Skirmish games- Army lists VS Free character creation

[The Devourer]

I'm in the process of writing rules for a skirmish game and have reached the stage where i need to write rules for creating warbands. I was originally going to go with set army lists for each force which gave you a max and min number of each type of units and a faction specific armoury. However recently i've been looking at some RPGs and they gave me the idea of having free character creation. This would work by giving a list of base stats for different creatures as well as a long list of all items available with the game ancd allowing people to build whatever they like. Since I want to keep the major faction within the game I was thinking I would also include optional conditions which restrict choice which if fulfiled give bonuses. Which of these would you prefer to use?

Also, when looking at getting into skirmish games which features do you look for in a rules set?

Thanks
The devourer.

[StygianBeach]

The mordheim warband creation system is good. Warcanto did something similar where you could choose abilities for your hero. I like a little RPG in a Skirmish game, just remember to point cost.

It may not be balanced, but at least we can pretend the opponent had an equal shot when we win.

I like a system that is not too complicated, but I dislike it when stats are simplified too much.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

In my experience it really depends on the type of game you want to create, which can be heavily influenced by your background.

If there are distinct factions in the background then I find that army lists are better, but in a more open world with lots of cross-cultural exchange and open commerce, say like Star Wars for example, army lists tend to feel very restrictive. You might instead have guidelines, indicating that relatively few of a given species are present in such and such areas, or that profession abc is dominated by species xyz, and leave it up to players to build accurate or themed warbands.

You could also have each warband belong to only one alignment, and have each race with alignment restrictions, such that there is also overlap. For example, you might have the very simplified "good/neutral/evil" alignment scheme where elves, centaurs, and humans fall under "good", humans, orcs, and centaurs fall under "neutral", and humans, orcs and undead fall under "evil." Then anyone can take humans, but only good warbands can take elves while only evil warbands can take undead. Orcs and centaurs fit into two categories. Of course I would recommend something more complex than just the three-tiered system with only 5 races, but it gets the idea across.

[StygianBeach]

You could also have each warband belong to only one alignment, and have each race with alignment restrictions, such that there is also overlap. For example, you might have the very simplified "good/neutral/evil" alignment scheme where elves, centaurs, and humans fall under "good", humans, orcs, and centaurs fall under "neutral", and humans, orcs and undead fall under "evil." Then anyone can take humans, but only good warbands can take elves while only evil warbands can take undead. Orcs and centaurs fit into two categories. Of course I would recommend something more complex than just the three-tiered system with only 5 races, but it gets the idea across.

That idea is great. Like!

You could choose a faction which would make certain elements available. Like Eastern Barbarian, which would give you Light horse, heavy horse archers, etc... then add in moral alignment like Evil, which would give you access to Humans, Orcs, Skellies etc... So you could have Evil Eastern Barbarians, Neutral Eastern Barbarians, Good Eastern Barbarians.

Actually, I think my idea would be too complicated...

[IJW]

Without knowing more about whether this is a generic rules-set or a background-specific one there's no way to give you a good answer.

[The Devourer]

Its background specfic. The reason I ask is that the setting contains a small number of distinct factions however warbands which are seperate from any of the main organisations could be any kind of mix. While single species groups are more common (since characters are unlikely to join with creatures that feed on/compete with them), most species aren't at war and live in similar areas where non violent interaction is common so mixed warbands are certainly possible.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

Sounds to me then that perhaps the best warband creation system, based on your background, is for each player to choose his species and perhaps then have up to 25% of his list taken as allies from neighboring friendly species.

[neXus6]

Personally I like as much freedom as possible in creation but it does depend on the number of models per side a bit.

For 15-20, or more, models per side like Mordheim can get up to I have no problem with fixed stats for everything and choice coming from warrior and weapon choices.

At slightly smaller games, 8-10 ish, a few henchmen/low power mooks with fairly fixed stats being led by characters with more customisation be it stat changes or just a choice of a few skills.

And then at really small games, 5 models or less per side, I like more choice. It doesnt have to be building the character from the ground up, you can have "archetypes" or stat ranges for different types of character along with a choice of skills, traits and weaknesses (I'm particularly fod of systems which let you take negative skills).

