RE: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

I would say, absolutely!

Just about every board game I look at lately is 'can I use for an
easy-to-participate campaign that's compelling?"

(And has a combat resolution system that could mimic FT results for
those 'walkover' situations, but that's another topic.)

However, as far as I'm aware, it's still the case that most games are
not in a situation that allows campaign playing, not even a 'mini' for a
long night. So, scenarios, evocatively written, girded by well-crafted
objectives and penalties, would likely have to suffice.

I'm still trying to understand the concept of 'narrative campaigns',
though they sound more like a bunch of linked scenarios. Honest, I can
be disabused of my veiled vision.

Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Gzg [mailto:gzg-bounces@firedrake.org] On Behalf Of Roger
Bell_West
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 8:10 AM
To: gzg@firedrake.org
Subject: Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: FTL

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 08:05:21AM -0400, Indy wrote:
>I think the real question may be how do we change player perceptions 
>about starship combat and break them from the Klingon paradigm?

The best I've come up with is "make mini-campaigns rather than one-shot
scenarios the standard mode of play".

I can bore about this at length (and did, on my blog, at
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/02/On_Campaign_Systems.html, so I
won't repeat it here), but broadly what I want a campaign system to do
these days is "produce battles that are interesting to fight on the
table" (i.e. if it's clearly going to be a walkover don't ask the
players to set it up in the first place) without being a huge
administrative burden on the players.

R