Skirmish style guide - Revision history

Andy Raff: /* Vision */ extremely important Oxford comma insertion

2017-02-01T15:13:23Z

Vision: extremely important Oxford comma insertion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 1 February 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The plots and encounters we run are not about telling stories, rather they should create opportunities for players to take advantage of new developments to tell stories of their own. Our plots should be moments where the actions the players take will create stories that perpetuate in the game world, and be remembered in the community for years to come. Our plots are a crucible for character stories to emerge from, they are not a story in and of themselves.</ic>		The plots and encounters we run are not about telling stories, rather they should create opportunities for players to take advantage of new developments to tell stories of their own. Our plots should be moments where the actions the players take will create stories that perpetuate in the game world, and be remembered in the community for years to come. Our plots are a crucible for character stories to emerge from, they are not a story in and of themselves.</ic>

	We want all the encounters we run through the Sentinel Gate to be about roleplaying, the game world, the plot and the action. Regardless of the size, they should be a chance for a player to roleplay as their character going into battle, on mysterious journeys, or on a daring missions. They are there to provide epic roleplaying moments, whether characters are alone or part of a large force of heroes fighting against the odds.		We want all the encounters we run through the Sentinel Gate to be about roleplaying, the game world, the plot, and the action. Regardless of the size, they should be a chance for a player to roleplay as their character going into battle, on mysterious journeys, or on a daring missions. They are there to provide epic roleplaying moments, whether characters are alone or part of a large force of heroes fighting against the odds.

	Battles mustn't be just an opportunity for fighting and engaging in combat. That is not compatible with the approach above. Because the actions of the players are what our game is about, we have to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees. At no point should we be stopping players from influencing the game. Skills, combat and roleplay need to be the critical elements that determine what happens in a battle, because they are the levers with which players, and their characters, can alter the game world. That experience - of altering the game world through your actions - is what our game is about.		Battles mustn't be just an opportunity for fighting and engaging in combat. That is not compatible with the approach above. Because the actions of the players are what our game is about, we have to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees. At no point should we be stopping players from influencing the game. Skills, combat and roleplay need to be the critical elements that determine what happens in a battle, because they are the levers with which players, and their characters, can alter the game world. That experience - of altering the game world through your actions - is what our game is about.

Matt: Matt moved page Skirmish Approach to Skirmish style guide

2017-02-01T15:02:29Z

Matt moved page Skirmish Approach to Skirmish style guide

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:02, 1 February 2017
(No difference)

Matt: /* Outcomes */

2017-02-01T15:00:54Z

Outcomes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 1 February 2017
Line 34:		Line 34:
	One consequence of this is that we must not creative narrative safety nets for the players. If the players fail to complete their objectives in a battle or skirmish then we must not write another opportunity for them to rest that experience by having another try. Likewise, we will not provide ‘gimmies’ to the players by forcing a story or objective on them, resetting an experience they have missed, or contriving a solution to resolve player misaction. Quite apart from the fact that this does not create appealing narratives - it diminishes the impact of failure and reduces their motivation to try.		One consequence of this is that we must not creative narrative safety nets for the players. If the players fail to complete their objectives in a battle or skirmish then we must not write another opportunity for them to rest that experience by having another try. Likewise, we will not provide ‘gimmies’ to the players by forcing a story or objective on them, resetting an experience they have missed, or contriving a solution to resolve player misaction. Quite apart from the fact that this does not create appealing narratives - it diminishes the impact of failure and reduces their motivation to try.

	Failure often makes the players keen to immediately request a chance for another attempt. We must resist that ~~Siren~~ lure and instead force the characters to live with the consequences of their failure. The possibility of failure should be part of the design of any skirmish we run - and it should lead to ''new'' opportunities that present the characters with different options for where they go next. Where we can we should plan contingencies for the unexpected, or accept that players will redirect events through their actions. That is the right way to handle failure on a skirmish in Empire.		Failure often makes the players keen to immediately request a chance for another attempt. We must resist that siren lure and instead force the characters to live with the consequences of their failure. The possibility of failure should be part of the design of any skirmish we run - and it should lead to ''new'' opportunities that present the characters with different options for where they go next. Where we can we should plan contingencies for the unexpected, or accept that players will redirect events through their actions. That is the right way to handle failure on a skirmish in Empire.

