Krasnoarmeets (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Kpachoapmee.php) by James Holloway wins a Low Ronny! Check out some earlier discussion in [Kpachoapmee/Krasnoarmeets] Enemy at the Ronnies Gates (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17629.0).
At last, the Stalingrad RPG I was hoping for - I knew I threw authors a curve by not permitting Soviet, gun, and mud all together, and wondered how many folks would find a way around it. As a side note, the Soviet War Memorial (the one just west of the Brandenburg Gate) was one of the most moving sights of my visit to Berlin ... 25+ million dead, man ... geez.
So, we are looking at an RPG with minis, complete with group painting. Kind of a hefty buy-in, financially, don't you think? Although I applaud the idea of approaching "what we do here at this table" in a different way. As I see it, the big design goal is to keep it an RPG, letting the mini thing be useful and invoke "army men" without becoming itself a wargame.
To do that, it needs more structure for two things: (a) scenario/mission prep and overall "how many" missions, and (b) becoming a frontovik, which should be a big deal. Arguably, the latter should be independent of character death. By structure for these things, I don't necessarily mean detailed in-the-moment rules that you apply in the middle of resolution mechanics. Such rules might be how the two big things are expressed, or they might not. You'll have to consider that carefully.
On the debit side toward the big design goal, I think that small-scale nuances of terrain and wargamey resolution stuff like 5" movement interfere with it. Using the map as a rules and scenario organizer, and as an orienter toward the terrain at the largest scale, are great - but using it as a source of small-scale modifiers, for instance, is not.
Damn! The rules for tovarishti are crucial, as you mentioned in a recent post. Missing that is what bumps the award to a Low. I was thinkin' "High Ronny" until I hit that part. I can see how they'd fit, too! Relate them to the excellent stress mechanic that you have, especially the fact that you don't gain Stress when you are hit.
Best,
Ron
Too much time spent faffing about with resolution and not enough time spent on the stuff that really mattered, viz. mission structure/escalation, character development, tovarishti. Absolutely. Working on this right now.
Too many modifiers? Yes, absolutely.
Too much investment? Maybe. I have to admit this is kind of an RPG written specifically for me and my old California group, wargamers all and given to get together for painting evenings. A lot of the base investment, in terms of terrain, paints, etc. we'd already have. In the game, I'll discuss how to set up a Krasnoarmeets table on a budget.
I quite like the wargamey movement, etc., but then again this may be because it seems like second nature to me. I should try it out with some people who are more traditional RPG players and see if it causes a problem.
We shall see. I got a copy of Zaloga's The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 for Christmas, and it's got me thinking about the game again, so hopefully I should have a revised edition for posting in the next couple of weeks. Then we'll see where we go from there.
Further: at the moment I'm thinking that your tovarishti can, by interacting with you in the base, singing songs, getting drunk, etc., actually take stress from you onto themselves, and vice versa, rather than just plain getting rid of it -- although maybe they can get rid of small amounts, but if they try to get rid of large amounts, they take some themselves. The tovarishti are sharing each other's burdens.
I'd have to see how this works out in play -- I would hate for it to become a bloodless load-balancing mechanism. Maybe a random element to it. Not sure about this yet. Base may possibly include scavenging for booze, smokes, concertinas (each battalion of the Red Army was supposed to be issued at least one concertina) which help relieve stress? Not sure about that.
Mission progression is going to work something like this: you have X different types of mission (my notes say patrol, reconnaisance, defend, assault, capture; I could probably think of one or two others), each of which has a certain mission rating. When you complete a mission, the big campaign number goes up, until it reaches a certain level (set by the play group based on how long they want the campaign to be, I think) and then it's time for the big push. Possibly the amount added to the campaign number varies depending on whether the mission was a success or failure? Or the success or failure leads into a mission-selection tree?
I'm considering having the mission rating have something to do with the forces available to the Germans and Romanians (and how pathetically excited am I that HaT is finally releasing that Romanian Infantry boxed set? It doesn't bear thinking about), but part of me wants to say that the GM should really decide this stuff more or less at random -- some missions are walkovers, and some are simply impossible. Once you figure out the job can't be done, you have to say screw it and go back to the base, where you get a yelling-at from your commander, but that's life.
Experience, experience: still kicking this one around. Open to suggestions. Is the feedback thread the right place for this stuff or should I start a new Krasnoarmeets development thread?
Hi James:
I'm following the development of your game with great interest.
