Role Playing as it is done in Historical Miniatures Games

[MatrixGamer]

I live in that part of the gaming world that crosses over between miniatures gaming and RPGs. Role playing is it is done now grew out of miniatures but the two have gone off on different paths for some time. I thought it would be interesting to discuss what these worlds have done to see if some creative juices might start flowing.

I assume that people know about Games Workshop, so I'll skip all that.

What might not be as well known is that the trend has been towards more and more role playing in miniatures for some time. The role playing is notas individual focused as most RPGs are but more of how characters react within military situations. I'll cover some of the basic ways I've seen games run at cons.

#1 "The Sword and the Flame" way: TSATF was a set of 19th Century Colonial Skirmish rules for Britains Little Wars. Players each took control of one unit/platoon/etc. of troops and fought a battle. Units used individually mounted figures so officers and sergeants stood out and were imbued by their players with personality. Players have gone so far as to paint their character's metals on the figure to commemorate actions. In these games the players themselves decided their role play goals and it was the combat actions that were more important.

#2 "Hal Thinglum and Hordes of Zulus" games: Hal Thinglum put out a magazine called MWAN for nearly twenty years and ran hugh miniatures games that on the surface looked a lot like TSATF. The difference was that he gave characters individual missions. As the battle raged players would divert their men to places that made no military sense to go to accomplish these goals. Many games use this method of "personal victory conditions" to spur players to do more than just fight. Hal didn't invent this but has put on some truly great games of this type.

#3 "Ned Zuparko and character briefings" Ned wrote about games that used a lot of role playing in the Courier back in the 80's. Players were given characters that had short verbal descriptions of their personality and goals without any numerical statistics. Players had personal victory conditions as described above but would use a lot more interaction between one another to make them happen. Ned I'm sure got this idea from military simulation gaming (ala the national policy game run at Gen Con) but used it for a wide variety of situations. The games had no written rules for role playing - they relied on players playing out the unspoken rules of role playing that the Forge refers to as "system".

#4 "Science versus Pluck: or Too much for the Mahdi" by Howard Whitehouse. In the mid 80's Howard used the "Variable Length bound" idea (Is that one known in RPG circles?) to make a RPG. The players were all on the British side in an 1880's British Sudanese War Campaign. Some would be commanders of units, some scouts, some war reporters. The Dervishes were preprogramed (essentially when you got too close they charged.) The players stated their intentions and the GM would tell them how long the turn lasted (the variable length turn/bound) so games could cover lots of time and move quickly from event to event. Since all the players were on the same side it was an odd wargame - much more an RPG. Players made military diecision but mainly interacted with one another RPG like. For instance - as a reporter I once wrote my article on the battle at the start of the game declaring it a great victory, and ignored the real events. Instead I rode around trying to get dirt on people. As a scout in a Zulu war game I saw signs that there were A LOT of Zulus out there. I told the commander that he needed to eat the heart of a lion to win the victory. I went hunting and after three times failing to find a lion - deserted (and survived - there were a LOT of Zulus). Commanders would act out personal rivalries, career ambitions etc. All the while the war game continued.

#5 "Engle Matrix Games" round out this list. I've described them here. I owe a lot to all the gamers and games I've mentioned above. My difference is that I let people argue for what happens next rather than role play it out. They can role play on top of that but it is not required. As with all the above games, when I used MGs in convention wargames, the players characters were along for the ride inside a military maelstrom. As time went on I started running MGs that were more individual story focused so I've drifted away from miniatures gaming.

The similarity with all these games is that role playing is a secondary feature to the game. It adds color to the battle and may sway it but is not vital.

So here are the questions.

1. Do you know of more miniatures game based RPG approaches out there?
2. Do I need to explain the Varibale length bound idea in more detail?
3. How do these games mesh or clash with the trends of RPGs in general?

Please note that I only represent the last entrey in this list and that miniatures gaming happily leads a very separate life from this part of the hobby. No conversion attempts are needed or desired. I'm just looking for creative juices.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[komradebob]

Chris:
I'm very interested in this subject. I'll put a longer response in later, but you might want to check out this thread: Minis and RPGs: Thoughts on new directions where we talked about a lot of this stuff.

I'll also do a shameless plug, and point to my little floor game method ( I hesitate to say rules) A Cauldron of Magic Beans where I take a shot at this subject.

( Beware: I dumped a bunch of plain text in the post and apparently made people's eyes bleed as a result. If anyone has any suggestions on how and where to post lengthy items, please let me know.)

