Topic: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
Started by: mratomek
Started on: 12/4/2006
Board: Playtesting
On 12/4/2006 at 9:28pm, mratomek wrote:
RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
Hello all,
I am working on a Tactical RPG. I define a Tactical RPG as:
1). Essentially a table top miniatures game.
2). A game that allows for the creation and development of characters.
3). A game that allows for the development of a story across multiple gaming session--involving more than just combat
4). A game that could be one-shot adventures.
5). Could be played head to head, in a group or with a GM
Just wondering if any one had anything to add and if there were any games out there that already fit the bill.
Thanks.
MrAtomek
On 12/4/2006 at 9:41pm, komradebob wrote:
Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
.45 Adventure by Richard Johnson
Astounding Tales! by Howard Whitehouse
Multiple others. I can try digging up some info later, Mr Atomek, as this is an area I'm very interested in myself.
On 12/4/2006 at 10:10pm, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
Please do.
On 12/5/2006 at 4:03am, komradebob wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
I'll scrounge up some links and pm you in the next couple of days.
In the mean-time, what can you tell me about what you're pondering. i saw the other thread and got that it was superhero related.
Can you tell me about influences interms of other games, mechanics, and source material you've looked at?
Also, what can you tell me about the miniatures aspect? Primarily here I'm thinking about real world issues, rather than tabletop issues: What figures to use, how you're treating the hobby aspects/sharing duties, money commitments from participants, number of players, etc.
Right now, I'm not as interested in the movement, range, to hit, etc type stuff. ( I am interested, just not as much).
Also, can you give me a sysnopsis of what you'd like a single session to be like in broad terms, and also a bit of what you envision on-going play to be like?
On 12/5/2006 at 6:06am, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
komradebob wrote:
what can you tell me about what you're pondering. i saw the other thread and got that it was superhero related.
Super Force Seven is a Tactical RPG. I really wanted to create a super hero RPG and started on a few things about 5 years ago. Then Mutants & Masterminds appeared so I shelved it. But it didn't stay there long.
I saw a need for a game that offered more than a wargame could, in the way of character creation and story development, but that was more compact than a full-blown RPG. Something that could be played with fewer people (or not), in less time (or not), and manage some semblence of story continuity eventhough you could be playing different opponents each time.
Little did I know that the ideas I had was basically a Tactical RPG. I kept calling it a Miniatures Adventure Game, but Tactical RPG really hits the nail on the head.
Any way, I am a big super hero fan, and thought it would be a great application of the rules I had already started anways.
komradebob wrote:
Can you tell me about influences interms of other games, mechanics, and source material you've looked at?
For content, well I think at one time or another I have owned every super hero game in existence. I also took a look at a lot of wargames and then attempted to start fusing the two concepts. Flexibility and fast play are always a high priority. The game has undergone some amazing transformation from the original Monster Rules (like Monster Cars but for a Tactical RPG), but is now focusing in on just super heroes, and I think it has made all the difference.
The original mechanic was something unique--something I thought was fun--but turns out was too confusing to explain. So I swallowed my ego and went with something far more simple yet effective.
komradebob wrote:
Also, what can you tell me about the miniatures aspect? Primarily here I'm thinking about real world issues, rather than tabletop issues: What figures to use, how you're treating the hobby aspects/sharing duties, money commitments from participants, number of players, etc.
I don't ever see the game having "official" miniatures that must be used. There are so many different, amazing miniatures out there--including the plastic heroclix, horrorclix, mageknight, dreamscape, etc. which are fun to cut up, chop up and mix and match.
In fact, here's a little group I put togehter
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/mini-painter/photos/view/b77e?b=1
But I really do think--and emphasize--that people should enjoy the mini aspect of the game. Create a mini, base it, paint it. Build some greate 3D terain or some a few full color 2D maps.
A team of heroes/villains could be as few as 6 miniatures or as many as 30 miniatures. I would imagine that a player woul have a team or two.
A game can be played head to head, in a group or as a GM-led adventure.
komradebob wrote:
Also, can you give me a sysnopsis of what you'd like a single session to be like in broad terms, and also a bit of what you envision on-going play to be like?
