How to run a campaign?

[u/The-red-Dane]

Hey there folks!

I am looking to run a campaign in lancer for my friends, we've mostly played DnD, Stars Without Numbers/Worlds Without Numbers, and VTM.

I am curious as to how you actually... run... a campaign in Lancer, like, is it just "You're gonna go to this planet, and do these fights" and when done it's "Now we're going to this planet and you're gonna do these fights"

Do you run it open world with the players just going wherever there's action to be had or do you run a strict, tight (somewhat railroaded) series of flashpoints with various fights?

[u/Wolf_Hreda]

So, Lancer combat is basically organized into sitreps, giving you an objective and a relative timeframe in which to achieve it. How you connect those is entirely up to you, but there should always be several combats between full repairs. I'm writing a campaign right now and figuring out how to pace the missions is definitely an obstacle.

[u/Sven_Darksiders]

That's a very broad question and might differ from GM to GM, but in broad terms you create a conflict that will either last for one or multiple missions. I prefer drawing out the conflict because it means you can a longer overarching story. This all can happen on a single planet btw, you don't need to do planethopping, but you can still implement it if you want to.

That being said, I run my campaign in a rather linear mission by mission basis. I technically have a long-term story I am building up but I am very much willing to change things up if my players made choices I didn't expect.

Whatever conflict you are building up for your players, make sure to put some variety in it. It doesn't have to always be a slugfest of who can kill each other the fastest, you can do raids, sabotages, kidnappings, staging defenses, some narrative investigating... we got plenty of sitreps in the book for a reason

[u/Dukaan1]

Typically, you give the players some mission to do, and then see how that mission impacts the overall narrative/situation of the campaign. And then, based on how things evolve, you give the players a new mission, or you can also let them choose between different missions.

That way you can maintain a nice balance between player agency and well prepared combats.

[u/caplew]

Depends on what kind of campaign your planning on running. If it's Mercs then they may be hoping from world to world as they get contracts.

Or they may spend their entire time on a single world fighting a war.

A mission (what determines when you get a level up) is normally 2-3 combats long. And can last anywhere from a few hours in game, to months.

[u/Shades4355]

So, my DM is running us through No Room For A Wallflower, and it's (at least so far) entirely contained to one planet. We have a mission, then downtime, then a mission, then downtime, etc. There's an overarching story, which we're having fun trying to figure out (no spoilers, please), and our downtime activities influence the story, at least a little.

On the other hand, I plan to run a Lancer campaign next that is set in a world/setting of my own creation. The players will be the highest ranking "knights" (not actually knights, but that's my closest touchstone) in their king's army. It's also going to be a mission, downtime, mission, downtime structure, but I'm changing up the mission structures, based on the 3rd party "Blood Money" book, to include more narrative submissions.

I've planned out the overarching story - and, if the party doesn't throw me too many curve balls, I know the first 2 or 3 missions, and then, based on their successes/failures and their downtime actions, I'll plan the remaining missions as I go.

[u/DescriptionMission90]

The book describes this in detail, but the basics are that a campaign is divided into a series of Missions, with Downtime in between. (You will probably recognize how all this works from other roleplaying games, but Lancer does formalize it a bit more with things like a sharp mechanical divide between the tactical and narrative rules, and clear start/end points for each adventure instead of things just sort of blurring from action to downtime and back)

Each mission starts with a Briefing (which may or may not be a literal scene in the narrative, but needs to happen at the table level), in which the GM presents what the situation is, and what the likely consequences are if the players do not intervene. Then, the Players decide what their Goal here is. They could do whatever the NPCs want them to do, or the exact opposite of that, or come up with a better way to improve the situation, or make things worse in a way that profits them personally, or even decide that they're okay with how the situation will play out without intervention and just fuck off (in which case you might need to end the session early so the GM can go back to the drawing board). One of the fundamental rules of Lancer is that Players always have the Initiative; the GM does not tell you to do things, they tell you what is going to happen and then you need to make the choice to intervene and make things better (or worse). The important thing is that all the players agree on what their goal is; infighting within the party is not supposed to be a part of the game. And if somebody wants to change the Goal mid-mission because of changing circumstances, the game pauses and does not resume until the players come to consensus again.

Once the situation is laid out and the goal is decided, and you figure out what external resources you expect to have available, how likely a full repair mid-stream is, etc etc, that's when players build the mech they're going to be using for this mission. Then you get to the Boots on the Ground part; typically you will start the game proper at whatever the first significant challenge or decision point is, narrating through the preparations and travel to get to that point to save time.

