Using Pearls in a Choose Your Own Adventure game

I had an idea for a game about how human organisations - like Governments or Tech Companies - might address the possible rise of an AI Superintelligence. This was inspired by the book "If anyone builds it, everyone dies" and the report "AI 2027".

I put forward my hastily put together ideas at a CLWG online design session.

My initial game concept was to use a script of the AI threat. The script would be presented to the players as a cut-scene, followed at the end with a series of prescribed choices. I likened this to "Choose Your Own Adventure (CYOA)".

In the design session I was cautioned about the wisdom of using CYOA. Too many options leading to too many possible outcomes that the designer gets lost or confused in writing lots of unlikely outcomes - known as Combinatorial Explosion. This is indeed a nasty little problem.

Taming Combinatorial Explosion

After the session I dipped Jesse Schell's "The Art of Game Design". It too made those wise criticisms of CYOA.

Schell makes the point that there only two successful ways of implementing story or narrative in games - The String of Pearls and the Story Machine. All other methods usually fail. (see p. 318-319). 

The String of Pearls method is a linear storyline. The "string" is a cut-scene setting out the motivation for the player actions. The pearls are the action scenes whereby the player defeats the obstacle, enemy and then moves to the next cut-scene. Story Machines are complex open ended games like Sims or Minecraft, that rely on emergent narratives.

Hill 70 and Containing Combinatorial Explosion in a Pearl

After reading Schell I thought about the one CYOA game I had made using Twine - Hill 70. I realised that I had used the String of Pearls approach to my CYOA.  

The String in Hill 70 were the Infantry Unit's orders and its situation. They were going to be ordered to the front line. 

Inside each Pearl the player made some choices about how to move their infantry unit in accordance to its orders. There was no choice about leaving the mission or deviating. They followed orders. The choices I presented the player were the choices a Commander of an Infantry Battalion would reasonably have. For example, did he order "coffee and hot bread rolls" to be served to the troops standing on alert? What formation did the unit use to advance in under artillery fire?

I had not realised that I had done that. In my analysis I identified three pearls - stand-to, move up to the front, in the front line.

AquaLuft's String of Pearls Approach to CYOA

After a little more searching, I discovered another game designer - the wonderfully named AquaLuft - had also implemented the same solution.

https://aqualuft.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/queen-at-arms/

"[The game] Queen At Arms follows the “string of pearls” method of interactive fiction, where a linear sequence of complex scenes are strung into a narrative. Each scene is an explosion of choice, that boils down into a handful of outcomes and set flags that are then referenced in further scenes. This is the most efficient method for creating a sense of player agency and real consequences, while still being reasonable to develop."

Conclusion

I wonder if I might go back to the CYOA approach for my "If anyone builds it" game. Using the String of Pearls to contain too much choice. I need to map out each of the Pearls. I need to decide what player options there are in each Pearl so I can then judge how well the players have done, and then move along the string to the next Pearl.

In Twine - the computer game engine I used for Hill 70 - I had used variables to change the paths presented at the end of each Pearl. For example if the players had not looked after their men and had taken too many casualties and exhausted them they did not get the final "hurrah, charge" ending. 

Offisde Review of "The Bear Untamed"

I recently took part in Terry Martin's megagame, The Bear Untamed.

This game took place in London on 19th September 2026. For those unfamiliar with what a megagame is there is a good description here and here.

Scenario

The game was set in 2029. Some major events had occurred in the world since 2026. The US had a new President J D Vance, who had a majority in the House and a 50/50 split Senate. He was in the process of withdrawing US Forces from Europe and was attempting to Federalise the National Guard. 

The Russian Ukraine war had "ended" in a ceasefire in 2028. A demarcation line was still occupied by the respective military forces.

In Europe the far-right populists had been blunted by the knowledge that now Europe was on its own it could not risk voting for unpredictable populist extremists. France and Germany had both had near run elections but the moderates had won. The UK was a coalition.

My Role in the Game

My role in the game was to be the Secretary General of NATO. I had two assistants working for me and my colleague was a US 4 Star General as SACEUR, with his assistant.

My brief was that we could only put together any forces for any NATO Exercise or any NATO Task Force by asking NATO member states to contribute what they could.

My Strategy

After reading my brief I realised that Russia was weak militarily - it had to support a large army in Ukraine - but was still aggressive.  The Russian President was still leading Mother Russia and wanted to restore its greatness - MRGA! My strategy was to always act in strength, and the preserve the NATO unity. 

My first act

The first crisis was caused when some Russian zealot had been apprehended on the Russian / Estonia border carrying weapons (anti-tank rockets), pro-Russian propaganda and other illicit items. Estonia had called for a formal NATO meeting citing Article 4!

To be honest, it was a policing matter, not really a military one. 

I organised the formal North Atlantic Council meeting and my assistants got together an international team of para-military / gendarme police to assist Estonia in putting down riots and other violent acts of civil rebellion. (There is an actual NATO police force, led by the Italians, in Kosovo.)

This had the desired effect. It helped Estonia police the unrest. 

Later in the pub I spoke to the player, Johan, who played the Russian President. He confirmed that my move had reduced the effectiveness of their planned civil unrest and violence. They had to change tack and start a different non-violent form of protest where they handed out Russian citizenship to any Estonians who asked for it.

At the same time I sent in NATO police, SACEUR had started the first steps of Exercise Freezing Winds. 

