[Power 19] - RPW Role-playing-wargame

[Roadkill]

Hi there, heres a power 19 for a game which has no name yet. I'd like to know what you guys think?

1.What is your game about? Its about mighty heroes slaying hordes of enemies and commanding armies.

2.What do the characters do? The characters will be the commanders of armies and try to win battles for their clan/race/empire. They will also kill lots of enemies and use their special skills that they gain to turn the tides of battle.

3.What do the players do? The players control their heros and their armies. They compose an army and select their characters skills.

4. How does your setting reinforce what your game is about? The game is set in a high/flexi fantasy setting with a good chance for hand to hand. Because of the setting lots of different skills and abilities can be chose by players to create very diverse heroes. Also because of a fantasy setting lots of different army flavours can arise. Anything from "realistic 16th century armies" to elves, dwarves, dragons, trolls and orcs can be accommodated for.

5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about? Character creation will have lots of options to create heroes with a lot of personality. Characters creation will focus on their miraculous abilities and a brief history and the rest of their stories will be written on the battlefield.

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)? It rewards strategy and tactics, as well as imagination and creativity. It will strike a balance between rewarding risk taking and being careful.

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game? Strategy would be rewarded by taking rewarding strategic objectives on the battlefield; tactics would be rewarded by a dynamic, position-based combat system. Players would get to create their own objectives on the battlefield and create their own rewards, rewarding imagination and creativity. Winning a battle would be rewarded sufficiently to encourage risk taking, however characters would be able to die so being careful would be rewarded by longer-living and therefore more powerful characters. A balance should be struck that to win a battle you should have to use your characters abilities and using them should put your character at some risk.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game? Credibility should be enforced by the rules, and possibly a dm/gm/referee type overseeing balance to allow players more freedom than simple rules could allow. They should be flexible enough to allow freedom, but not too flexible to allow imbalance. Narration however should be left up to the players or possibly a narrator/dm player. Narration may be flexible enough to use either a campaign map or tree.

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (I.e. what does the game do to make them care?). The game will be player vs. player and highly competitive. Battles will play a bit like a game of chess but with pieces with personalities that players can get attached to. The scenarios will be diverse enough that writing down the events of a battle could make a good story unto itself. Because the objectives and rewards will be set by players, and unknown to the opposing player(s) there will be a level of uncertainty. This could lead to information gathering or diplomacy.

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
-The mechanics will be very quick, with no in-battle "pen to paper" paperwork involved. -Unit skills and stats should be easy to remember for streamlined gaming.
-Characters & foot soldiers will use the same combat mechanics to aid suspension of disbelief.
-Actions will be determined with dice against a modified target number to speed up resolution.
-There should be a (even if only slight) degree of uncertainty in all non-trivial actions. No automatics passes allowed.

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about? The mechanics simplify the game to be played quickly with the computation of advanced character combat being done behind the scenes. Allowing a fun game. Stories can be created out-of-battle.

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how? Characters will advance after each battle depending on if they survive of not. They will gain skills to use in the next battle and they can also advance their personal story in preparation for the next scenario

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about? Players will work to advance their characters but players will also be trying to kill opposing players' characters. Character advancement will make it easier to kill opposing characters but will make it a greater loss when that character is killed.

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players? Competition and creativeness.

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why? Combat and rules balancing because it will be a game with a lot of action and thought on the players behalf, in and out of battle. Story and imagination will be rewarded by limitless opportunities, and a good plan/story written in your favor could give you an edge in battle even if you are not that good at fighting.

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why? Probably seeing what ideas and devious plans/traps people can create and what stories will come from it

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can't, don't, or won't? Large freedom of possibility in large scale warfare with players dming themselves and each other (may or may not include a referee for balancing purposes, perhaps trinity of players could ref the other 2).

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game? I'd be happy if I could make a game I can play and enjoy with my friends. I'd be very happy if other groups played my game and enjoyed it. I'd be ecstatic if I got a few people interested enough to develop the game more and turn it into a community project.

19.) Who is your target audience? Any RPG, wargaming, (or if I can pull them away from their computers, rts, RPG or tbs) or just game playing enthusiasts. Id like the game to be flexible enough for a dm to take dnd session characters and use these mechanics to play out a large battle. I want the game to have a simplicity which keeps it fast to play which makes it easy for new players to pick up but enough depth to keep veterans enjoying/playing.

Any thoughts?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  How is this game different from WHFB? And where is the roleplay? If this game is about orders of battle? How can the players roleplay?
  Don't get me wrong, this sounds like a fun game, But I don't see any roleplaying. From you Power 19, I would not have even brought it up, its clearly not an emphasis for you. But, then you called it RPW...
  If you get it right, it will be a massive opportunity for you. Mass combat is something RPGs typically do terribley...

[Roadkill]

hey good questions dindenver

I kept my answers to the power19 fairly general just as some rough targets for stuff I need to ensure I include in the game, but you make me realise I did not include very much detail.

I've done some more work on it today and done a full battleplay-test.

So far I've got a basic combat system, and some stats for some basic foot troops.
The test went well (was alot of fun). The game lasted about 3 hours, which is about the length of time I wanted for this test The gameplay is faster than WHFB and the kill count was higher. (final kill count was 70-98 orcs vs dwarfs with 78 orcs left alive).

Good stuff imo, nice big numbers, was quite even until the end where the dwarfs just got overrun and slaughterd.

The battle itself seemed to move quite fast and was certainly quite dynamic. Even though I sent over half my forces against less than half of the dwarfs down one side of the map they seemed to hold out for a long time. While on the  other side my smaller force steamrolled a larger dwarf force! how this happened I do not know...

In the preliminary combat tests, almost depleted forces would come back almost heroically to defeat a force that whittled down their numbers earlier. These were symmetrical forces, used in the same way, with a bit variation on the combatants mixed in for good measure.

I like this, it means battles are unpredictable, Different to whfb where you can be fairly certain that your 2 units of chaos   knights are going to kick the crap out of a unit of night goblins. In this game you should expect them to win but you cant be as certain.

So the wargame bit seem to be working ok... now for the roleplaying bit.