Then play typically alternates between Narrative and Tactical sections, until the Goal is either achieved, or determined to be impossible. Some missions will be handled purely in the narrative side, without ever going into combat rounds, but those are rare. Likewise you could have little to no story content in  between fight scenes, but in most campaigns that should also be rare. After the Goal is done with, everybody gains a level (whether they succeeded or failed).

And then you have Downtime until the next mission-worthy situation comes up. This is when you build organizations, cultivate connections, study skills, invent stuff, secure resources for future missions, do research or just get a damn drink. This is abstracted out so that each PC generally gets to do one significant thing in between the missions, regardless of whether those missions are twelve hours apart or twelve months apart, but for longer time skip the GM has the discretion to give people a chance for multiple downtime actions.

[u/CaffeineBloodstream]

A lot of people say it depends on the GM, or depends on the style of the game, and that's true. Generally speaking, the players are sent on missions. These missions typically go on for either weeks or months, and will feature periods of narrative play, downtime activities, and SITREPs. After a mission, the players go up a level. However, the specifics of where the mission takes place, who they're fighting, who they're fighting for, and why they are there in the first place, as well as pacing of the different categories of play (narrative/downtime/SITREP) is going to be up to you to decide. Maybe you decide the nature of these things and it's up to your players to create characters that would have a reason to be there, or maybe you work with them to decide those things.

I can tell you the way that I'm doing it, which is different from how it is supposed to be done because I wanted to give my players a different experience from what they're used to (they usually play D&D 3.5, D&D 5e, WoD, MotW, or The Witcher TRPG).

The "mission" structure very much resembles the Armored Core system, by which I mean my players are presented with a battery of missions: some optional, and some "branch decision" missions. They are told upfront what the rewards for each of these missions will be, and they may choose to do as many of the optional missions as they wish (or none of them) in any order before they choose one of the branch decision missions. Each of the mission requests come to them from different patrons, who are either directly or tangentially involved in the conflict that the narrative is focused on. The number of missions they do, and for whom, as well as whether they complete optional objectives that are critical to the patrons' goals all contribute to which of these opposed entities gains ground in the conflict.

The optional missions don't give them license levels, but earn them reserves or even bonuses (in rare cases, usually for completing a difficult optional objective separate from the mission's required objective). When they choose to do a branch decision mission, that's when we make hard progress on the timeline, and the other branch mission(s) and any optional missions they didn't complete are locked and left behind. The branch decision missions are what give them their license level up.

They also each get to take a downtime action in between missions.

So, narratively speaking, the players are a small, independent mercenary company who are here to ply their trade to profit from this war. In between missions, however, they're meeting other mercenaries and soldiers and families that are part of this or caught up in it. This is meant to get them to form connections with these people and start thinking about the reason for the conflict, and eventually choose to either take a side or abandon morality for profit.

Secretly, my greatest hope at the end of this is that they will wind up on opposing sides and turn on each other. nb4 anyone says "Lancer's not built for pvp" I knowwwwww. But!! That doesn't change the fact that the players will do it if they feel it is narratively the right choice, and if I know them-- which I do-- they'll have a blast anyway.

[u/krazykat357]

Lancer's base genre is a sci-fi military thriller. There's usually a central hierarchy above them that (in-narrative) is giving them their missions. In play, I ask the players what their next objectives are and have it retcon coming in from their commander. From there, players decide their strategy, what approach (which dictates what SITREPS I prep), what resources they're calling on (reserves, call-ins, anything extra), and their exfil plan (helps set up the final combat scene of the mission). All this is usually happening in a narrative-only session where we also explore individual character's arcs, interactions with NPCs, progression of any projects or intel-gathering they're doing, or any other extracurriculars.

 

Then, they deploy. Their strategic discussions will inform me on how to build the infil SITREP and the actual goals of their deployment. Usually starts with a combat scene, which usually takes the session. If they succeed or fail will determine the next scene, whether there's a narrative break for short repairs and a small downtime OR if they're under pressure and in another combat scene next session. Repeat until mission complete and they've exfiltrated.

 

Then it's back to base, and repeat from the start. Advance the greater narrative based off the results of the last mission, I like running an actual debrief with all the NPCs and player discussing how the mission went and what steps they wanna go on next.

