Miniatures-Driven Roleplaying Rules

[komradebob]

There are a variety of very cool things that can be done with different types of movement. As a suggestion, consider using string movement rather than measuring stick movement. You can get very literal with strings in all three dimensions, and skip unnecessary math. It's a great way to speed things up and you can play with lots of variations.

One thing that I cannot emphasize enough that I want to mention:

Toy Soldiers In=War Games Out.

I honestly don't think you'll ever get any other outcome.

Which isn't the worst thing that could happen, to be sure.

It is, however, something that even old HG Wells recognized almost 100 years ago, wwhen he was writing Floor Games.

I'd honestly suggest taking a look at the multi-packs that MegaMinis puts out, particularly the animals, townsfolk, king's court and the arabian fantasy packs. I'm not saying run out and get them. Just take a look at what's in them, and then consider how different adventures based on those sets of figures would be compared to the sorts of adventures you get when you're using a bunch of wargaming or more common combinations of frpg figures.

Also, Calithena: You mentioned that you were largely planning to use dungeon terrain, right? Have you considered other sorts of terrain as well? For example, when my daughter and I play, we almost always play outdoors stuff ( village and countryside-ironically my wargaming stuff   ). This is another big Wellsian sort of thing. You could do some awfully cool "Explore the wilderness" type adventures that way, especially if you don't limit yourself to the tabletop ( which neither Wells nor Robert Louis Stevenson did with their miniatures gaming a century ago).

[Calithena]

Hi all -

komradebob, I agree with you about the toy soldiers thing if I understand you correctly. Definitely multiple types of terrain are cool - and there's all kinds of outdoor wargame terrain easily available to serve as cool, evocative sites for RPG play.

There is a lot of fertile exchange on this thread about the general idea, which is great. I think it might be time for some of us to start posting more game-specific design threads though, maybe with links to this one so we can all critique each others' designs. I think we've got the potential for a cool little mini-community (pun welcome if unintended) around this idea, based on discussions here and elsewhere. I've pretty much got my first game along these lines written in my head already, but it's definitely much less ambitious than most of the ideas here - the bulk of everything in my game is on the GM as with traditional designs.

So, more soon.

[komradebob]

mratomek, who has his superheroes minis game discussions up around here in a couple of different forums, actually started a website for discussing the peculiarities of designing with minis at the center of play. I'll see if I can get him to join the thread and post a link to that site if you'd like.

[Calithena]

'twoud be great. Thanks! Still owe you a PM.

[komradebob]

I just pm'ed MrAtomek and hopefully he'll join with his info and site url.

If you don't mind letting this thread wander, maybe we could brainstorm some (sort of) specifically minis related stuff and see where people go with it.

I'll throw one out there to start:

Limited space/table surface

Usually, minis games are played on a tabletop. This can be a smallish kitchen table or a full-on wargaming board, but no matter what, you'll likely be dealing with a smaller amount of space in scale than even a modest dungeon complex would take up. So, how can you deal with this is procedural terms? Multiple small boards/areas with handwaved between points -of-interest movenment rules ? Readjusting the terrain pieces as needed? Some other way I haven't thought of yet?

[Calithena]

Two points about that:

1) Most modern dungeons are too big to effectively play in an evening. The (large) tabletop is actually a good limiter for classic-style play. Furthermore, this also allows mid-level strategy to get into play effectively: the GM and players look at the map, and it's sort of like drawing up plays in football, you run your creepy behemoth around the back, PCs come up the middle, etc. You could even design very chess-style moves, with the wandering monsters as the pieces the GM has at the beginning of play, more activations depending on player actions, etc., if that floated yer boat.

2) Multiple sites on multiple tables is a way to set this up in advance, maybe not at home but at a library/hobby shop/coffee shop etc. with sufficient space.


Here's a problem I know Samael has some thoughts about: character/entity change over time. You get old, fat, gain a new magic staff, whatever. Replace the mini? Repaint? Green goo? What are the options?