I've told the other player in the next battle we are going to add 3 heros each to the mix, The only guidelines I have given the other player is that they should each have a special power which should be able to make significant impact on the battle and must also have a chance of failing. One will be the leader of his army and if he dies it will be automatic game over (like the king of a chess board, except this king could retreat and fight another day....). The other 2 will be slightly less powerful.

I have no idea how she'll interpret what I said so the power or type or flavor or how it will be implemented will remain a mystery to me.

we'll see how this works, and then ill update here.

In the future I'm thinking of the map being drawn out for both players, and then both players being able to lay out traps, objectives (like lure the enemy army into a kill zone to summon a deamon with the spilt blood if they were evil, but of course the plan can back fire horribly ), and some tactics that their army should follow for the game. (a bit like a dungeon master would lay out a quest, and then the player characters would come along and do their best to mess it up, except both players are dms! and both players are trying to mess up eachothers plans!).

Also the heros may have to take tests to perform certain actions on the battlefield, for example the heros under the command of the main hero/commander may decide to refuse to carry out an order if it would mean huge casualties to his men, or abandon him, or even defect to the enemy!

I simply dont know yet, but ill see how it goes.

[Roadkill]

For the next match I got the other player to set up the terrain. heres the battle report vvv

She set up a small orc outpost next to a large mountainside, and there was 3 roads leading east, south & west respectively, from which my orcs could travel from, there were plenty of orcs in the jungles near here so there would be plenty of orcs arriving to support me from all directions when they heard to drums of war (well not exactly to support me, just turning up for a good fight and to loot some corpses). The mountainside had 3 Dwarven doors located in a cove to hide them from the outside world, but Goblin scouts had located them, and this was the site the Dwarves would pick to defend their cities from because the cove created a natural bottleneck where the Dwarves could stand strong and repel the Orc attack. There were already Dwarf sentries guarding the gates by the time the Orcs arrived, had they spotted the Goblins the night before? were they waiting in force ready to defend their homes? The answers to these questions Nobdreg Skullkrusher Warlord of the Orcs could not care about, not the best tactician (but quite a good mathematician mind you!) Nobdreg created a plan that would inspire his troops to victory... "Mor Dwarves = Mor Dead Orcs = Mor Dwarf Gold Divided by Less Orcs = Mor Gold for Orcs that Survive"!

Night fell and the Orcs advanced into the cove, Wazbang (a goblin shamen kept alive by Nobdreg mainly for the fine entertainment he could provide) proceeded to lead all the Goblins who had a bow to the orc outpost where he climbed up onto the roof and started throwing fireballs into the cove, incinerating Orcs & Dwarves alike.

After awhile of this, and getting bored because his Orcs were getting nowhere Nobdreg sent his most powerful warrior, Arrrgh on a mission to go and kill the Dwarven DoorGuards to stop reinforcements comming to the aid of the dwarves
holding his forces at bay in the cove. Arrrgh charged into the battle his warboar tossing dwarves into the air like ragdolls, then out of the corner of his eye he saw something, it was large and pink and blubbery? what was this? he did not know what this abomination was or how the Dwarves had laid their hands on something that could strike fear into an Orc such as this, Arrrgh wondered why there was a Dwarf running around naked on the battlefield! The fleshy lump headed towards Arrrgh and stood before him, the Dwarf had a beard that was very long, he was obviously very old and stood before Arrrgh and said in a huff, rasky voice "I'm General Clasper Runic of the Mountain Pass and I'll show ye what ye gets for tossing a Dwarf!!!" and the Dwarf proceeded to run around Arrrgh 3 times and lifted his beard into the air, conveying his dignity, Arrgh was stunned, he wondered what this foul magic was...

Arrrgh had only had his hands over his eyes for a second but when he removed them the Dwarf was running away! towards the western-most door! Arrrgh!!! did not know what had happened to scare him off he wondered if his boar had bit the little maggot and sent the dwarf running? Whatever had sent the Dwarf running Arrrgh carried on with his mission and Killed the captain of the eastern-most-door & the huge stone door slammed shut. Arrrgh could now taste victory with the stone door shut it would take awhile for the Dwarves to open the magical runes & send more reinforcements. Arrrgh let out a cheer but before he had finished a hard dwarven axe in bedded itself into his back, although the proud Orc did not want admit it he could not fight on and gripped firmly onto his boar and sprinted back towards his own camp.
The battle raged on, Nobdreg shouted insults at his Troops to get a move on and the second gate fell, Then the
the Dwarf General made his move, a veteran of countless battles clad in the finest dwarven armour, with an axe that could fire beams of light from its head, he held strong, not letting a single orc land a blow on his shiney helmet, knowing all was lost he guarded the entrance to the cove until the remaining Dwarves had retreated to the safety of the last open and then retreated as fast as his little legs could carry him to the stone door that slammed shut behind him. Although Nobdreg knew he could mine his way into the tunnels with enough time he decided not to follow the dwarves, even though he really wanted that axe his best warrior had already been severley wounded and the Orcs with no enemies left to fight had already begun celebrating and looting the corpses, he would have to wait for now.   

Final body count 91 to 33 to the Orcs

All in all I think the playtest went very well it lasted 3 1/2 hours which I think is bit long but then I knew with these rules forces would be very hard to shift forces out off a bottleneck, but the character abilities really helped speed it up, I let her design the map with no guidelines because I wanted a surprise, but 3 1/2 hours is only 1/2 an hour too long, and its not like the game was boring at any point.

Instead of a mad rush with all my units into the breach I decided to use my Goblins in the outpost and create a snipers nest, the bigger & stronger orcs ate the dwarves for breakfast and the goblins behind them held back the dwarves until the next wave of orcs could arrive. What would have been very even casualties turned into a slaughter for the orcs! Its good to know tactics make a difference in the rules... now I wonder how it would have gone if the dwarves didn't just charge in like manics and created a firing line, thier crossbows are very powerful...

