Ultimately, what I'm interested in is a session that feels like a true finale. Thus, basing the whole campaign around stability may not be the best approach. It makes stability very important in terms of winning, but if it directly impacts how easy it is to win a mission, then the win condition and the resource needed for success are tied together, which isn't a great design choice.
Thinking about the mission types and how they might function in winning, there are:
Stronghold Victory Paths
Warfare - Attacking the Empire's capital wins the game for the Stronghold. This seems like a suitable finale for the campaign. It's really hard to do (capitals can be defended with more units, and the Autarch has a castle there). It will probably happen suitably far in, so the Autarch would be featured in the defense of the capital.
Infiltration - Assassinating the Autarch is another way to win. This is a difficult mission as well. It doesn't feel quite as nice of a resolution, because the Autarch wouldn't be able to defend directly as easily. However, it's so difficult, that it would be something that also would tend to happen far into the campaign.Autarch Victory Paths
Warfare - Similar to the Stronghold, the Empire can win by attacking the Stronghold's capital. For all the reasons it's difficult for the Stronghold, it's difficult for the Empire.
Skirmish? - The Empire uses Skirmish instead of Infiltration to assassinate heroes. Unlike for the Autarch, though, a hero could get assassinated and the campaign could continue on. Of course, if enough heroes get assassinated, it's functionally over.
Wrath of the Autarch - Alternatively, maybe, at some particularly late stage of the campaign, the Autarch player could force the issue, and start a mission for all of the marbles. If the heroes fail, the Stronghold gets nuked by some sort of powerful magic. This is basically the "Arkham Horror" way to end the campaign.
Support Paths
Diplomacy - In this case, diplomacy doesn't become a primary strategy. It's still very useful, basically essential, in terms of trading goods and building developments, but it's not a primary way to victory.
Skirmish - Skirmish is important, as it's a way to get neutral regions, and many quests use Skirmish. It also would be important for defense if there is some sort of Wrath of the Autarch mission that ends the campaign. In that case, building toward that end point could be a way to win for the Stronghold.
Uses for Stability
If stability is no longer the primary mode for victory, it could play a bigger role in terms of impact on missions. It would also be okay if it swung around more.
Thematically, it also felt a little weird - both the Autarch and the Stronghold basically lose stability over the course of the campaign. It seems like the support of the people should be independent of victory.
I'm not sure what role stability should have, then? It seems like making missions easier or harder is probably a good place for it.
Some options:
- Starting Fate Points - Starting fate points might be an option. If it's lower/higher each side starts with more or less fate points.
- Resources - I'm hesitant to have stability affect resource dice. If it does, it can cause a downward spiral that is impossible to recover from. It also would hit the Stronghold far more than the Autarch, because the Autarch doesn't use resources.
- Campaign Aspects - It's always an option to make new aspects in relation to stability swings.
- Mission Difficulty - If a mission takes place at a faction, the difficulty could be modified by the stability of the faction. This is a really powerful
Summary
I'll have to think about how stability would be used, but I do like having the campaign end in only one of these few ways. I also do like a "Wrath of the Autarch" timer, which basically can trigger if the campaign goes on to long. It's a for good or worse, this is the end, sort of event, which could be good to have.
No comments:
Post a Comment