The Forge Archives

Hi all,

I'm interested in your thoughts on miniatures in rpgs, and possible new directions to take rpgs+miniatures in.

Some background:
I first became intersted in rpgs when I was @ 10 yrs old and saw a picture of an orc mini in a Ranger Rick or Boys' Life or something along those lines. I've always been a minis junkie, even after my taste in rpgs changed from DnD dungeon crawls to more scene based/character developing rpgs. I just shuffled my interests to more miniatures wargaming, seperate from the rpging.

A couple of weeks ago, my 8 yr old daughter was visiting, and I decided to introduce her to rpgs. We visit regularly by phone, and one of the regular activities is making up stories for each other or together. I figured rpgs were a next step.

She was having none of it, at least in terms of rules and sheets, and so on. The basic DnD boxed set I bought to use was completely uninteresting to her except for the minis and maps. I tried out Shadows, and the storytelling was okay, but no especial interest developed ( I'll chalk that up to Shadows needing at least three people to really utilize the full re-roll rules).

OTOH, I'd picked up some random fantasy and sf minis strictly because I liked them. These came out the following day, and we both had a good time playing with them, making up stories and characteristics on the fly. We also played Politics by other Means ( the Engle's miniatures rules based on his The Matrix Game), and roleplaying type play occured also.

Now, I know that one trend in rpgs has been to move away from the use of minis, especially in a miniatures wargaming sort of way. I'm wondering if anyone is thinking of going in the opposite direction, that is, really employing minis. For my daughter, it seemed as if the transition from other toys to roleplaying type stories was really enhanced by their use. I'm also trying to think of rules structure somewhat beyond traditional minis wargaming type rules ( beyond simple move/shoot/etc).

Anyone have thoughts on this, even tangential ones? I've been trying to come up with some stuff. I'm tending to think of something I can only describe as "village gaming" or "countryside gaming". I'd kind of describe it as a cross between model railroading and minis gaming and rpging.

Any other minis lovers out there with ideas?
k-bob

Quote from: komradebobAnyone have thoughts on this, even tangential ones? I've been trying to come up with some stuff. I'm tending to think of something I can only describe as "village gaming" or "countryside gaming". I'd kind of describe it as a cross between model railroading and minis gaming and rpging.

I had not previously been into miniatures much, but I was intrigued by discussion of them, and even had thoughts about running a miniatures-based campaign some time last year.  I used them centrally in my Conan D20 convention game.  Here are some thread references:

Real Color (March 5, 2003)
Conan Test Run (April 16, 2004)
Conan Test Run Results (June 16, 2004)
Gaming with Miniatures (August 2, 2004)

The first of these threads was inspirational for me.  For a time, I talked with my players about running a miniatures-based game.  It would have to have a fixed setting.  I was imagining a campaign like "Court of the Goblin King".  It would be seasonal with each session being some holiday or event where a bunch of people gathered in the court.  Character creation would start with the selection of a miniature, like vision cards in Everway.  Rather than making a character and then searching vainly for a miniature which looks vaguely like it, you should start with the miniature and create a character around it.  Somehow momentum on this got lost, but I'm still fond of the idea.

John:
Thanks for the threadlinks-

A few thoughts-
Pick the mini first:
I'm not familiar with Everway. Was that the WotC game that had some sort of fantasy pics that acted as inspiration jumpoffs? I heard something about it but never saw the rules firsthand. But if I understand correctly, yes, that is sort of what I'm shooting for.

I find that starting with the minis is a vastly different sort of feel than starting with a rules system/setting, then working backwards to make the minis fit that. Several people in the threads you linked also seemed to indicate that as well. I'm trying tto figure outwhat implcations that has for design.

Cut scenes-
This is something I'd like to work in also, and is sort of where my thinking is taking a left turn from traditonal minis battlegames. I'm kind of looking for a way to get a "meanwhile, back at the ranch..." or a "Later that day..." effect.

Terrain is a character too-
Mike Holmes (IIRC) in one of the threads mentioned his son busting out some dungeon tiles as a surface to play with their minis. I've personally been looking at some of the fold up house/castle models out there ( like the Villages on the Cheep line). Those physical objects have a certain importance to the idea, too, but it is still kind of unformed. I do recognize that the choice of terrain has an effect on play, just as the choice of minis does. I mean that differently from the trad " Crenellations give a -5 to hit mod" sort of way also.

Village Gaming:
Maybe a better way of describing this would be "sets" in the movie/ tv show sense of the word. I'm not sure how model railroaders describe this effect on their tables. From what I've seen of model rr display tables, there are often a series of vignettes- say a small town, an industrial area, a bridge over a river, a tunnel, some wilderness, maybe an urban area. Thes things all exist on the model rr at once. Each vignette area is in scale and well developed, but representative of a certain aspect related to railways. The areas of each vignette are typically seperated enough to give each an identity, but don't necessarily correspond to realworld distances from one another, nor does each vignette attempt to cover all aspects of its setting.

That effect is what I'm kind of looking for for minis gaming. The "set" aspect is a bit different from model rrs though. With them, buildings tend to be complete and in proper ratio to the train. For "village gaming" the important aspect is that they are big enough for the appropriate amount of play space exist for the action that takes place there. The secondary aspect is that they bear some directional relationship to other sets. Big enough for the action means that if a bunch of wandering around the King's Great Hall, Private Chamber, and the Castle Garden are what's important, each will have room to move the figs. The rest of the castle may be unnecessary (riffing off the Goblin King idea). Directional relationship means that if the old abandoned temple where the baddies are hiding is to the north of the king's castle, it will have a model some where due "north". The size of the temple isn't based on actual dimensions, but on visual cues and the need to have figures move around on that "set". It might be vastly bigger if the temple is to be a "dungeon", or smaller, if only one main scene is to be played out there. It will exist far enough away on the game table ( or living room floor, etc) to indicate that it isn't in the same "vignette area" as the Goblin King's Castle Main Hall, but only really far away if there are other vignette areas between the two ( I mean, really, isn't a monster infested forest or river important here?).

This style of layout, however, plays hell with traditional mins wargaming rules, which are generally set up with consistent move rates/firing ranges in mind. I suppose maps could be used ( I do see a value in them,actually) but that could take away from some of the minis goodness.
Maybe some sort of board game approach? Roll how many real world minutes you spend crossing "The Woods of Doom", or draw a random encounter when crossing? Maybe moving your figures to another vignette area automatically shifts to a scene in another, unrelated. vignette area, creating the "Meanwhile, back at the ranch..." effect?

This also sort of puts me to thinking about something like Universalis with a lot of physical/minis related gimmicks added on. Anyone have experience with that?

BTW- John,
I'm curious what sorts of things you were thinking of doing with your Court of the Goblin King setup. I'd like to hear more about it, especially since it reminds me of that old movie with David Bowie in it...

Chris Weeks posted a little while back about mixing Universalis and Lego (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12458&highlight=universalis+lego); I'm not sure how far he carried the idea past the initial thread, but it seems closely related to what you're thinking about here.

Frank Filz (and others of us who have gaming and Lego as hobbies) has talked from time to time about making a Lego RPG; that would also be similar to what you're talking about, I suspect.

Mostly just offering a couple more points of interest.

James

James:
Actually, that's fairly close, although I've never caught the Lego bug.

Out of curiosity, where do things go storywise after the stuff has been assembled? I got the impression that a lot of the rules ideas from the thread were about distributing the blocks more than the "adventure".