I think the thing I'm most pleased with was the abilities we had created, I was really anxious going into the game because I was worried she may have made her abilities too powerful, but they were really well balanced and they added so much flavor to the game. The uncertainty factor was a great rush because it was unlike a game of warhammer or battletech (my two favorites) where you know what you opponent has in-store for you (within limits). + everything in the above battle actually happened (trying to convey the actual play session). I would have been in stitches laughing when the naked dwarf arrived (a model we have had for ages but I had forgotten was naked because its used so often for WHFB as slayer) IF I wasn't so concerned about the well-fare of dear arrrgh! She really brought that old model to life again for me... its definantly a memorable moment now, thats what great roleplaying sessions are made of!

here are the characters we used for the battle report above(with abilites shown so you know how they work).

My Guys:-(i was using orcs)

Nobdreg SkullKrusher(orc) and his mount Grakzull(giant boar)
General(commander) of the Orcs

Stats
Move 7"
Nobdreg Cr6 Sr6 Dr7 Ar3(sides only), Grakzull Cr6 Sr7 Dr7 Ar2(front and front/side only)

Ability: If Nobdreg is within 6" of a group of Orcs he can shout words of encouragement (threats laden with vulgar expletives) at them in the hope they will fight harder.

Rules: at the start of the 2nd combat phase roll a d6, on a roll of 4+ Nobdreg "encourages" his Orcs to fight harder. Roll a d6 for each Orc in the group and count how many 4+ you get. That many Orcs (in the group) fight a third combat phase this turn and the re-arranging phase (for gang kills) is moved to the end of this 3rd combat phase!

ARRRGH!!(orc)(mounted on boar)
Standard of the army

Stats
Move 7"
Arrrgh!! Cr6 Sr6 Dr6 Ar3(sides only), Boar Cr5 Sr6 Dr7 Ar2(front & front/sides only).

Ability: Arrrgh!! will charge through the enemy ranks knocking all in his way flying!

Rules:Only if Arrrgh!! is going to attack this combat phase, at the start of the combat phase before moving anyone else roll a d6, on a roll of 4+ Arrrgh!!(you get no choice Arrrgh!! is a bloodthirsty maniac!) will immediately move 7" straight ahead (you may turn him prior to his move) move anyone who is in his way, out of his way, perpendicular to his line of travel so they are 1" away from his line of fire(line of travel,see page 9 rules for further details). For everyone moved in this way (friend or foe) resolve one attack from the boar against each of them to see if they dodged out the way or got knocked out the way by the rampaging boar! Note: if something larger than the boar (compare Sr & Dr) is in the line of travel stop and enter melee combat (front end of model touching/only boar can attack) when Arrrgh!! reaches it. The larger enemy unit may or may not be able to attack Arrgh!! from the front of the model(depending on reach, use own judgement).

Wazbang (goblin)
Army Shamen

Stats
Move 4"
Cr6 Sr4 Dr5 Ar2

Abilities: Spell: Fireballs. Wazbang conjures 5 fireballs above his head and hurtles them towards the enemy.

Rules: Ranged attack, maximum range 12', 45 degree arc.
Execution of spell: roll a d6 to see if spell is successfully cast (4+), on successful cast each fireball will always pick different targets in the 45 degree arc from the 5 units at the front of the enemy group(models to which Wazbang has clear line of sight). If there are less than 5 units at the front randomise who the excess fireballs will target, if there are more than 5 units at the front randomise (still in the 45 degree arc) who the fireballs will target. Fireballs hit on a 4+ and are Sr7

My opponents guys:-(she was using dwarfs)

Clasper, Runelock of Mountain Pass
General

Stats
Move 3"
Cr6 Sr5 Dr6 Ar2

Ability: Throwing Runes, Clasper can throw small rocks with killing runes carved into them.

Rules: One rock can be thrown 4-8" away roll a scatter dice to see if it scatters, if it hits someone it will kill them on a 3+

Cheiften Cuber of Tribe 49 (my comment: could be called "Cubar the reason you should never play with a girl" see below)

Stats
Move 3"
Cr6 Sr5 Dr6 Ar2

Ability: Confusion Nakedness, Cubar lifts up his beard conveying his aherm... "dignity" and running 3 times around his opponent.

Rules:Can be used in melee,Roll a 4+ (to see if the enemy saw anything), and then a 3+ (to see if the enemy is confused),if successful it increases all targets to hit rolls by +1 until the end of turn. (note it can be used in the opponents combat phase but dice rolls are 5+ and 4+ respectively).

Upper General Theodore
(commander)

Stats
Move 3"
Cr6 Sr5 Dr6 Ar2

Ability: Has a rune on his axe which allows it to shoot light out the end.

Rules: Can be shot 4-10 inches, roll a scatter dice to see if it hits, if it misses it scatters 3" in the direction indicated and may hit someone else. If it hits it kills instantly (generals do not get to retreat, but they still get their 2+ luck roll to see if they can avoid being hit).

To the ladies... I'm only kidding when saying "you should never play with girls".

Btw I've written the combat rules into a PDF document and its uploaded here
http://www.rpglaboratory.com/Roadkill
The rules are as an attachment to the "RPW Alpha 0.1 comming your way" post.

For the next session I have already drawn up the map we are using (not many choke points, everywhere has 2 entrances to it, situated in a town).We are going to use the kills from the battle (91 & 33) as points to buy our heros new abilities & also to set up traps on the battlefield (there are no rules for this yet its just going to rely on human judgement again...)

I think I'm going to set up a trap with Wazbang turning himself and another goblin into a fair maiden and a wounded human warrior, and seeing if the dwarfs will help them, after they help them (players in D&D usually like helping fair maidens). And lead them back to their base ill send Arrgh! to their base and Wazbang will perk up and say "that orcs got my mothers amulet" or something, and make the dwarfs kill him for it (hopefully arrrgh will escape safely once again...). Then i'll get wizbang to give it to the dwarf general theodore and then if he accepts it he will be under wazbangs control! Then i somehow have to get them out alive!!!

I think this plan has got alot of risk involved but the rewards are also great (both in-game AND the look of the other players face + it has alot of roleplaying opportunity).