I think the inclusion of the group figure painting in addition to picking figures is an absolutely genius move. For me it is on par with the idea of group chargen or player participation in setting creation. I think it's fairly important in moving the physical pieces from the category of merely positional pawns to being an important part of character concept, the way a character sheet is. James, I hope you'll understand if I steal this particular technique for a design of my own at some future point. In terms of financial commitment for the group, realistically, how much are we looking at? My estimates are somewhere between $10-30 for the entire group as a whole, including paint and brushes, but not rules cost. I'm not saying that there is no cost involved, but I do think the cost of minis in games is often over-emphasized as a downside.
Quote from: komradebob on January 02, 2006, 09:37:51 PMIn terms of financial commitment for the group, realistically, how much are we looking at?
Well, it all depends. You're going to have to translate into dollars if you care about them; one pound is about $1.70 or so.
Bare bones version: one box of Italeri/Esci Red Army, maybe two of Germans: twelve quid. That's everybody's models plus plenty of spares. We'll need a couple pots of brown paint, some green, some flesh, some gray, red, I dunno. All that kind of thing. That could be twenty pounds, with brushes. Maybe more. Good brushes are expensive. Terrain could be a big one if you don't have any. I have no idea of an estimate on that. I would be tempted to get a big-ass bucket of celluclay or papier-mache and some 2x2 particle board squares and just have all the players moosh it around to make the terrain. Get your fingers in there and make permanent terrain, then slap a couple coats of regular brown paint on it and work from there. Plays with the "mud" theme nicely, too.
Expensive version? The sky's the limit. Pricey but good 1/48 figures from North Star could run you a couple of quid each, and you could really go berserk on the terrain.
But honesly, I suspect that if you're the kind of group likely to play this game you're likely to have the basic painting infrastructure under control. Someone in the group is going to paint, at the very least.
I was going to say that I've never been in a gaming group where someone wasn't an enthusiastic miniature painter, but then I realized that was only because I've never been in a group that didn't have
me in it.
Gah!
Okay- when it's time to write the part on doing it on a budget, call me, okay? I'm like the cheapest minis gamer evah!
But, if the sky is the limit, check out Black Tree, particularly the scouts, characters, and partisans over here (http://www.black-tree-design.com/btdcat.php?ctry=uk&lng=gb&rangenum=7&typenum=53&qty=0&sub=&shp=&tot=). I've been looking for an excuse to buy those forever.
I love miniatures games and can't paint for shit, so it'd be an issue for me (I played Warhammer in grad school with some friends by making up a bunch of unit icons and printing out literally hundreds of tiny bases I cut out and glued to bits of cut-up cereal box -- and yes, that was for me
easier than trying to paint anything).
Quote from: James Holloway on January 02, 2006, 09:33:12 PMBase may possibly include scavenging for booze, smokes, concertinas (each battalion of the Red Army was supposed to be issued at least one concertina) which help relieve stress...
MUST HAVE CONCERTINAS. I want to play a miniatures wargame where the most important item of equipment in the squad is the fucking
accordion. "Ivan, what are you doing?" "I'm going back for the concertina!" "No, the Panzers will kill you for sure!" "But we need the +4 to Stress Relief rolls!" Etc.
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on January 02, 2006, 10:14:43 PM
I love miniatures games and can't paint for shit, so it'd be an issue for me (I played Warhammer in grad school with some friends by making up a bunch of unit icons and printing out literally hundreds of tiny bases I cut out and glued to bits of cut-up cereal box -- and yes, that was for me easier than trying to paint anything).
In a way, I think that makes the painting
as a group even more important. It's a bonding experiece for the players, that is mirrored in the relationship of the characters.
Having said that, I paint like a blind chimpanzee with a raggedy q-tip, so...
QuoteMUST HAVE CONCERTINAS. I want to play a miniatures wargame where the most important item of equipment in the squad is the fucking accordion. "Ivan, what are you doing?" "I'm going back for the concertina!" "No, the Panzers will kill you for sure!" "But we need the +4 to Stress Relief rolls!" Etc.
Hell yes. I've been trying to figure out how to work bagpipes into a ww1 game.
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on January 02, 2006, 10:14:43 PM
MUST HAVE CONCERTINAS.
Well, you know, this all started as trying to get around the problem of designing a game set during a war without "gun," but I actually like it. I've got a good quote somewhere about how it's acceptable to smoke during combat.
Quote from: James Holloway on January 02, 2006, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on January 02, 2006, 10:14:43 PM
MUST HAVE CONCERTINAS.
Well, you know, this all started as trying to get around the problem of designing a game set during a war without "gun," but I actually like it. I've got a good quote somewhere about how it's acceptable to smoke during combat.