Bob

Quote from: komradebobJames:
Actually, that's fairly close, although I've never caught the Lego bug.

Out of curiosity, where do things go storywise after the stuff has been assembled? I got the impression that a lot of the rules ideas from the thread were about distributing the blocks more than the "adventure".

I don't know; that thread is, I think, all the discussion Legoversalis has had.  At a guess, though, I would say the reason the discussion focused on rules for distributing blocks is because Universalis already has strong rules for building the story.

James

Hmm, very interesting topic. I like the ideas of where you're going, they would fit some of what I have thought about in terms of a LEGO based RPG (which would definitely start with "pick the mini first" or more like "build the mini first").

Model Railroading is a great thing to look at here because they do tend to focus on the essential things to set the scene, which would be important in any sort of mini based RPG. They have a term "selective compression" which is useful also, that term means that the scale of a building is reduced, instead of a 20 story building, you have a 6 story building, instead of a 1000' warehouse with 20 truck bays, you have a 200' warehouse with 4 truck bays.

Chris Weeks is trying to develop a LEGO based game that involves building so that's part of where the LEGOversalis was going.

In my youth, I did run an adventure in something aproaching the style you're suggesting. I had a bunch of friends over to my house (normally we played at MIT) so I had all my miniatures plus model railroading stuff. I took a table and covered it with scenery and monsters and then the players spent a quite enjoyable several hours clearing the place out. Based on that experience, I think you'll find that real scale isn't important. Just use the ranges and movement rates from the game as printed (most D&D dungeons and buildings are much larger than they would be in real life anyway - coridors in real castles are not even 5' wide let alone the traditional 10' of D&D).

For separation of scenes, just declare they're separate. You could impose a travel time between them (LEGOwise, Chris has suggested having multiple "oceans" for the Pirate Game (http://www.io.com/~sj/PirateGame.html) and allow ships to travel between, perhaps spending a turn or something "in transit." Actually, the Pirate Game may be a good example of a miniatures based RPG in the sense you are talking about. It's certainly a good example of just letting the scale be what it is (some of the ships are larger than the islands - the one concession I make to "reality" where the ships should be smaller than the islands is that when two players are interested in shooting each other and there's an island between them, I eyeball things and if it looks like they should be blocked by the island, they are, even if technically they could trace a path from one part of their ship to one part of the other without touching the island).

Frank

One edition of The Way, the Truth, and the Dice includes rules for a miniatures role playing game using and based on Precious Moments figurines.

Not being into either miniatures or Precious Moments I paid it little mind, but it might have some ideas.

--M. J. Young

This fall when I was in France for 3 weeks, I saw a line of plastic fantasy-historical figurines for children that looked really cool.  I briefly entertained the idea of buying a dozen or so of them to bring home, to use as PCs and NPCs in a historical game I was considering running.  I planned to use them in John's "figurine first, then the character mode."  

The cool thing about these figures is that they were 3-4 inches tall, painted well and quite handsome overall.  The size would have made wargaming with them difficult, but I think that small spaces (inns, ballrooms, etc) could still be done with them.  I think they'd add mostly color to the game -- but, oh, what color they would add!  The figures were all over the place -- department stores, museum gift shops, even a corner store or two.  They were about 4 Euros a pop, so a decent collection would be kind of spendy, but way cool.  Most of the figures were historical figures -- knights in livery, men-at-arms, ladies in formal dress, etc.  There were a few fantasy figures -- wizards, dragons (not to scale), etc.  

I don't know if these are available in the US, or what they would cost.

Lee:
I've seen those figures. They run $4-5 for single figures and $10-14 for mounted figures. I forget the name, something starting with "sch-", Scheidel, scheidler, something like that.

If I didn't already have a bunch of 25-28mm figures, I'd definitely blow some cash on those figures. Especially the dwarf king and the skeleton warrior.

Hmm, I checked out that christian wargame. I'm not sure how you win if the other fellow's figures all go to heaven first, but perhaps it has something to do with conversion and saving souls? I did like the rating system, and the figure forward approach.

Thanks for the tip on the model railroad terminology. I always wondered what the word for that method was.

I like the "in transit" effect from the pirate game, though I do think I'm sort of stuck on an idea to cutting to another set as a rule somehow before coming back. Something I'll muddle over some more.

BTW, can anyone think of a better word than "set or "vignette" to describe the small areas where events take place?

Robert

Quote from: komradebobPick the mini first:
I'm not familiar with Everway. Was that the WotC game that had some sort of fantasy pics that acted as inspiration jumpoffs? I heard something about it but never saw the rules firsthand. But if I understand correctly, yes, that is sort of what I'm shooting for.

Exactly.  Picking the mini first probably just means some sort of flexible point system, so you can arrange to have appropriate traits.  One thing I was considering was having a voting system for deciding on an Appearance / Style rating.  i.e. The different players all vote to determine what Appearance rating it should have (which should also motivate better painting).  

Quote from: komradebobThis style of layout, however, plays hell with traditional mins wargaming rules, which are generally set up with consistent move rates/firing ranges in mind. I suppose maps could be used ( I do see a value in them,actually) but that could take away from some of the minis goodness.  Maybe some sort of board game approach?  Roll how many real world minutes you spend crossing "The Woods of Doom", or draw a random encounter when crossing?

I think the minis would have to have a place for a given scene -- i.e. where your miniature is placed has to have meaning for the system, or there will be very little point of having the minis as far as the system is concerned.  But there's lots of scene change options.  One would be an ordered placing:  i.e. when you change scenes, some mechanic determines the order in which players can put down their minis, which results in a new arrangement.  

Another option to consider is having ranges or areas for non-combat effects.  i.e. The Winter Queen has an aura which affects everyone within range 4 of her, perhaps.  

Quote from: komradebobBTW- John,
I'm curious what sorts of things you were thinking of doing with your Court of the Goblin King setup. I'd like to hear more about it, especially since it reminds me of that old movie with David Bowie in it...

That would be Labyrinth.  I was thinking mostly that I wanted an excuse to have a setting where a variety of creatures including cool-looking monsters could interact in a non-combat fashion.  Now, there would also be fights, but it would probably be limited or ritualized in some way.  There would be a backstory, but each session I was imagining would always be in the court itself.  Each session would be a season apart, so the players would each get an update of information and then various people would interact at the party to find out what was going on, make deals, count coup, and so forth.

QuoteOne thing I was considering was having a voting system for deciding on an Appearance / Style rating. i.e. The different players all vote to determine what Appearance rating it should have (which should also motivate better painting).

The link in MJ Young's post works on a very similar system. That seems to make a lot of sense, when taking design from a "figures first" approach. I'll stash that one in my brain for future use.

Incidently, my actual play experience with PboM involved only one or two completely painted figures per side, and mostly unpainted figures. The painting definitely impacted interest, with the painted figures recieving a more "roleplay" type interest from both myself and my daughter.

Do unpainted figures constitute mooks? There's an interesting thought...

QuoteI think the minis would have to have a place for a given scene -- i.e. where your miniature is placed has to have meaning for the system, or there will be very little point of having the minis as far as the system is concerned. But there's lots of scene change options. One would be an ordered placing: i.e. when you change scenes, some mechanic determines the order in which players can put down their minis, which results in a new arrangement.