Later,
Robert

[Vaxalon]

Man.

The guys playing clickies at my FLGS need to take a page from the pros.

[Callan S.]

#1 "The Sword and the Flame" way: TSATF was a set of 19th Century Colonial Skirmish rules for Britains Little Wars. Players each took control of one unit/platoon/etc. of troops and fought a battle. Units used individually mounted figures so officers and sergeants stood out and were imbued by their players with personality. Players have gone so far as to paint their character's metals on the figure to commemorate actions. In these games the players themselves decided their role play goals and it was the combat actions that were more important.

Alot like illusionism or participationism, really. The players are expected to add color, as the story winds the course it is meant to. Except here the stories predefined course is determined by vicious and unwavering resource conflicts, rather than the GM ignoring input. Explorative wiggle room isn't provided by system and typically because of that, the human System doesn't grant much wiggle room. Who wants to grant cred to something that may undermine their win? Ron would probably say that gamists do it all the time, but really there is a difference in how winning is managed in gamist RPG's. I'm pretty sure it revolves around not a 'I won, you lost' mechanics like in a board game or war game, but 'I won the most, you won less' mechanics. When people can still win partially, the system is encouraging them to give over something that might cost them the big win...because that big win is not as important now.

[contracycle]

IMO, RPG largely lacks awareness of mechanical structures.  Thats too sweeping a statement, but it does not have anything like the set of terminologies for structures that exist in the wargame field.  Frex, I can go to baordgamegeek and search for games that share a common mechanical type, like area movement by contrast to movement points.  In many ways, IMO, board games are structurally more sophisticated than RPG's.

Now, I forget the precise meaning of variable length bound; its roughly speaking a non-fixed turn length, is it not?  That is, the turn is not X minutes, it is until X points are spent or similar.

In essence, this I think is the same issue being discussed as conflict resolution versus task resolution.  What the variable bound does is change the emphasis from the resolution of cause into effect into the resolution of salient issues to the central conflict.

[MatrixGamer]

Now, I forget the precise meaning of variable length bound; its roughly speaking a non-fixed turn length, is it not?  That is, the turn is not X minutes, it is until X points are spent or similar.

Variable length bound games give result rates for things like, marching, shooting, building, etc. The player says what they want to have happen. The referee looks at the intentions of the other side and sets the length of the next turn as a longer or shorter amount of time depending on how they interact. So If my men stop and set up a camp, while the other side does some elaborate ritual dance, the referee would set a very long bound – say 10 hours. As scouts move out towards each others sides the bounds get shorter and shorter as they get closer together. The results of a turn are determined by multiplying the task with the rate of result – so driving at 60mph would be 1mile per minute, so a 10 minute turn would yield a move of 10 miles.

The idea falls apart on the notion of how long turns should be. It is very demanding on the game master to get this right.

I'm not certain that RPG designers are unaware of structure now as much as in the past. Isn't the Lumpley Principle basically about that? There is a system even if people are unaware of the system. Role playing unconsciously follows with a lot of D+D's structures. The GM talking to "the Caller" as they described the most vocal player in the old white box version of D+D. Going around the table giving each player a turn to act comes from the miniatures structure of doing the same thing – which comes from board game way back when dinosaurs walked the Earth.

In essence, this I think is the same issue being discussed as conflict resolution versus task resolution.  What the variable bound does is change the emphasis from the resolution of cause into effect into the resolution of salient issues to the central conflict.

Moving from critical event to critical event (which is what Ron is describing as conflict resolution) is the same thing. This difference would come in a non-confrontational turn. For instance, whilst pitching camp the Colonel has his men take tea. The game master/referee sets that turn length at 2 hours. This moves the turn all the way through this "task" so that not a lot of game time is used up on it. This isn't a conflict it just puts less emphasis (measured here as game time – one of our most limited resources)  on this task. The referee doesn't require the players to move to the next conflict. If they chose to diddle around the whole game making tea and filling sandbags they can. My life with Master which applies the conflict resolution idea has one roll per scene. Once the roll is made the scene moves on. So you see a little different – but similar.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

Man.

The guys playing clickies at my FLGS need to take a page from the pros.

Not pros, just another set of amatuers, we are all hobbyists.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Vaxalon]

I was using the term in approbation, I didn't mean it literally.

[Ron Edwards]

Quit empty-posting.

Back to real discussion on the topic, please. Save your sidebar comments and back-and-forth "what I meants" for private messages, if at all.