North Atlantic Council (NAC)

I set the Agenda for the meeting - only two things to vote on - NATO members supporting Estonia's calling Article 4 and supporting the start of Exercise Freezing Winds.

I made it clear to the NAC that we were going to have our side-bar talk before the formal meeting and then we were ALL going to vote unanimously at the meeting and then we would have any sub-committee, off the record meetings. Stage-managed it was, I said.

The main output of the meeting is that I got an informal agreement amongst members on which actions SACEUR could take in the face of the expected Russian aggression. We quickly found they would support Logistics Enhancements, Headquarter Activations and redeployment of Air Patrols. All these to be done in the Baltic States. We also found there was less support for the second tier of Actions, putting boots, tracks, landing wheels, or keels in theatre.

Later Johan confirmed that they were literally planning a military intervention to support the civil unrest in Estonia and escalate to the other Baltic States. But seeing the rapid and strong NATO reaction - and that we had a unanimous vote meant they decided to drop the military actions and focus on hybird warfare, a combination of sabotage, and strategic intimidation.

NATO without the USA

I think the Russians and perhaps some of the other member states thought that without the US Military - we had a few squadrons of USAF in the Baltic, but nothing else - NATO was weak.

My attitude to this was not to bother the US. I was told by SACEUR that they might assist if they could see Europe setting its own house in order. So I never bothered to talk or ask the US. I used SACEUR as my sounding board for likely US reactions.

I think this worked well.

Coping with Maverick NATO Members

This was my main headache in the game. 

France were never wanting to be involved unless their General / Admiral was the CO of the Exercise or Task Group. The German team was riven between a hawk and a dove. The UK was studied inaction. Only the Polish, the Baltics, Finland, Sweden and Norway seemed a bit more positive about having a forward posture.

During the game we had some incidents. The Norwegians sent out their Frigates to protect their oil fields. The French or Swedish (or both) grabbed a Russian shadow fleet tanker - a negotiation ploy I heard later. The French upgraded their nuclear force that looked like a very aggressive move. The Germans put all of the military on alert. And the biggest upset was the Finnish "practice" full war footing mobilisation towards the end of the game. I will talk more on this later.

And then the Norwegian Prime Minister and their King went to meet the Russian President in Moscow on a State visit and made some big financial deal.

My headaches and my medicine

I was finding it difficult to liaise and coordinate with all the member states. If we wanted to deploy a force for an Exercise or for some forward deployment I sent my team of diplomats to negotiate with the nations about what they would give. This was the new NATO. No US to fund and man the majority. 

The constant worry was that if we announced an action and could not get the forces to turn up then we would suffer a big hit to our confidence. 

We were working well on getting our actions working. It took a lot of footwork and talking but it worked. The problem was the destabilisation created by unilateral military actions by the member states.

I decided that if the Norwegians could have a State visit to Russia, then so could I. Obviously not a State visit but a very high level meeting. I got an informal agreement from the Russians - very quickly. In fact too quickly for my liking; so I delayed on sending my formal written note outlining my agenda and other conditions.

And then the Finnish went on a war footing - practice only. This prompted the Russians to mobilise forces on the Baltic / Finnish border. 

The tension measure leapt by 8 points from 6 to 14 (it ranged from 0 - 30).

I decided now was the time to take that summit meeting, and guess what, so did the Russians. (It's good to have something up your sleeve.)

Anyway eventually I got my meeting. I told my assistants to sell this and mention this to the member states.

The New Delhi Summit

We met in New Delhi - I was not going to Moscow - too many high windows. And had a very interesting meeting.

The Agenda was

1. Notification of large troop movements before they moved.

2. To let each others officers observer Exercises

3. Regular scheduled meetings of planning staffs to ensure the above occured. 

The Russian President, of course, went off the Agenda from the start. I listened heard him out and then reminded him that we should stick to the Agenda and then have AOB. He agreed.

We quickly went through the formal agenda and agreed it. 

The AOB was a bit more of a problem. The biggest "moan" was that European nations - the NATO members - were being unilaterally aggressive. What confidence could the Russians have in NATO if I could not control them etc. (Unfortunately, I agreed with him.)

My reply was to emphasise my role as a liaison to the member states and that I would seek better liaison with them. But I also pointed out that whilst NATO was a very powerful defensive alliance, the members states armed forces on their own could hardly be a threat to the might of the Russian military. (So stop being a big baby.)

The Next NAC Meeting - A metaphorical fist banging of the table

After the New Delhi Summit, I called a NAC for all Heads of State.

I gave them a dressing down. I was forceful. I got them all to sit and I then stood up. (You need a bit of theatre sometimes.) The gist of what I said was that if they were going to do their own thing they were weakening the one security they had - a unified NATO - and making me and thus NATO and also them by association - look like a "sock puppet".

I also said I did not want any finger pointing by members - though I did the finger pointing - and I got agreement that the military adventures, mostly the damn Fins, French and Germans, would de-escalate.

But always have another something up your sleeve

Before I went into the NAC I had authorised my diplomats and with SACEUR's agreement to start the action "Baltic Defence". (I am bit sketchy here of the details, as I had very little to do with the details here. I just wanted to have a proper reaction to having mobilised Russian forces on NATO's border.)

When I came out of the NAC I was told the Polish were really, really up for the deployment, with some assistance from other nations, though oddly enough not Lithuania. So we went for it.

I popped over to the Russians and told them about the new deployment, re our agreement.