I like the ordering mechanic. That is something I hadn't thought of. I guess I was thinking more like the issue of having "transit boxes"- sort of holding areas for figures that were busy travelling. Since I'm thinking of a set up where there are several areas set out on a tabletop simultaneously (but which might be seperated by greater or lesser distances on a map), I was trying to figure out a way to prevent figures from arriving either too early or too late on another "set/location". Within a set/location, however, more traditional minis movement/range rules apply. Basically, I wanted to prevent firing a cannon on the "Fort Phil Kearny set" and have it be directed at the "Indian Village  set" that is supposed to be many miles away across the badlands. Now the fort and the village might be physically close on the table, but distant in the imaginary space. Am I making any sense?

QuoteThat would be Labyrinth

I'm getting old, the memory is slipping badly :(

QuoteI was thinking mostly that I wanted an excuse to have a setting where a variety of creatures including cool-looking monsters could interact in a non-combat fashion. Now, there would also be fights, but it would probably be limited or ritualized in some way. There would be a backstory, but each session I was imagining would always be in the court itself. Each session would be a season apart, so the players would each get an update of information and then various people would interact at the party to find out what was going on, make deals, count coup, and so forth.

That sounds exceedingly cool. Especially if the critters were nobles, etc, kind of Narnia style. Maybe just saying sentient and having a common language.

I also saw some very cool minis and terrain ( collectable village type stuff) for sale around Halloween that made me think of Pumpkin Town.

On a related note, what sort of social contract issues might come up with a minis game, such as painting (touched on earlier) and providing figures, terrain, etc?

Another interesting observation about playing with my daughter was there was an urge to use different figures rather than stick to one figure as an avatar/pawn. Anyone have any suggestions for rules that work with this tendency?

Random thought - the players are ephemeral gods of some kind, fighting over Creation itself. The only way they can actually effect things is if they take avatars (i.e. choose a mini). They can leave and exit avatars at will, and are omniscient (can see the whole "board", all the terrain and all the areas), but thats it. Their temporal power is limited by the abilities of the minis they choose as avatars, with the "character built around the figure" ethos.

I dunno if this idea appeals to you at all, but the last couple posts sparked it in my little ol' brain.

Nathan;
That's simultaneously exceedingly cool and exceedingly creepy.

It could be a cool set up for Middle Earth, though, especially for Silmarillion fans, or folks playing the dis-embodied Sauron vs. the Valar and their Istari agents.

I guess I'm creeped out because it reminds me of the whole OT thing between Moses and Pharoah. I recall a couple times in the story where Pharaoh is about to give in to Moses' request to free the Israelites, but then " God caused Pharaoh to harden his heart to Moses' pleas (paraphrase)" and more plagues and nastiness ensue. Damn, God can be mean when he(it) wants to show his(its) stuff...

I also think it's interesting because it takes into account player knowledge and allows for it. I hadn't considered that aspect, even though it is a common complaint among wargamers that encounter minis gaming. I like the suggestion because it takes the reality of the situation and runs with it, rather than cobbling together rules that attempt to restrict or deny the situation. It may be the equivalent of the ic/ooc issue but for minis. Something more to chew over...

Quote from: komradebobI guess I was thinking more like the issue of having "transit boxes"- sort of holding areas for figures that were busy travelling. Since I'm thinking of a set up where there are several areas set out on a tabletop simultaneously (but which might be seperated by greater or lesser distances on a map), I was trying to figure out a way to prevent figures from arriving either too early or too late on another "set/location". Within a set/location, however, more traditional minis movement/range rules apply. Basically, I wanted to prevent firing a cannon on the "Fort Phil Kearny set" and have it be directed at the "Indian Village  set" that is supposed to be many miles away across the badlands. Now the fort and the village might be physically close on the table, but distant in the imaginary space. Am I making any sense?

This reminds me somewhat of the way locations are handled in some CRPGs.    Examples include Fallout (1 & 2), Wasteland, and the Ultima series (at least the early ones, I have no idea about the later ones).

komradebob, what about something like this:
When you define your 'sets,' set a perimeter for each one, anything between sets is boring land, of no purpose in the game save for 'travelling.'  Determine the travel distance between each set (I'd probably draw a map or something to keep it straight), when characters leave a set, figure out how long they'll be in transit, set them aside and note when they will arrive at the new location.  Your 'transit box' idea sounds pretty much perfect, what I would do is take a notecard, write the departure location, destination, transit time, and expected time of arrival on the card, place the card between the sets on the board and place the figures on top, and voila!  If you have a chase, set up another card and place it 'behind' the first one (ie. nearer the departure location) and you've got it made.

Quote from: komradebobI also think it's interesting because it takes into account player knowledge and allows for it. I hadn't considered that aspect, even though it is a common complaint among wargamers that encounter minis gaming. I like the suggestion because it takes the reality of the situation and runs with it, rather than cobbling together rules that attempt to restrict or deny the situation. It may be the equivalent of the ic/ooc issue but for minis. Something more to chew over...

Right. Basically, you avoid the whole issue altogether. The (little-p) premise is that your "character" (the omniscient diety) can see all the areas that are under disputation. This explains why you have different locations set up in the first place, in an IC kinda fashion. Of course, it also makes a statement about lack of free will of the poor little minis running around down there - thought not, you'll notice about predestination, assuming you use some kind of fortune mechanics.

Spinning out of this, you could pretty much justify any number or kind of locations. Like, say the players are desert gods, and all your locations are deserts of various kinds, and oasis's, and trading posts. Basically, "themed" games.

Also, it avoids the "travelling" aspect (though I see you're working out some stuff for that as well, more power to you). But going with this idea, individual minis would prolly stay in their location the whole game. As player, you jump from mini to mini, "possessing" them individually. This is also kinda cool cuz it allows for simultaneous events in multiple locations.

Stop me if this is getting too wierd.

QuoteSpinning out of this, you could pretty much justify any number or kind of locations. Like, say the players are desert gods, and all your locations are deserts of various kinds, and oasis's, and trading posts. Basically, "themed" games.

Nathan P:

I really think you need to invest in a 900 number or something. What got me started thinking in this direction was the really cool "Arabian Nights" type minis that Reaper has been putting out. And yeah, all of the locations you suggested were very close to the sorts of things I was thinking of...

And flying carpets.

creepy

Robert

Oh, as for the transit things, I've been thinking about using road pieces, where the piece sort of becomes a set in itself...

This is how myself and a friend did our first roleplaying when we were 14, 20 years ago!. This was before we invested in our first 'proper' RPG, MERP. We had not ventured in to the narrative form and just set up a tbale with various areas of interest on it and devised the story from there. I had forgeotten this experience until I read these last two mails and it all came flooding back.

Good to see the wheel come full circle
JW

Quote from: Marhault

Quote from: komradebobI guess I was thinking more like the issue of having "transit boxes"- sort of holding areas for figures that were busy travelling. Since I'm thinking of a set up where there are several areas set out on a tabletop simultaneously (but which might be seperated by greater or lesser distances on a map), I was trying to figure out a way to prevent figures from arriving either too early or too late on another "set/location". Within a set/location, however, more traditional minis movement/range rules apply. Basically, I wanted to prevent firing a cannon on the "Fort Phil Kearny set" and have it be directed at the "Indian Village  set" that is supposed to be many miles away across the badlands. Now the fort and the village might be physically close on the table, but distant in the imaginary space. Am I making any sense?

