Topic: Narrativist wargaming
Started by: nikola
Started on: 4/8/2005
Board: Forge Birthday Forum
On 4/8/2005 at 3:02pm, nikola wrote:
Narrativist wargaming
Here's something I've been wrestling with for a long time:
In Henry V, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, and many, many others, the protagonists are involved in substantial battles. Part of the value of these battles is their visual impact - it gives you a sense of the scale of the conflict and shows how much the pro/antagonists (and their lesser cohorts) care about the issues.
The other thing it does is that it shows you battle, which is viscerally thrilling, at least to some.
However, I have never seen a tabletop wargame wherein there is any sort of Narrativist bent, where the relevance of the protagonists is taken into account; nor have I seen an RPG that gives the sense of scale that could be given by laying your armies out on a table.
Is this synthesis possible? My own attempts haven't been a complete wash, but they haven't been success, either.
On 4/8/2005 at 3:06pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Totally possible. No doubt in my mind.
If it's possible to get people answering Premise by talking, it's possible to get people answering premise by moving pieces. Same difference, it's all gaming/contributing-to-SIS.
How? Well that's the tricky thing, isn't it? For Narrativist, wouldn't you have to start by figuring out what the Premise of the wargame is?
On 4/8/2005 at 3:14pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Wait... I think it's even been done on a small scale. Old-style BloodBowl had a very cunning balance of team effectiveness this game versus team effectiveness down the road. You could end up asking too much of your star players, and get them injured. You could give your lesser lights too little to do, and they would never become stars in their own right.
Over the course of an entire season, you answered, moment by moment, the question "What type of coach are you?" Some folks decided to play necromantic teams, where the players were wholly expendable. I carefully nurtured a team of delicate little elves through several early defeats until their team-work and concern for each other combined to make them a tremendously effective force. But the necromancers still gave me a run for my money, because they could target my team members for attack and injury, and they knew full well that I cared more about them than about victory.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:00pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
TonyLB wrote: Over the course of an entire season, you answered, moment by moment, the question "What type of coach are you?"
That was a fun game, and not too terribly different from Heroic Factor, an RP/wargame that I "designed" several years ago. The premise (small p) therein was that each player was a petty king vying to be High King and, over the course of numerous battles, your army could be eliminated or you could wind up being the vassal of another player's king (I hadn't figure out yet that the ability to come in 2nd is critical in this kind of game, but it could easily add that feature in). There were also (at the time, GM-generated) other petty kingdoms that would be there to present obstacles and give you resources, should you overcome those obstacles. (for instance, you could gain, I dunno, Welsh Bowmen or Sir Lucien and add them to your retinue)
Part of the idea was that the RPing aspect would be diplomatic, so you could stop off with the Wood Elves and chat with them, and maybe they'd give you a bunch of archers, or maybe they'd stab you in the throat.
Another part of the idea - and this is important, I think - is that you, the king, are down there on the table. That mini represents your character, and it is through that character that you enact stuff. The king gives orders and the other charactes act according to some sort of mechanic.
Another important issue is that the king doesn't sweat any of the petty details of how the kingdom works. He's just making himself a bigger kingdom. "How good a king am I?" isn't, therefore, a viable question. "What am I willing to do to gain a kingdom?" might be.
Perhaps kings can have a PTA-like Issue, let's call it a Calling, where they can be working for something, e.g. Justice or The Fomorians or United Syldavia. The also have a Temptation, like Lady Tightbodice or Invincible In Battle. At every point when they can choose to fight for one thing or another, one of them must be toward their Calling, and the other is toward the Temptation. The Struggle gives you power to lead, while the Temptation gives you power as an individual. Likewise, obeying your Calling will give you power over men, but will make you vulnerable as a person, and obeying your Temptation will give you personal strength, but will likely make you a vassal. Balancing them will make you a powerful nation and a powerful individual. A 1:1 ratio shouldn't be the "correct" answer, either.
So, there, maybe it can be done.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:06pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Story Engine defaults to a scene level resolution system, in which individual contributions from player characters participating in the scene are pooled, but has "quick take" mechanics that enable players to have their characters engage opponents individually, which draws any dice the opponent would be contributing to scene resolution away into a featured one-on-one. When that's resolved, the quick take mechanics then determine what dice go back into affecting the scene resolution. So if the "scene" were a clash of armies...
Paul
On 4/8/2005 at 4:10pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
nikola: Or throw in somewhat more complex victory-condition rules, such that victory could be pursued through Vassalage as well as through being Top Dog, and you might have a game that asks "How much will I sacrifice to be my own man?"
