Arturius

[Elennsar]

For the Arturius base campaign, the players do get to lead an army (the Duc's army) and do not start out with a base reputation.

They get to lead part of it. Also, a note before we go any further, because this is slipping into "tiresome" (I'm positive that isn't intended, but...).

No Dux. The base campaign leader is the king, and this is not historical 5th century Britain.

Anyway, as to reputation - it depends. The PCs are picked and special people - so they ought to have something to go on other than "maybe they'll stand out, maybe they won't".

Shouldn't be all that hard. Same basic mechanics, just lower armor values and raise attack values on the ranged weapons. Which reminds me, I should puzzle out some mechanics for archers and throwing axes into people's faces.

If doing this for Arturius, I'd suggest the latter for now, because archery is a minor part of it (I am seriously considering - as opposed to jokingly, have it not play any role at all. But I don't think that makes a lot of sense - even if ineffective vs. the armored, there's still the unarmored.).

[Parthenon]

In the interests of being reasonable here are some suggestions I made in another thread.

If you come across a random enemy and you decide to go straight up to it and you take it in turns to hit each other over and over then you have a 50% chance to win. But depending on tactics (yours and the enemies) you can have a 99% chance to win or down to 1%.

This seems to be what Elennsar wants. The PCs by themselves with no tactics have quite a large chance of dying and tactics are vitally important.

We also want to make it a reasonable idea to face them head to head in the open rather than waiting until they are asleep like they did to Lu Bu. This means that the probabilities of winning must be higher than 50% if you play heroically. This isn't to say that your best chance of winning is to play heroically in that your best chance may be to send a couple of people in about 2 in the morning, kill several people then run away in the mayhem.

If you make it harder to win by playing heroically than by standing there hitting then it is stupid. Heroism isn't the safe option but it is a reasonable option (e.g. 75%).

Since it seems more heroic to be the underdog, the PCs will generally be outnumbered.

Lots of heroic stories and stories of heroes have heroes that are outnumbered or at a large disadvantage. Since having a large disadvantage will make the game unfun, being outnumbered is better.

The different tactics must be relatively equal or everyone will use the better ones and avoid the weaker ones. This can lead to rock/paper/scissors where it seems almost random, characters end up good at only one so everyone is a glass cannon and that being outnumbered is lethal. There should also be various geographical and time based factors preventing tactics to force characters into interesting ways to deal with problems.

One way to do this would be to use a bell curve system and to not use many character stats. The character progression would be mostly gaining new tactics. This also has the benefits of making characters fast to generate mechanically, since you could have toughness being poor, average or good.

Another way would be to give the PCs immunities to some tactics. This would mean that they find it easier to use others, don't have to defend as much and... and stuff.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Examples of tactics could include kiting ( a poor tactic in the game with some easy to use vulnerabilities ), surrounding and poking with sticks (very good if you outnumber them but weak to a couple of hero troops), phalanxes (good at defence but very slow) and so on.

Other ways to change the probabilities of winning are hitting troops from behind (requiring facing), hitting one type of troop with another (this could lead to wargame type system rather than RPG), terrain and weather (requiring a whole lot more work) and morale (this requires a whole lot more to track).

Some suggestions as to tactics and factors affecting combat.

[Elennsar]

A couple things I want to respond to right away, the rest I'd like to discuss a bit.

This seems to be what Elennsar wants. The PCs by themselves with no tactics have quite a large chance of dying and tactics are vitally important.

50% as a "large" chance kind of rules out the heroes ever being in a truly disadvantageous situation.

If you make it harder to win by playing heroically than by standing there hitting then it is stupid. Heroism isn't the safe option but it is a reasonable option (e.g. 75%).

One thing that has to be noted on this.

Sometimes, being heroic is the only option for success here and now, and succeeding here and now is kind of important in any situation.

Lots of heroic stories and stories of heroes have heroes that are outnumbered or at a large disadvantage. Since having a large disadvantage will make the game unfun, being outnumbered is better.

This I disagree on. If you find succeeding fun and hate to lose (period, full stop, etc.), then yes. If that's the case, I'm really not sure you'll enjoy playing a game where there are times you are outmatched.

Whether that's tragedy or just the fact there are bigger people than you are involved in this too (though how much that last is true depends, it is something I want true to some extent), the PCs are not the biggest individuals other than the Final Boss or something like that.

They're among the biggest individuals, but there are NPCs who can beat them.