This reminds me somewhat of the way locations are handled in some CRPGs.    Examples include Fallout (1 & 2), Wasteland, and the Ultima series (at least the early ones, I have no idea about the later ones).

komradebob, what about something like this:
When you define your 'sets,' set a perimeter for each one, anything between sets is boring land, of no purpose in the game save for 'travelling.'  Determine the travel distance between each set (I'd probably draw a map or something to keep it straight), when characters leave a set, figure out how long they'll be in transit, set them aside and note when they will arrive at the new location.  Your 'transit box' idea sounds pretty much perfect, what I would do is take a notecard, write the departure location, destination, transit time, and expected time of arrival on the card, place the card between the sets on the board and place the figures on top, and voila!  If you have a chase, set up another card and place it 'behind' the first one (ie. nearer the departure location) and you've got it made.

This sounds a lot like Final Fantasy Tactics.  There are points of interest on a map and there are connections between these points.  Your little band travels between them and fights with monsters and such in a format really similar to a skirmish scale miniatures wargame.  You guys should really check one of these two games out.  There is a Playstation version and a Game Boy Advance version (different story but the same basic idea).  I got the PS version some months ago new for like $20.  I think seeing it will give you some ideas.

Greedo;
D'oh. I'll check in with my more computer gaming oriented buddies on this one. I tend to have one or two older pc games I like, but don't generally buy that much stuff, so the whole FF thing is completely outside of my experience.

JW:
This whole thing is sort of a circle closing for me too. Over the years I've played through several different styles of rpg, and gotten further from the old minis oriented stuff ( in rpgs that is. I have been playing tons of minis wargames during that time frame).   So yeah, in a way, this is an attempt to get back to those play with fantasy toys days, but see what other directions it might take. The beauty of the philosophizing that goes on here at the Forge is that people here seem to be able to step back from mechanics at the character level, and start to think about issues of play at a interpersonal level.

Care to share any of the stuff you remember from your younger days that worked, didn't work, etc ? It sounds like exactly the sort of spark I'm looking for to help me remember my own similar experiences from a similar age ( with an eye towards developing a play method).

Robert

I think what you are working onwould resemble FF Tactics but wouldn't really be the same thing.  FF Tactics really isn't much of an RPG even in the CRPG world.  Its basically a tactics game with some story elements that are completely out of the players hands.

Let me try to explain it a bit more.  You move your party to different locations and there are some enemies there.  You have to fight them.  Sometimes its just bandits or monsters (a standard D&D random encounter type thing).  Sometimes, depending on the location, time, items carried, etc. its someone else.  This someone else is the big bad guy or underlings or such.  When you off them they give you a little more of the story.  But basically there is no role playing per se.

I still think you can do some interesting stuff with this.  I just suggested looking at FF Tactics for some ideas.

Yeah I too have played alot of wargaming, of all kinds and have always tried to incoprerate aspects from one to the other, RP aspects in to wargaing and gwargaming in to RPG. I have actually done a lot of games where it was basically a RPG but with figures on the table, set as a LRRP patrol in Viet Nam. There to deal with the travelling aspect, I used a kind of rolling terrain, so that as the players moved certain features moved past them on the table. This worked as they movement was over a relatively short distance and at a slow pace. The nice thing about having the figures on the table is that it gives all the players a central focus where they are looking in rather than without where it all goes on in their heads. It helps to put them under pressure and make it more immediate. I am doing something similar with Dark Age games at the moment.

Jonathan

Quote from: komradebob
JW:
This whole thing is sort of a circle closing for me too. Over the years I've played through several different styles of rpg, and gotten further from the old minis oriented stuff ( in rpgs that is. I have been playing tons of minis wargames during that time frame).   So yeah, in a way, this is an attempt to get back to those play with fantasy toys days, but see what other directions it might take. The beauty of the philosophizing that goes on here at the Forge is that people here seem to be able to step back from mechanics at the character level, and start to think about issues of play at a interpersonal level.

Care to share any of the stuff you remember from your younger days that worked, didn't work, etc ? It sounds like exactly the sort of spark I'm looking for to help me remember my own similar experiences from a similar age ( with an eye towards developing a play method).

Robert

I wasn't going to suggest this originally, since it seemed to be to please a young player. But we seem to be suggesting all sorts of things now, so...

Minis and relationship maps: The actual play area isn't a real space, its actually a relationship map. The actual figures could be many miles apart, but here we see how close various characters are and thus who they conflict with. For scenery you have thorny issues, which have a physical shape here and must be navigated around if you wish to get in close on some other figure.

I'll leave it there, though it could do with some more explaining. But basically its turning your relationship map into a battle mat. And yes you can move...keep your enemies close, remember!

Callan:
Go ahead and run with it. I'm kind of following your train of thought, but I'd rather you explain a little further.

Oh, and for anyone else who might have been holding back because of the playing with younger player part, please don't. I'm getting some great ideas here, and even if they don't meet the original "Dad and kid" situation from the original post I might have other uses for them.

Personal Brainstorm for the day:
What if the figures were hidden in boxes? Players choose boxes, take out the contents, then choose where to place them? Sure a chart and dice throw could do the same thing, but where's the fun in that? It could also be fun on a metagame level, if you were playing with a group of friends who were periodically painting up and providing minis. They show up at the session with the minis already boxed, so noone else knows what's inside. At some point in the session, players are allowed to open boxes from amongst a pile, and enter the new figures into the game. Presumably, some sort of backstory is created, and the figure gets some initial "attributes" when they're placed.

Just a random thought that hit me reading this thread.  A reverse of the normal GM-Player relationship.  Where one person plays as the adventuring party or single hero and the other players are Gods helping or hindering that players epic quest.  Imagine Zeus and Hera intervening in Hercules quest either by direct or indirect means.  This would work well with minituares as the gods would be placing enemies or allies in the path of the character.

I'm actually working on a scifi minis-rpg hybrid.  where each player controls a small squad of soldiers.  While the CO(think GM) gives the mission briefing(setting up the terrain and enemies) assigns objectives, and controls the enemies during play.  The mission briefing is where most of the RP comes into play with players acting as the squad leaders.  forming a battle plan and vying to be the squad who completes the objectives(Prestige is awarded for completing objectives and such. which works like build points to use for your squad).  After this portion is over the game moves into more of a miniatures game but the coop nature of the game mixed with the rivalries carried over from the mission briefing I'm hoping will spur some IC chatter.

Quote from: ShadetreeI'm actually working on a scifi minis-rpg hybrid.  where each player controls a small squad of soldiers.  While the CO(think GM) gives the mission briefing(setting up the terrain and enemies) assigns objectives, and controls the enemies during play.  The mission briefing is where most of the RP comes into play with players acting as the squad leaders.  forming a battle plan and vying to be the squad who completes the objectives(Prestige is awarded for completing objectives and such. which works like build points to use for your squad).  After this portion is over the game moves into more of a miniatures game but the coop nature of the game mixed with the rivalries carried over from the mission briefing I'm hoping will spur some IC chatter.

This sounds really cool!  It reminds me a lot of the old Rogue Trader game and Inquisitor.

Actually, that reminds me: are you guys familiar with Inquisitor?  Its a GW sci fi miniatures game.  You can download the rules for free from:

http://www.specialist-games.com/inquisitor/tlr.asp

Just something to consider as far as a blurred RPG - miniatures type game.

I'd heard of Inquisitor but thought it was more of an RPG set in the 40k universe.  Just from a quick look over the core rules it seems to be geared more towards the minis aspect.  Characters are basically static. and only 1-2 pages talk about running a multi session campaign and just a quick spot in an appendix about improving ones character through play.  Not that any of these are specifically needed for an RPG.