And this is where things got tense.

So at the end of all that the tension marker went up to 20 (I think) and the Finns had not gone back to barracks and the NATO "Baltic Defence" deployment was grinding through its mobilisation plan.

Terry Martin the designer, then gave us 20 minutes for the last turn. 

I was then approached by my team* and they gave me their views of what all the member states had said. SACEUR told me he wanted a stop or go order for the second, major stage of the redeployment. It was basically a full Polish Armoured Division deployed to Estonia, lots of Aircraft (circa 200 - 500) and navy units in the Baltic.

The decision

This is why I like megagames. 

I imagined that I had this decision to make as if it was real. My decision could see an invasion of the Baltics, the deaths and displacements of hundreds of thousands, the end of NATO etc.

My guess was that the Russians were not going to invade. They were weak and they had not been playing a military strategy all game. Unless of course that was their big bluff. Would they go for it when they had made assurances and clever moves denying the use of military means to achieve their objectives?

But... 

If I decided to lower NATO's readiness and NOT complete "Baltic Defence" and the Russians attacked, the cost would be the Baltics and also NATO. 

If I maintained the "Baltic Defence" and the Russians attacked, I would be vindicated and be a hero. NATO members states would no doubt hasten to further aid the redeployment, NATO would realise it had to be unified and strong. POTUS would see Europe as standing up for itself and might lend a hand. All good.

And if I continued the redeployment and there was no further Russian deployment, what would be the harm. Well...

And the outcome was...

Yes, you guess it. The Russians didn't mobilise any further. 

The NATO redeployment "Baltic Defence" deployed in the Baltics and there was no shooting.

The tension scale was at 25. 30 meant war.

You to decide...

And that is where we left it. Open to interpretation, like all of history really.

My interpretation of the outcome was that I had shown that Europe could work through NATO to counter Russian aggression. NATO might not be unified as it was but there was enough of a fear of Russian aggression to keep most of the member states working within NATO to bolster European Security. Deterrence works.

Another interpretation was that NATO had over reacted and some would suggest that NATO was actually being aggressive.  And given the fact that the French were going to leave NATO - again! - was the first sign of the break-up of NATO. 

After the game, I spoke to Johan, and he was definitely of the opinion that the latter interpretation was correct. My counter was that I had already agreed with the EU that NATO would hold joint training and exercises with its Security Forces. I was going to work on adding the EU as a NATO member. But that was all to come.

Offside Review - from Johan

I can only report what I remember of the conversation I had with Johan. He might disagree or remember things differently. This is my recollection of what was said a the Hand and Marigold pub later that evening.

He had hoped to take advantage of a hesitant and disunited NATO to raise tensions in the Baltics and then attack. He also told me he had a letter from Vance telling him that POTUS was not that much bothered by Europe, so long a Russia stuck to its story of trying to restore Mother Russia to her previous borders.

A strong and united NATO had persuaded him not to intervene militarily in the Baltics. So their second strategy was to wind up the NATO nations, to pick them off one by one. (I had realised this is what he was doing - thus my Summit Meeting and my metaphorical fist-banging the table NAC meeting). He succeeded, with Lithuania - the Chinese bought them. Other nations were doing side deals etc. etc.

So even though I managed to organise Baltic Defence, it was unnecessary, was seen to be unnecessary and played into the narrative the Russians were peddling to their stooges. 

My take away

This for me is the lesson of this game. 

Some of the players saw the game as a transactional game. They could win status and position by making side deals, by splitting NATO etc. I heard at second hand, and in one case directly, that a few players were a bit bored and decided to raise the tensions of the game by deploying their forces.

We have politicians like this and wannabe politicians like this. They are transactional. They see everything as a business deal or something you can negotiate for your advantage.

They don't see that personal gain, personal favours, and favours for your elite domestic backers will result in a fractured, unstable, and poorer place for eventually everyone who lives on this globe.

If you don't get that, I hope you remember to put those exploding chips into the necks of your mercenary guards in your bunkers.  

 

................................................

 

* At some point in the game I remember asking my assistants to split the member states between them in their negotiations. 

So when we had a NATO wide proposal they could go to their contacts and get a reaction. I did this for one event, I forget which, and at the end of the game I found that the players were still working like this. 

It was excellent team work. I had little involvement in how or what they did. They just got on with it and found me when they thought I needed to hear something.

Yellow Car Hit

 A game to play during a journey in a vehicle on the road.

Aim of the Game

When a player spots a yellow vehicle - we'll come onto definitions later - they say, "Yellow Car Hit!" and gently tap the other player/s.

Winning the Game

The game starts when the journey starts and ends when the journey ends.

It is a simple matter of keeping count of successful "hits" or "taps".

Rules

1. You have to be in a vehicle and travelling on a journey. Some suggest that this should be as long as the vehicle's engine is still running!

2.  Only count vehicles seen on your journey that have a yellow colouring. This could be a yellow painted body or a yellow covering.

Rules about Exceptions

3. People wearing yellow hi-vis jackets are not counted - as they are not the vehicle.

4. Vehicles being carried, ported by a moving vehicle do not count. For example bikes on Camper Vans, cars on Car Transporters etc. It is the vehicle driving that is yellow that counts.