	Impossible victories are just as bad. We must do everything possible to avoid a skirmish where it is not possible to succeed. Quite apart from the metaphysics of the Sentinel Gate ?(which literally prohibit opening a gate to a skirmish that the players cannot succeed) - it damages the fabric of the game to give players battles they cannot win.		Impossible victories are just as bad. We must do everything possible to avoid a skirmish where it is not possible to succeed. Quite apart from the metaphysics of the Sentinel Gate ?(which literally prohibit opening a gate to a skirmish that the players cannot succeed) - it damages the fabric of the game to give players battles they cannot win.

Matt at 14:54, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T14:54:17Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Overview==
 Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a [[style guide|style consistent with the remainder of the game]]. This page is an adjunct to the more general guide, describing additional elements pertinent to skirmishes.
 ==Vision==
@@ Line 12: / Line 14: @@
 Battles mustn't be just an opportunity for fighting and engaging in combat. That is not compatible with the approach above. Because the actions of the players are what our game is about, we have to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees. At no point should we be stopping players from influencing the game. Skills, combat and roleplay need to be the critical elements that determine what happens in a battle, because they are the levers with which players, and their characters, can alter the game world. That experience - of altering the game world through your actions - is what our game is about.
 ==Hard Choices==

Matt at 14:08, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T14:08:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:08, 1 February 2017
Line 37:		Line 37:

	The ideal opponents are the players peers on the other side. Elite combatants with abilities and skills similar to the player base and with attitudes and approaches to match. They should make use of intelligent plans, strategies and tactics. When the players make a mistake they should look to exploit it. We don't want to try our hardest to outwit the players, we will always be armed with more intelligence than them, but we do want to give them a fight that challenges their abilities as commanders as well as warriors.		The ideal opponents are the players peers on the other side. Elite combatants with abilities and skills similar to the player base and with attitudes and approaches to match. They should make use of intelligent plans, strategies and tactics. When the players make a mistake they should look to exploit it. We don't want to try our hardest to outwit the players, we will always be armed with more intelligence than them, but we do want to give them a fight that challenges their abilities as commanders as well as warriors.

	~~==Fight! Fight! Fight!==~~
	We want to have as many battles, skirmishes and quests taking place as we can realistically support. It's very hard to have too much plot in a game - and by extension it is very hard to have too many fights. This is especially true in Empire where the fights are "opt-in". We want to give those players who want a fight as many opportunities to have one as we can manage.

	Unfortunately there is a trade-off between the quality of a fight, how enjoyable it is for all concerned and how well written and resourced it is. The more fights we do, the less time we can put into making each one a good quality encounter. This is a delicate balancing act - but it is also one where we improve the overall position over time. If plot is written sooner then we can roll out more high quality encounters as organization improves.

	The ideal balance is that every encounter does not need to be a work of art - but that we should be pleased that every encounter we do is credible and enjoyable for all involved. Provided we are reliably managing that as a minimum then we should keep pushing to do more.

	==Fun For Everyone==		==Fun For Everyone==

Matt: /* Hard Choices */

2017-02-01T14:07:55Z

Hard Choices

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 1 February 2017
Line 14:		Line 14:

	==Hard Choices==		==Hard Choices==
	~~Combat~~ should ~~be all about~~ characters ~~making~~ hard choices. Rather than a Hollywood style environment where the point of the fight is to give the character the opportunity to demonstrate their heroism, our fights should be awkward bloody affairs where the players face difficult choices. When to fight, when to give ground, when to retreat, when to talk, should all be valid choices that the characters can make.		Like any plot, combat should force the characters to make hard choices. Rather than a Hollywood style environment where the point of the fight is to give the character the opportunity to demonstrate their heroism, our fights should be awkward bloody affairs where the players face difficult choices. When to fight, when to give ground, when to retreat, when to talk, should all be valid choices that the characters can make.