What do you guys think? any comments?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Nice Actual Play report. A couple of things strike me as odd about this scenario.
  1) Again, I don't see any evidence of role playing
  2) It appears that there are no clear guidelines on designing special abilities for the heroes. You mentioned that you were not sure how powerful the special abilities your playtester would come up with would be. That indicates to me that there is no real rules for designing said special abilities. It seems to me that in a game that is very tactically oriented, calculating costs of special abilities should be fairly easy and then balancing the costs of opposing troops should be a snap, no?
  3) I think your special abilities outclassed hers by a long shot. I will admit that some of the rules are fuzzy to me, but from what I can deduce, I think she never had a chance to win. Lets look at the casters for instance. You caster had a 12 foot reach, while hers had both a minimum range and a very short maximum range. Then there is the damage, on the surface, it looks like she has you beat, but the reality is that I think a Sr7 attack is lethal to all but the most insanely powerful characters, right? And you make 5 of them... Her naked attack seems pretty harmless (I don't know how impacting a +1 is, but it can't be that big of a difference as compared to giving an extra attack to a handful of troops or attacking everyone in a 7" line in addition to your normal attacks), and on top of that it only goes off 33% of the time... See what I mean?
  4) Although you upcoming scenario is rife with opportunities for roleplay, it is all chock full of chances to be unfair and horribly un-fun game play, you know:
  a) Who decides what magic the Goblin can and can't cast? So far I see 2 shapechange spells, some kind of Mind control magic and who knows what else? Based on that, who is to say that an unscrupulous player couldn't add another magic spell to the mix if the scenario is going badly for the Goblin player? And then there is the established fact he can cast 5 fireballs at a time, if things go south, he can kill a couple of isolated dwarves with the snap of a finger, no?
  b) What are the rules for social conflict? How does the other player get to show that their runelock is very versed in the ways of the occult and can detect the glamour of a goblin sorcerer from a mile away? Or that the Dwarven General has spent over a score years in goblin hinterlands on various war campaigns and can detect the faintest hint of a goblin accent even when drunk off his ass on mead? How will you guys determine if the goblin's acting skills are up to snuff?
c) What is the magic resistance rules? How will we know if the general is able to resist the mind control magic? And even if you do give him a roll, how long is it til he can roll again, and what is the duration of the spell? Can you let them ride with the charm for 100 years in game time and then have the goblins great grandkids fire it off and control the King who was general?
d) Where's the reward? You have a clear reward if this all goes according to plan. You get to remote control an opposing hero if it works. What does the other player get if they see through your disguise? Its seems like a completely unbalanced scenario. If you win, you get a Major advantage, if they win, things are back where they started...
  If you really want this to be a roleplaying game, might I suggest that you come up with some sort of diplomatic setting where character interaction between competing factions is the norm. Something like Machiavelli's the Prince game from AH or a setting in which all the players work in mercenary armies that all know each other and carouse together often, and sometimes they work on the same side and others they work on the opposite sides. See what I mean? In these two scenarios, the players are forced to role play before/after the battles, because they are part of a community, it is a competition, not a idealogical war of us vs them. Think of it this way, of all the tactical games out there, MTG has the most opportunities for role play. You are supposed to be representing a single character. The cards represent a single action (casting a spell, summoning a monster) or a single unified course of actions (taking land). But, no one does it, and probably has not even thought of doing it, right? Why is that? Because the game is about the tactics of card play, not the creativity of role play. if this game is to be a role playing game, there needs to be a system-level support for the activity. This means that the characters should be encouraged to interact on a level other than hack and slash (I don't mean there can be no hack and slash, but there has to be a system-level reason to partake in other activities for those activities to occur, right?). When I say system-level, I mean at the level of the rule book. The setting, character creation system and mechanics all need to come together to encourage or discourage the behaviors you want to see from the players, know what I mean?
  Anyways, looks like a fun game, good luck man!

[Roadkill]

Hi!
  Nice Actual Play report. A couple of things strike me as odd about this scenario.
  1) Again, I don't see any evidence of role playing

Yes, in that game there wasn't much actual roleplaying, there were not many chances for it to occur, there was a fair amount of setting the scene and a fair amount of describing what was going on, much like a Dungeon Master would have to in a D&D session where the pc's entered a crypt, and the DM unleashed a new monster on the party with a weird-ass-nasty attack. The DM would first have to set the scene of the crypt, and then he would have to describe the monster, and then he would have to describe the attack. All these things must be done with each new battle and each new character ability. However there was no opportunity for real character interactions and anything the heros may have said to eachother would have been idle insults & provoking(pointless apart for fun). I'm hoping my tactic next match will create an opportunity for some decent roleplaying. Btw there are no actual rules governing role playing in the rulebook as-of-yet (apart from a small line mentioning they will be added in the future).
 

2) It appears that there are no clear guidelines on designing special abilities for the heroes. You mentioned that you were not sure how powerful the special abilities your playtester would come up with would be. That indicates to me that there is no real rules for designing said special abilities. It seems to me that in a game that is very tactically oriented, calculating costs of special abilities should be fairly easy and then balancing the costs of opposing troops should be a snap, no?

Your powers of deduction are strong wise one!
Yeps there are no real rules at the moment for creating special abilities, the only rules are a couple of guidelines on this http://www.rpglaboratory.com/roadkill/changes_to_alpha_0_1#comment, They basically say abilities must include a chance of failure, and must be balanced & should make a noticeable difference to the battle but no too much difference.

And believe it I want the game to be very tactically orientated.

However calculating the costs of special abilities I'm really struggling with, & getting the costs of troops is slightly easier but I have only made a tiny bit of progress with that (slightly easier means I'm still really struggling). I think playing more games and assigning some ad-hoc costs would be a good idea.       

  3) I think your special abilities outclassed hers by a long shot. I will admit that some of the rules are fuzzy to me, but from what I can deduce, I think she never had a chance to win. Lets look at the casters for instance. You caster had a 12 foot reach, while hers had both a minimum range and a very short maximum range. Then there is the damage, on the surface, it looks like she has you beat, but the reality is that I think a Sr7 attack is lethal to all but the most insanely powerful characters, right? And you make 5 of them... Her naked attack seems pretty harmless (I don't know how impacting a +1 is, but it can't be that big of a difference as compared to giving an extra attack to a handful of troops or attacking everyone in a 7" line in addition to your normal attacks), and on top of that it only goes off 33% of the time... See what I mean?