I think that your take on guns in this design is especially good- The figures have guns because they're soldiers in a war. Gun-bunny statistic-love, however, isn't the focus of their use. Very nice!
I wanted to ask a couple of questions related to the physical pieces:
I've stated that I think the group painting is important for player emotional investment in the game. Couple follow ups:
Have you considered any in-game effects of painted versus unpainted figures? I'm thinking about two key areas: replacements for killed characters and enemy troops. Should fngs even be painted until they finish a mission? Is there a mechanical way to integrate painted and non-painted enemy troops? Overall, I'm getting at the idea of painted ( known, significant, fleshed out) characters, versus unpainted ( unknown, faceless enemies or replacements). I guess i'm thinking about a sort of ritualized aspect to the game.
On a related idea, what about the player creation of terrain pieces? Who has responsibilty to make this stuff, and how is it integrated into the overall ritual of gaming? Can this aspect be tied into the campaign? Is the GM repsonsible for example for shoosing missions only based on the terrain available? Should players get a say in the terrain used in a mission? How about the creation of terrain for the base?
Overall, I'm trying to ask about the creation/ addition to the overall game collection, thinking about it in a fashion similar to component creation/development in Universalis. I'm curious about you're own take, because I've been thinking about the issue in terms of how a group of miniatures game players interact on the SC level, and how that might be tied to actual in-games rules.
Thanks,
Robert
Quote from: komradebob on January 04, 2006, 12:23:12 PM
I wanted to ask a couple of questions related to the physical pieces:
I've stated that I think the group painting is important for player emotional investment in the game. Couple follow ups:
Have you considered any in-game effects of painted versus unpainted figures? I'm thinking about two key areas: replacements for killed characters and enemy troops. Should fngs even be painted until they finish a mission? Is there a mechanical way to integrate painted and non-painted enemy troops? Overall, I'm getting at the idea of painted ( known, significant, fleshed out) characters, versus unpainted ( unknown, faceless enemies or replacements). I guess i'm thinking about a sort of ritualized aspect to the game.
Unpainted figures give me a rash. In general, I'm thinking the GM will paint the baddies (because in general I'm thinking the GM is me, right?) and that if a whole company is going to be painted, the paint job is pretty simple. So non-PCs are probably going to have a simplistic block-painted kind of a look. Beyond that, I have to admit I haven't really given it much thought.
Quote
On a related idea, what about the player creation of terrain pieces? Who has responsibilty to make this stuff, and how is it integrated into the overall ritual of gaming? Can this aspect be tied into the campaign? Is the GM repsonsible for example for shoosing missions only based on the terrain available? Should players get a say in the terrain used in a mission? How about the creation of terrain for the base?
I think communal terrain creation would be fantastic, actually, particularly of the base. I'd like to see the same terrain essentially used over and over again -- this is your sector of the front, and you're responsible for it.
Quote
Overall, I'm trying to ask about the creation/ addition to the overall game collection, thinking about it in a fashion similar to component creation/development in Universalis. I'm curious about you're own take, because I've been thinking about the issue in terms of how a group of miniatures game players interact on the SC level, and how that might be tied to actual in-games rules.
Thanks,
Robert
This is all good stuff; keep it up.
Quote from: James Holloway on January 05, 2006, 05:39:07 AM
Quote from: komradebob on January 04, 2006, 12:23:12 PM
I wanted to ask a couple of questions related to the physical pieces:
I've stated that I think the group painting is important for player emotional investment in the game. Couple follow ups:
Have you considered any in-game effects of painted versus unpainted figures? I'm thinking about two key areas: replacements for killed characters and enemy troops. Should fngs even be painted until they finish a mission? Is there a mechanical way to integrate painted and non-painted enemy troops? Overall, I'm getting at the idea of painted ( known, significant, fleshed out) characters, versus unpainted ( unknown, faceless enemies or replacements). I guess i'm thinking about a sort of ritualized aspect to the game.
Unpainted figures give me a rash. In general, I'm thinking the GM will paint the baddies (because in general I'm thinking the GM is me, right?) and that if a whole company is going to be painted, the paint job is pretty simple. So non-PCs are probably going to have a simplistic block-painted kind of a look. Beyond that, I have to admit I haven't really given it much thought.
How about starting the game with
all the minis (PC and NPC) gettting a 'generic' paint job? As in, the uniform and skin etc is painted, but no detail work. As the end of each scenario, features get added to the survivors - maybe a bandage or a bit of stubble, some rank insignia to represent a field promotion and so on. So the minis develop as the characters develop.