I'm just not really seeing anything that makes this closer to an RPG except the addition of a moderator(GM) who sets up a scenario and the fact that the GM can have 'secrets'.  The introduction talks about the main aim being to "...create characters and a story on the tabletop"(pg 10, part 1)  If you take a look at the sample scenario(pg 38, part 2) the story is allready made except for the outcome of the battle and some special rules.  Of course, a my quick look might not be doing it justice.  

My game is suffering from this as well.  It is something I am trying to correct.  But I believe the OP is envisioning something different alltogether.  So I'll leave off talking about it further.

The thing that popped into my head reading this is that at next year's FanimeCon I ought to run a game based on some existing anime series, and hand each character a plastic figure of their character. Even if I wind up not using a map at all it'd be really cool, and would help the players remember who's who.

Quote from: komradebobCallan:
Go ahead and run with it. I'm kind of following your train of thought, but I'd rather you explain a little further.

I'm not sure what to add. It's basically war gaming, but on a relationship map. But you'd get stuff like someone moving in to attack someone else, but a nearby enemy figure uses this closeness to reveal he's the long lost brother of the unit...while in normal war gaming tank X would be able to use its special attack at close range, if this figure gets close to go hand to hand against another fig. Mechanically similar, thematically very different.

Ideally I'd have it as partitioned gamist/nar. Not customised nar...mostly just preset questions. For example, imagine your doing lots of gamist tactics and get your opponent into a particular postion, then you pull out an address of premise card. The other guy is in a problematic position because of it, but tactically/gamist wise he knows he might be better off doing X, but X is distastefully depicted by the card. Does he potentially throw the game because HIS leader WOULD NOT do that? What does that say about his leader if he does, or doesn't?

And what if he doesn't do X, but then steps on up and still wins the game! Bloody hell, what a legend...strong in principle and tactics! Huzzah! (and even if he looses, he's a bit of a legend for sticking to his principles...martyrdom is kinda fun).

That's something special to take away from the table top and keep forever.

Apologies to everyone for not getting back to you sooner.

Re: Inquisitor:
I'm a big GW Monkey, but I haven't looked over Inquisitor yet. I'd be most interested in what it might have to say about setting up connected adventures and not so much about mechanics. Was there something in particular about the way Inquisitor deals with tabletop that is radically different from other GW games that really struck you?

Callan:

QuoteThe other guy is in a problematic position because of it, but tactically/gamist wise he knows he might be better off doing X, but X is distastefully depicted by the card. Does he potentially throw the game because HIS leader WOULD NOT do that? What does that say about his leader if he does, or doesn't?

And what if he doesn't do X, but then steps on up and still wins the game! Bloody hell, what a legend...strong in principle and tactics! Huzzah! (and even if he looses, he's a bit of a legend for sticking to his principles...martyrdom is kinda fun).

Wow! I've been thinking about how one might do a "dirty war" with miniatures and that gives me an idea or ten. By dirty war, I mean those conflicts that involve very small, very irregular forces- for example, French resistants vs. milice and German occupation troops. I was never satisfied with minis wargame rules for conflicts of that type, because I felt they missed some of the essential qualities I associated with the conflict. Once you mentioned the above, though, a big light went on in my head.
I'd been looking for something that was beyond a tactical excersise, but not quite a full blown rpg. Ideas, ideas....

More fishing:
A couple of subjects related to this crossed my mind recently, and I was curious what folks thought.
1)Does there inherently need to only be one point of focus at any given time? With just a couple of participants, I can see there being a tendency/ned to have only one area of focus at a time. With two general factions, as per most minis wargames, ditto. My question is more like, what happens if there are multiple participants, say 6 or more? Could multiple seperated scenes be running concurrently? More accurately, I'm asking how that might be achieved, and anyone's thoughts on the pros/cons of that.
2)Any thoughts on the uses of timing devices to create time breaks? I tend to think this would be kind of disconcerting, but I'm wondering, especially combined with the idea of multiple scenes occuring concurrently, if this might be a way to bring all the players back together for a sort of group re-cap of events.
3)What do you want to achieve in a scene? I've seen a few discussions in threads that discuss the idea of players taking a little time before a scene to develop an idea of what they want to achieve in a scene that they're about to play. I'm wondering if that could be a part of the play style. Maybe prior to the scene, but after figures present ( or due to appear in the scene/location) have been claimed/chosen/apportioned, the players quickly jot down some goal or motivation they wish to achieve. Taking it in a sort of gamist (or possibly narrativist?) direction, once the scene ends, the participants reveal their goal/s and vote one another some sort of currency based on how close they came to achieving them. I'm thinking of some pretty broad goals, too. "Bash the Squad of Orcs", "reveal a Dark secret from my past", "Publicly Confront my Brother about his Cowardice at the Battle of the Dark Woods", " Die Heroically", and  "Impress the Princess despite my lowly social status" would all be valid goals for players to attach to character figures. Presumably, if players in a scene had multiple figures, they could have different, perhaps competeing goals, the completion of which could all yield currency.

And, um, no, I'm not sure yet what the currency would be used for. Sorry.

Robert

Yeah, it kinda of sparks something for me. I suspect it's the same sort of feel that TROS was designed around, but works for wargaming too. Buuut, just a note of caution: Some players will not just address premise...they'll just do X without batting an eyelid and if questioned, say "Well why wouldn't I do that to win?". This isn't so bad except that if they don't appreciate addressing premise, then if the other player does appreciate it and does it, this guy just wont notice it. Note this recent RPG.net thread about X-com and whether its okay to kill mind controlled aliens...the answers swerve between gamist and narrativist responces (its interesting).

TROS sort of handles it by making the address of premise make sense in terms of gamism "addressing premise gives you more dice...so address premise or your not stepping on up, chump!"

If your leaving it so particular narrativist options can be a bad idea gamism wise, I think your going to have to stress in the book how each player, even if they just want to go gamist, should appreciate this nar level and appreciate their apponents narrativist approach. One doesn't want to address premise and have the other guy just gloat how he won...one would like the other guy to enjoy the win, but also have him note how ones leader was the better man! :)

I'll have a stab at some of your questions
1. Do you mean simultanious games which effect each other? Or the same players moving between several battle set ups? Not sure what you mean, but I can think of some not rock solid but okay ways where two games can effect each other (if you up your suspension of disbelief dial a little).
2. Perhaps make it a feature rather than a disconcerting bug. I'm thinking now of how 'Orcs at the gates' has a real life two hour limmit...get 1000 points before then, or the GM wins. Likewise you can have real life time effect battle field win/loss status. Explain it that on the battlefield you never really know when you've run out of time, or some such semi plausible excuse.
3. I might pause on this, as I think it deserves a full post on its own and I'm in a rush! Perhaps tomorrow.

Quote1. Do you mean simultanious games which effect each other? Or the same players moving between several battle set ups? Not sure what you mean, but I can think of some not rock solid but okay ways where two games can effect each other (if you up your suspension of disbelief dial a little).

Hmm.
What I was originally thinking of was a situation where a largish group of players (6-10 or more) were involved in a game. Using the "sets/location" idea, perhaps they break up into multiple subgroups to play on different sets-3 players doing a scene at The King's Castle, 2 doing a scene at The Dragon's Lair, 4 crossing the Forest o' Doom, and two others conspiring at Baron Von Dolchstoss' keep. Each group would be involved largely in their own mini-game/scene, although perhaps eavesdropping by players should somehow be accounted for rather than falsely restricted.