If a game only had a single or a pair of main characters per player then you could allow for ground up customisation or randomised stats but the previous use of archetypes or choosing from a couple of different stat lines can help to get games going a bit faster.

[The Devourer]

I'm considering having an army list style set up but with a large range of customisation within each choice. For example a human list may have maybe 3 or 4 different human profiles representing humans of different abilities (e.g. hero, veteran, recruit and specialists) and then a wide range of option for wargear and special abilities that specialise them into their role.

[neXus6]

Certainly not a bad way of doing things in my opinion.

If I remember right AE: Bounty uses that kind of system and it gives a lot of room for creative freedom.

[nalinali]

I think those dota games could put both of sides in a skimish. I love such games because they tend to involve in the fast-paced combat.

[Easy E]

I would create a bit of a mix.

1. I would have very specific warband lists.
2. Then, I would make "special" armories for heroes with powers and abilities that normal grunts can't get.

That way, you would have a warband list with RPG light customization abilities.

[AndrewGPaul]

If there's a specific background, then I would definitely prefer that the rules direct players into making forces representative of that background. It doesn't need to be a traditional "2-6 Tactical Squads at 100 points each; 0-2 Assault Squads at 120 points each". For example, the bit at the beginning of Codex: Space Marines explaining the make-up of a Codex Battle Company is an army list - you don't need a Force Organisation Chart to be able to work out what goes into a Space Marine army.

If the theme of your game is varied warbands rather than rigidly organised military units, then a "build your own" approach combined with good descriptions of what makes a proper warband is the way to go. Think the force lists in Rogue Trader rather than the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines.

[The Devourer]

Thanks for the suggestions.

I would create a bit of a mix.

1. I would have very specific warband lists.
2. Then, I would make "special" armories for heroes with powers and abilities that normal grunts can't get.

That way, you would have a warband list with RPG light customization abilities.

This is the system i'm leaning towards. I'm planning on having force specific armouries and different types of characters have different restrictions on what they can take (for example while the armour may contain a range of ranged and combat weapons, heavy weapon experts are limited to taking the biggest ranged weapons) and then having a number of relevant skills each character can purchase. Obviously the leader of the warband would have much more freedom being able to take any weapon (aside from possibly the most unique ones) and having a big range of skills. This would allow a big diversity within classes. One assasin could have Combat skills, short range weapons and melee weapons while an assasin from the same slot in the list could have marksman skills, camo and sniper.

Would having this much freedom on all characters be too much? i'd like to keep the RP aspect fairly large but it is a wargame and I don't want the RP element to get in the way. I know how tedious it can be too make a rp character and I don't want to put people off.

If the theme of your game is varied warbands rather than rigidly organised military units, then a "build your own" approach combined with good descriptions of what makes a proper warband is the way to go. Think the force lists in Rogue Trader rather than the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines.

Could you explain how the RT force lists worked as i've never had the chance to read the RT book?

If I do go for an army list it is going to be fairly open. There certainly won't be any unlocking options like WHFB. More likely it will just be a max and minimum number next to each character type.

[AndrewGPaul]

Basically, Rogue Trader had rules for putting together a squad of Space Marines, Imperial Army, an Inquisitor or whatever, but there were no concrete rules for higher-level units. You had to read the background and make an appropriate force.

[Easy E]

Thanks for the suggestions.Would having this much freedom on all characters be too much? i'd like to keep the RP aspect fairly large but it is a wargame and I don't want the RP element to get in the way. I know how tedious it can be too make a rp character and I don't want to put people off.

I would leave 1-3 "special" characters per warband that could have this level of customization, while mooks were static.

So maybe:
1. Leader
2. Specialists
3 Sub-leader/NCO/Champion

Then 3-15 mooks would be a good skirmish size.

[The Devourer]

Ok thanks. So basic guys should just get a choice of a few set weapon builds- e.g, Short range guns and melee weapons or Long range gun. That would certainly make it easier from a desgin perspective since I was struggling to come up with that many option for basic grunts.