5. Police cards should not be counted. It just seems wrong and they have lots of other colours too.

Commentary

• Some disputes will arise about what is yellow. It is upto the players to establish this - for example, metallic gold I would consider not yellow, others might.
• If the player makes a mistake in calling a car then the other player is allowed to hit back.
• The driver will have an advantage as they can see cars approaching from the rear in their mirror. Some might think this too much of an advantage and discount all vehicles in your lane/s. Other might think the driver should be keeping their eye on the road and this is a good thing.
• Arguing about the rules is too be expected - some would suggest encouraged. It helps make a tedious journey on a motorway pass by.

List of Games I have designed - 1990 to now

 This is a list of games I have designed and run, mostly at Chestnut Lodge Wargames Group (CLWG), with a few run at the Holborn Group, and about 3 run online with groups of friends.

• Live and Let Live
• WW1 Trench Warfare collaborative game. All players are on one side trying to live and fight against an automated German foe that reacts to your aggression or passivity in a Tit for Tat way
  
  
• Sound of the Guns
• WW1 Trench Warfare. The Control plays chords on a piano and teaches the players - who play soldiers in a simulated trench - upturned tables and chairs - how listen and react to types of shell. No sides. Just surviving.
  
  
• Seize Warsaw, 1939
• The German first attempt to take Warsaw in 1939 with a Panzer Division. Control ran the Polish side using static defences with some reserves to be moved in reaction to German assaults.
  
  
• We are All at C
• A Naval Wargame, where the players are on the same side and the enemy moved by a script. I did this mostly because only one side has any interesting decisions.
  
  
• A Little Bit of Bread and No Cheese
• All the players are peasant farmers, some have temporary official roles in the feudal system. They are all trying to farm and survive. The enemy is probably the weather, not helped by the demands their Lord.
  
  
• Kill Chain
• All players are US servicemen attempting to support an anti-terrorist sweep in Afghanistan, in the 2000s

• War of the Roses games
  
  
• Shameless and Impudent Lords - 1 and 2 
• Both of my only two Megagames have been conflict games, with a conflict between two major factions and a lot of neutral Lords being persuaded who to back. 
  
  
• Against the Nature of Gentleness
• Similar to the above, but a large club game, less players, and all players were either Yorkists or Lancastrians. No neutrals.
  
  
• After the Battle of Towton, 1461
• I ran this Online and it was a committee game for the winning Yorkist team about how to "win" the Towton victory.
  
  
• Certeyne Ceducious Persones, 1469
• The Robin of Redesdale Rebellion. All players were either Yorkist, or Lancastrians, though some players were being deceptive about their roles and loyalties. 
  
  
• Aaland, 1918
• A game that includes all the sides involved in the attempt to control the Aaland Island during the Finnish Civil War / Russian Revolutionary Wars. Mostly about communication issues. 
  

• Shameless, Impudent and Indebted Lords – 1450
• A committee game where the players are all trying to make the government work and get rid of the debt, but they are attempting to improve their power base in court so they can eventually outlaw the other side. Civil conflict that might lead to violence.

• Viperous Worm: Gaming popular opinion, 1450
• All the players are in civil conflict that might lead to violence. They are trying to influence the "political narrative" to improve their popular support and to validate their "need" to move to violence.
   
• Rain of Drones - 1 and 2
• Both sides are represented in the game. Some players were Drug Cartels smuggling over the USA land border. The USA side were two federal agencies and there was a Mexican government side. There was conflict between all sides.
  
  
• The Battle of Midtskogen, 1940
  
• Two sides were represented but at different times. The Norwegian player setup their static defence and the German player then attacked it with Control implementing the Norwegian reactions according to the plan.

Computer Game

• Hill 70 – An Interactive Fiction Game
• A computer game - format: Chose Your Own Adventure. The player attempts to organise a counter attack at the Battle of Loos, 1915.
  

More thoughts on Collaborative and Cooperative Games

I have been thinking more about my concept of Cooperative games - see Colony post.

This is a bit of a confession and a personal revelation. Many of my games are not traditional wargame with two or more sides duking it out. Most of my games involve a team of players working together.

I suppose this shouldn't be such a surprise. I wrote earlier about how I don't like competitive traditional wargames And think what the revelation is is that I have never really thought about the format and collaborative games and what design techniques should be used.

Here is a list of games I have produced.

McGonigal, Jane - "Reality is broken"

A full chapter - "13: Collaboration Superpowers" is devoted to discussing collaboration and cooperation in online gaming.

Collaboration has three distinct elements

1. Cooperating - players act together toward a common or shared goal
   
   
2. Coordinating - players organise and synchronise effort and resources
   
   
3. Cocreating - the players work together to create a novel or new outcome.
   

A game in of itself is a cooperative act - sometimes called the golden or magic circle of gaming. Players agree to play a game and be restricted in their actions by the rules of the game so that a game can be played.

Discussion

None of the above really covers my concept of a collaborative game. 

I think McGonigal is not wrong in what she writes - the first two points are simplistic and not controversial. She develops the chapter mostly so that she can talk about her theme of games changing reality and how gamers cooperate to create a new reality. She emphasises cocreation as this method gamers have a superpower.

I am struggling to find a phrase to cover what I want - games that reflect the internal struggle of groups of people to achieve a goal, or even to agree on what the goal should be. Intra-player games? 

 

Colony - a cooperative game of corporate exploitation

Idea

A boardgame for 4 - 8 players that is a cooperative game, though each player can "win" by making the highest personal profit.