Quote from: Doug Ruff on January 05, 2006, 08:34:53 AM
How about starting the game with all the minis (PC and NPC) gettting a 'generic' paint job? As in, the uniform and skin etc is painted, but no detail work. As the end of each scenario, features get added to the survivors - maybe a bandage or a bit of stubble, some rank insignia to represent a field promotion and so on. So the minis develop as the characters develop.
While that's a cool idea, it does raise storage and transport issues, because you're talking about not varnishing these figures at all. That could get a little ugly.
QuoteUnpainted figures give me a rash. In general, I'm thinking the GM will paint the baddies (because in general I'm thinking the GM is me, right?) and that if a whole company is going to be painted, the paint job is pretty simple. So non-PCs are probably going to have a simplistic block-painted kind of a look. Beyond that, I have to admit I haven't really given it much thought.
Perhaps I've misunderstood a bit about your game. Why would a company of baddies be necessary for the GM to paint? I thought that each player used one character figure? Wouldn't having a whole company of enemies be a bit of overkill for the likely missions?
As for the GM doing the painting-why?
Here's what I'm thinking:
Think of the players having some responsibility to paint up both their own troops, enemies, and terrain. Think of this stuff sort of like Kickers (not completely, but sort of...)- It's a way for the players to tell you, the GM, what kind of missions they want to play. If they paint snipers, you'll make sniper bangs/missions. If it's a machinegun nest, again, it gives you something to work with.
Admittedly, this isn't a direct translation of kickers/bangs, but there is a similarity of method.
Popping up to the gamerules/sc frontier for a moment, you could feasibly integrate painting/terrain creation by the players with the missions. For a moment, let's consider that you're writing rules where actually having cool models is important. You aren't even trying to satisfy folks that don't love the painted toy soldiers and developed model terrain- you're writing for groups like your own that do love this stuff! What could you do with that? How can you make those methods/techniques work in that context?
I guess I'm thinking of what rules you mght put in place, integrated with a campaign, that works from the perspective of a play group/club context where the participants
want to go whole hog on the minis. What would make this easier? How much should each person contribute? What in-game rewards can be established for participating in this fashion?
Quote from: komradebob on January 06, 2006, 12:48:06 PM
Perhaps I've misunderstood a bit about your game. Why would a company of baddies be necessary for the GM to paint? I thought that each player used one character figure? Wouldn't having a whole company of enemies be a bit of overkill for the likely missions?
Well, yeah, OK, a company is probably overkill. There should be a company's worth of variety, but you're never going to field more than three rifle squads against the PCs, and seldom even that.
Quote
Quote
As for the GM doing the painting-why?
No reason, really. Tradition.
Quote
Here's what I'm thinking:
Think of the players having some responsibility to paint up both their own troops, enemies, and terrain. Think of this stuff sort of like Kickers (not completely, but sort of...)- It's a way for the players to tell you, the GM, what kind of missions they want to play. If they paint snipers, you'll make sniper bangs/missions. If it's a machinegun nest, again, it gives you something to work with.
Could do, could do.
Quote
I guess I'm thinking of what rules you mght put in place, integrated with a campaign, that works from the perspective of a play group/club context where the participants want to go whole hog on the minis. What would make this easier? How much should each person contribute? What in-game rewards can be established for participating in this fashion?
If I knew, I'd be a happier gamer. But in all the wargames clubs I know (which isn't many), if you want to get everyone into something, you're responsible for handling it. I guess that's the attitude I'm bringing to the game, but there's no real reason for it; it's an artifact of my situation and not anything inherent in the game rules.
In a way, the game represents the gap between my California and Cambridge game groups. It aspires to the first, but when I discuss it here I kind of assume the second, although there's no real reason to.
Totally unrelated:
the first draft of Krasnoarmeets was filled with Soviet WWII propaganda tone; lots of GLORY TO THE DEFENDERS OF THE MOTHERLAND and SMERT FASHISTAM and ZA STALINA! ZA RODINA!* and so forth. In the end, I took it all out except for the rather mild "Glory" poster on the front page. I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff.
The thing is that part of the whole point of the game is to humanize the war and focus it on the experience of the infantryman, alternating long periods of boredom and misery with sudden flashes of terror and, er, misery. On the one hand, putting in the glorious propaganda stuff might tend to reduce that, and the WWII wargaming market is already flooded with that kind of imagery. Much as I love, I dunno, Call of Duty, I'm not sure that I'd like this game to become one about heroic struggle, unless it's about the mundanity and difficulty of any one person's part of a heroic struggle. On the other hand, this kind of stuff was a real part of the strelets's life, with soldiers being encouraged to write letters about exactly what terrors they were going to inflict on the Fascist beasts and so on.