One way to do this would be to use a bell curve system and to not use many character stats. The character progression would be mostly gaining new tactics. This also has the benefits of making characters fast to generate mechanically, since you could have toughness being poor, average or good.

Definately using a bell curve system (3d6 plus modifiers), not sure about new tactics - there are only so many tactics as distinct moves (dodging to the left is not really different than dodging to the right).

Other ways to change the probabilities of winning are hitting troops from behind (requiring facing), hitting one type of troop with another (this could lead to wargame type system rather than RPG), terrain and weather (requiring a whole lot more work) and morale (this requires a whole lot more to track).

I know I want to include morale and facing, and probably terrain and weather to some extent - at least so far as to make "bad weather is a problem." and such.

I am not exactly sure what I want to do in regards to morale - but something like this is probably roughly accurate:

From highest to lowest.
Enflamed
Normal
(Declining state, not sure what term to use)
Faltering
Routed

Naturally, if there is such a thing, PCs are subject to it (though they may not feel the same level of fear from a given thing as an ordinary-drafted-from-the-farms, they too can be demoralized.)

[Grek]

1. Sun Tzu said: We may distinguish six kinds of terrain,
to wit: (1) Accessible ground; (2) entangling ground;
(3) temporizing ground; (4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous
heights; (6) positions at a great distance from the enemy.

2. Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides
is called accessible.

3. With regard to ground of this nature, be before
the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots,
and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you
will be able to fight with advantage.

4. Ground which can be abandoned but is hard
to re-occupy is called entangling.

5. From a position of this sort, if the enemy
is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him.
But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you
fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible,
disaster will ensue.

6. When the position is such that neither side will gain
by making the first move, it is called temporizing ground.

7. In a position of this sort, even though the enemy
should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable
not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing
the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has
come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage.

8. With regard to narrow passes, if you can occupy
them first, let them be strongly garrisoned and await
the advent of the enemy.

9. Should the army forestall you in occupying a pass,
do not go after him if the pass is fully garrisoned,
but only if it is weakly garrisoned.

10. With regard to precipitous heights, if you are
beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the
raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him to come up.

11. If the enemy has occupied them before you,
do not follow him, but retreat and try to entice him away.

12. If you are situated at a great distance from
the enemy, and the strength of the two armies is equal,
it is not easy to provoke a battle, and fighting will be
to your disadvantage.

13. These six are the principles connected with Earth.
The general who has attained a responsible post must be
careful to study them.

Thus, I suggest 7 terrain types(7th is "boarding"), You make a tactics role to use local terrain types, and you get bonuses if you know what sort of terrain it is and have the tactical skill to use it to your advantage. You can also order people to do stuff like fortify or dam a river, artficially creating a given terrain type. But this takes a while.

Accessable helps cavalry, entangling hurts whoever routs and sucks to fortify, temporizing hurts attacker/is easy to fortify, narrow passes/precipitous heights provides a solid defense bonus, long distance means you can't fight unless you march to the enemy(not smart) or get the enemy to march to you(smart). "Boarding" refers to stuff like climbing a castle wall or boarding a ship. There is a limited number of people who can get into melee at the same time and terraforming is as easy as putting a ladder somewhere.

Now an army is exposed to six several calamities,
not arising from natural causes, but from faults
for which the general is responsible. These are:
(1) Flight; (2) insubordination; (3) collapse; (4) ruin;
(5) disorganization; (6) rout.

15. Other conditions being equal, if one force is
hurled against another ten times its size, the result
will be the flight of the former.

16. When the common soldiers are too strong and
their officers too weak, the result is insubordination.
When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers
too weak, the result is collapse.

17. When the higher officers are angry and insubordinate,
and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account
from a feeling of resentment, before the commander-in-chief
can tell whether or no he is in a position to fight,
the result is ruin.

18. When the general is weak and without authority;
when his orders are not clear and distinct; when there
are no fixes duties assigned to officers and men,
and the ranks are formed in a slovenly haphazard manner,
the result is utter disorganization.

19. When a general, unable to estimate the enemy's
strength, allows an inferior force to engage a larger one,
or hurls a weak detachment against a powerful one,
and neglects to place picked soldiers in the front rank,
the result must be rout.

20. These are six ways of courting defeat, which must
be carefully noted by the general who has attained
a responsible post.