[komradebob]

You know, it's going to sound horrible, but my first instinct on the Change isssue is to cheat and work around it entirely by creating rules/ssytems that ignore the issue.

The other easy one is the old GW Necromunda one of having rings, necklaces and pouches come into play, rather than stuff like staffs or whatever, since the figures are probably too small to show that stuff much. I suppose a whole bunch of stuff could end up being translated to a smaller easily-unseen item.

Weirdly, one of the most common, not-magic items can be a problem: Armor ( although, I suppose that again magical protection in the form of potions, scrolls, luck, aura-of-toughness, or something similar could substitute).

Getting older is a bit easier: A couple of white/grey streaks in the hair and beard does the trick.

Incidently, there are a couple of pulp minis semi-rpgs that use a sseveral-seperate sets/locations style of play that I've seen. they tend to get away with 3-4  2' x 2' mini boards and it seems to work well, much better than I'd've guessed. OTOH, this works well for a co-operative mind set, in that the mini-boards will be used sequentially rather than in a more sandbox style of play.

[mratomek]

Hello all. I want to thank komradebob for pointing-out this thread to me. So, thanks.

So let's dive right in shall we.

I have been pursuing minis-driven RPG gaming for about 3+ years now. Experimenting with this, that and other. And I have come to a few conclusions which I am more than happy to post here.

First, let me help put a name to what you are doing or designing (and of course this is all just my opinion): Tactical RPG. Tactical RPGs sit somewhere between traditional RPGs and tabletop wargames. I use to call it a MAG (Minitatures Adventure Gaming), but someone on this forum actually corrected me.

So, what is a tactical RPG?

A tactical RPG combines the best elements of traditional RPGs and tabletop wargames into a unique gaming experience. Players can still create and develop characters and play story-driven adventures, but it can be done with or without a GM, in a group or simply versus a single opponent.

Tactical RPGs use both combative and non-combative situations to create the kind of intrigue, suspense, thrill and tension that can exist in a RPG, but are played in a shorter, faster-paced setting.

And above all, tactical RPGs use minis. That's just part of the fun.

I truly think that tabletop tactical RPGs are an evolutionary step for the gaming industry for a few reasons. The chief is that they can solve the person, place and time issues that a lot of gamers have today. You only need a single opponent, a 2' x 2' space and as few as 20 minutes to play a fun game. But if you do have a gaming group, lots of space and lots of time, well then, all the better.

The game that I have been developing for many years started as Monster Rules (as in Monster Trucks, but referring to an over-the-top set of rules for minis RPGing). It has since evolved to Super Force Seven, a tactical role-playing game of super-heroic proportions. It is a tactical RPG for super heroes.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/SuperForceSeven/

The element I find most interesting about tactical RPGs, which I am still working through, is how to get two players to play head to head and still have an interesting "RPG" experience for both. Part of the fun so far is the ability for each player to create his own characters.

Furthermore, a lot of game play can center around not combative task resolution, so you simply can't create a team of powerhouses and hope to win all the time. You need to have a smattering of other skills and abilities so that you will be able to accomplish a variety of tasks, such as disarming a bomb, convincing your girlfriend that you are not the Green Ghost, searching  a crime scene clues, negotiating a peaceful end to interplanetary hostilities with an alien attack force, etc. etc. etc.

Character creation and development can be done in a number of ways. But the game play I have developed is I think different and worth talking about. Because without it, SF7 is simply a overly complex wargame.

SF7 games have four different formats: One-Shot, Fast Play, Custom Scenarios and Campaigns.

Before I discuss those formats, I need to briefly mention the three building blocks that those formats use to create the games: Narratives, Complications and Conflicts.

A Narrative is introductory or transitional text that is simply used to introduce the situation or to maintain story continuity as players move between scenes. It is important for tactical RPGs, because as players reset the gameboard for the next scene, the narrative helps re-orient the players and maintains the tone and pacing of the story.

