Minis and RPGs: Thoughts on new directions?

[Callan S.]

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.

[komradebob]

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).

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.

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.

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

[greedo1379]

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?

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.)

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).

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.

[contracycle]

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?

[greedo1379]

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?

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.

[komradebob]

Contracycle (originally addressed to greedo1379)

What 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:

This 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.

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.

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

Thanks all,
Robert

[greedo1379]

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.

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.

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.

[contracycle]

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.

[Kensan_Oni]

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...

[komradebob]

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

[Tony Irwin]

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

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.

[komradebob]

Tony Irwin:

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.

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:

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

.

Consider that stolen...

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.

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.

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.

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

[Latigo]

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

[komradebob]

Latigo[Pete]:

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...

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

One 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

[Latigo]

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