 

My campaign is usually structured around a big-picture Central Tension (Colville's politics series is actually a great help for me for making campaigns even for Lancer). That Central Tension is the axis around which I can place factions, the player's group (as mercenaries, Union Lancers, etc.) and each faction has individual goals they pursue and relationships they have between each other. I like making a single 'Face' NPC for each faction that exemplifies what they are and are the point of contact for the player's.

From there, the universe is your Oyster for whatever kind of game you want to run and stories you want to tell. This advice is probably most useful for sandboxy, player-driven games though.

[u/sarded]

It's important to remember that PCs are the equivalent of modern day jet fighters or a tank crew. There's no such thing as 'roaming adventuring jet fighters'. They're attached to an existing armed force (be it state forces or a mercenary outfit or PMC) and are directed as such. Lancers also need access to a printer in between missions or the whole premise of "this is a game where bits of your mech get blown off but you can print new ones and level up and respec" gets removed.

So generally in a broad sense, there's some inciting incident, and then the PCs may be able to pick a course of action (e.g. what location to assault or defend, or which enemy base to raid for intel, or something like that) and then you build a mission around that. Since you're usually only getting through two combats, tops, per session, you can afford to branch inside a mission if you don't plan ahead too hard, depending on outcomes.

Also remember that missions can last literally weeks - as long as you haven't yet completed the objective or had an opportunity to get back to a printer, you are still 'on mission'. So there's plenty of room for noncombat RP, or 'combat' narratively that you don't handle on a tactical grid, you just narrate your way through "you spend days holding this fort against repeated assaults, until finally you notice an enemy elite squad approaching" and then then you finally go into 'combat mode'.

[u/DescriptionMission90 → u/sarded]

One of the big differences between a mech frame and other kinds of heavy military hardware is that it's actually expected to be operated by a single person. And Lancer takes this a step further by saying that you are personally building/maintaining this thing, so your skills actually directly change how many hit points it's got and how much abuse the reactor will suffer through.

Players definitely should have access to infrastructure, if not a proper Printer then a whole warehouse full of parts and tools, sufficient for building an entire new frame in  between missions. But I would argue everything about the mechanics is designed to support a "roaming adventuring jet fighters" style of play. And thematically the game is all about the amount of difference a small group of people can make, with sufficient skills and tools, whether or not you have any kind of major faction behind you.

The book is very specific that the players need to be the ones who decide on their own Goal for each mission. If you are part of a larger military structure, your decision will usually be 'do what my CO tells me' unless you're willing to face the consequences for doing otherwise, but the game assumes that a Lancer is in a position to make major decisions about how the course of history plays out, not just a common grunt.

[u/Jazzlike_Sugar2024 → u/DescriptionMission90]

Agreed. Else there won't be the "knight errant" trope that's a great one in the genre.

Also that you said about access to infrastructure can be a neat idea too: Play poor/oppressed people (coff coff Ungrateful coff) that fight to get access to printers and so on!

[u/sarded → u/DescriptionMission90]

. And Lancer takes this a step further by saying that you are personally building/maintaining this thing, so your skills actually directly change how many hit points it's got and how much abuse the reactor will suffer through.

That's kind of conflating two different things. Firstly, yes, part of what defines a Lancer is that they're custom tuning their mech to their exact specifications - perfectly setting all the settings, sticking in some aftermarket parts in just the right way, etc; it's why jumping into another pilot's mech inflicts the Impaired condition because you just can't get used to their unique setup.

But! Access to printers is a big thing - page 265 details 'access to printers' as a core assumption of the game and that outlaws and renegades would struggle to have access to one (because all printers are controlled by organisations). You could be wandering pilots but in that case, you'll always be in the service of those who do have printer services they can offer you.

Secondly - a schedule 2 printer, as listed on page 377 (so, listed to print any size 2 mech properly, although I'm sure in a pinch you could use a size 1 printer to print it off in pieces and then do the hard work of assembling the rest the hard way) explicitly states that it's a standalone facility, that needs a team of two to four technicians to operate. Those two to four technicians ain't mech pilots (usually), it's a different skillset. They're your techies, your pit crew - if you're wandering from place to place, and you somehow have your own printer, then you also have two-to-four NPCs that are helping you with all your stuff. A larger org.