Yeah, it can be done.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:18pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
I don't know about wargames with Nar inclinations, but I know Nar games that do big battles well:
HeroQuest
Riddle of Steel (in the Flower of Battle Supplement)
Universalis
I guess the hardest part I would see in a wargame is trying not to let all the fiddly strategy stuff overwhelm whatever Premise is going on.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:29pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
I've made an experiment of sorts with something similar. I've tried to blend a mixture of strategy gaming and Narrativist RPGing. I'm using a core FATE type ruleset. The game (which I haven't recruited players for yet) is over on www.rpol.net under the Sci Fi section. It's named Full Thrust Epic because I intend to use the Full Thrust Universe as the setting but on a much larger scale.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:33pm, Michael S. Miller wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Nikola: Even if it's the Birthday Forum, I'm still gonna do the "Read This" thing. Watch:
READ THIS: Birthright via Sorcerer
In it, Judd (aka Paka) lays out a model for true Sorcerer-Kings in, well, Sorcerer. Make each "unit" a demon and you're halfway there.
After I finish With Great Power..., crafting this idea into a full-fledged mini-supplement will probably be my next project: Sorcerer and Sovereignty.
Bill Cook is also trying something cool in [Burning Wheel] Mass Combat Playtesting I think he has more about this on the BW forum, but I'm not positive.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 11100
Topic 14691
On 4/8/2005 at 4:40pm, Thierry Michel wrote:
Re: Narrativist wargaming
nikola wrote: I have never seen a tabletop wargame wherein there is any sort of Narrativist bent, where the relevance of the protagonists is taken into account
Most wargames are historical and the relevance of individuals in big battles in slim, unless we're talking of generals.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:51pm, James Holloway wrote:
RE: Re: Narrativist wargaming
Thierry Michel wrote:
Most wargames are historical and the relevance of individuals in big battles in slim, unless we're talking of generals.
Yeah, but it could be done on a smaller scale -- platoon-level skirmishes are not uncommon, or (to blow my own trumpet), the early medieval skirmish campaign I've been working on intermittently for like five years, Mordlanda Saga.
I can kind of see doing a very intense "what will you do to survive" kind of a Vietnam game, for instance, but I'm not sure it would be "wargaming" properly so-called.
On 4/8/2005 at 4:58pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: Narrativist wargaming
Thierry Michel wrote:nikola wrote: I have never seen a tabletop wargame wherein there is any sort of Narrativist bent, where the relevance of the protagonists is taken into account
Most wargames are historical and the relevance of individuals in big battles in slim, unless we're talking of generals.
Tell that to Cuchullain or Aiax.
... or anyone who plays Warhammer or War Zone or D&D Minis.
On 4/8/2005 at 5:01pm, James Holloway wrote:
RE: Re: Narrativist wargaming
nikola wrote:
Tell that to Cuchullain or Aiax.
... or anyone who plays Warhammer or War Zone or D&D Minis.
When Thierry says "most" wargames are historical, he is using it in the sense where "most" means "hardly any compared to the sales of Warhammer."
But I admit that when I see "wargame" I think "historical miniatures wargaming" as well. Of course, "wargame" properly speaking means "hex-and-counter wargame," right?
I began a series of remarks on WHFB and Warzone and so forth, but realised that I was only articulating my own prejudices about what you can have a "serious" story about.
On 4/8/2005 at 5:22pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: Narrativist wargaming
Thierry Michel wrote: I can kind of see doing a very intense "what will you do to survive" kind of a Vietnam game, for instance, but I'm not sure it would be "wargaming" properly so-called.
OK, I want to make something clear: real war isn't fun. There are no heroes, people die of infection, frostbite, and dyssentery, and miscommunication is the greatest foe. Maybe someone wants to make that game. I don't.
I'm not interested in any war that's happened in the last three centuries. I'm not intersted in a simulation of the stupid ways people can die for something they don't understand. I'm not interested in Viet Nam, Korea, the Civil War, or Napoleon. I'm not interested in "historical" depictions of the Trojan War or Tokugawa Ieyasu's military rise to power.
I am interested in how Aiax, Hector, et. al effected the battle, and I'm interested in how Ieyasu and his dudes did, too. I'm not saying that there have to be wizards and fireballs; I'm saying that the stories of these individuals are more interesting than the mass combat model that is prevalent in wargaming.
