Campaign House Rules After the Battle: Draws, Rivers, and Better Scenario Clarity
We had one of those very relatable post-battle campaign chats: the kind where, the morning after a game, we start replaying decisions in our heads and suddenly realize that one small rules gap can have pretty big narrative consequences.
This time the discussion was about how we count VP in a campaign battle against NPC forces, and whether the result we had recorded should maybe actually have been a draw.
The draw problem
Stas kicked it off by pointing out that we never fully settled how we convert VP into a campaign result. That immediately matters, because in the rules a draw is not really a “soft loss” in a forgiving way — in some ways it is actually just as bad as losing, or even worse.
Why? Because in both cases the attacker withdraws, but after a defeat the attacker may choose where to retreat, while after a draw they do not get that choice.
That led us to a pretty interesting conclusion: maybe this is simply something we need to polish in our campaign framework, because the default outcome structure feels a bit awkward for the kind of narrative play we want.
Stas suggested that maybe a defeat should mean a retreat back to the nearest stronghold or village. We really like this kind of thinking, because it keeps the campaign moving while also making the map situation feel logical and grounded in the story.
At the same time, and very much in the right spirit, Stas also said that while he would of course happily keep the win, he was totally open to changing the result if that made more sense narratively. That is exactly the kind of campaign energy we want to keep: competitive enough to care, but flexible enough to prioritize the story and fairness.
A possible fix: count the absolute result against NPCs
Michał proposed what sounds like a very practical solution: when fighting NPCs, we should probably count the absolute result, meaning simply whether it was a win or a loss rather than getting tangled in a more ambiguous VP conversion.
His reasoning was that in NPC battles we are usually looking for a straightforward outcome anyway, and treating them as clear victories or defeats feels fairer and easier to manage.
That idea landed well, and Stas said he was fine with it.
Honestly, we like this as a campaign tool. Not every layer of a narrative system needs maximum granularity if that granularity creates confusion instead of interesting decisions. Sometimes the cleanest house rule is the best one.
Scenario knowledge before the battle
The second big point from the conversation was also a good one: players should know in advance what scenario, or at least what pool of possible scenarios, will be used for a given battle.
That matters a lot for list-building and planning. Stas gave a very concrete example: if he had known there would be a river on the table, he definitely would have brought more shooting and artillery.
And that feels completely fair to us. In a campaign, uncertainty can be fun, but it should create drama, not blindside people out of making meaningful strategic choices. If terrain or scenario rules are central to the battle, then knowing that ahead of time lets players prepare in a way that feels both tactical and thematic.
So this is another takeaway for future rounds: when we set up a battle, we should communicate the scenario context more clearly before armies are locked in.
Did we make the river too gentle?
The river itself became a whole side discussion, and a very good one.
During the game, we had jointly ruled that the river would count as difficult terrain rather than dangerous terrain. At the time, that felt like the right call, because the river’s movement effect already made it a meaningful obstacle.
Looking back, though, Stas pointed out that this may have taken some of the river’s “teeth” away. Narratively, a rushing stream probably should be more than just inconvenient — it should be genuinely hazardous. If the battlefield features a wild current, there is a strong argument that some unlucky troops should simply get swept away.
We think that is a great observation. It is also a nice example of how campaign terrain can do more than just decorate the table. A dangerous river changes planning, deployment, and point allocation. As Stas noted, if the attacker knows the crossing is truly lethal, they need to plan for a points surplus and approach the battle differently. That is exactly the kind of strategic pressure that makes campaign battles memorable.
So while we still think the call we made in the moment was reasonable, we also agree that in future we should seriously consider using deadlier rivers when the narrative supports it.
Where we landed
So after this little rules post-mortem, our current direction looks something like this:
- for NPC battles, using a simpler absolute win/loss result may be the fairest option,
- we should define retreat outcomes more clearly in campaign terms,
- players should know the scenario or scenario pool before the battle,
- and rivers should sometimes be allowed to be properly terrifying.
This is exactly the kind of behind-the-scenes campaign tinkering we enjoy. It is not flashy, but it is what makes the next game better. Every little clarification helps the campaign feel more coherent, more strategic, and more alive.
And maybe most importantly: these conversations are half the fun. The battle ends on the table, but the campaign keeps going in chat the next morning.