Making a change it was randomly generated one on one games, simple as you like, with two rounds squeezed in. All the results were anonymously allocated to the two leading factions to set up next sessions finale.
Tallying up, my Orc Warband will attempt to perform the ARCANE RITUAL to secure The Grimoire of Grunburg.
So back to the phrase "simple as you like". In all honesty it hasn't always been that way and at time it has detracted a touch to the point where I have to take various steps to try and redress the odd imbalance.
Revisiting the original format it was for one standard one-on-one game and then a multi-player "pit-fight" with reduced warbands. The pit-fights provided double experience and extra cash.
The idea was that this would guarantee two different games a night and allow warbands to develop and progress quicker across the 6 campaign sessions available. What actually happened was that 3 of the 10 warbands, including mine, pulling of mini runs of good early results established an early dominance that then restricted the other guys.
I suppose this can often be a risk with a more narrative campaign, though on the flip-side it does leave you with more room for manoeuvre, but I feel like I tried a little too much. The pit-fights weren't any quicker than a standard game, as Tuesday proved, and often left someone with less of a game.
|HOT-dogs! Get you're fresh HOT-dogs!|
Now admittedly this could all have been avoided by playtesting.....several weeks worth probably or just by limiting one's ambition but .....who would honestly have done any of that?
Experience is the only thing that would have avoided the, thankfully, rather minor problems that were unintentionally caused. As far as I'm aware nobody playing had a horrific time of it and much fun and hilarity was generated. But it goes to show that KISS is often a good starting point.
Keep It Simple Stupid!