	To ensure that those decisions remain meaningful we must have the courage of our convictions and follow through on our own plot briefs. If the players have thrown extra resources and people at an encounter, then they should find that those resources allow them to win that fight more easily. If we re-balance a fight to compensate for their efforts, then we nullify the impact of those efforts, effectively rendering their choices moot. Likewise, if the players have not provided the skill, strength, or resources to win a battle, then they must suffer the consequences accordingly.		To ensure that those decisions remain meaningful we must have the courage of our convictions and follow through on our own plot briefs. If the players have thrown extra resources and people at an encounter, then they should find that those resources allow them to win that fight more easily. If we re-balance a fight to compensate for their efforts, then we nullify the impact of those efforts, effectively rendering their choices moot. Likewise, if the players have not provided the skill, strength, or resources to win a battle, then they must suffer the consequences accordingly.

Matt at 14:03, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T14:03:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:03, 1 February 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	==Vision==		==Vision==
	Skirmishes are ultimately just an extension of plot. As such they adhere to the same vision laid out for the rest of the game.		Skirmishes are ultimately just an extension of plot. As such they adhere to the same [[style guide#vision\|vision laid out for the rest of the game]].
	<ic>Empire is intended to be a sandbox game - a world the players can observe and explore, can influence and control through a combination of their hard skills, their character’s skills and most importantly through the choices they make. The actions and choices of the players are what our game is about. That means we need to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, so we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees to meet some other criteria.<br><br>		<ic>Empire is intended to be a sandbox game - a world the players can observe and explore, can influence and control through a combination of their hard skills, their character’s skills and most importantly through the choices they make. The actions and choices of the players are what our game is about. That means we need to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, so we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees to meet some other criteria.<br><br>

Line 10:		Line 10:

	We want all the encounters we run through the Sentinel Gate to be about roleplaying, the game world, the plot and the action. Regardless of the size, they should be a chance for a player to roleplay as their character going into battle, on mysterious journeys, or on a daring missions. They are there to provide epic roleplaying moments, whether characters are alone or part of a large force of heroes fighting against the odds.		We want all the encounters we run through the Sentinel Gate to be about roleplaying, the game world, the plot and the action. Regardless of the size, they should be a chance for a player to roleplay as their character going into battle, on mysterious journeys, or on a daring missions. They are there to provide epic roleplaying moments, whether characters are alone or part of a large force of heroes fighting against the odds.

	Empire is intended to be a sandbox game - a world the players can observe and explore, can influence and control through a combination of their hard skills, their character’s skills and most importantly through the choices they make. The plots and encounters we run are not about telling stories, rather they should create opportunities for players to take advantage of new developments. They should create moments where player action will create stories that perpetuate in the game world, and be remembered in the community for years to come. Each moment is a crucible for character stories to emerge from, they are not a war or action story in and of themselves.

	Battles mustn't be just an opportunity for fighting and engaging in combat. That is not compatible with the approach above. Because the actions of the players are what our game is about, we have to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees. At no point should we be stopping players from influencing the game. Skills, combat and roleplay need to be the critical elements that determine what happens in a battle, because they are the levers with which players, and their characters, can alter the game world. That experience - of altering the game world through your actions - is what our game is about.		Battles mustn't be just an opportunity for fighting and engaging in combat. That is not compatible with the approach above. Because the actions of the players are what our game is about, we have to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees. At no point should we be stopping players from influencing the game. Skills, combat and roleplay need to be the critical elements that determine what happens in a battle, because they are the levers with which players, and their characters, can alter the game world. That experience - of altering the game world through your actions - is what our game is about.
Line 21:		Line 19:

	Running a game with hard choices for characters is not easy. Sometimes that will mean that players will experience an unusually easy battle - because of their own character actions. Sometimes it will be exceptionally difficult. Neither is popular with players at the moment it happens - nobody likes to lose or to win easily for that matter. Nobody should be writing a battle or a quest that aims to produce high casualties or a total wipe but it is critical to the style of the game we want that if the players mess up then they should suffer the natural consequences of their actions.		Running a game with hard choices for characters is not easy. Sometimes that will mean that players will experience an unusually easy battle - because of their own character actions. Sometimes it will be exceptionally difficult. Neither is popular with players at the moment it happens - nobody likes to lose or to win easily for that matter. Nobody should be writing a battle or a quest that aims to produce high casualties or a total wipe but it is critical to the style of the game we want that if the players mess up then they should suffer the natural consequences of their actions.

			==Different Sides, Same Setting==
			The monsters categorically do not have to follow the same rules as the players. That idea is already inherent in the definition of monstrous creatures, something the players cannot field. More critically, the monsters simply do not need to operate using the exact same skills and abilities that the players have. They can have unusual abilities, or use existing abilities in unique ways. They may even be able to do things the players cannot.

			That said, there are two major caveats. The monsters must use the same '''call system''' and '''rules framework''' as the players. For instance, it is a fundamental design consideration that in Empire there are no resists, no character who would normally be affected by something can "resist" it. The bestiary might contain a unit of monsters that gains more than 3 hits from wearing medium armour - but it will never allow them to use medium armour to "resist" the Impale call.

			The other issue is that the abilities of the monsters must reflect the setting. Casting a high level ritual is expensive and difficult in Empire, so it should be expensive and difficult for their orc opponents. Monsters on a battlefield should be the peers of the Imperials and their abilities, skills and powers should reflect that.

			If a writer wants to create a new bestiary entry that departs from the rules then it should be designed to capture the flavour of the creature, not to circumvent the limitations that the rules impose and they should make sure they check it carefully with the ref team first.

	==Peer vs Peer==		==Peer vs Peer==
Line 38:		Line 45:
	The ideal balance is that every encounter does not need to be a work of art - but that we should be pleased that every encounter we do is credible and enjoyable for all involved. Provided we are reliably managing that as a minimum then we should keep pushing to do more.		The ideal balance is that every encounter does not need to be a work of art - but that we should be pleased that every encounter we do is credible and enjoyable for all involved. Provided we are reliably managing that as a minimum then we should keep pushing to do more.

	==~~Different Sides, Same Setting~~==		==Fun For Everyone==
	~~The monsters categorically do not have to follow the same rules as the players. That idea~~ is ~~already inherent in the definition of monstrous creatures~~, ~~something the players cannot field. More critically~~, ~~the monsters simply do not need to operate using the exact same skills~~ and ~~abilities that~~ the players ~~have~~. ~~They can have unusual abilities, or use existing abilities~~ in ~~unique ways. They may even be able to do things the players cannot.~~		It is blatantly obvious that battles, skirmishes, and quests should be fun for the players. Writers and skirmish organizers should keep in mind however that as with any plot we create, ''skirmishes should be just as much fun for those who are monstering''. There are a great many reasons for this:

	~~That said~~, ~~there are two major caveats. The monsters must use the same~~ '''~~call system~~'~~'' and '''rules framework''' as the players~~. ~~For instance, it is a fundamental design consideration that in Empire there~~ are no resists, no character who would normally be affected by something can "resist" it. The bestiary might contain a unit of monsters that gains more than 3 hits from wearing medium armour - but it will never allow them to use medium armour to "resist" the Impale call.

