definately up for the next one.
Perhaps a system of intelligence gathering can be set up? For example in an area contested between two races they will have some info about what they are each up to? So myself and the Eldar when I was assaulting the Glasswind Heights for example, while none of my concerns even remotely touched the Chaos Woods, Squiggly Wilds or the Celestine Peaks so I wouldnt justifiably know what was occuring there. I thought it was a good idea when the Eldar attacked the Necron intelligence post in order to gain infrmation maybe that sort of thing should be encouraged more. Also maybe more race specific capabilities could be emphasised for example if anyone was playing Alpha Legion then they could have had access to more enemy intel than most due to their infiltration skills?
|
|
|
Post by easye on Apr 21, 2007 12:41:49 GMT -5
For the record, I thought LORDJET's entire strategy was very well played, and I found myself very engaged by his story arc.
We may want to work out some details about how much side-stories and non-battle report narratives effect the outcome of the campaign. I think the Zuper Gunz thread is a great example of how posting fluff/stories not entirely supported by battle reports can get a bit zany.
I know I liked to use my side-story to link my battle reports into a bigger picture, and would talked about things Kaptin Rotgut did that impacted the Ork Plot, but didn't necessarily have a battle report to back it up. Especially looting, acquiring more slaves, moving from location to location, etc. However, I'm not sure if this kinda of thing effected the campaign at all.
As for Intelligence, if a faction has posted battle reports in the same section as another faction, then perhaps the mods could post an intelligence report in their race specific boards.
The last problem I had was more of a local issue. I really wanted to take on some Necrons at about week 5/6 or so, but I couldn't arrange a Necron game until the final week. I felt that without a battle report, I couldn't really effect their story very much. Is this true?
Edit: Also, some of the infighting (at least for the orks) didn't work out so well. Perhaps next time, we can leave the infighting to be faction driven instead of campaign driven. Although, the Necron infighting was essential to the story line.
|
|
|
Post by IncubiLord on Apr 21, 2007 15:41:05 GMT -5
For the record, I thought LORDJET's entire strategy was very well played, and I found myself very engaged by his story arc. I agree. LordJET did an admirable job, and what reactionary writing he did wasn't too OTT (even when he claimed to take over the Ork shield, he didn't claim to wipe out all the gunz). Yeah, the Zuper Gunz thread got a bit carried away there. It was fun at first, reading these reports that were starting to file in about the Hulk getting bombarded, but then it started to escalate to the point of seeming to try to dictate the end of the campaign. Witchking and I had a bit of a discussion on that topic. There were really two forms of side-stories, and they should probably be seperated out next time. The first were the between-games narrative which expanded upon a BatRep, and these helped to make a player's intentions clear and expand upon a game. The second were out-of-game agreements and so forth that were significant enough to be player-knowledge but not widely-known to the characters. It's already been stated elsewhere that the second weren't handled quite right. I'm at a loss here. The entire thing seems very arbitrary to me, and it would need to be somehow set up so that the players don't get too much of each others' information through a single game. How would you decide what was learned, how much was learned, etc.? That's a problem in every campaign - you can only fight whatever opponents you've got around. However, a cunning report against somebody else who was fighting the Necrons would have actually helped them beat the Necrons - if that makes any sense. Without going into the inner workings of the system (hey, we might want to use chunks of it next time), you could have written a report to lure other forces into the area to fight your elusive foe. If that faction was already fighting the enemy, you actually helped their score by getting more of them into the area - even if you won the game. Crazy, but it works. Infighting wasn't meant to be quite so serious - it was an excuse for people who ended up playing games against their own faction to actually report them. The Orks just took it deadly serious and went the whole hog of essentially disappearing from their faction's area just so the supporters of the other side wouldn't know what they were up to. It could use a little fine-tuning. Perhaps making the personalities within a faction a little less opposed to each other would make this area work better? The Necron infighting was really needed for a plot-hook, though. We wanted to bring the Necrons into the system without using yet another tomb-world, and the "Warp-tainted" ones just worked.
|
|
|
Post by witchking92 on Apr 22, 2007 0:38:31 GMT -5
Alrighty then here are my improvements. Some have already been mentioned, but here are my thoughts: - Have a seperate "hidden" forum for each of the battle reports and then write a second, smaller bat rep for an "intelligence report" that other factions see. This would slow down reaction times and such.