The idea about using a timer (or perhaps some sort of scene-termination mechanic ?) related to this idea of multiple realtime sceneplay. I was thinking along the lines of: Everyone picks an set/location where they want to play > players physically move to that location, taking any figures along that are moving to that location> goal for scene setting phase> players at each location play out scene with figures there until (a.voluntary scene terminatio or b.mechanical scene termination or c. timer goes off terminating scene). This is then followed by assessment of currency handout ( for meeting written goal, or other social awards), then a regrouping and exchange of "what happened in the individual scenes amongst the players as a whole.

IMO, that style would be greatly facillitated by rules that empower players to make up and resolve story and task, without the need for a traditional GM. In fact, I can see a very different sort of GM duties package involved with this, perhaps a more scorekeeper/referee/facillitator/recordkeeper role, and very little in the way of plothook generator, opposition player, or keeper of secret knowledge.

On a side note, part of what got me thinking about this was by watching my daughter play with toys, and also thinking back to myself at that age or younger in the sandbox with green army men. Unlike "my turn, your turn" styles that we see with written down games, there seems to be a more fluid style based on focus. Whatever is most interesting at the moment is what's gamed. When that starts to become less interesting, focus shifts again. There also seems to be a natural tendency to eventually come back to toys that have been being ignored, and come up with quick explanations for what has been going on "meanwhile", then bring them back into the new focus.

Quote2. Perhaps make it a feature rather than a disconcerting bug. I'm thinking now of how 'Orcs at the gates' has a real life two hour limmit...get 1000 points before then, or the GM wins. Likewise you can have real life time effect battle field win/loss status. Explain it that on the battlefield you never really know when you've run out of time, or some such semi plausible excuse.

As I get older, I have much less overall time to game, so things that help move things along are important to me. But I want them to move the story along, rather than cut it off short. I'm not familiar with the Orc scenario you mentioned, but it sounds interesting. Also, I'm moving towards a tendency to want a scene or evening of play to have some sense of at least completeness for itself, even if it part of a bigger campaign.

Gotta run, back soon...
Robert

Quote from: komradebobRe: Inquisitor:
I'm a big GW Monkey, but I haven't looked over Inquisitor yet. I'd be most interested in what it might have to say about setting up connected adventures and not so much about mechanics. Was there something in particular about the way Inquisitor deals with tabletop that is radically different from other GW games that really struck you?

Errr... yeah.  What I meant was *you* should download them and take a look.  :D  I downloaded them a while back but haven't been able to give them a look.

I'd be curious to see how they do it.  GW is a strange game designer in that they make games that are supposed to be competitive type things but then throw in all sorts of ambigiously written rules and such.  Its fertile ground for the rules lawyer.

Based on what I've seen (which isn't much), in Inquisitor you basically design up a warband (all 4-5 characters) and then have them fight with the other guys warband.  The players don't seem to do much in the way of proper roleplaying.  Usually the GM says what the connection between the different games is.  (So, for example, "last game you two fought for the Death Star plans.  Today Todd's Warband is going to try to get them across the board to the Princess and Bill's band is going to try to stop them."  That's my understanding anyway.)

QuoteYeah, it kinda of sparks something for me. I suspect it's the same sort of feel that TROS was designed around, but works for wargaming too. Buuut, just a note of caution: Some players will not just address premise...they'll just do X without batting an eyelid and if questioned, say "Well why wouldn't I do that to win?". This isn't so bad except that if they don't appreciate addressing premise, then if the other player does appreciate it and does it, this guy just wont notice it. Note this recent RPG.net thread about X-com and whether its okay to kill mind controlled aliens...the answers swerve between gamist and narrativist responces (its interesting).

Another common with GW miniature games is the "beardy" or "cheesy" player that makes armies that don't follow the background of the game because they are superior in the game.  There are pretty regular fights about this sort of thing.

I suggest a brain-shift away from "minis" and toward "props".  Greedo you are active in the CCG concept thread twoo, minis and cards are themselves only particular types of prop, as I see it.  Taking the heroclix inspiration, it's possible to comboine their functions, or to extract their functions, into other props.  What is it it about mini's that inspires you for example?

Quote from: contracycleI suggest a brain-shift away from "minis" and toward "props".  Greedo you are active in the CCG concept thread twoo, minis and cards are themselves only particular types of prop, as I see it.  Taking the heroclix inspiration, it's possible to comboine their functions, or to extract their functions, into other props.  What is it it about mini's that inspires you for example?

Hmmmm...  I'm going to try to explain this but I don't know how well it will work out.

I think one of the things I like most about miniatures games is the maneuvering in a set space.  The relative positions of each element (be it between single models or units or terrain etc.) is important.  You must be within a set distance to make your ranged attack.  But your opponent has a ranged attack as well.  You must be touching to make a melee attack.  But if your opponent touches you first he gets to attack first.  If you are too far away from your leader you don't get to take advantage of his leadership abilities.  But if you keep everything too close there are other risks.  This sort of spatial management, trading off the positives and negatives of positions, is interesting.

With card games, I generally enjoy the resource management aspect (be it mana, gold, force, etc.).  The idea that you have a hand full of cards that you want to get into play but only have the resources for some of them.  And of course, you want to keep your opponents cards out of play (which also requires the use of your resources).

So between the two, its spatial relationships and resource management.  Maybe this is why I ended up as an engineer. :)  As I understand it, Heroclix doesn't really have the resource management type mechanic that I'm talking about (but I may be wrong never having played it).

Perhaps the problem we are running into is a chicken-egg type problem.  I understand the word "prop" to mean a secondary component.  The goal in an RPG is to tell a story.  Resource management and spatial relationships are generally secondary concerns.  However, those are the things I enjoy about miniatures and cards (I'm going to abbreviate this as M&C).  

When I play with M&C the story is secondary.  It is lain across the framework provided by the M&C game.  What you are suggesting is the opposite: having the story framework provided by the RPG with M&C lain over that.

So I guess my goal would be to find a formal, technical type way to get a story to lay over a miniatures game.  Or, find an RPG way to link a series of miniatures games.  I don't know if that's really in The Forge's scope so let's just leave this alone.

So back to using an RPG framework with miniatures as a secondary: I think if you are going to use miniatures in an RPG then you should use them in a way that actually requires their use (ie, in a system where spatial relationships are important).  If you use them simply as props or placeholders ("This is my guy", "This is our marching order", etc.) then I think you aren't really taking advantage of what miniatures can do.  You basically have a 3-dimensional version of a character portrait and a list of character names.

One thing I heard that did seem interesting was the use of a character interaction map.  That would involve spatial relationships.  However, in the case of a character interaction map the "terrain" would be provided by the characters themselves.  So what would move around on the map?  You would have to figure out something else to use as "player pieces".  Love, Lust, Trust, Hatred, etc. could make for an interesting game.  I'm not sure how it would work though.  How about: imagine a character map.  The players sit around in a circle and then take turns moving tokens (Love, Lust, Trust, etc.) around between the different characters describing what happens each time.  The result would some sort of Shakespearian, sitcom, Three's Company, mix up type comedy/tragedy (depending on what tokens were chosen).  There would be a chance of getting the Murder token depending on what genre was chosen.  This seems like an interesting concept to me but doesn't relate much to the original thread.  I might start a new one about this.

Contracycle (originally addressed to greedo1379)

QuoteWhat is it it about mini's that inspires you for example?

Sorry to jump on a question directed to someone else.

For me it's their physical presence. I like that they're suggestive of a pre-existing story in themselves. It's almost like there is a story waiting to come out, if you can only discover it. To put it another way, they act as a focus for more general woolgathering. I've met some folks that really dislike minis, feeling that their use is too focusing. By having an image there, they feel they are unable to go far outside of that image creatively.