I'm interested in depicting heroism, where the sacrifices made by those of mighty stories are the hinging points of the conflict. If there is narrative to be found in modern and historical warfare, it's probably to be found in the war room. What I want to be depict is at the banquet table trading favors and on the battlefield trading blood.
TonyLB wrote: throw in somewhat more complex victory-condition rules, such that victory could be pursued through Vassalage as well as through being Top Dog, and you might have a game that asks "How much will I sacrifice to be my own man?"
Ah, now that's cool. Very cool.
On 4/8/2005 at 5:50pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
If you want to go a more traditional hard-core wargame route, where the player's role is not as a national leader but as a military commander of some medium level, there are lots of painful, story-worthy dilemmas to get out of that middle position to, as you're pulled between what your superiors want done to win the war and your subordinates' desire not to get killed, thank you very much. To paraphrase the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan, you have to choose between the mission and the man. So, premise: "What victory is worth sacrificing others for?"
(EDIT: This is particularly anti-heroic because as a commander in a modern military -- colonel or higher -- you don't get to put yourself on the front line much, so you're always asking people to do what you're not doing yourself. Which, if you have a soul at all, hurts.)
On 4/8/2005 at 5:58pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
I think the TRoS combat system, which mixes a light-but-fiddly sim-system with a strong emphasis on the actions of individual PCs to affect the battle. The sim system itself allows for how the battle will go without PC interaction based on the strength of the forces, and various environmental and tactical considerations. It also incorporates rules for the tactical expertise of the general, and the morale of the troops, affected by a "rousing speech".
Beyond those considerations, it's all about the actions of the PCs. The PCs can raid the enemy's encampment, challenge the enemy generals, help with the medical corps, and various other things which can have a big impact on the tide of the battle.
On 4/8/2005 at 6:07pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Sydney Freeberg wrote: you have to choose between the mission and the man. So, premise: "What victory is worth sacrificing others for?"
That makes for a gnarly game. It's related to what I'm after, in that the character has personal feelings about what to do, and is pulled by different demands.
It's a game I'd love to see someone make. I think you've got something there.
It could be really eerie and Ender's Gamish, in that you're commanding units on a battlefield by playing a boardgame. And then you have to look the survivors in the eye.
I'm not sure I'd want to play such a game, but I'd sure buy it.
On 4/8/2005 at 6:25pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Wolfen wrote: I think the TRoS combat system, which mixes a light-but-fiddly sim-system with a strong emphasis on the actions of individual PCs to affect the battle. The sim system itself allows for how the battle will go without PC interaction based on the strength of the forces, and various environmental and tactical considerations. It also incorporates rules for the tactical expertise of the general, and the morale of the troops, affected by a "rousing speech".
Beyond those considerations, it's all about the actions of the PCs. The PCs can raid the enemy's encampment, challenge the enemy generals, help with the medical corps, and various other things which can have a big impact on the tide of the battle.
Oh, I have no doubt that RPGs can handle this kind of thing competently. I'm talking about a strategy game where your human actions matter, not a humanist story with strategic implications.
On 4/8/2005 at 7:02pm, James Holloway wrote:
RE: Re: Narrativist wargaming
nikola wrote:Thierry Michel wrote: I can kind of see doing a very intense "what will you do to survive" kind of a Vietnam game, for instance, but I'm not sure it would be "wargaming" properly so-called.
I said that, not Thierry.
On 4/8/2005 at 7:07pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: Narrativist wargaming
James Holloway wrote:nikola wrote:Thierry Michel wrote: I can kind of see doing a very intense "what will you do to survive" kind of a Vietnam game, for instance, but I'm not sure it would be "wargaming" properly so-called.
I said that, not Thierry.
Geez. Sorry, there's some sort of Forge quote barfing going on.
On 4/8/2005 at 7:11pm, Paka wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
Having run the Flower of Battle combat system with a group of very nar-centric wargamers, I can tell ya it works like a dream.
It plays very much like the old Legend of Five Rings mass combat system, rolls for the commanders to see how the combat is going and flashes into the heroism of the PC's.
I loved it and the group seemed to dig it also.
Great stuff.
On 4/8/2005 at 7:14pm, James Holloway wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
nikola wrote:
Oh, I have no doubt that RPGs can handle this kind of thing competently. I'm talking about a strategy game where your human actions matter, not a humanist story with strategic implications.
One interesting way I've seen this done was to give players in a wargame different roles within the command hierarchy and differing objectives as well. I know you're not interested in modern war -- the example is from the Spanish Civil War -- but it would work as well, or even better, in a premodern setting.
