I got to play two wonderful missions last night that were submitted via our Mission of the Month system and noticed something I've never even thought about before. All too often we as mission makers are putting the player into a heroic struggle against evil, facing sometimes insurmountable odds.

Granted a few of the themes have suggested in a somewhat stereotypical way that there is a small force going up against a large force, but it's really defined that way by common perception rather than through creativity. What I mean is, if the theme is "hasty ambush", does the player's team have to be the ones doing the ambushing? Does the player's team have to be smaller than the opposing force?

I do not disagree that this is entertaining. It is fun to be the hero or "special forces" that go in and kick some major enemy ass. However, there are other ways to make missions just as entertaining by exploring factors other than just the "destruction" factor.

• Make the players think about how to approach a goal. Rather than giving the goal and how to attack it directly word for word within the briefing, explain a typical brief mission goal in the briefing, but have the player's find out for themselves how to approach it. Provide clues if necessary and keep in mind when making your mission that there are usually more than one way to solve a problem.
• Add friendly forces. Even if they don't do much, make it a presence. Perhaps a Jet flies overhead during your covert stroll through the forest. Perhaps some radio chatter to fill in the otherwise empty ambience. All too often, I feel like I am alone in the mission left to acheive my goal without any help or safety net... something that does NOT happen within any real-life military.
• Don't make success and failure a black & white problem. This holds especially true if the players are smaller in force size. You might give the players a radio to call in airstrikes against the big armored force in stage II of a three-stage mission, but perhaps the radio gets lost or even worse - the airstrike script fails!! In cases like this, it is very annoying to be the player and find that one of the obstacles is now impossible to overcome despite all the hard work getting somewhere. If you follow the first tip above, you will find this easier to solve. Most times, just provide fail-safes or alternatives but without informing the player. Perhaps the airstrike failed, but maybe there is a hidden passage that gives the players a random chance of getting by unnoticed? Perhaps there is a cache of RPGs in a building nearby which looks like a small guard shack with a few enemy bad guys being lazy (and the player is smart enough to investigate)?
• If you think of a mission that seems really cool, think about what it would be like if the player was on the opposite side. If the player in your mission is a "West" player, think if the player(you) was switched now on the "East" side. Without adjusting any parameters of the mission, think if it'd be too easy or too hard. Chances are the "West" side is the opposite (too hard or too easy). Balance both sides even if the players are only capable of playing one side. This opens up your mission to be more easily swayed from success to failure and back again by simple mistakes or other events. For example, in a properly balanced mission, the enemy may get the upper hand for a brief moment but the player shouldn't have any trouble putting in some extra effort to sway it back into their favor. In an unbalanced mission, if the enemy gets the upper hand early on, in most cases there is usually no saving the mission. The mission can be scrapped from that point since balance is so uneven (see example above about losing the radio for an airstrike).

All of these tips above go hand-in-hand. They overlap some of their advice, but that is because they concentrate on the same thing (removing the heroic element from typical mission-making).

If you've been reading thus far and still have no clue as to what I am discussing, I will provide a quick example of what a typical mission-maker might be thinking of and then an example of what the mission-maker should think about while designing his/her mission based on the tips outlined above.

Typical Mission: Destroy the communications tower

• Friendlies: The player's 8-unit SF squad with some light AT rounds and plenty of satchel charges. Two A-10s via airstrike command
• Enemies: Light patrols during players ingress. Large group of armor nearby on guard waypoint (expect player to see them before hitting the tower and call in airstrike) A few Mech squads around tower.
• Player should approach through a forest for maximum cover and climb hill to get good view. Once view established players should call airstrike against armor before attacking tower. Player than attacks mech force with Light AT rounds and approaches with satchels to destroy tower

What Designer should be thinking about based on tips above:

• The friendlies are too few of a force. No miilitary I know of would let a SF team go in without backup against a target as easy as a tower. Ok, maybe if the tower was in the middle of China, was the Premier's main comm with the military and was used to kill kittens by the thousands on a regular basis. Otherwise, an SF team should expect a full force of help if in trouble and have many tools at their disposal. If the target is military, chances are a war is going on. Where are the jets flying around? Where is the radio chatter from the CO or other unit responsible for directing the team?
• Why does the player need to approach through the forest? It sounds logical, but I've read stories where the most logical method is usually the worst method!!! (Too many patrols, etc..) Try opening up the approach options and allow the player some freedom.
• Why does the player need to destroy this large armored force? I mean, I understand why.. (because if they don't the mission is bust because they can't go up against the armor ). What I mean is, why is it so darn difficult? Shouldn't there be a stealthier option? a distraction option? The designer should concern themselves with the thought that the player, once he reaches this point in the mission, might not be capable of performing the specified task.
• How will the player attack the tower? Sure they have light AT rounds, but what if they used them on the armor? How do they attack the mechanized force in that case? Cover all the bases. Make the mech force a bit more mobile. Maybe they go away for awhile at some point. Maybe the crew doesn't sit in the hot APC tank 24/7? Maybe they start in a tent or around a barracks? Maybe they are sleeping?
• This is a biggie: Does the player have to be the SF team? How about putting the players as a patrol group that isn' told there is a SF team and when the bullets start flying they have to decide if they defend the base or search for possibly more SF teams in the area? This option is a bit more difficutly obviously due to scripting considerations, but if the designer imagines they can see if the two sides are atleast balanced or not. If the player has no chance of surviving as a patrol unit.. or rather can easily defeat the SF team, then there is a terrible unbalance in game-play.

I hope that clears up my thoughts alittle. I just wrote this article because I've seen way too many missions follow a stereotypical format and the Missions of the Month is supposed to inspire creativity. I hope these tips inspire mission makers to make more eccentric or non-traditional missions using the themes supplied.