Someone mentioned a game, Everway, I think, that used images on cards to spark off creativity. I look at minis the same way. On top of that, I find the way that different participants interact with one another, playing off each other's ideas is interesting. In relation to that, I've noticed the tendency for particpants to be more forward about skipping around between figures, unless there is some sort of rule actually requiring an identification with only one figure or group of figures. IME, even when such a rule is in place, such as in a minis wargame, participants often examine or fool around with playing pieces that aren't theirs in the game, cracking jokes, speaking in funny voices and so on.

One of the things I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the connection between physical artifacts and non-game time. To steal greedo1379's term, M&C games all have physical artifacts that are manipulated not just in-game, but also offer hobby opportunites outside of game time. I would compare that to people that enjoy making up characters or maps of the game world, or really, any other sort of tinkering related to a game.

greedo1379:

QuoteThis seems like an interesting concept to me but doesn't relate much to the original thread.

Hope that no one feels they can't contribute for fear of going off track threadwise. This is sort of a fishing expedition for me. Everyone's posts are helping me refine ideas that were swirling around in my head, as well as suggesting entirely new directions that I might never have considered.

QuoteErrr... yeah. What I meant was *you* should download them and take a look. :D I downloaded them a while back but haven't been able to give them a look.

How does one make a smiley giving a razzberry? Even if I did deserve it...

Thanks all,
Robert

QuoteSo I guess my goal would be to find a formal, technical type way to get a story to lay over a miniatures game. Or, find an RPG way to link a series of miniatures games. I don't know if that's really in The Forge's scope so let's just leave this alone.

QuoteHope that no one feels they can't contribute for fear of going off track threadwise. This is sort of a fishing expedition for me. Everyone's posts are helping me refine ideas that were swirling around in my head, as well as suggesting entirely new directions that I might never have considered.

What I was getting close to suggesting more closely resembled a miniatures game than an RPG.  I wasn't sure how useful this would be to you.  Just to illustrate:

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the miniatures game Warmachine (www.privateerpress.com)  In the most recent supplement, Escalation, there is a campaign playing out the invasion of one of the country's in the game world.  In the Warmachine world there are 4 playable factions and maybe a dozen countries.  This campaign involves all 4 of the factions as one faction invades another non faction country (something like an NPC if you will).  A feature of the game is strong, characterful characters.  The campaign follows each character as they do whatever it is they do.  Scenes are set up that require certain bits of scenary and there is a story to set up the games.  But this isn't really an RPG as it is a miniatures game with window dressing.

As another option you can look to GW's Estrogon Island campaign (http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/default.htm).  In this case, the players are maneuvering their armies around on a map (players don't know eachothers location).  If two players are within a certain distance they are allowed certain actions (various communications or initiating a battle or suchlike).  Players are also allowed other actions that depend on interaction with the GM (like building fortifications, boats, etc.).  But again, this would probably be considered a wargame before a miniatures game.

Then there's Mordheim or Necromunda or Confrontation which is slowly moving towards a traditional RPG.  In this each player controls a band of warriors that slowly gain experience and develop skills and such.  But there really isn't any sort of mechanic for non combat interaction between two players.  That doesn't mean there can't be but it isn't really laid out for the players.

And then there is just basic D&D which seems to be showing its wargame roots more and more lately.  I never used to play D&D with miniatures but a group I played with a couple years back did for all combat.  I probably don't need to explain how D&D uses miniatures but its a slow day at work.  In D&D you play in a standard just-talking type format until the DM says "everyone roll for initiative."  Then the big mat gets rolled out and people start plunking "their guy" down.

I guess I'm just giving examples of other stuff that's out there.  I don't know if that's all that much help for you.

Quote from: greedo1379
Perhaps the problem we are running into is a chicken-egg type problem.  I understand the word "prop" to mean a secondary component.  The goal in an RPG is to tell a story.  Resource management and spatial relationships are generally secondary concerns.  However, those are the things I enjoy about miniatures and cards (I'm going to abbreviate this as M&C).  

Fair enough.  I suggest instead you re-appraise "props" as "everything that is on stage except the actors".  I am specifically using the theatre sense of the term.  In this sense, the props are visual and physical cues as to the nature of the game space.

In a way, I wish I still had the vintage White Dwarfs I used to look at, cause it would help out a little here...

Part of me is really tempted to mix up the ideas from Once Upon a Time... with Mage Knight here... Turn based storytelling, with cards that help direct the action by providing ways to bring in new charecters, and to move other people's charecters, all while having a secret winning condition card that you must furfill in front of you.

Don't ask me how I would make it work, but I like the idea. Maybe I'll get to work on it. Heaven knows I have enough MageKnight stuff lying around...

Have you ever had one of those moments when you discover that someone has already gone over something, but you didn't realize it?

Here's a link to an old discussion on the Universalis forum by Tony Irwin, that might be interesting to folks checking out the current thread:


http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5698&highlight=miniatures

QuoteHere's a link to an old discussion on the Universalis forum by Tony Irwin, that might be interesting to folks checking out the current thread

Wow - that's an old thread! I can't even remember if that game went ahead as planned, but I do remember one where we played for about 45 minutes, same idea but we used fantasy models instead.

It was good - part of the fun though was improvising what we were going to do next and we picked up quite a crowd as audience (it was at a games club) who threw in lots of suggestions. Mike Holme's post further down on that thread (where he suggests events for a battle) was brilliant and we used a print out of that as inspiration for every event.

I think fantasy suits this better as there is so much that can be unseen, magic, ghosts, etc but still present in the game. And that was the tough part - we were limited to the scenery and minis we had on the table but we wanted to bring more stuff in as dramatic events.

We did have fun - but... it was "fragile" fun. We weren't really sure what made it work or what direction to take it in, or if inviting anyone else to play could just wreck it.

Anyway, stuff that was good was having a list of battlefield events that can involve, but not neccessitate, combat. Using the fantasy genre so that we could have unseen components on the battle field - in fact that's where a lot of the story came from. And also I think, we stopped before any questions of winning or losing the battle arose - we didn't have to consider that one. Also every scene had to be based at a scenery item on the battlefied - that worked good, it meant you kind of narrowed the lense on one area and ignored overall placements and formations and stuff.

Tony Irwin:

QuoteIt was good - part of the fun though was improvising what we were going to do next and we picked up quite a crowd as audience (it was at a games club) who threw in lots of suggestions.

That sounds awesome! I'm starting to think more about this concept, especially play with a crowd ( I don't tend to game in shops, so the whole idea is a bit exotic to me).  I've seen several people note that one of the strengths of Universalis is that you can bring in players at any time without disrupting play. Were you able to do that, or were people fairly happy as spectators and kibbitzers?

A few posts ago Callan and I were discussing multiple simultaneous scenes and how they could impact the overall event. Your experience seems to hit on what I was thinking of as a situation (multiple participants). Did you stay focused on a given area and the current scene sequentially, or was there action taking place at differed locales at the same time?

Tony Irwin:

QuoteMike Holme's post further down on that thread (where he suggests events for a battle) was brilliant and we used a print out of that as inspiration for every event.

I hadn't thought of that, but I could definitely see where that would be desireable. The world creation/tenets stage in Universalis is interesting in it's own right, but I can see some urge to have some inspiration ready, especially in a set up involving minis gaming. Besides the printout of Mike's suggestions and your minis related gimmicks, did you have any pre-game tenet building?