Best,
Ron

[MatrixGamer]

Chris:
I'm very interested in this subject. I'll put a longer response in later, but you might want to check out this thread: Minis and RPGs: Thoughts on new directions where we talked about a lot of this stuff.

Interesting thread. I swell with pride that you played "Politics by other means..." with your daughter. I made that game to be playable by anyone - it is hard to cheat in it because it's so simple. That being said it really is a wargame more than a story game. I use it to run games like "Hal Thunglum and Hordes of Zulus".

Later in the thread you were talking about setting games on terrain boards. I've done A LOT of these games. For ten years my Matrix Game events were all miniatures games. I learned a few aesthetic principles from them.

1. 1/3rd of the minis attractiveness comes from the figure, 1/3rd comes from the paint job and 1/3rd comes from how the base is decorated. With 20mm or smaller figures the base counts even more.

2. The total space covered by the figure bases needs to be about 10% of the total terrain field for the units to have room to maneuver and loo right.

3. Toy buildings do not have to be in scale with the figures. 25mm figures work with 15mm buildings. Troops can tower over buildings much like saints do in medieval paintings because they are more important.

4. Vehicles only need to be close to scale with the figures when the game is a skirmish or strongly story telling event.

5. Think Disneyland when making terrain. Give only the outward symbol of a thing rather than tons of detail because...

6. Everything is seen at an arms length. If the detail can't bee seen at that length then don't paint it!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

The question of setting up scenes raised in the above thread hits very close to home with role playing in miniatures games.

In TSATF, Hordes of Zulus, and Ned Zuparko's games role playing happened incidentally to the war game. Even if, as in Ned's games, where role playing could have a hugh impact on the game, time for role playing was limited by the time constraints of moving little men.

I eventaully because disenchanted with miniature wargames for this reason. They boil down to the following ballet: One side rushes forward to attack, the other side defends, if they stop the attack they win, if they are over run they lose. You can see how this could get old the five hundreth time you've done it.

Howard Whitehouse tried to overcome this by the variable length bound. I tried to overcome it by leaving tradtional movement behind. In Matrix Games players move their figures to where ever they want them to be. This allows them to set up scenes. The players have the option of doing inpromptu role player between themselves (san GM) or they can make them happen in their arguments.  I think this passes well within the RPG domain and marks my departure from active participation in the other part of the hobby (Save for PBOMs which is very much a wargame.)

I found that a 2x2 foot terrain board with a town on it (I've got an Arab town, a Paris diorama, and Jerusulem done and many others half done) with a handfull of figure/characters made for a good story game. The figures and terrain are just part of the "matrix" of information about the game world that Matrix Games use anyway. The map and figures act as visual magnets that beg people to find out what happens. The games were routinely fun and the minis/terrain always helped me recruit players to my games.

Now I'm less interested in carrying to much weight so I make laminated maps and cardboard counters of the characters. The game is played exactly the same - it just hurts less to carry it!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

At some point in the future, if people want, I'll do a thread on terrain making. It is fairly simple to do but you can find the info on the web if you look. It is getting off topic for the Forge - unless you've got a specific RPG use in mind.

[komradebob]

Well, honestly, the easiest way to get more rping is to stop playing with toy soldiers. No, seriously. I don't mean do away with miniatures. It is just that if you have a bunch of armed guys, it almost inevitably will turn into a battle game.InFloor Games, HG Wells recognized this issue and gives some concrete examples of the sorts of figures he wished thay toy manufacturers of his day would market.

When I did some floor games recently with my daughter, I used these Towns Folk and these Halflings, with the scenery consisting of some resin cast pub interiors and a bag of model railroad lichen. While there was certainly some action, there wasn't anything resembling the level of a battle game. Instead, there was a lot more character interaction, and a sort of follow where the story goes approach.

The other thing that I suggest is to take the figures first, and create the character from what you see in the figure, rather than plug the figure into a pre-existant character concept. That is sort of the reverse of the way figures are normally approached by both rpers and wargamers.

Some other folks who are doing this sort of "roots" roleplaying are the manufacturers of the PulpFigures line. I suggest taking a look at their download Directing a TableTop Pulp Adventure PDF. Poking around their site should give some ideas also. It is pretty interesting, although I might have approached the subject slightly differently.

[MatrixGamer]

Well, honestly, the easiest way to get more rping is to stop playing with toy soldiers.