And 4 moral failures, which effect different parts of the army sperately: Group is too afraid to fight(Will refuse to fight), group is insubordinate(Group makes a collective tactics check and does that instead of what you ordered them too), turning into a disorganized mob(Gets no bonuses from good tactics), and routed(Is running away).

We also need some positive moral stuff. Maybe invert the failures into enflamed(will attack whoever you say, odds be damned), loyal(will follow your orders no matter what), disciplined(tactics bonuses help even more than normal) and enemy is routed(same thing as routed, but to the other guy).

[Elennsar]

Its a thought - I'm not sure if I want to use the great sage directly, but I greatly appreciate you posting this, because his words are...extremely insightful.

Though I will dispute this one: When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers too weak, the result is collapse.

Still, its a good way to start addressing what in general terms type of terrain and situations to face or avoid.

One thing that has to be stated, of course, is that you don't always get a choice in the matter - "do not fight except under favorable conditions" is not really a good strategy here.

But anyway, very good stuff. For the most part, you're not going to have to deal with anything beyond (not counting rivers and water) hills, forests, and plains, I think - while there may be mountains, they're not practical to fight on in any sense of the word.

That, naturally, means that I should draw up at least a rough map of the area (the kingdom) in question, and see where we are. Thoughts, comments on what to do?

One of the things important to figure out is where the heck are the barbarians coming from (and if they're coming from across the sea or not). I am leaning to the situation of the two influences, though I'm not sure - and unlike the historical situation (Alfred's, at least), there are quite a few more barbarians.

[Grek]

May as well draw up a map.

[Elennsar]

Any ides on the island or penisula idea?

[Grek]

A peninsula allows for overland invaders. I think that's good for something. Otherwise, you can do something like Greece, where you have a peninsula or two with a bunch of islands with forts around the mainland. Perhaps not Greek climate, though.

[Elennsar]

A land mass like Greece sounds good. I'll sketch something out and post it soon.



If this was Greece, the "You?" is where the kingdom is - roughly equivalant to Sparta.

Naturally, this is only a sixty second sketch, but its roughly what I'm picturing - and the mountain range being the only area drawn in terms of what terrain is intentional, its the only immediately relevant one.

Thoughts? Comments? Requests for it to be clearer?

[Grek]

What's the bit of land south of the mountain but east of you? Some other kingdom or maybe two of them? Another kingdom adds some dipolomatic aspects to the game, either getting allies or someone invading when you are weak. You could have one state on the far east peninsula who you trade with alot and another between that doesn't like you very much and is attacking you as well.

What are your thoughts about putting a forested region in the south/southwest of the map? That would make 5 major bits of land you want to fight over that are inside your country. The northern mountians, where there are likely mines and passes into barbarian land to guard, a central section with plains and farmland, a large forested region and two harbors. That means battles defending/retaking these areas.

Should there be any high quality roads? That would make getting armies around alot faster and make for another strategic thing to try to hold.

[Elennsar]

What's the bit of land south of the mountain but east of you? Some other kingdom or maybe two of them?

Yes - not sure on two (Its an interesting idea but I don't know).

What are your thoughts about putting a forested region in the south/southwest of the map? That would make 5 major bits of land you want to fight over that are inside your country. The northern mountians, where there are likely mines and passes into barbarian land to guard, a central section with plains and farmland, a large forested region and two harbors. That means battles defending/retaking these areas.

I'm thinking of having the area not too far south of the mountain be forested, rather than the south - but yes, that sort of thing is very good/cool/interesting/valid/useful (all of them, that is).

Should there be any high quality roads? That would make getting armies around alot faster and make for another strategic thing to try to hold.

Not many, if any - high quality roads mean someone has commited a fair amount of effort to building and mantaining them, just like standing armies do.

But if this was once part of one united empire (now long since fallen/gone/broken up), having the main Imperial road still remain would be good - particularly if some of the area north of the mountains is an area that isn't properly "barbarian" but no kingdom owns it.

That could be interesting...

This map is helping already.

[Parthenon]

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is more like a wargame with the DM playing both sides with a couple of soldiers messing about with what's happening. I'm also worried about how many characters will be in a battle at once. Why am I thinking something like Psychonauts with the war game there?

I'm wondering whether it would be better to have something like Warhammer where the PCs are a single unit made up solely of PCs, Warhammer or Kingdom Under Fire where they PCs each are sergeants in charge of a unit, or what.