Scenario

The players work for a corporation that is building a colony - most likely on a distant planet - and they are working together to create a viable colony. There will be opportunities to sabotage other employees work, there will be temptations to "pocket" some payments. However, all lose if the Colony does not achieve its targets. It will be possible for players to having different goals; so there might be more ways to win than just "money".

Inspiration

• The most excellent campaign of Colony 51, in Jim Wallman's "The Universe".
  
  
• Boardgames
• The Settlers of Catan
• Terraforming Mars
  
  
• Books
• The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company, a 2019 book by William Dalrymple

What's the new idea

I want to design a cooperative game that reflects the dilemma of maximising private gain and yet still achieve corporate success. 

All the boardgames above are zero sum games - one player wins by achieving the most points. This is not what I think happens in the world. This could get philosophical. But I regard most human activities as being collaborative - trading, running a company, playing a game, organising a picnic etc. Some might take a leading role. Some might contribute to only part of the enterprise. But together we make something.

I want a game to reflect the politics (with a small p) that are at play - the inter-personal politics - that all of us encounter in our daily lives and work - as we strive to achieve some goal.

What I don't like about miniature wargames

 And it's not about the "toy soldiers". 

I love the look of miniatures; I appreciate the artistry of figure makers. I love holding and looking miniature figures. I am fascinated by the detail the painter has put into each individual figure. But I just do not have the patience to paint lots of soldiers. And I don't have the space to store them.

What I don't like about tabletop miniature wargames is... (and this list might get added to...)

1. The competitive nature of "most" wargamers.

I play games because I enjoy putting myself in the position of the historic participants, mostly at the level of the generals or commanders.

I like the social activity of playing a game that enables me to understand the scenario, the historic situation better. If I want to play a game to win I play boardgames - like Lost Cities, or Tigris & Euphrates

2. Wargames emphasis tactics and technology.

I feel this topic is over represented in too much military history - and don't get me started on some of the Youtube channels. There is a difference between the bodkin tipped arrows and an ordinary tipped arrow, but is it really that important.

What wins battles is organisation, motivation, morale and courage.

3. The God's Viewpoint of the battlefield

 I recently played in a game where the player directed his archers like homing missiles across a game set during the 1480s. 

I prefer a wargame that emphasises the confusion, the lack of information and the uncertainty that the participants had to endure. The problem with tabletop wargames is that they are easy to setup - just get two or more players, a board, some figures, rules and off you go. The games I prefer often require a Control or Umpire and sometimes require two maps or two boards to represent the hidden movement. I know - who wants to be "Control"?

4. The Massive Rules Sets

This is a product of the competitive, two player mainstream wargame norm. Rule sets have to account for every situation, they have to have detail on how to deploy, how to dice for reactions or interruptions etc. And then there are the rules-lawyers... sighs.

My preference for a Control or Umpire is so that I get someone else to apply and adjudicate the rules and I DO NOT CARE if they are making it up or making a judgement call, so long as they are consistent and reasonably accurate to the history.

... 

I will add to this

A game about military doctrine and training

This is very much a placeholder as I do not intend to make this game but thought to record the idea like a jotting in a notebook.

I have been inspired by talking to a gaming mate who just finished a History PhD on the subject of the different ways the British Army in Burma and India in the Second World War undertook its training. After reading Slim's "Defeat into Victory" I was struck by the effort, time and energy Slim put into training his army. And I am also familiar with a similar amount of effort put into the training of the British Army in World War 1 on the Western Front.

The game would not just be about the training. I don't think that kind of administration would make for an interesting game. I would include training as one of the factors and resource hungry factors in a long term campaign - like say the Western Front, 1916 to 1918. I would also have another factor that of the learning of doctrinal tactical lessons that would require a payment in blood and possible failure and then an expenditure in time and resources to distill the doctrinal lessons and then put them into the training schools so that they new units in the next campaign would be more effective. Hopefully.

Maximum Effort

I had designed a similar system for a campaign game inspired by a gaming mate, in 2004. This game never saw the light of day, even as a prototype, and only existed as a series of blog posts and conversations.

I have found the archive of the blog. I will check it out and see if I feel I want to republish it. 

Let Our Bloody Colours Wave

Aim

To create a medieval figure wargame that starts with the organisation, preparation and planning for battle that leads to the final decision on the battlefield.

All medieval armies were hastily thrown together. Any organisation and training of units and appointment of commanders must have been done after they had assembled. There were no recognised ranks, just the usual medieval ranks of King, Nobles and their servants.

Organising the army into their three wards would be an interesting debate - who to command who, which contingent to march next to another etc. There would have been incidents on the march - looting, fighting, arguments etc. - that would need to be addressed. The leader of the army would need to impress upon the men why they were fighting and why theirs was a just cause that God would favour.

Then there is the night before when planning for the next day of battle is very important.

Game Description

The game will be a multiplayer game that has five Acts. 

1. Warriors for the Working Day

2. Marching in the Painful Field

3. The Royal Captain Walking

4. Through the Foul Womb of Night

5. Cry “Havoc,” and Let Slip the Dogs of War.

All players are on the same side - a better de. They are in effect comrades - though of course some are more equal than others - as the army leader will be a King or Duke, and the other leaders will be Dukes, Earls, Barons and assorted knights. They are effectively trying to win the war and also win their own victory conditions. Sometimes these might conflict.

We are but warriors for the working day;

Our gayness and our gilt are all besmirched

With rainy marching in the painful field.