A Complication is a short, primarily verbal-based game. They are used to resolve non-combative situations that help build the story. For example, in a recent game, Captain America had to stop a group of terrorists from sabotaging a tank of chemicals. He also had to capture one of the terrorists. If he captured one, he would have the chance to interrogate his prisoner (the complication).

Cap used his Super Presence to roll versus a TN. The more successful rolls he made, the more information he gained and the greater his advantage in the following scene. The fewer successes, the greater his disadvantage in the following game.

At the same time, the other player (villains) were make a roll to try and convince the Sub-Terranean to attack the surface world that polluted his underground kingdom with chemicals. That players success or failure had impact as well.

Lastly, a Conflict is the part of the game where miniatures are used and the whole game is played out on the gameboard.

Combining these three building blocks into a variety of linear or choose-your-own-adventure-style adventures allows you to tell more of a story, incorporates character actions and consequences, and helps build the intensity of game—all without a GM.


One-Shot
A one-shot game is a randomly generated set of circumstances that use a combination of complications, conflicts and variations to create an interesting game. One-shot games are meant for quick, find-an-opponent-and-play type of games.

Variations help build more of a story with interesting comic-book cliques like an alternate dimensions, mind swaps, etc. There are also pre-canned complications and conflicts, so you can basically roll an entire situation quickly.

Fast Play
A fast play game is similar to a one-shot, but nothing is random or canned. It is a pre-written story that uses the building blocks to tell a story, but is meant to be played in a single session.
   All the complications and conflicts are custom to the situation.

Custom Scenario
A custom scenario is simply several fast play "Acts" that are tied together to tell a longer story.

All three of these, one-shot, fast play and custom scenarios, can all be played head to head.

Campaigning
A campaign is simply several games tied together with multiple story arcs. A campaign can be driven by a GM or not. If you are "solo campaigning" you simply play the protagonist and all your opponents provide the antagonists—with a few key characters that always serve to create continuity if your opponent is different each weak.

Anyways, those are some of my thoughts. If you want to download a current copy of the rules, hit the site above. They are in the files > playtest PDF folder.

MrAtomek

[komradebob]

Oh, yeah-
Here's the link to the Astounding Tales! Yahoo group. The author ( Howard Whitehouse, who I just discovered worked on Space 1889 with Frank Chadwick) is currently writing and testing a variant of the pulp game called Chainmail Bikini, which is a light, minis oriented rpg set in a more Conan/ Fafyrd and Grey Mouser sort of setting. Y'all may want to check that file and the related discussions out.

Here's the link:http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/astounding-tales/

[Thenomain]

Chainmail Bikini, which is a light, minis oriented rpg

The thought of this tickles me.

[Simon C]

An interesting work-around for the scale problem could be to do what the New Zealand WWII wargame, Flames of War does: Use a decreasing scale of range.  So, your first three or so movement points move you two inches, the next ones one and a half inches, the next ones, one inch, and so on.  The further away something is, the greater the scale.  That way, you can have tactical maneuvering in combat, but things on the far side of the table are still a long way off.  It's easy to make up a ruler that looks like this:

|____|____|____|___|___|___|__|__|__|_|_|_|

I actually think it's a little confusing in Flames of War, but it might work well for this game?

[komradebob]

Interesting Simon. I wasn't aware FoW worked that way. I played with an idea that sort of worked around a similar idea, albeit with a slightly different approach.

Keep in mind that I was trying to compress a bigger space representaion onto a table top.

My concept was to have locations that were larger scale, but tied together with compressed in-between space.

Let's say each "location" was an area of interest and used something closer to a more traditional tactical scale of movement. The location might be at most 24" in diameter, maybe smaller- A few buildings surroundinga townsquare representing a town, for example ( or perhaps the most interesting bits of the town).

Between those areas were "wilderness" divisions, tied together by roads and trails ( sort of a clasic frpg set up).

