Minis and RPGs: Thoughts on new directions?

[Nathan P.]

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...

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.

[komradebob]

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.

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...

[Hereward The Wake]

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

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?

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.

[greedo1379]

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.

[komradebob]

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

[greedo1379]

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.

[Hereward The Wake]

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

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

[Callan S.]

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!

[komradebob]

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.

[Shadetree]

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.

[greedo1379]

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.

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.

[Shadetree]

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.

[neko ewen]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

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.

[komradebob]

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:

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).

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