Yeh mine did outclass hers. I think her special abilities were underpowered, they did not make a noticeable difference to the flow of the battle imo, however they could have been ridiculous if they had hit my generals! mine focussed more on killing troops than anything else, which I think won me the battle (which was the point of the abilities in the first place). I knew I wanted to be able to break through her lines of control and target her reinforcement points, I also knew I wanted an ability my commander(think the king in chess) could use without risking himself, and I wanted an ability that could kill troops (to try and cut through the swarms and decrease the battle time) so I created abilities to do it. I think her abilities (apart from the nakedness one) would have been good if combined with another ability to get it into the correct situation of targeting my generals with it, and in a duel between 2 characters could have tipped the balance (my guy got lucky in that fight and killed the dwarf first turn! But he should have won the fight neway). I do think she had a chance to win, maby not as large as mine, but I'd take a 5:1 wager I could make dwarves win this fight if i played them (taking relative player skill into account here, but that is not the point in playtesting and I'm gonna do my best to get it even).

4) Although you upcoming scenario is rife with opportunities for roleplay, it is all chock full of chances to be unfair and horribly un-fun game play, you know:
  a) Who decides what magic the Goblin can and can't cast? So far I see 2 shapechange spells, some kind of Mind control magic and who knows what else? Based on that, who is to say that an unscrupulous player couldn't add another magic spell to the mix if the scenario is going badly for the Goblin player? And then there is the established fact he can cast 5 fireballs at a time, if things go south, he can kill a couple of isolated dwarves with the snap of a finger, no?

Well some rules would need to be laid down to address what he could cast, essentially I want any character to be able to do anything, but I know some players would take it too far and create tasteless monstrosities like the toughest meanest barbarian you have ever seen, he's tough, gritty, can take massive hits which would make a normal man cry like  baby! and is a master in combat because even though his technique is scrappy and untrained it is effective.

Thats a good character^^^

What I also forgot to mention is he has the agility of the finest elven dancers and can cast everyspell from magic missile to time stop! He is also the world most eloquent orator.

Wait I just ruined him^^^

But as far as cheating mid game a player couldn't because he would have his rules wrote down and he wouldn't be able to change them. Then at the end of the game the other player can always check.

b) What are the rules for social conflict? How does the other player get to show that their runelock is very versed in the ways of the occult and can detect the glamour of a goblin sorcerer from a mile away? Or that the Dwarven General has spent over a score years in goblin hinterlands on various war campaigns and can detect the faintest hint of a goblin accent even when drunk off his ass on mead? How will you guys determine if the goblin's acting skills are up to snuff?

Ahh sorry I should have made this clearer, the spell to transform Wazbang and the other goblin will be a 1-shot thing, wazbang wont be able to cast the spell all the time (or even every battle) it will be an ability bought this once and useable this once only, it will use the same pool of points that will be used to buy skills for all of the characters. If the plan suceeds of fails my characters will be left with sub-par skills.

But as for detecting my plan it will be up to her whether she trusts the woman and does what the woman says or simply kills her on the spot, if she kills her on the spot I would have wasted alot of points if not it'll still be difficult to get her to wear the amulet. If she wanted her Runelock to have an ability for detecting wizardry she could make a skill to detect such things, it will just give her information like "you detect some magical energy" .

Of course she won't have the spell this match(well probably), but she might get it for the next match... then I could have a lost princess wandering around with a magic bracelet (id have to include it in the description for introducing the princess + alot of other useless information about what she is wearing). If she decides to detect magic on the princess, it may reveal "you detect magic" but its the bracelet, not a transformation. If she kills the princess, the king may send some knights to scout for the princess who has not returned or maby some adventurers would find the body, you know the type of adventurers with really low intelligence and all their points put into strength and constitution... the ones who even if the dwarfs made really good diplomacy rolls might still come to the conclusion that the dwarfs are mind flayers and attack.

c) What is the magic resistance rules? How will we know if the general is able to resist the mind control magic? And even if you do give him a roll, how long is it till he can roll again, and what is the duration of the spell? Can you let them ride with the charm for 100 years in game time and then have the goblins great grandkids fire it off and control the King who was general?

The dwarfs magic resistance will be decided by the player who creates the plan, simply because the plan must remain a secret from the other player, but there will be a clearly defined roll that needs to be made for the mind control to work, (of course i need to write some rules for this).

Good idea in every game after I should have the dwarf test to see if he overcomes his controller... of course the opponent could just have some devious way to get the dwarf back, probably not such a hard plan, maby just get an old comrade to defeat him in battle and rip the amulet off?

d) Where's the reward? You have a clear reward if this all goes according to plan. You get to remote control an opposing hero if it works. What does the other player get if they see through your disguise? Its seems like a completely unbalanced scenario. If you win, you get a Major advantage, if they win, things are back where they started...

Apart from the points that would be down the drain, she would of-course still have all her spent points which she could have spent on a similarly devious plan (or buffing up her characters).

  If you really want this to be a roleplaying game, might I suggest that you come up with some sort of diplomatic setting where character interaction between competing factions is the norm.Machiavelli's the Prince game from AH Something like  or a setting in which all the players work in mercenary armies that all know each other and carouse together often, and sometimes they work on the same side and others they work on the opposite sides. See what I mean? In these two scenarios, the players are forced to role play before/after the battles, because they are part of a community, it is a competition, not a idealogical war of us vs them. Think of it this way, of all the tactical games out there, MTG has the most opportunities for role play. You are supposed to be representing a single character. The cards represent a single action (casting a spell, summoning a monster) or a single unified course of actions (taking land). But, no one does it, and probably has not even thought of doing it, right? Why is that? Because the game is about the tactics of card play, not the creativity of role play. if this game is to be a role playing game, there needs to be a system-level support for the activity. This means that the characters should be encouraged to interact on a level other than hack and slash (I don't mean there can be no hack and slash, but there has to be a system-level reason to partake in other activities for those activities to occur, right?). When I say system-level, I mean at the level of the rule book. The setting, character creation system and mechanics all need to come together to encourage or discourage the behaviors you want to see from the players, know what I mean?