I think that one of the scenarios has got to involve what happens when the squad captures some Hiwis. My guess is that 90% of players will shoot them on the spot and would bill their families for the bullet if they could. Which is not so far from the history, I guess.
*Rodinu? Rodinu, I think. All these years and I don't understand the first thing about Russian grammar.
QuoteWell, yeah, OK, a company is probably overkill. There should be a company's worth of variety, but you're never going to field more than three rifle squads against the PCs, and seldom even that.
Hunh. That's still larger than I'd imagined. Pardon me while I go all gamist for a second: How many characters and not-quite-pcs will the players have on the board at a time? I guess I'd envisioned 1 character to 1 player as the norm, at least until the final push. 3 squads, even using the small 4 man german-style fire teams as squads is still 15 active germans against a player group of what, 4-5? Ow! Even with surprise and local superiority, that's some kinda bad odds for the players!
Were you thinking of an option where players start with one fleshed out character initially, then they get to optionally refocus on a different character after a mission, until a whole platoon worth of relationships was built? Sort of like troupe play in Ars Magica?
QuoteIf I knew, I'd be a happier gamer. But in all the wargames clubs I know (which isn't many), if you want to get everyone into something, you're responsible for handling it. I guess that's the attitude I'm bringing to the game, but there's no real reason for it; it's an artifact of my situation and not anything inherent in the game rules.
Well, Ben (?- I'm hoping I'm remembering correctly) tackled some SC/organization issues in Scarlet Wake, something I found interesting. In that, he took the bull by the horns and straight out said that to play his game, people had to get organized and set play dates and so forth. That's one possibility.
Another possibility is breaking up what everyone has to do, and how often they have to do it. At minimum, everyone will need a painted figure and a character sheet. At minimum, the rear area will need at least one hut/bunker/cp. At minimum, there should be at least one painted enemy figure for every player character and at least one piece of terrain for the no-mans-land and the enemy zone.
I don't know- could a player start developing a second ( or third, etc) character if they contributed one of those things? Could a player engage in a little meta-gaming to reduce character stress by providing another painted enemy or enemy position (nasty little cycle right there)? Is there a way to move the game forward time wise based on the amount of terrain and enemies that are now available ( defined as fully modelled)? That would be a sort of critical mass of figures+terrain. When it hits a certain number, bigger missions start taking place in preparation for the Big Push.
For that matter, could you make it that the players, when presenting the GM with new badguy stuff to use had to collectively decide how the metagame destressing was distirbuted amongst the characters? Sort of one or two player's talents/finances being used for the good of the group? What if the group discussed it openly, but then the contributors turned in the destress point divisions secretly? Oooo...intrigue! What will the politcal officer think?
The rear area also intrigues me. I'm getting the impression that the base is the only area that truly has any
solidity. I mean, it could change as new huts/canteens/etc were added, but I got the idea that the no-mans-land and enemy zones might change up to represent slightly different areas that the troops were active on.
BTW- what are the axis troops up to at this point? Are they still infiltrating/prisoner snatching/raiding? Is there a chance that they'll come hassle the comrades on their own turf? That could be cruel, too, especially if base/rear area terrain had de-stressing qualities...
QuoteQuoteAs for the GM doing the painting-why?
No reason, really. Tradition.
Heh. In all fairness, a lot of Forge aided designs ask players to pick up other elements of a game, so why not directly tackle the physical parts, too? By tradition, rpg GMs write the story and the players toddle along with their characters following the rails. A whole bunch of folks have taking shots at that sacred cow, so why not the minis-are-the-GM's-responsibility one? Hell we'd have probably have seen more minis rpgs by now if someone axed that particular bovine.
QuoteIn a way, the game represents the gap between my California and Cambridge game groups. It aspires to the first, but when I discuss it here I kind of assume the second, although there's no real reason to.
Tell me about the California group's play style and approach to minis games, please. I think it may be the basis for techniques you could use.
QuoteI think that one of the scenarios has got to involve what happens when the squad captures some Hiwis. My guess is that 90% of players will shoot them on the spot and would bill their families for the bullet if they could. Which is not so far from the history, I guess.
How does it affect the characters, though? Is it a gamble, where they might gain
or lose stress or even gain/lose connections to the other characters? I suspect murdering prisoners might have any of the above effects, or even a combination.