I fully agree. I've got a sizable collection of people without guns figures. I've used them in murder mystery, spy, horror, true crime, and comedy Matrix Games. Some of them are gangsters and police but a lot are Call of Cthulhu figures and Wild West civilians. Since I've moved to doing MGs with cardboard counters I've stopped collecting little men but they still sit happily in the garage waiting for me to get the itch again. Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who figures fill out my collection of Sci Fi guys.

The thing that stopped me from continuing this pursuit was that I didn't want to send the message that "You need all this (figures and terrain) before you can play my game." You don't. Unless you are only dedicated to mini games I don't think it is a good idea for Indie game makers to push little men too much. It comes back to marketing - a clear message needs to have all the elements send the same message.

The Infamous Five notion that D+D fantasy is not mainstream but sci fi, horror, murder mystery, true crime, comedy and romance (I prefer this term over sex cos I'm from the Midwest) fits well with miniatures games (of the non-military vein). The question I think worth asking is how best to use the figures?

Some examples might help:

TSATF and Hordes of Zulus typically use 25mm figures. Units number up to 20 figures so they cover a large table well. This scale of figures and terrain focuses action on a very small "we're fighting a battle here" level. Howard Whitehouse uses 6mm figures for his game. He lays out a big table of terrain so the figures look very small on it. The game suggests that battle could happen anywhere on it - or not happen at all. The scale of figs and terrain give the feel of John Huston westerns set in Monument Valley. Matrix Game use only 20 or so figures on a 2x2 foot terrain board (often a city). This give enough room to set up scenes but suggets that action will happen here - involving these guys. I always bring along extra figues for people to use to make up new characters but largely the figs and terrain frame to big picture scene for the whole game.

What are your ideas on using the figures. Are they puppets? props? backdrop?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[komradebob]

heh-
Don't get me wrong. I love miniatures wargaming. But if you're primarily dealing with figures molded to be soldiers of some variety, you'll tend to end up with a battle, no matter what. I guess it is a case of function following form.

Also, I apologize for throwing this thread in a sideways direction. I recognize that your intent was to discuss rping WRT minis historical wargames, where I've been talking about more floor game type stuff.
Sorry about that, although I can see some areas of overlap that I think are interesting.

Robert

Edit, due to cross-posting:
Added:
I think of the figures as seeds to character creation, the same way that classes or professions, or other divisions are in figure-less games. I also think that if a world creation phase is part of the game ( similar to the Tenet phase in Universalis crossed with a Sandplay therapy session), then they may also cross into areas recognized by narr oriented players. What the player "sees" in the figure says something about the sort of story that that particular player wants to explore. Their inclusion or exclusion from the gameworld becomes a choice about what real world issues the player wishes to explore.

As for the cost issue, that seems to be a major factor in keeping players from exploring miniatures gaming. There are ways to lessen this impact, but no way that I can think of to remove it. This is undoubtedly why these games tend to be played at conventions, or in the context of a gamestore group or club.

[komradebob]

Ah, Thread-kill...
Anyway,

The thing that stopped me from continuing this pursuit was that I didn't want to send the message that "You need all this (figures and terrain) before you can play my game." You don't. Unless you are only dedicated to mini games I don't think it is a good idea for Indie game makers to push little men too much. It comes back to marketing - a clear message needs to have all the elements send the same message.

I think from a marketing perspective, unless you are the figure manufacturer (like GW), you might not be all that well off to sell minis/rpg hybrid rules. People try, but I don't see a great deal of success for the effort. Nor does giving stuff away seem to generate interest. From a marketing perspective, the best plan might be to use simple minis rules as a promotional item, given away to purchasers of minis to encourage them to buy more minis.

About terrain:
I'm really starting to favor a "network of nodes approach". Each node is a "set" (as in movie set). Individual nodes may have variable ground scale, the way the variable length bound plays with time/effort scale. Ground scale is only really consistent within a given area/node/set, and even then this is more of a relation to dramatic figure interaction than representation of say, scale weapons range. I don't go quite as far as Chris does with allowing any figure to move anywhere. Instead, I think having them move node-to-node is a good approach, although not always necessary depending on the style of game.

Matrix Game use only 20 or so figures on a 2x2 foot terrain board (often a city).

I think this is an incredibly solid approach, and one that allows a better entry point for players new to minis. This keeps budgets reasonable, and can be played on the sort of dinner table or coffee table that almost everyone has access to. I sometimes suspect that the vast figure collections, model railroad quality terrain, and vast gametables that convention gamers and club gamers are so proud of actually intimidate folks considering getting in to this sort of gaming. What new players may not realize is that these sorts of mega-minis events often represent a culmination, rather than the formative stages.

Robert