SF7 can be played as a one-shot battle or as a richer, more involved scenario and everywhere in between. In the game play section of the manual, I have separated the story bulding elements into Narrations, Complications and Conflicts. Narrations and Complications are more role-plays, but are very short. And serve to setup the longer-playing Conflicts. For example, a complication might be a character having to find somewhere to change into his super costume. If he successful, he can enter the game on time, if not, he enters the game late.
The narration and complications are meant to bring a sense of comic-bookdom to the story and at the same time build the story.
The conflicts are where the rubber meets the road. These games are played with minis.
An example game might be
Narration (Introduction)
Complication (Investigate a crime scene for clues)
Conflict (Branch A & B)
Complication A Complication B
Conflict A Conflict B
Fil in the details of the story.
Here's an example character:
Green Gargoyle, The
Hero (250)
Origin: Arcane / Elemental (Stone)
Actions: 3
Default: 1
Life: 6
Spirit: Good
Max Lift: 10 Tons
10* Possession (Ranged): One Shot
10* (16) Dodge: Maneuver
8 (12) Defiant
8 Sense (Evil) (Ranged)
5 (11) Strength
4 Move
4 Criminologist (Profession)
3 Leaping: Swoop
Inhuman
Talisman (+2 Defend)
Heroic Reputation
Grit
Resist
Heroic Deed
Vulnerability (Metals)
A character is comprised of a few default attributes, powers, feats, special abilities or drawbacks. Character construction is a point-based system. Basically, if you build an ultra powrful character with one power, your character will have some other inherent flaw.
On 12/6/2006 at 4:54pm, komradebob wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
Okay, a couple quick follow up questions:
You mentioned that folks will have a couple of teams potentially. Would/should a single player be encouraged to have both a hero and a villain, so that when a group gets together, there's always folks from each faction available to bash one another?
Also, superheroes as a concept can be pretty broad in scope. Have you considered some sort of default background fiction for the hows and whys of the superbeings?
Relating to the terrain aspects: Supers are generally sort of urban. As I'm learning from playing around with some pulp and gangster stuff, this is a bit different animal from many other types of miniatures gaming, where you can often get away with some simple to build countryside type terrain. How can you envision dealing with this particular issue?
On 12/6/2006 at 6:08pm, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
komradebob wrote:
You mentioned that folks will have a couple of teams potentially. Would/should a single player be encouraged to have both a hero and a villain, so that when a group gets together, there's always folks from each faction available to bash one another?
Yes. The game encourages players to have both heroes and villains. To be willing to play either side--interestingly enough though, there are plenty of story lines that would pit heroes vs. heroes or villains vs. villains.
But the idea is not just limited to teams. A player might be using his team of heroes to try and complete a longer-playing scenario. So opponents should be willing to just fill-in the blanks as the opposition. For example, a Dr. Doom type might use a wide variety of flunkies and villains during the course of a longer-playing scenario. Dr. Doom would be the villain that ties all the other villains used together, eventhough at each night of gaming, it was a different player that provided the flunkies and villains. If you get what I mean.
One-shot games could also be structured so that it didn't matter who the villains or the heroes were--as far as you are concerned, your opponent is the villain and you are the hero and vice versa.
komradebob wrote:
Also, superheroes as a concept can be pretty broad in scope. Have you considered some sort of default background fiction for the hows and whys of the superbeings?
There is a Super Force Seven background story, that invloves an alien empire, hopes of an eventual colonization of earth, betrayal, the sunken city of Atlantis (actually an enourmous alien starship) and the radioactive fallout that altered many earthlings genetic material and eventual appearance of all sorts of heroes and how that changes modern-day history.
However, I am also going to open up a Super Fan Seven program similar to M&M's SuperLink, so that people can share their own ideas and concepts. There are simply too many stories to be told. But I do want to avoid inundating the market with crap. So the Super Fan Seven program will be tightly controlled. Only the best and brightest ideas will make muster.
komradebob wrote:
Relating to the terrain aspects: Supers are generally sort of urban. As I'm learning from playing around with some pulp and gangster stuff, this is a bit different animal from many other types of miniatures gaming, where you can often get away with some simple to build countryside type terrain. How can you envision dealing with this particular issue?