A possible suggestion is that each PC has two-three soldiers with them and each turn can either give orders to the unit or fight as a single person. When acting as a leader the PC would have the same effectiveness as the rest of the group but the group as a whole works better but when acting as an individual the PC is a lot stronger. This would mean that you could have some abilities based on leadership and some based on personal combat.

[Elennsar]

This is a thought:

A possible suggestion is that each PC has two-three soldiers with them and each turn can either give orders to the unit or fight as a single person. When acting as a leader the PC would have the same effectiveness as the rest of the group but the group as a whole works better but when acting as an individual the PC is a lot stronger. This would mean that you could have some abilities based on leadership and some based on personal combat.

Quite interesting, actually.

As for the wargame - there's a very strong presence of that, yes. The PCs are important enough as individuals (even if not in terms of their ability to personally slay lots of people) that I don't think a wargame would represent that very well - even if the King is ultimately making the decisions, you as his trusted followers get a fair amount of room to make decisions on your own.

[Parthenon]

The suggestion was based on Kingdom Under Fire, a Xbox game.

You've said earlier in the thread that this is basically a single campaign and the rules behind it you're making.

So, how do you win this campaign?

You can't kill all the invaders because there will always be more in their own country.
You can't make peace with them because you don't have diplomacy.
You can't build up the size of the army and the coastal defences to make sure that future invaders can be easily fought off.

So how do you actually win? Its obviously not a find the McGuffin adventure, nor is it kill the BBEG. You lose if you run out of soldiers or the Dux dies, but winning?

[Elennsar]

You can't kill all the invaders because there will always be more in their own country.
You can't make peace with them because you don't have diplomacy.
You can't build up the size of the army and the coastal defences to make sure that future invaders can be easily fought off.

#1: No, but you don't need to kill them all to make them decide "Gee, invading is a bad idea."

#2: Diplomacy is not nonexistant, what it is is limited - until and unless you are winning, on what terms are you going to offer? "Leave and never return or we'll die some more?"

#3: When did this get ruled out?

So how do you actually win? Its obviously not a find the McGuffin adventure, nor is it kill the BBEG. You lose if you run out of soldiers or the Dux dies, but winning?

Drive off the barbarians. Killing their warlord might help in that - but good luck, to say the least.

[Parthenon]

So how do you actually win? Its obviously not a find the McGuffin adventure, nor is it kill the BBEG. You lose if you run out of soldiers or the Dux dies, but winning?

Drive off the barbarians. Killing their warlord might help in that - but good luck, to say the least.

This really isn't good enough. Drive off the barbarians is such an open ended answer that it is useless. Killing enough invaders is so much up to the DM that it is silly.

Killing off a warlord is unlikely to help since there will be other warlords who take over. Hostages are not going to help because they are unlikely to care. The only possibility for this to work is if there is a mongol horde type situation which from your descriptions there isn't.

If you are making a campaign where the PCs are heroic but have a "real" chance of dying then you have to show how characters like this can win. And you haven't so far- just given an open ended answer on a par with "win the campaign" and discouraged another method of winning.

What are the victory conditions to the campaign?

If you were playing in this campaign, what would you be doing to try to win.

[Elennsar]

Killing enough invaders is so much up to the DM that it is silly.

Well, I imagine that if you kill half the invading force that its going to be pretty easy to convince the other half that this isn't worth it.

Killing off a warlord is unlikely to help since there will be other warlords who take over. Hostages are not going to help because they are unlikely to care. The only possibility for this to work is if there is a mongol horde type situation which from your descriptions there isn't.

Perfectly capable of helping if the successor/s think that the gain isn't worth the cost, or not possible at all, however. This isn't "continuous stream of barbarians spawning from the North."

If you are making a campaign where the PCs are heroic but have a "real" chance of dying then you have to show how characters like this can win. And you haven't so far- just given an open ended answer on a par with "win the campaign" and discouraged another method of winning.

So far, you don't seem interested in anything that doesn't agree with your notions of the situation. Personally, I find it very unlikely that the barbarians will keep coming and coming until you kill them all - they
do have lands of their own, but yours are tempting prey. If you can convince them that they can't take over the kingdom or can't do it at a price they're willing to pay (After all, its pretty hard to take advantage of conquest when you're dead.), they're going to leave.

What are the victory conditions to the campaign?

If you were playing in this campaign, what would you be doing to try to win.

I already answered this, your refusal to accept that as an answer is your problem, not mine.

[RandomCasualty2]

Designing? Please.