Anyway, the civillized and adventure areas would be tied together with bits of road terrain pieces, somewhere between 4" and 8" long. The actual size didn't really matter, as they worked more like "spaces" in a board game. They were mostly meant as a means of representing much longer distances. Part of the idea was also to leave the area around the road vague, so that encounters while travelling could occur with players adding stuff surrounding the road or adjusting the terrain as necessary for the encounter. When the encounter was finished, the wilderness reverted ( unless some more permanent area was created on the fly, in which case the previously connected road piece was moved to another edge of the new location).

The general idea was to be able to get say, Bree and the Shire on the same tabletop and perhaps even be able to get all the way to Rivendell in a reasonable space to play ( for example). Scale, of course, could be played with. That huge of an amount of space need not be covered. Different parts of a city, for example might work, too. For other stuff, like a pirate game, sea lane spaces might be used, and likewise for a SF games, "space lanes" might do the same thing.

[Simon C]

Yeah, I used to go to the same games club as a lot of the developers of FoW, and they were always frustrated that I didn't get the scale measurement idea, which they were super proud of.  It's their way of dealing with the problem that modern warfare takes place over huge distances, but 15mm scale models are much more pretty than 6mm.  I think I get it now.  It's a little odd when you're well inside range of a long distance gun, and then you can move a (relatively) short distance to get out of range, but it works very well for representing having to move a long way to cross the battlefield.

I think we're both on the same page, in terms of wanting a way to have a larger amount of "in game" space represented on the tabletop.  Your way would work as well.  I guess what I was going for is something that had a fluid transition from "combat" to "overland" movement, so that, for example, archers can ambush the party from a long way off, and the relative positions of things on the tabletop are relevant at any range.  Of course, if you want to go from the Shire to Rivendell, yours is a better idea.  I especially like the idea of road sections aquiring this special meaning in the game.  It ties very well to what I think is the most important element here - making the models relevant to the SIS. 

I really like the idea of a few people presenting different takes on this concept.  What's the best way to do this? My feeling is that one thread is going to get pretty chaotic pretty soon (I think we're already taking this in directions that aren't neccesarily useful to the OP), but posting lots of threads in AP might clog up that forum, as well, since there are already a lot of new threads there at the moment.  What do y'all think?

[komradebob]

Simon C.
Well, what we could do ( if it's okay with Calithena and the mods) is use this as a core thread and link stuff back to it. That would allow folks interested in minis driven rpg play to post both older thread-links and new stuff here, and if other folks come in with stuff for minis play ( which happens fairly regularly) to have a one-stop place to see what other folks are doing or have considered doing.

As for other, new threads, a tag of [minis] in the title will make searches easier.

We could also go through old threads and check out who participated and see if they want to join the current conversations. I know there are a number of folks around these parts who have played with minis before and enjoy it, so it would be cool to give a heads-up to them since I think they have some interesting perspectives.

Calithena- What do you think of the idea, since you started this thread?

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello,

I've watched this thread and there are two paths it could have taken:
1. create a rich RPG game based on what the miniature represents
2. create a new miniatures skirmish rules

It looks like it has taken the second path. There are a tremendous number of games that follow the second path and I know of none that actually are an RPG based on miniatures. There are games that have a line of miniatures based on the characters in the story. However, I've not seen a game where you bring your miniatures and use methods to define them in an RPG setting. Perhaps the subjectivity is too great and the players see different things in the features of the miniatures. Everybody wants to win and I'll be the first to announce "my toad can leap 100ft horizontally, has a 20ft long razor tongue and squirts acid from its warts when it takes damage."

It seems like the first thing that develops is how the miniature operates in combat. It's more of "my miniature can whip your miniature's butt". That's part of an RPG, but not the focus. Maybe the first step is to define certain types of RPG scenes. Look at how the miniature's features can affect the scene. It's quite possible that this type of "miniature driven RPG" is actually an attempt to uplift make-believe with Transformers, GI-Joes and LEGO figs.. All of that was fun when I was a child with a creative mind. I'm not sure adults can handle the open-mindedness and playfulness that is required to pick up a fig and really see something fantastic beyond the strategic value in competition.

Good luck,

Troy