Henry V - Act 4, scene 3

Act 1 - Warriors for the Working Day

The players are assigned the role of a Lord. This comes with the usual list of lands, estates, offices, wealth and also a short biography. The Lord will also have a list of friends and rivals etc. who will be in the same army. Each Lord will have a personal “retinue” of loyal retainers and servants, who act as their bodyguards, and will enhance status. Some Lords will have a Commander - a professional soldier servant - in their retinue Next a series are cards are dealt from the “hosts” pack. These represent the companies, groups and contingents of soldiers who have turned up. The Lords will then assign and organise these into three Wards. A Commander is an experienced professional soldier who will be able to advise their Lord.

1. Cards

1. Lords and their Retinues 

2. Town, & City Contingents 

3. Mercenary Bands 

4. Professional Soldiers
   
   

2. Form Special Units

1. Mercenary Bands

2. Artillery

3. Scourers and Prickers

4. Forlorn Hopes of Archers

5. Men at Arms

3. The player places the cards into their “battles”

1. Three battles and a Reserve

2. Special Units assigned to a Battle

3. Commander of the Battle

1. Subordinates

2. Deputy

3. Professional Soldiers

Act 2 - Marching in the Painful Field

Incidents that might occur on the march.  A fight and a murder. A quarrel over loot or baggage or a bar maid!

What do you resolve each problem? 

How do you control the men, organise the baggage, the food, looting etc?

Act 3 - The Royal Captain Walking 

What methods do the leaders use to raise the morale of the troops; to tell them that their cause is just and honourable?

1. Masses

2. Theatre

3. Preaching

4. Victuals 

5. The Royal Captain Walking

Act 4 - Through the Foul Womb of Night

The planning for the battle on the night before. The field of battle is known or at least the terrain and some intelligence will be had on the enemy.

1. Any last minute changes to the Battles and Leaders

2. Any deployment of the Special Units

3. What is the battle plan

1. Deployment on the field of war

2. What signals and orders are pre-arranged

Act 5 - Cry “Havoc,” and Let Slip the Dogs of War.

The battle will require little intervention from the players. They will have a few decisions to take but might suffer from not being able to implement them.

1. Deploy the Battles and the special forces (some might be secret)

2. Some players might wish to now use another set of rules for a medieval wargame, integrating some of the factors from the campaign into the ruleset for the battle.

Hidden Terrain in a Miniatures Game

Vistas

Many years ago I had an idea to break a map game into "vistas". My idea was for a game with two player sides and a control / umpire.

My idea was that each player would be given a map with only the main routes and settlements marked on it and everything in between would be blank - "here be dragons". As the player advanced the player could draw tiles to fill the spaces.

My initial idea was unworkable as I wanted those tiles to be hand crafted "vistas". So as you reached the crest of a hill you could see into the valley and would have a suitably cut "vista" tile to fill that space. It could be done, but it would be time consuming to construct.

I presented this idea in 1990 at an early COW - Conference of Wargamers.

Trigger point Vistas - the updated idea

I was reminded of my idea when I saw this square based map used in this game. Instead of giving the player "vistas" the player is just handed enough tiles to fill in the gaps as they reach "trigger" points on the map. 

The trigger points would either be marked on the map - at obvious places like church spires, hills etc. - and this would enable two players to discover the map - they could keep the tiles thus revealed secret to themselves until the other side reached an opposite trigger point.

One way of doing this would be for the map to consist of face down tiles that just need to be turned over. This reminds me of one of the first German boardgames I ever bought - Entdecker (trans: Explorer). The players explored the map by visiting face down tiles and turning them over by moving to them.

Another method would be in a back-to-back game. Control would build the map for the players as they advanced across "hidden" trigger points. Each map is hidden from the other player.

 

Inspiration

Graham Evan's game - with the map made of squares that is then used to create a wargame miniature's terrain.

https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2016/10/marchais-en-brie-september-1914-op14.html

The Mid-Turn Slump in Megagames

Many players experience a mid-game slump in Megagames. These multiplayer, all day games are a bit of an endurance test. There are no breaks in the game for lunch or comfort, the game inexorably goes on. Players spend their time talking - a lot - thinking and sometimes moving pieces on the board. The megagames typically start at 09:30 and end sometime about 16:00 - 17:00.

The mid-game slump is usually experienced at 14:00, give or take an hour or so. Players report that the gameplay lags or that they have nothing of note to do, that they are tired and need to sit down, some go outside and have a smokers break, some go outside just to get fresh-air and some "me" time.

What are the causes of the mid-game slump?

1. Learning the game. The first few turns everyone is learning how to play the game. We are excited and totally engaged not just with the narrative but with the requirement of learning the rules by playing them. Later in the game we have learnt the rules and only the game narrative / plot remains to engage us.
2. Snacking. Do not discount the poor diet megagamers eat during the game. We bring lots of sweets, chocolate, cake and crisps. Really bad for endurance.
3. Easy early problems. All the early targets have been achieved. The NPC baddies have been subdued / conquered.
4. Stalemate. By the mid game most people have aligned to be on oneside or the other, lines have been drawn on maps / tables. Players might have tasted an early defeat in an unadvised battle and now everyone sits in big stacks and watches the other.
5. Minor Players. The players who are totally engaged in the game seek each other out - usually in conversations, not mechanical game play, and the ones less engaged crank the mechanical game play handle and usually gossip rather than engage in game related conversations.