At best you are horribly failing at brainstorming. I have yet to see anything remotely resembling any design activity from you. You are closing on two thousands posts and have written no background, no flavor text, no descriptions, no mechanics, no examples, no numbers, NOTHING.

At best you are demonstrating exactly why I don't care two shits for what the average Denner thinks of this game, because we have different ideas on what should be done.

At worst, you're going out of your way to badger and pester and mock and otherwise frustrate rather than either ignore (and focus on the games you find fun) or help.

You want help, but yet you haven't actually written out any mechanics for people to help you with.

A game must have mechanics of some kind.

[Elennsar]

The best at-present answers to the following:

1.) What is your game about?

2.) What do the characters do?

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

19.) Who is your target audience?

1) Gritty heroism - a relatively small group (including but not limited to the PCs) trying to preserve "civilization" and a basically just system against invading "barbarians" (Creator's note: Seriously contemplating going beyond this). Tragedy and disappointment before (if all goes well) ultimate victory. Heroic sacrifice.

2) Serve the king - often was warriors, but also as trusted subordinates who can speak on his behalf and act in his name, which may involve diplomacy and strategy as well as actual combat (both individual and mass battle). Traveling is important, but more in terms of getting where you're going than some kind of "on the road" experience - though they may well come up.

3) Um, play the heroes (good guys) of in semi-historically based mixed wargame/rpg.

4) A long time ago, the majority of the land in question was once united in one great kingdom. Now it has fragmented, thanks in part to barbarians and also due to some really nasty evil stuff. The setting is roughly equivalant to the Dark Ages in that regard. Elements of other things are sneaking in, however, but that's the current model.

5) Well, the kind of things you have to choose as abilities are reflecting what kind of things matter here, otherwise I don't know what character creation has to do with it. I intend to have a sample character or three that can be customized written up so that if PCs are out of the picture, one doesn't have to start a character from the first lines all over again (if not desired).

6) There are two basic ways to do things. There's the chivalrous path, which is harder (more challenging) both to uphold and in terms of not being easy to succeed, and then there's the path of dread, which while more "practical" runs into a variety of problems, such as inspiring loyalty and bravery in one's followers, even if the person on said path is probably "safer" in that they're "free" to do morally dubious actions.

A reputation as a hero counts for something, but its far more about doing the brave deed than just being known for it - anyone can have people claim they're on the path of chivalry but you actually have to show it to benefit from it - simply invoking "I'm Sir Honesty." doesn't work very well (limited effect? Less chance of providing the effect?) unless people have seen you do the deeds in question many times over. This is not as true for the path of dread - life isn't fair. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for a PoD follower varies, naturally.

7) There are some actions that can only be attempted if you take appropriate risks. You can't check to see if you enflame your troops without putting your life firmly on the line, for instance. Its not necessarily true that putting yourself more at risk will help that, however - sometimes it will, but sometimes it won't.

8.) There's a GM. It is also assumed that that the "canon" is true unless stated otherwise (which is perfectly permissible in terms of many e vents - the PCs and NPCs in any actual campaign should determine what "truly" happened, but having the king secretly be an evil sorcerer would be a bad thing.)

9) I'm not sure. This game is firmly directed at people who find the premise interesting without me having to sell it as somehow exciting and cool. But good narration and interesting NPCs are important.

10) 3d6+modifiers vs. (Target Number).

11) 3d6 reliably turns up a number between 9-11, and extreme results - either very poor or very good are unlikely. This is good for emphasising that a one in a hundred action really is that difficult.

12) I am not sure. Slow advancement if any, however - the PCs start as some pretty darn competent people.

13) This is about "interesting people doing interesting things", so it really wouldn't be appropriate to be going from medicore to top end of humanity.

14) I'd like to have it inspire respect for those who fought in situations like the one that the game is talking about - Alfred the Great earned that "the Great". There's no heroism in this sense without peril, and there is something truly inspiring about those humans who rise to the occasion.

15) The ability of humanity to do truly extraordinary things. I'm not sure how I want to represent that, but I do want to emphasis that people can do some amazing feats. Nothing overly "cinematic', however. I do intend to take full advantage of the fact RL feats can be quite extreme, so anything that could happen as a feat of human endurance/ability in our world is at least potentially possible (though you may or may not be able to reach it, it is in the game).

16) The ability to tell a tale of "real" heroes in a setting based on the real world - not very much fantasy here. Maybe some.