- Make clearer rules about Character Knowlege and such, this has already been discussed ad nauseum though...
- Make clearer rules about alliances and such. Eldar I am looking at you... Ohh wait, I was involved with that too... Shhh... You didn't hear anything.
- Have reps doing their d**n jobs!
- Make the objectives more obvious from the start. How you get there is the real question.
- Fine Tune the scoring system a little, but that is a disscussion the reps for next time should have privately.
Speaking of reps for next time, I am on board and everything for a fall campaign. From what happened over the course of the campaign it looks like Eldar, Tau, Nids and Chaos are all up for grabs. Although, it wasn't entirely Eldar Commander's fault, his comp died so I had to write all of the Eldar updates. So if any of you guys would like to sign up, I'm sure we would love to have you. About the Zuper Gunz: I wasn't trying to make them out of control or anything. I was just freaking out that I wasn't battling so that was my way of trying to impact the campaign more in the final two weeks. Witchking92
|
|
|
Post by kyrolon on Apr 22, 2007 13:46:41 GMT -5
I'd be happy to throw my hat into the ring for being the Eldar mod.
Did I cause problems with the whole fake alliance turned real alliance story line? If so I'm sorry for that. Or are you referring to whatever went on with the Eldar/Dark Eldar alliance?
I'm not even sure what went on there that caused issues. Other than the couple of PM's I got from one mod or another you guys apparently handled it behind the scenes pretty well. Was it because we thought the alliance was secret, but others assumed they knew about it? If so, from where I sat it seemed like a minor issue.
All in all, I'd say that means you all did a good job of moderating.
That leads to a question. How does the moderator thing work? Do you all chat each weak after the Batreps are posted to decide on the course of the storyline and how the races batreps have interacted, or what? I'm not talking details of a scoring system here, but rather a brief idea of the collaboration that went on.
~Dan
|
|
|
Post by witchking92 on Apr 22, 2007 14:26:00 GMT -5
I'd be happy to throw my hat into the ring for being the Eldar mod. Did I cause problems with the whole fake alliance turned real alliance story line? If so I'm sorry for that. Or are you referring to whatever went on with the Eldar/Dark Eldar alliance? I'm not even sure what went on there that caused issues. Other than the couple of PM's I got from one mod or another you guys apparently handled it behind the scenes pretty well. Was it because we thought the alliance was secret, but others assumed they knew about it? If so, from where I sat it seemed like a minor issue. All in all, I'd say that means you all did a good job of moderating. That leads to a question. How does the moderator thing work? Do you all chat each weak after the Batreps are posted to decide on the course of the storyline and how the races batreps have interacted, or what? I'm not talking details of a scoring system here, but rather a brief idea of the collaboration that went on. ~Dan I was inferring the eldar-ork allaince. The mod thing basically works like this. We discuss every week on late-Monday, and Tuesday what happened and Incubi posts the scores and such. Then we read over the battle reports and such and each race rep(sometimes) writes the update for their race. I say sometimes because Incubi and I were the only ones who were 8 for 8 on our updates. We critic everyone else's report and then Incubi writes the main stuff. Incubi and I will then fill in were it is needed. Witchking92
|
|
|
Post by IncubiLord on Apr 22, 2007 15:23:57 GMT -5
That leads to a question. How does the moderator thing work? Do you all chat each weak after the Batreps are posted to decide on the course of the storyline and how the races batreps have interacted, or what? Witchking pretty much described it. We would cut off the reporting on Mondays so nothing changed in the day or so that we were working up the reports, but we would start looking at who did how well by late Sunday night - very little tends to change on a Monday. On Monday night, I'd lock out reporting and finish filling out the scoresheet that we used. That would then be put where the mods could access it online. Over the course of Monday and Tuesday, we'd discuss the overall report (the first post in each Weekly Report) and the various Reps were supposed to get a narrative in for their faction. This was all based on the BatReps with the numbers to mediating any conflicting interests (factions working against each other). Unfortunately, there were computer problems and people problems that led to some difficulty with getting reports from everybody. Late Tuesday night to early Wednesday morning, I'd fill in the outline of what happened for an overall report and plug in the various factions' reports in the next post. Witchking and I would also write up the reports needed for factions whose reps didn't get them in that week. There was some quiet contact with the players about some important rulings, but that was to make sure the situation was clear.
|
|