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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here are the questions.

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

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

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

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

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

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

Later,
Robert

Man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaxalon wrote: Man.

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

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

Quit empty-posting.

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

Best,
Ron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert

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

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

Ah, Thread-kill...
Anyway,

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

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

Any more I'm thinking that using terrain that could be made by anyone (hey new player this means you) could put together. I won't win any terrain making prizes but should market the idea - play with toys. The hero clicks, star wars, prepainted figs would be best for this since they are open and play toys.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

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

Mike Holmes wrote:

contracycle wrote: #4 sounds like you drifted the game to a RPG for your own entertainment. Otherwise it's like 3. Did you note anyone looking at you strangely, or have anyone ask you why you weren't trying to help win the scenario?

Science versus Pluck is a wargame, the role playing frequently is a tack on just like the other games. It has more potential than other wargames for role playing to effect play when the game is being run by a fun loving game master who is swayable.

I played in a SvP game in Oklahoma City in 95 in which el Hiba lead the Jihad to expell the French from Southern Moracco. He told me before we got to the convention that cowry shells would be used to modify the game (exactly how was not specified but I assumed it meant dice modifiers.) I brought a bag full of cowries and took on the role of el Hiba. I used my illegal cowries to give a gift/bribe to all the arab/berber players in the game on the first turn. They thought I was out. Of course I wasn't but did not use any other illegal cowries for the rest of the game. I lead my men on a pilgrimage to the tomb of a famous saint. All the while my army and fame grew. I role played with the Islamic players throughout the game urging them to follow the green banner. Howard was swayed by my moves so my army grew in strength and my contacts with the religious authories of Marakesh grew. When I finally got to the city, the French had pulled back and I was able to magnanimously protect the French consulate from the one radical group that had not joined me. The war game was won by role play and playing the game master.

Do people look at you funny when playing like this? You bet they do! Which is why wargames are limited as simulations. They suck at point in history when systems shift. In 1944 all Germans were bad. By May 1945 that system shifted to a peace game in which Germans had to be seen as good or potentially good and be reformed.

Your take on D+D not being a role play game in its original play is interesting. The rules were the same. I've got the old white box version and have seen the original brown box version (same books different box). The difference was who was playing. The historical miniatures gamers who were the first to buy and play D+D were moving on from it by 76 (at least in Louisville KY). The teenages like me who were moving in were raised on Tolkien and Saturday morning cartoons. So the rules stayed the same - it was just how people used the rules that altered.

I don't think that any of the 5 miniatures versions of RPGing that I mentioned are bad games. All were and are fun in their own ways. They certainly arn't RPGs as is understood at the Forge. More like separate evolutions. Just like the old Game Designers Workshop game "En Garde" was an odd evolutionary divergence from D+D gaming that only appeared again in GDW's Taveller game as character creation.

I'm going to just read this list now and not post anymore because I think I've said my piece.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Your take on D+D not being a role play game in its original play is interesting. The rules were the same. I've got the old white box version and have seen the original brown box version (same books different box). The difference was who was playing. The historical miniatures gamers who were the first to buy and play D+D were moving on from it by 76 (at least in Louisville KY). The teenages like me who were moving in were raised on Tolkien and Saturday morning cartoons. So the rules stayed the same - it was just how people used the rules that altered.

Hmm, I hate to draw too retsrictive definitions of what either rpgs or miniatures wargames are, since someone inevitably comes along and muddies the border eventually. Further, most definitions seem to look at particular evolutionary lines of development at a certain stage in that development and declare that to be the definition of ( insert wargame /boardgame /LARP /CRPG /miniatures wargame/whatever as appropriate), causing all sorts of grief for later developers. Personally, I'm willing to concede that these hybrid games are neither properly rpgs nor miniatures wargames as normally understood, so long as other folks are willing to discuss the ways that these games can utilise elements from both of those forms. I've seen a number of different terms suggested: semi-rpgs ( I believe by Mr. Holmes, in fact...), Floor Games (Wells), Narrative Wargame ( GW), as well as several othert terms.

My interest is more along the lines of "what sort of things can we develop, after 30 years of experience with developments in rpgs, and apply to miniatures gaming?".

For example, from the more collab-storytelling end of the rpg spectrum, I'm interested in the question of whether direct and consistent faction/character to player identification is necessary. Can you have non-consistent faction identification, but still have gamism? How far can you move from direct, bottom-up design and have a design be considered simulationist? How can GM duties be dispersed in a game and still get something that at least vaguely resembles an rpg?

And that is before even touching on the way the physical nature of miniatures themselves affects design...

Robert

komradebob wrote:
For example, from the more collab-storytelling end of the rpg spectrum, I'm interested in the question of whether direct and consistent faction/character to player identification is necessary. Can you have non-consistent faction identification, but still have gamism?

The hero clicks, star wars, prepainted figs would be best for this since they are open and play toys.

I think that the lines are now so blurred in many senses, the mixing of ideas and concpets from different aspects, RPg, Wargames, Matrix games etc are used, at least by some people. I have added elemnts from all in to my games of all sorts for years and use ideas from Matrix games in both RPGs and Wargames.

Jonathan