QuoteI think fantasy suits this better as there is so much that can be unseen, magic, ghosts, etc but still present in the game. And that was the tough part - we were limited to the scenery and minis we had on the table but we wanted to bring more stuff in as dramatic events.

I think you are right about fantasy. One of the other things I might suggest about fantasy is that the figures themselves often seem to suggest more than combat. I also think folks have a certain urge to tweak traditional relationships a little with fantasy figures: Good dragons, funny orcs, befuddled wizards, etc.

The urge to bring in more dramatic stuff seems to be one of the big concerns I've seen for folks that tend not to like minis. One of the great advantages of non-minis gaming is the ability to create stuff almost wholly from words.  The only real workaround I can imagine is repeated play, where folks get to bring newly acquired figures in later sessions. Or alternately, where players plan out an overall theme to the event, taking their collections of figures into account prior to the setup, perhaps in a tenet building stage that takes place days or even weeks before a big event. Still another idea might be something like what John Kim suggesyed, where you have a cycle of stories ( The Court of the Goblin King) that use a physical set up that is continuously used, but that has new stories and characters built around it in later sessions.

QuoteWe did have fun - but... it was "fragile" fun. We weren't really sure what made it work or what direction to take it in, or if inviting anyone else to play could just wreck it.

Would a tenet phase have helped more to create some backstory or general direction?

As a general impression, it sounds like drawing a crowd offering suggestions and enthusiastic more or less did allow other folks in, even if they weren't spending coins or rolling dice. It actually sounds as if it went very well.

QuoteAnyway, stuff that was good was having a list of battlefield events that can involve, but not neccessitate, combat

.

Consider that stolen...

QuoteUsing the fantasy genre so that we could have unseen components on the battle field - in fact that's where a lot of the story came from. And also I think, we stopped before any questions of winning or losing the battle arose - we didn't have to consider that one.

It sounds like you all were enjoying the story aspect mor than the competitive aspect. That's pretty much dead-on for what I'm thinking of. Callan's suggestions for bringing in narrative stuff to wargaming also hits pretty close to this idea.

QuoteAlso every scene had to be based at a scenery item on the battlefied - that worked good, it meant you kind of narrowed the lense on one area and ignored overall placements and formations and stuff.

This is one that was bedevilling me earlier in this thread. Did you go for a scene based approach that bypassed traditional tabletop movement in favor of more story-oriented movement? For example, say there was a village in the southwest quarter of the table where a scene was focused. In the northeast quarter, there is the Orchold. If you ended the action at the village, and wanted to focus on the OrcHold, how did figures from the village get to the Orc Hold if it was important to the new  scene? Was it strictly based on story ( one spends coins to introduce the figures at the new location, explaining in-story the travel time), or was more traditional tabletop movement involved ( they move 6" turn until they get there), or was it a combination of the two?

I'm starting to think that maybe I'm looking for a method to create a big group minis game.

Hmmm...
(sound of gears grinding inside a skull)

Robert

One game I've seen recently that treads the rpg / minis line is the free game BRUTAL.

Find it at http://www.brutalrpg.com

The scenarios are a mix of role-playing and hack-n-slash and it looks like you will lose a lot of characters (like in Steve Jackson's old "Fantasy Trip")

Really enjoying the thread so far.  Just to throw in my .02 - I have played minis on a big table like this several times where there was the terrain laid out and we did a mix of role-play and wargaming.  One was Colonial Africa with us trying to find the source of a river, another time as LRRP in Vietnam with patrols trying to complete mission objectives.  Both of these had a "GM" who controled the opposition, traps, etc.  There was something very cool about looking at the table full of terrain and not knowing what was out there waiting for you...

Best,

Pete

Latigo[Pete]:

QuoteOne was Colonial Africa with us trying to find the source of a river, another time as LRRP in Vietnam with patrols trying to complete mission objectives. Both of these had a "GM" who controled the opposition, traps, etc. There was something very cool about looking at the table full of terrain and not knowing what was out there waiting for you...

Strangely, I seem to rceall coming across a website recently that described almost those exact scenarios. Did one of the participants post them somewhere?

QuoteOne game I've seen recently that treads the rpg / minis line is the free game BRUTAL.

Thanks for the link!
One of the things I've noticed about minis gamers and the internet is that as a whole, no one seems to mind creating "Minis Heartbreakers". There are scads of free minis rules out there, some of them actually really good variants of existing games, and more than a few every bit as clever as commercial products. It's almost as if minis rules designers are all in on some sort of "Thousand Monkeys with a thousand typewriters" sort of experiment (myself included).

Strangely, I had one of those " Well, duh!" moments last night regarding this whole concept. As I've been reading this thread, I've been a little saddened by the way it inevitably comes back to wargaming. Not that I dislike wargaming, because I'm a huge junkie for it. The moment was when I realized that it would be nigh impossible to do anything but wargaming if all the figures looked as if they were armed solely for combat! I know, fairly obvious, right? The thing is, probably like many other minis fans, I tend to overlook townsfolk type models, and assorted non-combatant figures. When I make impulse purchases of figures, it's almost always fighting types. Gee, I wonder why other sorts of elements fail to come into play?

Does anyone have any experience with minis gaming where there were a lot of non-coms on the board? As active figures, not merely victims, that is?

Robert

Komrade,

I don't know if other people posted about those games to the web.  My friend who ran the African one frequently does games of this sort with his club, so it's a possibility.  I had never played that genre before, but the figures were soo cool it really drew me in.

As for the "thousand monkeys with computers and d6", it is pretty amazing.  I must grab a free pdf of someones rules almost every week from online.  This site is probably the best I've seen for folks interested in such.  http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/

As far as non-combat minis, there have been so many produced and it would be cool to see them get a role in play.  Wild West games often have rules for townfolk, where you have a flow chart of "if / then" usually with a random element (die or card) thrown in.  This idea could be adapted to fantasy or whatever easily enough.  This is I guess "reactive / random" in some sense but at least it gets them moving and interacting with the player's figures in some scripted way that could be expanded to include other more social options.  In a lot of ways like the townfolk who populate computer rpg's who walk back and forth all day, and you can interact with on some level.

Best of all,

Pete

Hey Bob,

Check out Jared Sorensen's Points of Articulation, an action-figure roleplaying game.

Paul

Quote from: greedo1379Then there's ... Confrontation which is slowly moving towards a traditional RPG.

And not only that, they are now releasing a mini-based RPG called Cadwallon (that's a free city of thieves and mercenaries in the world of Aarklash where Confrontation and Ragnarok are being played).

My first time playing DnD was a 3.0 sorc -- and the people I was playing with had an absolutely beautiful set of pewter minis, and a gridded chalkboard for a gameplay table.  I had a lot of fun with it.  Any enemies there were no minis for instead got the paper cut out treatment.

I've found miniatures can assist combat games a LOT -- sometimes it's just important to know WHAT is happening WHERE.  They make ranged weapons seriously useful, and they give players instant knowledge.

We had a good GM for handling the issues of how much information could we see, and as a party we didn't ever spread out too much, so it worked rather well, even for DnD.

I think that, as a general rule, paper cut outs and chalk work just as well as well as anything else.  Miniatures are nice, but in the end, at least for the gaming we were trying to do -- the tactical lines drawn in chalk and the scrape of the unpainted figures on the board was more than enough for me.  Imagination turned the rest into reality.

Hi everyone,

Let's close this thread now. If folks want to discuss miniatures' role some more, please start new threads.

Best,
Ron