In the game in question, a small number of players were divisional commanders. These players were isolated from the battlefield -- they had big maps showing the positions of their brigades and divisional assets, and they would send orders to each of their brigade commanders.
Now, the brigade commander players had very different personalities and objectives. Because this is the Spanish Civil War, each division had a couple of jokers -- a Communist volunteer battalion, an Italian brigade, etc -- and not every brigade was fully committed to the division's objectives or command structure. This forced the divisional commander to strike up a relationship as best he could with his brigade commanders, since the weak command hierarchy made personal leadership the most effective.
This had the painful effect that the brigade commander the division commander liked best was also the one most likely to obey his orders well, and therefore the guy who had to be handed all the shitty jobs that lesser brigade commanders would try to avoid doing -- like, say, assaulting strongly held enemy positions.
Lots of casualties in those friendly brigades.
Now imagine this in, say, a Bronze Age setting like the Iliad. Each PC is the commander of a group of followers -- they answer only to him. Agamemnon has no authority to command the Myrmidons, only Achilles can do that -- so if Agamemnon makes his obnoxious personality felt, he loses crack troops. And on the battlefield, there's no command structure above those individuals, each rampaging around the field doing his own thing, sometimes coordinating and sometimes not.
Premise: "which is better, honor or victory?"
Premise: "is an honorable foe better than a dishonorable ally?"
Premise: "a good commander loves his men, but must be willing to order their deaths."
Premise: "kill or lay down the sword."
Premise: "who is the better man, a great warrior or a king?"
On 4/8/2005 at 8:10pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Narrativist wargaming
James Holloway wrote: Now imagine this in, say, a Bronze Age setting like the Iliad. Each PC is the commander of a group of followers -- they answer only to him. Agamemnon has no authority to command the Myrmidons, only Achilles can do that -- so if Agamemnon makes his obnoxious personality felt, he loses crack troops. And on the battlefield, there's no command structure above those individuals, each rampaging around the field doing his own thing, sometimes coordinating and sometimes not.
Premise: "which is better, honor or victory?"
Premise: "is an honorable foe better than a dishonorable ally?"
Premise: "a good commander loves his men, but must be willing to order their deaths."
Premise: "kill or lay down the sword."
Premise: "who is the better man, a great warrior or a kin"
Now we're talkin'. There's no cult of personality like the hero worship of Achaea.
So I think what you probably wind up seeing is a balance like this (made up on the spot here):
- If a player kills another player's hero, he might get land or what-have-you, but he doesn't get troops. Therefore, it behooves them to not kill each other, unless there's emnity between them.
- There could be something along the lines of Mountain Witch's Trust mechanic that goes into negative numbers - Emnity - where your trust of each other can build up and become substantial bonuses to aiding - or betraying - each other in conflict. Conversely, Emnity gives you a bonus on hurting someone else; if they capture you, you can't hurt them (they don't trust you enough), but they can't use you effectively, either.
- Trust can only move so fast - up or down by one between battles, or zeroed out, but you can't switch from Emnity to Trust in one turn. Emnity is short-term useful, long-term, it endangers you.
- Since everyone knows what the score is all the time, by the time two forces meet in battle, they might want to just team up.
- ... which gets back to "why play for second place?" If what you want is a unified France, getting with the winning team might be a viable strategy. If what you want is revenge on someone else, likewise..... Victory conditions can be things like Unification (victory points for being on the winning team, with a higher score for having higher Trust with the King), Revenge (kill an opposing Hero), Triumph (Being High King), Shadow Ruler (Being second in command, modified for the level of Trust your ruler has in you)... I think those victory conditions might be face-down cards. Maybe you can show them if you want...
So the thing to do is, work out basic resolution mechanics.
- Heroes' damange is done by fallout - if they die, it's after the battle, and mostly they accrue scars.
- The damage Heroes deal is in numbers of opponent non-heroes they take down. Versus other Heroes, they deal serious, maybe immediate, fallout.
- Regulars have mass effects - they're shooting at other masses of dudes, so, against other masses of dudes, they do primarily morale damage. Most losses are by dudes running away, and only if they can't run away do they die on the spot.
- Morale is healed by heroes succeeding, modified by the Hero's reputation, which is probably a factor of how much fallout sHe's taken (more = higher rep). A Hero joining a unit completely heals the unit's morale. Morale is how effective a unit is.
- Heroes are, of course, immune to morale damage, as is the unit the Hero is fighting within.
So... the question is, "What will you do to be remembered?"