How the designer can address these issues? 

(5) Minor Players

This last point is the one the game designer can influence the most. Don't make minor player roles. As someone put in the Anerley Arms last night, don't give a brief that says "be loyal to", or "follow x". 

This will mean that some settings have to be handled with care - I suggest that Medieval scenarios have this issue - you have a king, some dukes and the rest are minor lords.

Choose your scenarios with care

My advice here is to choose your scenarios with care. One of my first actions when planning a game is draw up a list of player roles. If the player list has lots of minor players re-think the scenario you want to do. Should it be more political? Should it be more mechanical? Should it be a smaller game? Don't be pushed into accepting more players than your game can accept. I have heard this is a pressure some designers encounter.

I will not re-run my two megagames "Shameless and Impudent Lords" again as I first did designed them. I will eliminate minor Lords. To do this I have to either run a very small game of about 10 to 20 players and control or to make real teams.

Real Teams

What do I mean by a "real team"? I suggest that you physically arrange a team so that the players sit together, drink tea together and break bread together. There is a saying in megagames called "table teams" - this is when a group of players after several turns adopt a group think despite their briefings! This has occurred because of social pressures not because of their briefings. Use this to your advantage by arranging your players with team time and team tables. If you can afford it have team controls too.

Be loyal to

Avoid player briefs that advise the player should just be "loyal to" or "always support x". 

This advice might seem contradictory. I am advising have "real teams", but don't write briefs that say be loyal to. How can you achieve that?

I would suggest that when you form teams, give all the players on that team the same objective. Tell them they want their "faction" or their "unit" to achieve this. So give the team an objective. Then sit the players together and hopefully social pressures will bond the team. Also give them an intra-team rival or enemy. You don't like those Greeks, you are a proud Macedonian.

This will not work with all players and this is where the designer plays their trump card - casting. Make sure you cast players you know - or you know their reputation - are team players or followers of briefs. Put mavericks and conflict queens into those quirky roles. Casting is your friend.

(3) Easy early problems 

This has to be handled with care. 

A simple suggestion would be to add more events that will occur later in the game. To give a map control several cards to generate issues / problems etc. The problem with this is that it is artificial, and runs the risk of being seen as being artificial and imposed on the game. For me the great joy of megagames is that players generate their own issues and problems, and solutions - they own their narrative, they are invested in the game and they know why they do what they do. 

Probably a better suggestion is to make the early problems difficult to solve but not instantly deadly to the players. So early problems have to be hard to beat, and passive.

I remember play testing with Reiner Knizia and his mantra was he wanted to give the players two things they wanted to do, but only the possibility of doing one of them. So you have to restrict the resources they can deploy so they can only do a one or possibly two things. Maybe restrict the number of actions they can do per turn. Perhaps allow unchallenged NPCs to grow and spread if nothing is done about them. 

To solve the problem players need to learn how to work within the rules. So these early problems are like tutorials in computer games. Maybe they should learn how to collaborate with their fellow players to beat up an NPC. They might need to pool resources - treasure, blood and time - to solve a problem.

(4) Stalemate

This is a difficult problem and I think it is mostly related to the scenario used in the game. 

The obvious stalemate scenario is trench warfare in world war 1. If players sign up for this sort of game they come prepared for a slogging attritional game. The problem arises when the game scenario promises wheeling and dealing and delivers "big-stack standoffs". Players thought they were going to have an effect on the game but find they are at the bottom of the hierarchy doing the bidding of their master.

The answer to this is again structure. Ensure the solutions to the problems in your game cannot be easily solved with big stacks - unless that is how the historical scenario went. If you have to have big stacks, go for real teams. If the scenario enables you then distribute the tasks to several players who have to move to other regions / tables and will be gone for several turns.

But this is a difficult problem.

(2) Snacking

Everyone has their own pet theories about dieting and food. One suggestion I would make is that many people get dehydrated without knowing it. Perhaps you could provide free bottles of water on each table as well as a well stocked and friendly canteen.

(1) Learning the game

There is no easy answer to this. The known responses are to have a longer than usual first turn and to have an initial setup that requires a battle or conflict to be resolved so that all players can observe the walk through.

You know you are playing in a Megagame when...

I present this as conceptual tool to enable the befuddled masses to know if the game they are playing really is a proper megagame.

These tools do not require any definition and even a social media debate. You just need to ask yourself a few "yes" or "no" questions, and if enough of them are yes then you can be mostly certain you are indeed "playing in a megagame".

1. Are there a lot of players?

We might need to nail down "a lot of players" but really megagames involve more players than say a wedding, or a family party, but much less than a football crowd. But in general many more players are playing in one game at the same time than anything you have every experienced. Megagames are quite the biggest multiplayer games you will every play in.

Perhaps I should define what I mean multiplayer. I suppose this could get tricky, but if I said there have to be more than 2 players this will eliminate games like Chess, and most SPI boardgames. (There is a whole debate about if megagames are really just big boardgames, I just prefer to say there are a lot more players in a megagames than the typical boardgame.) 

However I think I can stick my neck out and say that if there are more than 25 players (I include Control in this too) then it is more likely to be a megagame than another type of game. 

2. Do some of the players refer to themselves as "Control"?

All megagames have a proportion of the players who call themselves Control. The Designer has taken a lot of time over "the ratio". The ratio, in this context, refers to how many Players there are to Control. Some like a low ratio, others like a high ratio. There is something of a debate about this. However, for our purposes - finding out if we are playing a megagame - just knowing that there are Control will suffice.

