PDA

View Full Version : No of players in a campaign



colmarekblack
13-06-2007, 09:12
What is the best number of players/gangs for a necromunda campaign? I have four players at the moment but I feel its not enough for a decent campaign.

Also can anyone tell me the WD issues with the staff necro campaign?

Angelwing
13-06-2007, 13:02
More players the better to be honest. 4 is enough for a small campaign and can be finished with a 'lord of the spire' game.
Dont know about your WD's though. I can remember two staff campaigns over the years.

Catferret
13-06-2007, 14:25
I think 6 is the minimum for a good, varied campaign. Ideally one player for each House then any others can duplicate or add Outlanders.

It provides variety and means that you don't have a tonne of Spyrers and Delaques.

Major_Gilbear
13-06-2007, 18:55
Also can anyone tell me the WD issues with the staff necro campaign?
Yup, they are 302, 303 and 304. The campaign was called "Iron Lords".

Anyway, number of players depends in part on how good you all are at arranging games and how efficient your Arbitrator is. Six players is pretty managable, but eight or ten will lead to one or two gangs getting in more games than everyone else. This leads to them becoming too hard for everyone else to catch up.

BTW, I note you're in Brum; whereabouts are ya?

colmarekblack
13-06-2007, 19:17
Yup, they are 302, 303 and 304. The campaign was called "Iron Lords".

Anyway, number of players depends in part on how good you all are at arranging games and how efficient your Arbitrator is. Six players is pretty managable, but eight or ten will lead to one or two gangs getting in more games than everyone else. This leads to them becoming too hard for everyone else to catch up.

BTW, I note you're in Brum; whereabouts are ya?

For the record I'm the arbitrator of the campaign whilst taking part in it at the same time, if that makes sense.

I'm in the Kings Norton Area so I go to the Birmingham store in the Bullring.

Eazy-O
14-06-2007, 09:49
Well...

My campaign started out with 2, me being the arby. An old player joined in after a few years of not playing. Another gaming buddy joined soon after. Two more joined in after a week or two. One of the local gaming store employee/owners joined after he saw us playing there, pulling another one in with him. Another four joined up somewhere along the way.

The gangs were, in order of appearance:
Me - Escher
S'tan - Delaque
Berlec - Goliath
James - Goliath
Kip - Van Saar
Novi - Cawdor
Juro - Scavvies
Buffo - Squats (Van Saar)
KarlFranz - Enforcers
Khyan - Orlocks
Ramone - Orlocks
Ales - Redemptionists

That's 12, all in all. I was trying to arbitrate it all, but i couldn't keep up. Honestly, i'm too busy to deal with 11 other people, 7 of them who've never played before. I started out by writing battle and status reports, making a website for us and even checking each and every roster after battles but i couldn't keep up. Eventually the campaign died down as the Squat player had more games under his belt than anyone else (2 per week, every week) and a rating of around ~3500, while some of the others were beaten to a sub 1000 pulp and my gang was at ~1800. Not that i've been seriously beaten, i was actually doing quite well.

In conclusion, you should have some sort of a limit on how many games can be played and prepare enough material beforehand, if you don't have that much time. I'd say 6 house gangs along with 2 outlanders would be quite close to ideal... Less is fine, but with more... I dunno, really depends on your time and enthusiasm.

Chimpeh
14-06-2007, 10:58
I have a quick question with regard to this topic. At present there are four of us taking part in a campaign which is about to start soon. I've been thinking however that four gangs is pretty small and was going to suggest to the other participants that we each have two gangs. Anyone ever tried running more than one gang, succesfully, during a campaign? Is it worthwhile?

I was thinking that two gangs each would help the to keep the individual gang ratings fairly small [play one game ea. week with alternate gangs] and players could switch their second gang around with an opponent during the campaign to help maintain a healthy interest.

Is this a good or bad idea? :confused:

Catferret
14-06-2007, 12:59
The problem with using multiple gangs is you forget what skills and equipment everyone has. To be honest 4 players isn't that bad really. 6 is better but 4 still works. There's less book keeping involved for the Arbitrator too.

Eazy-O
14-06-2007, 13:21
2 gangs each, i dunno... sounds like you'll forget skills&equipment, and it's just not the same... Plus, some gangs will never fight against some, which is kinda weird.

We've had 2 and 3 player campaigns as well, and they were just as fun. :)

Major_Gilbear
14-06-2007, 17:26
@colmarekblack:

Ah, not a million miles away then; I'm in Edgbaston. :)

And yes, it does make sense, heh.

About having a few gangs get too powerful, you'll see the same thing happened to HiveNet in that GW staff campaign. You can (as the Arbitrator) try and knock them down a bit with a good scenario, but overdoing it might result in those players feeling they are being "punished" for doing well. Fun is the key, so get a few underdogs and a special scenario to help out when you knock those gangs down! That way, others get to play as well and get a bit more experience to help them out too. Also, it feels less like the Arbitrator reigning the top players in.

Good luck with your campaign BTW, don't forget to tell us what happens :p

@Chimpeh:

What Catferret said! Also, if one of a player's gangs does well and the other poorly, what incentive would there be for them to play the weaker one? I mean, ppl play for fun (mostly!), so trying to make a gang successful has appeal; on the other hand, playing a gang that isn't doing well when when you have a better alternative also progressing is demoralising (and not fun). Such a situation might lead to cookie-cutter lineups too (it is also easier to remember who has what in each gang then).

Start with one gang each, especially if you are inexperienced players. You could still allow players whose gang takes too much of a beating to retire them and choose another House.

colmarekblack
14-06-2007, 18:51
@ Major Gilbear

May not be able to run it at all. You apparently have to book to play a specialist game on Vets night at Birmingham. No idea why:wtf: and the manager has to approve it, as if they don't have enough to do.

Major_Gilbear
14-06-2007, 23:24
Weird. One of the main reasons I don't game in GW stores TBH; the myriad silly rules imposed on the players by the stores. I know not all are like that, and I appreciate some of the rules are for valid reasons, but still. You're better off playing with friends at someone's house I feel.

Having said all that, I know for a fact that at least some of the staff play Necro (chap called John there plays Goliaths I think), so if you could talk them into joining in, you might find that some of those obstacles evaporate...?

colmarekblack
15-06-2007, 13:49
Weird. One of the main reasons I don't game in GW stores TBH; the myriad silly rules imposed on the players by the stores. I know not all are like that, and I appreciate some of the rules are for valid reasons, but still. You're better off playing with friends at someone's house I feel.

Having said all that, I know for a fact that at least some of the staff play Necro (chap called John there plays Goliaths I think), so if you could talk them into joining in, you might find that some of those obstacles evaporate...?

Alas but thats the problem I have no room at home and my friend has the same problem.

Is this the same John with the unfinished Tatto on his leg? if so I can't stand him, he's the one who told me that I needed to book in advance

Starwolf
16-06-2007, 01:02
Yeah we just finished a 3 player campaign here. It was pretty good, but I can definitely see the advantage of having more people.

12... I can't even imagine it.