	~~The other issue is that the abilities of the monsters must reflect the setting. Casting~~ a ~~high level ritual is expensive and difficult in Empire, so it should be expensive and difficult~~ for ~~their orc opponents. Monsters on a battlefield should be the peers of the Imperials and their abilities, skills and powers should reflect that.~~

	If a writer wants to create a new bestiary entry that departs from the rules then it should be designed to capture the flavour of the creature, not to circumvent the limitations that the rules impose and they should make sure they check it carefully with the ref team first.

	~~==Fun For Everyone==~~
	It is blatantly obvious that battles, skirmishes, and quests should be fun for the players. Writers and skirmish organizers should keep in mind however that skirmishes should be just as much fun for those playing their opponents. There are a great many reasons for this:
	* '''Crew retention:''' - if crew are enjoying what they are doing they will come back.		* '''Crew retention:''' - if crew are enjoying what they are doing they will come back.
	* '''Player retention:''' - if good crew are enjoying themselves, then players will find it more fun to interact with them.		* '''Player retention:''' - if good crew are enjoying themselves, then players will find it more fun to interact with them.

Matt at 14:01, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T14:01:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 1 February 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<quote by="Carl von Clausewitz">War is the continuation of plot by other means</quote>		<quote by="Carl von Clausewitz">War is the continuation of plot by other means</quote>
	==Overview==		==Overview==
	Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a style consistent with the remainder of the game. This page ~~lays out our design goals for achieving this~~.		Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a [[style guide\|style consistent with the remainder of the game]]. This page is an adjunct to the more general guide, describing additional elements pertinent to skirmishes.

	==Vision==		==Vision==
			Skirmishes are ultimately just an extension of plot. As such they adhere to the same vision laid out for the rest of the game.
			<ic>Empire is intended to be a sandbox game - a world the players can observe and explore, can influence and control through a combination of their hard skills, their character’s skills and most importantly through the choices they make. The actions and choices of the players are what our game is about. That means we need to deliver a setting where the choices the characters make trump all other considerations, so we can't have those choices constrained or overridden by our writers or our referees to meet some other criteria.<br><br>

			The plots and encounters we run are not about telling stories, rather they should create opportunities for players to take advantage of new developments to tell stories of their own. Our plots should be moments where the actions the players take will create stories that perpetuate in the game world, and be remembered in the community for years to come. Our plots are a crucible for character stories to emerge from, they are not a story in and of themselves.</ic>

	We want all the encounters we run through the Sentinel Gate to be about roleplaying, the game world, the plot and the action. Regardless of the size, they should be a chance for a player to roleplay as their character going into battle, on mysterious journeys, or on a daring missions. They are there to provide epic roleplaying moments, whether characters are alone or part of a large force of heroes fighting against the odds.		We want all the encounters we run through the Sentinel Gate to be about roleplaying, the game world, the plot and the action. Regardless of the size, they should be a chance for a player to roleplay as their character going into battle, on mysterious journeys, or on a daring missions. They are there to provide epic roleplaying moments, whether characters are alone or part of a large force of heroes fighting against the odds.

Matt at 11:57, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T11:57:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:57, 1 February 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<quote by="~~Klauswitz~~">War is</quote>		<quote by="Carl von Clausewitz">War is the continuation of plot by other means</quote>
	==Overview==		==Overview==
	Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a style consistent with the remainder of the game. This page lays out our design goals for achieving this.		Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a style consistent with the remainder of the game. This page lays out our design goals for achieving this.

Matt at 11:57, 1 February 2017

2017-02-01T11:57:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:57, 1 February 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<quote by="Klauswitz">War is</quote>
	==Overview==		==Overview==
	Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a style consistent with the remainder of the game. This page lays out our design goals for achieving this.		Skirmishes - which includes battles, quests, and encounters - are an essential part of Empire. Although most fights take place away from the safety of Anvil, the consequences of conflict and war are critical for the economics and politics that takes place on the field. As they are a key part of the game for many of our players, we need to aim to deliver the best possible experience for those players, in a style consistent with the remainder of the game. This page lays out our design goals for achieving this.