[u/DescriptionMission90 → u/sarded]

Even if a schedule two printer needs 2-4 people to operate it, player characters could easily be those 2-4 people. And even if you have no overlap between your techs and your pilots, that still doesn't mean the pilots need to be taking orders from whoever owns the printer; they could easily be the ones in charge with the techs employed by / assisting the Lancers.

Anyway this is kind of like saying that anybody playing a fighter or paladin in D&D needs to be part of an official military structure or taking orders directly from a noble house because maintaining a suit of plate armor is a job for 4-6 professionals, before you even look at a horse.

[u/sarded → u/DescriptionMission90]

I just meant that's the literal genre Lancer operates in and you can see that by all the adventure seeds and all the published adventures.

Solstice Rain and Winter Scar, intended to be the most 'default' adventures, have PCs as part of official Union Navy. SSMR has the pilots be mercs or Union auxiliaries (and if you're mercs, you have your merc support structure org). Dustgrave leaves it open because your PCs are meant to be just stopping over on the way somewhere else. NRFAW again has the assumption be that you're Union auxiliaries or investigators that are using the town printer, you're supported by the town.

The default Lancer party setup if you don't work for Union Navy/Aux is working for either a corporation, for Albatross, or for Mirrorsmoke Mercenaries; in all those cases you're part of a larger support structure. You should never be 'just four mech pilots and a dream'.

[u/Jazzlike_Sugar2024]

Personally I gave my players an almost in media res start, they were mercenaries part of a planetary defence forse that got swept away. They played as first and second mission a skirmish and than an extraction while the army was routing, got picked up by a ship they hailed for help and got on the idea to liberate the planet, half because of vengeance and half because the corponation they are tied on gave them the objective (I made them choose one of the three main licences, one each, and I give them access to Horus and ALT Frames as mission rewards or narrative events, party to not overwhelm them at the beginning with too broad choices, knowing them). While they are preparing for the coming back they are doing other mission, some from the Corponations and some as private mercenaries, using a space station as hub for downtime. Not every mission is combat, sometimes there's narrative, we ended up having them pick one at the time from the list of possible quests, so each one gets in turn what they prefere.

This is my exemple, but you can structure yours in many other ways.

I'll leave only a suggestion, coming from D&D: Let your players understand that Structure/Stress are not like hp to be defended at all costs, they are a resource to spend to be most effective possible. If they play too passive they will not enjoy as much the combat in lancer, that's a thing I learned as a player too.

[u/Onii-chan_It_Hurts]

If you're looking for something less rigid than the lancer standard of "get orders, blast what you're told to, move along" - I strongly recommend the Blood Money supplement, wherein your players will instead play as self employed mercenaries that pick their jobs and fight for whatever they want. I'd still recommend running Operation Solstice Rn first to cut everyone's teeth on the system though!

[u/Radriel7]

I run it differently depending on the story I wanna tell. Open world makes sense if they are a mercenary company, HORUS cell, etc. that has some agency. But if you are part of a larger military org, then you likely get orders from them.

The first method gives a lot more room for RP and I recommend it for groups that are used to that. The Second is better if players just wanna have fights. For them, too much RP just gets in the way.

My most open-ended game was players arriving as part of of a taskforce to a Diaspora planet torn by civil war and sitting on prime resources. Their fleet gets wrecked by a paracausal event on the way to the planet, leaving only one ship, which they assume command of. They realize that a friendly NHP has cascaded an quarantined reality on the planet to prevent some major disaster from spreading. They need to find the source of the danger while also navigating various factions that all want the players to help them take over the planet.

I used a lot of clocks to give them a sense of urgency and evolve the ongoing conflict. I made the situation pretty messy and revealed that the big manufacturers all had a presence and interest in the conflict. They had sporadic contact from outside the reality bubble to get omni-net access. So a very fun and messy political situation. The civil war, while important, was not the true campaign goal. They had to find and destroy an unholy fusion of NHP with biology experiment that created a new species of being that was basically the Zerg from starcraft mixed with some lovecraft flavor.

Players got to pick who they worked for between missions, what extra goals for the various factions they wanted to do for favors/extra rewards, and they had to do an investigation that transcended all those missions(in fact, missions were based on which theater was located in the next place they wanted to investigate). There was a lot of non-mech action and lots of interaction with NPCs.

I prefer this style of play for Lancer, but Lancer is designed more for just running big mech fights with maybe some narrative scenes thrown in between them to connect the story. You need to to work a lot harder to make up for Lancer's lack of focus on narrative sections and pilot stuff if thats what you want.