Most likely from the Website with tutorials and guides showing people how they can quickly build terrain and 2D Map interiors (which you can also use). Some of the first pieces I built were massive 2'x2' pieces, an interiror of a chemical plant and a junk yard. But moving those pieces around became a pain in the but, best reserved for the big game.
Then I messed around with some ideas for rapidly building buildings. and discovered that many boxes--shoe bozes, appliance boxes, etc.--worked great as a foundation for a building. Just add a base, some do-dads, paint and signage and you can create a lot of durable, light buildings that are all sorts of shapes and sizes.
You can check some photos out here
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/terrainmakers/photos/browse/6461
Like I said also, with the cheap and available laser printing (color and BW), I will offer plenty of interior maps for download as well.
Also, I have been collecting lots of toys that are close to the scale--cars, trucks, construction gear, etc. You would be amazed at what you can find at a dollar store, art store and department store. I think the website will facilitate some of this as well. Show people the possiblities and where to find stuff.
For example, for a demo I ran at a store, I used a 16" Sentinel from the Marvel Legends action figures to battle a group of classic X-Men (all Heroclix). It was a great game and visually appealing as well.
On 12/7/2006 at 2:50pm, komradebob wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
Mr.Atomek:
Do I recognize you from the Lead Adventures site? I don't post there, but I lurk semi-regularly and you seem familiar from your screen-name.
I was just wondering, since I didn't want to send you to sites you were already well familiar with.
Collecting stuff:
I'm glad you're offering tutorials and downloads for terrain-I wish I had the technical skills to do something similar! Printable, buildable terrain is a godsend.
One thing you may consider adding is a suggestion on the order to buy and collect stuff. When I started getting into pulp gaming, I made the error of buying lots of "hero" type figures, and not nearly enough badguys, civillians, animals or vehicles. Had I stopped and thought for a moment, I would have realized I had my proportions in reverse, It's an easy newbie mistake to make, especially coming from a GW games background where typically a player only collects to their own force and let's the other player worry about the opposition. I only recently realized I could have gotten away with as few as maybe a dozen "heroes" total, even including figures for friends to use.
Other stuff:
Are you familiar with the old TSR Marvel Superheroes game (FASERIP version)? There's a link online somewhere that has all of the old rulesbooks in pdf. Anyway, the game had a system called "Karma" where heroes and villains got bonus points to spend modifying die throws for acting in appropriate genre ways. You might be able to do something similar, using that as a basis for either reolls, die mods, or whatever.
Maybe you could also use it as a "power up" or energy for really spectacular effects.
Sitaution builder:
http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Microcosm1.pdf
A friend of mine is working on this. In particular, look at the situation builder and diagram. It's a way for all players to create a mission set up/situation on the fly and may be a method you can adapt for your own game. I suspet it would work best for times when several players are meeting up, but noone has a scenario planned ahead of time.
Roleplaying:
If you did use those two mentioned above, it might also be useful for the roleplaying parts between action scenes. One related suggestion:
In a roleplaying part, the active players can recieve "karma" for their _specific_ hero involved. The other players who would play the non-player character or referee could also gain "karma", but at a lower rate. However, those players can spend the "karma" on _any_ of their characters (heroes, villains, or otherwise).
On 12/7/2006 at 5:26pm, komradebob wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
And here's the link to the old FASERIP Marvel stuff:
http://www.marvelrpg.net/
On 12/7/2006 at 8:02pm, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
komradebob wrote:
I was just wondering, since I didn't want to send you to sites you were already well familiar with.
Seems like I had been there before. But please, send me links to any forums you think are useful.
komradebob wrote: I'm glad you're offering tutorials and downloads for terrain-I wish I had the technical skills to do something similar! Printable, buildable terrain is a godsend.
