Narrativist wargaming

[Lance D. Allen]

I think the TRoS combat system, which mixes a light-but-fiddly sim-system with a strong emphasis on the actions of individual PCs to affect the battle. The sim system itself allows for how the battle will go without PC interaction based on the strength of the forces, and various environmental and tactical considerations. It also incorporates rules for the tactical expertise of the general, and the morale of the troops, affected by a "rousing speech".

Beyond those considerations, it's all about the actions of the PCs. The PCs can raid the enemy's encampment, challenge the enemy generals, help with the medical corps, and various other things which can have a big impact on the tide of the battle.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

you have to choose between the mission and the man. So, premise: "What victory is worth sacrificing others for?"

That makes for a gnarly game. It's related to what I'm after, in that the character has personal feelings about what to do, and is pulled by different demands.

It's a game I'd love to see someone make. I think you've got something there.

It could be really eerie and Ender's Gamish, in that you're commanding units on a battlefield by playing a boardgame. And then you have to look the survivors in the eye.

I'm not sure I'd want to play such a game, but I'd sure buy it.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I think the TRoS combat system, which mixes a light-but-fiddly sim-system with a strong emphasis on the actions of individual PCs to affect the battle. The sim system itself allows for how the battle will go without PC interaction based on the strength of the forces, and various environmental and tactical considerations. It also incorporates rules for the tactical expertise of the general, and the morale of the troops, affected by a "rousing speech".

Beyond those considerations, it's all about the actions of the PCs. The PCs can raid the enemy's encampment, challenge the enemy generals, help with the medical corps, and various other things which can have a big impact on the tide of the battle.

Oh, I have no doubt that RPGs can handle this kind of thing competently. I'm talking about a strategy game where your human actions matter, not a humanist story with strategic implications.

[James Holloway]

I can kind of see doing a very intense "what will you do to survive" kind of a Vietnam game, for instance, but I'm not sure it would be "wargaming" properly so-called.

I said that, not Thierry.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I can kind of see doing a very intense "what will you do to survive" kind of a Vietnam game, for instance, but I'm not sure it would be "wargaming" properly so-called.

I said that, not Thierry.

Geez. Sorry, there's some sort of Forge quote barfing going on.

[Judd]

Having run the Flower of Battle combat system with a group  of very nar-centric wargamers, I can tell ya it works like a dream.

It plays very much like the old Legend of Five Rings mass combat system, rolls for the commanders to see how the combat is going and flashes into the heroism of the PC's.

I loved it and the group seemed to dig it also.

Great stuff.

[James Holloway]

Oh, I have no doubt that RPGs can handle this kind of thing competently. I'm talking about a strategy game where your human actions matter, not a humanist story with strategic implications.

One interesting way I've seen this done was to give players in a wargame different roles within the command hierarchy and differing objectives as well. I know you're not interested in modern war -- the example is from the Spanish Civil War -- but it would work as well, or even better, in a premodern setting.

In the game in question, a small number of players were divisional commanders. These players were isolated from the battlefield -- they had big maps showing the positions of their brigades and divisional assets, and they would send orders to each of their brigade commanders.

Now, the brigade commander players had very different personalities and objectives. Because this is the Spanish Civil War, each division had a couple of jokers -- a Communist volunteer battalion, an Italian brigade, etc -- and not every brigade was fully committed to the division's objectives or command structure. This forced the divisional commander to strike up a relationship as best he could with his brigade commanders, since the weak command hierarchy made personal leadership the most effective.

This had the painful effect that the brigade commander the division commander liked best was also the one most likely to obey his orders well, and therefore the guy who had to be handed all the shitty jobs that lesser brigade commanders would try to avoid doing -- like, say, assaulting strongly held enemy positions.

Lots of casualties in those friendly brigades.

Now imagine this in, say, a Bronze Age setting like the Iliad. Each PC is the commander of a group of followers -- they answer only to him. Agamemnon has no authority to command the Myrmidons, only Achilles can do that -- so if Agamemnon makes his obnoxious personality felt, he loses crack troops. And on the battlefield, there's no command structure above those individuals, each rampaging around the field doing his own thing, sometimes coordinating and sometimes not.

Premise: "which is better, honor or victory?"

Premise: "is an honorable foe better than a dishonorable ally?"

Premise: "a good commander loves his men, but must be willing to order their deaths."

Premise: "kill or lay down the sword."

Premise: "who is the better man, a great warrior or a king?"

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Now imagine this in, say, a Bronze Age setting like the Iliad. Each PC is the commander of a group of followers -- they answer only to him. Agamemnon has no authority to command the Myrmidons, only Achilles can do that -- so if Agamemnon makes his obnoxious personality felt, he loses crack troops. And on the battlefield, there's no command structure above those individuals, each rampaging around the field doing his own thing, sometimes coordinating and sometimes not.

Premise: "which is better, honor or victory?"

Premise: "is an honorable foe better than a dishonorable ally?"

Premise: "a good commander loves his men, but must be willing to order their deaths."

Premise: "kill or lay down the sword."

Premise: "who is the better man, a great warrior or a kin"

Now we're talkin'. There's no cult of personality like the hero worship of Achaea.

So I think what you probably wind up seeing is a balance like this (made up on the spot here):

- If a player kills another player's hero, he might get land or what-have-you, but he doesn't get troops. Therefore, it behooves them to not kill each other, unless there's emnity between them.

- There could be something along the lines of Mountain Witch's Trust mechanic that goes into negative numbers - Emnity - where your trust of each other can build up and become substantial bonuses to aiding - or betraying - each other in conflict. Conversely, Emnity gives you a bonus on hurting someone else; if they capture you, you can't hurt them (they don't trust you enough), but they can't use you effectively, either.

- Trust can only move so fast - up or down by one between battles, or zeroed out, but you can't switch from Emnity to Trust in one turn. Emnity is short-term useful, long-term, it endangers you.

- Since everyone knows what the score is all the time, by the time two forces meet in battle, they might want to just team up.

- ... which gets back to "why play for second place?" If what you want is a unified France, getting with the winning team might be a viable strategy. If what you want is revenge on someone else, likewise..... Victory conditions can be things like Unification (victory points for being on the winning team, with a higher score for having higher Trust with the King), Revenge (kill an opposing Hero), Triumph (Being High King), Shadow Ruler (Being second in command, modified for the level of Trust your ruler has in you)... I think those victory conditions might be face-down cards. Maybe you can show them if you want...

So the thing to do is, work out basic resolution mechanics.
- Heroes' damange is done by fallout - if they die, it's after the battle, and mostly they accrue scars.
- The damage Heroes deal is in numbers of opponent non-heroes they take down. Versus other Heroes, they deal serious, maybe immediate, fallout.
- Regulars have mass effects - they're shooting at other masses of dudes, so, against other masses of dudes, they do primarily morale damage. Most losses are by dudes running away, and only if they can't run away do they die on the spot.
- Morale is healed by heroes succeeding, modified by the Hero's reputation, which is probably a factor of how much fallout sHe's taken (more = higher rep). A Hero joining a unit completely heals the unit's morale. Morale is how effective a unit is.
- Heroes are, of course, immune to morale damage, as is the unit the Hero is fighting within.

So... the question is, "What will you do to be remembered?"