Hmm that diplomatic setting would require one of the players to do alot of work from the outset, like what your regular games master would do, kinda goes against what I was trying to do, making a wargame with strong roleplaying elements where the reason the players would want to roleplay and create elaborate stories would be to get a one-up on the other players. But that does give me a great idea to expand the scope of the game. Prehaps if one player saved up enough points and the world was set up in a human vs human kingdoms type setting. He could set up an elaborate plan to unite the land under one common ruler, and then such things a mercenaries could be hired & diplomatic discussions  could go on, or prehaps a player (would have to be evil & foolish) could summon a really powerful demon to his aid(with god-level power!). Then it has rules for losing control of it and rules for what it does after it escapes, could go on to build an army of its own and the players would have to join to-gather to vanquish this foe. (it may terrorize future battles if they don't vanquish it, might curse the players with sickness & be generally annoying AND dangerous enough for both players to want to join togather).

How about every character apart from the character that you control on the battlefield can be potentially bribed, or may be persuaded to defect or change sides? This could be good if a player wants to take a few cheaper hero skills after spending all his points on a pit trap, or new cannon for his castle or something.... players could take traits like unbribable or loyal.

or better yet if a player wants more points to spend on his characters he can give them traits like "easily succums to magic" or "is a coward". these could have an impact on the game (and i know dedicated wargamers would love these because good/realistic command & control are things that they really sought after) .

The game may play either like a wargame or a rpg depending on what the players want to do, but I want to make it so a player who wants roleplaying in the game can force roleplaying on the opponent (if someone doesn't like that they can go play a normal wargame there are plenty out there). Essentially if a players a bad army tactician perhaps he could even the playing field through being creative... of course there will be no roleplaying if players dont set it up themselves, both players will be like DMs, they can launch monsters & armies at eachother willy-nilly if they choose, OR they can set up trials and terrors for their opponent which may turn out bad or good (for either player depending on what it is).

of course players will be able to hide their plans from eachother until the game ends. but after the game ends they can look at eachothers notes if they like.

Anyways, looks like a fun game, good luck man!

Thanks man, I'll get onto writing some rules to address the issues above and then ill post them here.
Btw where can I find/ find information about Machiavelli's the Prince game from AH?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  RE: The Prince, I dunno, but the scenario is easy to summarize:
  Each player represents a Prince or Count of Italy. They all have the same tools to work with, money, mercenaries, cardinals. Your goal is to dominate the other Italian aristocracy through commerce, war or by buying enough cardinals to be elected pope.
  The idea behind suggesting it was that these people were related and bound by codes of honor not to just run up and stab each other in the face. But, they were still ruthless in their pursuit of domination. And many wars, big and small, broke out because of personal grudges between them. I think if you abandon the idea that one person gets to set up the entire scenario and allow each of the players to narrate their own reactions to changing events it will cut down on prep time and make for very engaging roleplay.

  One thing that has struck me about recent comments that is a feature not present in your earlier presentation of the game is this idea that one person sets the scenario. Whereas in your P19, you clearly stated that each player would be responsible for half of the terrain and setting their own goals. While in this upcoming scenario you have clearly set all of the terrain and all of the goals.
  I understand that your stated design goal is contrary to setting up your roleplaying opportunity in the next scenario. So, something has to give.
  Not only that but the whole thing is too tricky. Like you are forcing her to decide between immersion and losing or meta-gaming and winning, right? What I mean is, if she plays her heroes in character and ignores the fact that you do not seem to have any pieces in this scene, then she is guaranteed to lose. But, if she meta-games, ignores the story and simply looks at the pieces in play, then she will win, but her characters will be acting insane... Don't get me wrong, its a fun little scenario you have put forth, but I think it is defective, since you are not a GM, but in fact an opposing player. You have been allowed to determine the disposition of her forces and put her Heroes in a no-win situation. I mean, from the perspective of her most valuable pieces they have a choice to either be mind controlled or to have a reputation for killing innocent women, right? And all you risk is losing some points, with no roleplaying repercussions...
  I hope I am not harping or that my criticism doesn't come across as too harsh, but I wanted to make an earnest effort to show you what I saw. Hang in there man and make a game you would love to play!

[Roadkill]

I think you have mis-understood (my fault for making it unclear sorry).

Both players are equally and jointly responsible for the scenarios at hand. Each player can either take turns creating maps which both players can take away with them and create their own scenarios. (or they can use a random map generator, we are using the other method though, simply because I have yet to find a good random map generator, do you know where one can be found?).

Both players will be able to create trials for their opponents, so I don't consider it unfair, if she spent her points on a simple pit trap, for instance, she could capture one of my hero's there & then...

at the moment her characters and personalities are her own + dwarfs. Dwarfs are generally overly cautious to outsiders (especially dwarfs who live in the cities underground). And it would not be out-of-place to not accept an amulet, she would not have to meta-game for her Dwarves to come to that conclusion, they are on the eve of battle, they expect treachery at every turn.

+ in the next scenario when it IS a real princess, hows she going to react? she'll probably be thinking um, uh, wha? surely he doesn't think ill fall for the same trick twice? killing or helping this princess will either result in knights in shining armour hunting them down or a large reward in gold (possibly even reward her with some knights to help her on the battlefield...)

Of course all these things are a little unfair, but only to someone who is not expecting it, and would be rendering shocks to the system after the game when she can read them and how easy to foil/how well it could turn out for her if she had made the right choices!

But all of these things are pretty boring compared to...

The third princess... the one who will be walking in the forest (might be the game after if she makes a map without forests, and then I'd have to make one that included them...) this princess would be simply be on a walk through the forest picking apples in a basket, and she would offer one to the Dwarfs. Thats it. The whole plan!. This plan would cost me prehaps 20%? the cost of a new skill? the cost to mount one of my walking characters? of my points, useless huh?... but it could make a world of good on the battlefield... after that she can mess up because shes thinking too hard, she might play too defensively for instance...

and you can guarantee after the 2nd princess she will be creating equally evil and dubious plans...

This is the kind of thinking I want my players to adopt, And after a greedy player takes one or two harmless character flaws (like ladies man, or soft hearted, or righteous!) it could be very interesting...