Control like to consider themselves as wise, self-sacrificing, and very worthy. This is mostly true. However they don't like to admit that they are really playing in a megagame. Don't be fooled, they are playing really, its just that they pay less and still feel morally superior.

3. Are there any breaks in play?

This can be quite difficult. For example when I play boardgames - like Puerto Rico, Carcassone or Settlers of Catan - my game group frequently has breaks in play. We generally forget about the game and throw insults at each other, go to the toilet or just chat shit about irrelevant things.

Now all the above things also occur in megagames, but they usually happen - apart from the toilet breaks -  and the megagame does not just stop! If a player indulges in a tea break, the game keeps going - though some argue that the tea queue is a great place to talk to players you shouldn't otherwise talk to. If you live vlog yourself, the game goes on. There are no breaks in megagames! This is quite a distinguishing feature.

4. Are there any ad hoc rulings?

This is very simple. If you play a game like Chess, or Settlers of Catan, there are occasionally disputes about the interpretation of rules. In non-megagames these are eventually settled by player consensus (or sometimes just throwing the board over and storming off). In megagames any disputes about the rules are taken to "Control" who quickly, and usually with no attempt to check the rules, tell you what the rule "really" means and to do that, and that you are just trying to "get away with it" and not to try it on again, and don't go and ask another Control for a second ruling, and just suck it up and get on with it.

Sometimes in really serious ad hoc rulings, the Control will secretly talk to the Game Designer and then there will be a quiet promulgation amongst the other Controls of what the Designer really intended by that rule. It's all a little confusing, and very ad hoc!

5. Are there any inconsistent applications of rules, from table to table or from Control to Control?

If this does not happen or if players don't whinge about "damned inconsistent rules "you know you are not in a megagame. Simples. Experienced megagame players expect inconsistent rules; they even take great joy in pointing them out to other players and control, sometimes during the game, but more often afterwards in some blog or vlog or social media post.

Some are a little disgruntled by this, others are more phlegmatic. But you cannot deny that it is part of one of the defining features of a megagame - inconsistent application of the rules.

6. Does emergent play occur?

Most players are not sure what emergent play is; its a little bit theoretical. In simple terms it's when something happens within the structure of the game that was not anticipated by the designer. By structure I mean the rules, the maps, the counters etc. I don't mean player behaviour, players are just downright unpredictable. A wise and experienced Game Designer will often mutter about "emergent play"; it makes them seem more in control if they expected the unexpected.

Anyway that's the theory. In a megagame you usually meet emergent play when a player or Control says they are "doing a wizard wheeze". I would go so far to say that if you do not encounter this at least once then you are not in a real megagame.

7. Are there rules about where the players can and cannot be?

Think about it. In most games the rules do not tell you that for 10 minutes you have to sit with a group of other gamers or that only a certain type of player can go to the map table etc. OK, in some boardgames there is an order of play thing going on, which more a seating order thing.

Anyway, you know when you are playing in a megagame if somewhere in the rules there is a section that stipulates where the players have to be at certain times or cannot be at other times. OK, games like Rugby Union have extremely complex offside rules which might be mistaken for megagame rules about player placement, but in Rugby the rules on cover temporary incidents. Megagame Offside rules have rules that require players to be present for regular recurring periods of times, so they're not much like Rugby Union offside rules.

8. Are the players organised into teams by the designer pre-game?

Let's face it why else would you be required to sit at the same table with a bunch of strangers if you weren't in a team. Megagame Designers reckon they can cast a bunch of strangers as a team to create that great megagame narrative experience. How many other games does such "casting" take place. Yes casting is central to films and theatre, in fact I think this is why some people like to think megagames are a sort of improv theatre for gamers, and there might be something in that.

9. Do some of the players dress up?

This is probably the most controversial thing I'm going to say. Perhaps it's because I played my first megagame in 1991 and count myself as a bit of an old grognard, but I remember the days when no megagamers dressed up or even wore hats.

These days, if somebody is not wearing something swashy or buckling then it's not really a megagame. But a good point is that many players don't dress up; perhaps this is how you can distinguish between megagames and theatre - in theatre all the cast dresses up, in megagames only a few really enthusiastic types do.

Conclusion

I hope this simple conceptual tool will be of use to all gamers who might be a little concerned that they might or might not be playing in a real megagame. Just ask and answer the above 9 questions and I would suggest that if you get 9 affirmatives, then you are playing in a megagame. If you get between 6 - 8 then it's probably just a messy gaming experience, like a club game at CLWG, which is not really here nor there. Less than 6 then I would suggest you should think about asking for your money back, as it is almost certainly not a megagame.

Final word

Actually.... this all started as a serious attempt to define a megagame by writing a set of necessary conditions. Yeah! I bet you wouldn't have read an article about fuzzy sets and crisp sets - well I know at least one person who would - but they've left the country now, so I'm safe.

I have a few other conditions - that upon further reflection - are less likely to always be found in a megagame but quite likely to occur... A simple list will suffice.

• Roleplaying
• Hierarchical teams
• Friction between players
• Players have personal roles
• Player interaction drives the gameplay

10. Reading the rules

There is, of course, the final and very cynical definition of a megagame - you know when you are playing in a megagame when most of the players have not read the rules, sometimes, even Control haven't!