Yes. Lots of tutorials.
komradebob wrote: One thing you may consider adding is a suggestion on the order to buy and collect stuff. When I started getting into pulp gaming, I made the error of buying lots of "hero" type figures, and not nearly enough badguys, civillians, animals or vehicles. Had I stopped and thought for a moment, I would have realized I had my proportions in reverse, It's an easy newbie mistake to make, especially coming from a GW games background where typically a player only collects to their own force and let's the other player worry about the opposition. I only recently realized I could have gotten away with as few as maybe a dozen "heroes" total, even including figures for friends to use.
Its funny you say that. Because I ran into that too. I have one chapter dedicated to just the hobby of miniatures, collecting, terrain building, etc.
komradebob wrote: Are you familiar with the old TSR Marvel Superheroes game (FASERIP version)? There's a link online somewhere that has all of the old rulesbooks in pdf. Anyway, the game had a system called "Karma" where heroes and villains got bonus points to spend modifying die throws for acting in appropriate genre ways. You might be able to do something similar, using that as a basis for either reolls, die mods, or whatever.
Ya, I have all that. Did you know that someone built an MSHX system using a bunch of user submitted advanced rules? It has all the pdfs and then some. It's in Yahoo Groups.
komradebob wrote: Maybe you could also use it as a "power up" or energy for really spectacular effects.
That would be a great special ability: Karma. Allowing a character to add a certain number of modifier points to any dice roll during the game.
komradebob wrote:
Sitaution builder:
http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/Microcosm1.pdf
Reading through this. I think the story building element of the game is as important if not more important than the mechanics. Because without it, you might as well being playing warhammer.
komradebob wrote:
A friend of mine is working on this. In particular, look at the situation builder and diagram. It's a way for all players to create a mission set up/situation on the fly and may be a method you can adapt for your own game. I suspet it would work best for times when several players are meeting up, but noone has a scenario planned ahead of time.
I think it is very important.
By the way, I would like to send you a current version of the rules. Where can I send them?
Thanks for your input.
MrAtomek.
On 12/8/2006 at 4:17pm, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
Here an example of a basic game--you can also construct more complex scenarios, vary similar in some respects to RPG scnarios. But that takes a bit more time and thought. I am planning on offering scenarios, almost like comic books, that two players can play-out using the game and will tell a complete story. But back to the Basic Game.
A basic game is intended for just any two people who meet to play. A game would consist of a Conflict + Variation and selected Complications. For example, you may first decide or roll Assassination Agenda as the conflict. The villains secretly choose either one of the heroes to assinate or an NPC is used. The heroes of course must try to figure out who is the mark and keep him from being assassinated.
The variation might be Betrayed, which indicates that at anytime during the game each player can select one opposing character who will crossover to his side--essentially, players will switch one character each.
Next, each player assembles his team based on the conflicts description of points allowed.
Before the main conflict starts, players can roll 1-2 complications each. First they must select one character from their assembled team to play out the complication. The complications are mini sub plots that can greatly complicate the situation. For example, a hero might have to work late to catch-up at the office resulting in him being over-tired, -2 on all action rolls; or a villain might have manipulated a low-level street gang into following him, gaining an additional 250 points worth of Minions.
The complications can greatly alter the landscape, making the games more interested and slightly more story-oriented, rather than you deploy, I deploy and now lets kill each other.
Furthermore, the conflicts will have a range of objectives. Combat will play a central role, but there could be other events occurring simultaneously that require non-combative expertise, such as saving victims from a burning building, preventing a ship from sinking, disarming a bomb, powering-down a reactor, hacking a computer system, etc.
When it is all combined, a game becomes more of a comic-book like story rather than a simple wargame.
Using those same structures--complications and conflicts--and story branching, you can create interesting scenarios where the heroes aren't always going to win.
Anyways, that is where I am heading with gameplay right now.
On 12/14/2006 at 2:36am, King Turnip wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
I am working on a Tactical RPG. I define a Tactical RPG as:
1). Essentially a table top miniatures game.
2). A game that allows for the creation and development of characters.