Of course the game will a good light-hearted bit of fun, none of these plans would make too much difference either way because it's only one battle, its not the end of the world and there will definantly be more. The loss of ones general in a campaign setting will always be a personal blow to a person because they should care about him, although in all-honesty it wont make that much difference to the combat effectiveness of the persons forces.

But I do see where you are coming from, the players do need to be good honest folk like the honest at all costs dungeon masters who wont fudge rolls so his players don't get slaughterd by 2 goblins (even though they shouldn't its more than possible!), & his end of game boss doesn't fluff it in the 1st combat round.

However since everyone is not honest, I need to put rules in place so the pricks who dodgely move their units in WHFB so they are 1mm out of your front arc so you can't charge them... can't well... be pricks!

and no I don't think your being to criticising, it think your posts are VERY helpful and they make me think alot, and they give me ideas I probably would never think of otherwise!

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, again, something strikes me as wrong:

she will be creating equally evil and dubious plans...
This is the kind of thinking I want my players to adopt,

Of course the game will a good light-hearted bit of fun

  I don't think these two design goals are compatible.
  If you want it to be light hearted. Then you have to create a mechanic/system where losing one piece or losing one battle will not ruin your chances of having fun. Think of Blood Bowl for instance...
  While if you want a cutthroat game, then you have to create rules/environment where people are encouraged to be cutthroat from the get-go. Not one where two players are escalating until it goes too far and hard feelings are created...
  Also, I think you REALLY need to limit the opposition's ability to control the disposition of your troops. For instance, what is to stop her from coming up with a scenario where your Shock troop (argh) gets drunk, wonders from camp to go pea and stumbles into the middle of the entire Dwarven army? Essentially, she gets a free pass to assassinate your Hero, right?
  Additionally, the fact that they have to write down what the scenario is, is no guarantee of cheating or last-minute fudging. I mean, if the scenario is hand-written, then an unscrupulous player has the opportunity to add another special ability while record keeping (tracking HPs, morale, etc).
  But, if the character abilities are well defined in public (not hidden in the scenario), then the chance for fudging is greatly reduced.
  Also, I think that you lost sight of a really inspired and awesome design goal. Setting your own objectives. I think if you wanted to introduce a scenario where there was some subterfuge. That's fine, but still allow her to set her objectives before the scenario starts. So that she can identify the risk reward for herself. And you can set your objectives and you can set the risk/reward for yourself, you know? Right now, in this scenario, you are setting the risk/reward for both players:
For you:
Reward - Control of an opposing player's hero
Risk - None You have to spend points for the scenario, but you have to spend points for every scenario. And if a fight breaks out, it looks like the pieces in play will be pretty evenly matched...

For her:
Reward - None. From this one scenario, I can;t see any possible upside...
Risk - An evenly matched battle, but you know the terrain and she does not. And there is the roleplaying opportunity for her to get a rep for killing innocent civilians. OR an amulet that will get her General mind controlled.

  Do you see how this is extremely one-sided? As an alternate, try something like this:
Lay out the map
Describe the scene
Both of you describe the reward/risk of your objectives for this scenario
Select own troops
Deploy own troops
Roleplay if possible
Fight!
Portion rewards as indicated by scenario

  For example in this scenario
Lay out map of a hunting grounds/riding trail
Describe the scene of a scared princess and a wounded warrior lying on the trail
You describe your goal/risk, mind control a character OR lose a Hero on your army for at least one scenario. Maybe you don't have to describe how you will accomplish this goal, but she does need to know that you have set the reward/risk very high...
- At this point she has some choice in the matter. She can buy in, in which case she can set a goal of capture the Goblin Sorcerer or Lose a troop for one scenario OR she can ratchet it down and set a goal of clear area of goblins OR get chased out of the Forest (see how her goals are both a lower reward/lower risk).
She decides and lets you know her goal
You both select troops
- Again, she has a chance to buy in and send 1-3 troops, or lower risk and send a whole army
You both select where those troops start
- Again, she decides between putting her heroes in ambush range or delpoying them along the edge of the board to start to set a perimer, right?
You both roleplay if possible
You both fight if one breaks out
Then apportion risk/reward

  Now there are some sticky wickets. If you go high risk and she goes low risk, you have to determine what happens if you both win/lose/etc. That should probably be agreed upon up front and re-negotiated after the scenario is over to take into account how it went down.
  And, its time for me to recommend again, think about a social stat and a magic resistance-type stat so that there is a clear cut way to determine if the spell works, etc.
  Thanks for putting up with my harping, good luck man!

[Roadkill]

Ok i'll just bullet point a couple of things here to make things easyier to read, i think your missing a few thingd.

-There will be no record keeping, you will not have to pick up a pen in battle.

-The map is already laid-out. She has a copy.

-You seem to forget that she can also create her own risks/rewards for herself/myself.

-Troop deployment will be drawn on a players copy of the map, as well as basic orders for the troops.

-Rules for objectives have not been made yet, an objective could range from getting your army from on side of the terrain to the other, to infiltrating a Lich's tomb to find a component for a spell (or something).

-there will be social stats introduced with the character flaws.

-There will be a dice role needed to determine if when the dwarf puts on the amulet he resists its effects or not.


-I haven't mentioned it before and you beat me to the punch. I will limit the opposition's ability to control the disposition of a players troops, that one you mentioned will not be possible, its unrealistic to just say that character is drunk this battle and has just wandered into my territory, the dwarfs would have to challenge the Orcs to a drinking contest or something, and the Orcs would have to accept.

Thanks, ill have to get the rules for making abilities made and get them posted here.
I have made some progress with creating points costs for troops however!

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Great!
  Also, as far as the map goes, what about making map tiles that the players can combine to make a map for each scenario? Like if the normal map is 15X20, then each map tile could be 5x5 and the players could take turns placing tiles (one at a time) they prefer on either side of the board. So, if you wanted to screw the other guy, you could put a swamp tile on his side of the board, but then they can do the same to you, or you could put plains tile on your side to protect you from swamps, but then the other side will be free to place the sweet tiles on their side too...
The only trick will be to set up the edges so that any tile can be placed next to any tile and not break the illusion of reality. This, of course, leaves you open to some funky tile choices, like a tile that is entirely desert except for the edges...
  Or, you could set the tiles up like dominoes, where all the tiles go together, but only in certain directions. this could make a great game out of placing the tiles, but could make for a limited number of map combinations...