17) Most games go for either gritty and a real chance of death in a "fair fight" or if about heroes go to the extreme that the heroes somehow survive countless dangers. This is trying to represent how a real chance that you -can- die is also something you can overcome - sure, being shot at is dangerous, but if getting shot at was invariably fatal, we'd have a lot few veterans. Not much archery here (unless something changes), but the metaphor works.

18.) The closest to publishing this is going to get is being put in a pdf.

19) People who like bold heroes with a more "realistic" reality (not just as in low magic and such), and who agree with the line that "the more arduous the struggle, the more glorious the triumph".

[Elennsar]

You want help, but yet you haven't actually written out any mechanics for people to help you with.

A game must have mechanics of some kind.

It does have mechanics of some kind (see above post). It also has a fair amount of fluff and setting building to do before getting to any real details on "what exactly can you do in combat" and the like.

[Parthenon]

First of all, its good that you're answering the 19 questions. Some of your answers are a bit vague still but they are still interesting.

However....

What are the victory conditions to the campaign?

If you were playing in this campaign, what would you be doing to try to win.

I already answered this, your refusal to accept that as an answer is your problem, not mine.

I disagree. Your answers seems to be:

1: Kill enough of them that they are too scared to continue fighting.
2: Make the cost of continuing invading higher than the benefits.
3: ... ?

You then hint that if you show that you are scary you might be able to have a diplomatic solution, but it is very unlikely and limited. Seriously, you have two real straight answers, both of which are very vague.

Some answers I would have come up with are:

1: Create a treaty with a neighbouring kingdom who has a good fleet to protect your shores. (has drawbacks, possibly leading to another campaign)
2: Send a group of soldiers into the invading country to take down the leader(s) of the invasion.
3: Create a treaty with the other country/horde to not continue fighting.
4: Migrate a large section of the population including a large amount of civilisation to get away from the invaders.
5: Kill all the invaders, letting enough go to tell the invaders that they cannot invade safely. Could be best done with a bastardy character.
6: Organise and train a peasant army into one capable of winning a large battle, showing that they can defend the invaders into the future.
7: Create a Hadrian's Wall/Great Wall of China to defend against the invaders.
8, 9, 10 etc.: Create a defence that works against a large battle showing that the defence can be continued without the PCs and Dux's direct influence and aid. The defence can vary based on the player's imagination. Possibilities include a permanent magical storm, large amounts of beach defences, setting up a fleet of your own and so on.

And so on. These are all ways I can see the campaign ending, and all would be a victory. In many ways the second is the one you want to encourage- could be done by defending various villages before finding parts of maps after battles that show how to get there then capturing one of their ships and sailing there. Hmmm... that could be a very cool campaign. However this doesn't work if it is several groups/villages of immigrants landing to take over land.

However, you have done none of this. You may have meant one or more of these, but since you were too vague the only conclusion I can reasonably reach is that you don't really know what sort of victory conditions you want.

It may be my problem that I don't know what you want, but its a problem you caused since your answer sucked, I told you why it sucked and you gave the same sucky answer.

[Elennsar]

You then hint that if you show that you are scary you might be able to have a diplomatic solution, but it is very unlikely and limited. Seriously, you have two real straight answers, both of which are very vague.

Seriously, you want "If you do X, the game ends with you victorious." (if I'm not mistaken), and it is by no means that simple.

You have to beat the barbarians. That may be helped by killing the warlord/s.

It may be my problem that I don't know what you want, but its a problem you caused since your answer sucked, I told you why it sucked and you gave the same sucky answer.

No, I pointed out that it is a perfectly adaquete answer. Your goal is to defeat the barbarians. Will killing the warlords work? It might. What happens with their successors?

If I was designing a computer game where I had to code "IF () THEN (Heroes win).", I'd see a point to naming what exactly you have to trigger.

What is the purpose of spelling out the Way To Win when one of the things that the PCs have to do is find something that works? So the players don't "waste" time trying something that won't work?

[Grek]

How's this for a win condition: Make all the people invading your country leave. Once all of them are dead or have gone to some other country, you win.

[Elennsar]

How's this for a win condition: Make all the people invading your country leave. Once all of them are dead or have gone to some other country, you win.

Not sure why you need to kill all of them, though.

They're barbarians, not suicidal fanatics.

[Grek]

You don't need to kill them all. You just have to get them out of the country. That could be as simple as fighting them untill they all retreat past your borders.