3). A game that allows for the development of a story across multiple gaming session--involving more than just combat
4). A game that could be one-shot adventures.
5). Could be played head to head, in a group or with a GM
Just wondering if any one had anything to add and if there were any games out there that already fit the bill.
Though I feel like I should wash my mouth out with soap for saying it: Games Workshop's Inquisitor. It was awful-- basically missing every point it aimed for-- but it could be an example of a poorly executed TRPG
On 12/14/2006 at 4:43pm, komradebob wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
King wrote:
Though I feel like I should wash my mouth out with soap for saying it: Games Workshop's Inquisitor. It was awful-- basically missing every point it aimed for-- but it could be an example of a poorly executed TRPG
That's sort of interesting because Inquisitor is the "Big Company" game that I usually hear mentioned in conversations about a minis/rpg hybrid. What exactly was it that Inquisitor missed the mark on so badly, in your opinion?
On 12/15/2006 at 6:30pm, King Turnip wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
What exactly was it that Inquisitor missed the mark on so badly, in your opinion?
1: Too much of the game was a blatant schill to sell GW mini product
2: While encouraging Campaign-style play with RP interactions, there was very little actual support for it. The best way to explain it is that the RP elements include the option to have (mechanically) meaningless interstatial scenes between standard fights with points-built armies. I could have the same options with Warhammer 40k, inserting a color commentary before each battle. That doesn't make my trip to GW Games Day a RPG outing.
3: It reads like an RPG written by wargamers (which it was.) The rules are clunky, as is the reward/advancement system. These are generally commentary about this specific product, but it's worth noting.
I love the GW-40K universe. The fact that GW is producing a trillogy of RPGs for the franchise depresses me only because it will suck out loud. I had high hopes for Inquisitor, and these are the things I would have liked to see:
1: standard scale miniatures (30 mm for GW, 25/28/30 mm for other games) so I could use (at the least) my bitz box to help build a fig for my character. The double-scale figs at $35 a piece (buy 4 or more for your team!) was a plain milking of the consumer.
2: meaningful (personally as well as mechanically) RP interaction, with flexible conflict/mission generation. A process by which each side has a mission intent, and more meaningful mission goals than "Kill the other guys."
3: Mechanical support for the RP elements.
4: Elegant design with a thought-out advancement and character system. Of course, I want this in any RPG, tactical or otherwise. Key to this would be keeping everyone in some sort of action all the time. Miniature games are prone to the 1-on-1 dynamic, which if there are 5 players, leaves 3 in the cold.
On 12/15/2006 at 8:23pm, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
I went out to the Web site and saw the fact that it used 54mm figs. That would seem to be a big no no.
On 12/15/2006 at 10:47pm, komradebob wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
mratomek wrote:
I went out to the Web site and saw the fact that it used 54mm figs. That would seem to be a big no no.
It...depends.
What GW did? Yeah, I'd say _Bad_.
54mm in general though is Green Army Man scale, the kind you can pick up a bucket of for $3 or around $0.50-$3 a piece, if you want nicer plastic ones ( Airfix, A-i-P, Tamiya).
Beyond that though, I'm curious how King Turnip would approach bringing more roleplaying in. I've definitely noticed wargamers, even when interested in bringing more rpg type aspects in, tend to get a bit hand-wavey where actual mechanics are concerned.
( I've been guilty of it myself, so I always like other folks' take).
On 12/16/2006 at 4:38am, mratomek wrote:
RE: Re: RPG vs. TRPG vs. Wargame
That is the $100 question: how do you bring RPG elements to mini gaming.
I don't call it so much RPG. The game I am working on, SF7, defines the RPG elements for head-to-head as:
1.) Being able to create and control your own characters.
2). Character can select and use non-combative powers that have in-game effects
3). There are various pre-game and in-game elements that build more of a story than just starting the game and killing your opponent.
4). Resolution / Victory in a game may have nothing to do with combat--altough combat will exist.
If you are playing with a GM, well now that is a different situation entirely. Then more traditional RPGing can be mixed in with miniature combat.
MrAtomek