[Roadkill]

Hmm that sounds like a good idea, I could include some for beginners because ill have to show people what a good map will look like.

this game will need lots of valleys and canyons & enclosed places for people to walk down & through. (I just find that plays better and allows more for tactical strategy). Standard open terrain of most Wargames will not work, Cities and dungeons may.

Could have walls and cliff edges on the sides, most people lack castle scenery (or its what they add last to their scenery collection)

I'll see what I can do. Ty

[Roadkill]

well it has been awhile...

but I am still working on points costs, writing abilities etc etc...

I have re-written the core combat rules into a quickstart format. I'm hoping they will make the combat easier to understand & pick-up-and-play.

The quick start rules contain 1 scenario and should take about 1 hour to read through AND play!
This first scenario only focuses on moving, fighting and shooting but it is quite fun and can be played by one or two people.

I have also come up with a better name for the game!


"Warriors of Fantasy"

its generic & not very memorable, and probably will not be the final name for the game, but it should fulfill its purpose for the moment.

The quick start rules can be found here http://www.rpglaboratory.com/Roadkill

[dindenver]

Wow!
  Sounds like you did a lot, how did the damsel in distress scenario(s) go?

[Roadkill]

I've been playtesting other things (mostly points systems and balance concerns) but I included the damsel in distress a plan last night It was very fun with lots of ups and downs.

The map was a canyon formation made by placing 6 fairly large books on a table like the dots on a dice for the number 6...

In the game we were using unknown deployment, & rules for scouting out the landscape to find where the enemy was located. That bit went extremely well, our forces found each other quickly and then the main bits of our forces clashed quite easily.

I used a algorithm that each orc/goblin from the gate rolls a dice to randomly decide what direction they would go until the orcs had found the enemy, then they report back along the chain to the gate. Orcs can communicate in LOS with each other to indicate they have found the enemy (by either arm signals, or dropping down dead in a pool of blood signals). After establishing a route like this this becomes the route the orcs will used to find the enemy.

She used a method where her generals each took a squad of men a different pre-determined & each squad would receive steady  reinforcements. (two squads round edge of map one up center, there were no hiding places....)

Annoyingly her routes took her straight past my damsels activation area! bah!

When our forces located each other fighting ensued... her Dwarves beat back my main force mercilessly down the center of the table...

However down the flank a couple of my wandering goblins got really lucky and managed to beat back her southern assault force and caused one of her generals to flee (like 3% chance to win lucky!)

Her Commander was performing a flanking maneuver to my north (because of my none-existent forces up there, and his orders were to travel north and double back round to the center).

By the 7th turn things were looking bleak for me as my center was completely chewn up and about 20 Dwarves were fighting their way to my gate.

Because she had so many Dwarves in the center they tried to crowd around my outnumbered orcs and they stumbled into the damsels activation zone. A couple of the Dwarves escorted the princess north... to the commander.

While this was happening my 2 goblins (yay) got joined by a wandering Orc and another goblin. They circled round the back of the Dwarves and killed the Dwarf guarding the gate (no more reinforcements!) and then attacked the rear of the 20 or so Dwarfs attacking down the middle, gradually grinding down the dwarves trapped in a pincer movement between them and the front line, their help saved the front line!

Just as the last of the dwarves in the center were being mopped up. The damsel met the commander and told him that an orc (arrgh) had taken her amulet and asked him could if he could get it back for her?

arrgh was actually very very nearby because the commander was flanking the gate arrgh was standing near...
The commander and his few remaining dwarven warriors charged into combat very heroically but arrgh beat them down and killed the commander with a mighty whack to the head with the gianormous flag he was carrying!

the commander failed his fate roll (got a 1 when needed a 2+ to retreat) and died permanently, obviously he was fated to die in this battle, but perhaps it was lady-lucks(a god/force of nature that exists in their world that all characters are effected by whether they believe in her or not!) way to protect him from the goblin trickery. Upper-General Theodore was a great Warrior, General & Dwarf and will be sorely missed.

The Orcs had won this battle although barley, Nobdreg & Wizbangs cunning plan to put a powerful dwarf under their control had failed, but they were content with their victory.

I'm sure Snick & Sod (the two goblins who performed so well & survived up until the end) will be telling heroic tales of their performance around the campfire tonight, although I doubt anyone will believe them...


So no I didn't get to mind control the her general but it proved interesting none-the-less. She enjoyed roleplaying with and protecting the damsel (when she first met her she was distrusting and threatening to kill her, because the damsel was a human and not to be trusted).

At the start of the game she noticed wizbang was not on the table (meta gaming, thinking I had made a mistake...)
After protecting the damsel until the end I switched wizbang out-of his transformation, she was flabbergasted she didn't realize my plan , I showed her my notes and that there was only one more step until mind control and she just thought the whole thing was pretty cool. (I bet shes plotting something evil now though).

Going into this battle I had 91 gold to spend, she had 33, I think she did very well and I'm glad to see the massacre in the last game (why I had 91 gold) didn't stop her doing well this game.

At the end of this game she earned 31 gold (killed 31 orcs).
I earned 29 gold (killed 29 dwarfs) and killed one of her Generals.

I'm happy with the result, I only feel a bit concerned over how her asking "wheres wizbang" at the start of the game, I simply answered "oh I don't have him" which was kinda an iffy half-truth technically I didn't have him on the table this turn.

I suppose sometimes you need to lie to stop out-of-game actions ruining in-game play.
Think I need to incorporate some rules which will allow characters to be hidden.If they want to lie in ambush or something. Maby a system for recovering from wounds inflicted in battle? "miss a game type mechanics"
But if the roll for missing games is in secret its something that is prone to cheating... some dishonest players will auto roll a "recovers for next battle". If the result of the roll is open and not secret its worthless, the opponent knows if they will be in the next battle or not!

Reading Legends of Lanasia now, you spelt roleplaying wrong on the 1st page, but its a good read so far.