Hi all -

I'm working on a system right now which is sort of an 'alternate direction' RPGs could have evolved back in the seventies. Instead of trying to make visual aids which match the imaginative experience, or eventually leaving minis, etc. behind forever for talking-play of the kind that inspires us a lot of us here, I'm trying to write a ruleset in which the physical attributes of the minis, gaming terrain, etc. dictate what's happening in play to a fairly large degree.

Example: You start character generation by picking out a painted miniature. If you take a lady barbarian miniature with broadsword and fur bikini as your mini, that tells you that your character uses a broadsword and doesn't wear armor.

This thread is mostly me looking for helpful suggestions about systems that have tried this before, ideas you have along these lines, etc. I've been playing a lot with kids lately (who tend to really like tangible play aids IME) and I got some dwarven forge mastermaze stuff for Christmas and it's sort of giving me some ideas about (yet another) different way to play these odd games we like.

Hello!

Reading this, I can't say I have any system in mind that does this for RPGs (though I do recall this being a part of my single Warhammer 40K experience).  However, there was an Actual Play thread for Atomic Sock Monkey Press' The Zorcerer of Zo.  In this particular adventure, the GM bought some inexpensive toys and stated up characters based on them for a game where the players were characters from the Island of Forgotten Toys.  Then he wrapped them up and gave them out as gifts when the game started.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=302189

I don't know how much that might help with inspiration, as it was the GM enforcing that idea on the system rather than the system doing this by default, but hopefully there's something for you there.

Ryan's comment reminds me of a set of recent comics on Something Positive not long ago. Old toys being used instead of miniatures with custom stats based on what the toy was like. With regards to the idea itself, I think it could be interesting, but whoever was running it would probably want to hand pick the miniatures ahead of any particular game that would be options. I can just see someone (glances around to make sure no fingers are being pointed at him) bringing in a minature that didn't at all fit with the direction the DM/GM/whatever wanted to go. Dragons, crazy over-teched monstrosities or whatever struck their fancy. It might fit the game setting, but could easily throw off the dynamic if not regulated. Heck, even something seemingly benign could become problematical. (Though it does give me a use for that ancient minature of the man loaded down with enough gear for two horses that I have.)

I don't know of any system that exists for purchase that would work the way you are talking about, but I imagine there have been a number of homebrew systems for it that have met with varying success. Like I mentioned before, the biggest pitfall I can imagine would be in making sure that there was a proper balance with the finished characters based on the initial mini.

Er, sorry, I'm on the run, so just a quick comment or two.

Check out HG Wells  book "Floor Games". There are free online copiesaround.

Check out how Everway uses vision cards and questions. You can apply a similar method with miniatures.

Also, down in my sig is an lod attempt I had to work on something similar.

I'll comment further, but right now I'm off to the zoo for chinese new year celebration.

i remember toying with this idea. i'd had semi-workable rules. based mostly on a chess board, and primary tactical. but each unit had unique movement, attack and defense abilities. adding in a simple resolution system would do the trick. if your willing to make very complex maps.

Just a quick thought on movement:
Over at rpgnet, I'd posted about Beer'n'pretzels minis game design. One of the responses mentioned something I thought was awfully smart, which came from some sort of Three Musketeers game:

Q) How fast do figures move?
A) Figures move at the Speed of Plot.

It's an awfully good idea and takes out one of the most annoying, fiddly bits that seems to get thrown into just about every minis game I've yet encountered.

Hi all,

Thanks for the great feedback, and keep it coming. I'll try to get more detailed responses to many of the individual ideas when I can. komradebob, the rules you link to are promising, they seem like with the right group at least they could lead to a really fun dreamy kind of play. You seem to want to focus the action later on - I'm tempted to hook up your preliminary award cards mechanics with PTA somehow - one of the troubles of the kind of game this is I think is going to be keeping everyone on the same page as things move forward while still maximizing freedom for imaginative input.

As usual with me I'm spending an awful lot of time looking at D&D, The Fantasy Trip, and computer games for ideas - I guess I'm feeding the figures into a tactical combat generator because, well, that's just the kind of gamer I am. But anyway, this props -> imaginary stuff path, or these paths, those kind of pathways are what I'm looking for.

Specifically, the spontaneous transformation in play of visual cues, scenery, terrain, etc. into SIS stuff.

It strikes me that this is a really great way to encourage player involvement in the storytelling process.  Introducing an encounter to the story is as simple as finding a model you like.  What's over the next hill? Bring your own scenery to the game, and you get to decide!

Embrace the random! I think that a good basis for your game would be a random table that tells you what miniatures and scenery to use next.  The story would be created by all the players by interpreting the results of this table. 

Embrace the bizzare! If you don't have Space Marines fighting next to Barbarian Princesses, doing battle with lizard riding mutant warriors, then I think you've missed an opportunity.  Go heavy-metal science fantasy on it!

As a starting point fo a rules mechanic, I'd suggest looking at miniatures rules, rather than RPG rules.  Vincent Bakers "Mechaton" would be a good place to start, as a game which allows you to field just about any kind of model.  The basic rules are free!  Simply put, you have about six dice to assign to "ranged" "melee" and "shields" (you could call this "armour" for a more generic feel).  Thus, almost any model can be quickly statted up.  It's well worth a look as a very innovative mech combat game, and also as inspiration for your own game.

On the other hand, it might be cool to have a system that rewards incorporating details from the miniatures and from the scenery into a narration about what happens.  Some tweaked WuShu could do this.  "I leap off this outcropping (1) using my giant sword (2) to strike at its bandaged forearm (3)".  This could get repetative though? 

A computer problem ate my last post! Arg!

Simon hit on part of what I was going to suggest, actually. If you start out with most of the terrain, bits, and people/character models to the side, and only build one smallish area to begin with, you can make creating the next part of the board and the next scene part of the game as well.

As for random tables? Why not? Come with a blank chart filled down the side for die results, and a space for a label at the top. Then. create the charts as you go along, based on what you have to play with, player input, and how the game is developing.

As for the Wushu comparison- absolutely! Even though I've been bucking for some ultralight type mechanics. let your inner tactician out for the action scenes! The barbarian hides behind those trees, while the ogre sneaks up around the wall and the elfen ranger prepares to pounce on the ogre's head and ride him like a horse! Absolutely bring that stuff into play! ( I understand that Iron Heroes also has good advice for this sort of thing without minis. It might be worth checking out for ideas).

About the award cards: That was totally stolen from PTA. My idea was to give folks some training wheels by giving some specific examples of stuff they could award. My hope was that after trying it a few times with the examples, that players would find their own, more personal reasons to give awards.

Hi Sean,

Also worth checking out: Krasnoarmeets.  It included some pretty swank stuff -- including painting!

I'd also like to suggest that the minis/terrain should not dictate what's happening "to a fairly large degree".  They are it.  No deviation from their strictures whatsoever.  Otherwise, you're undercutting their purpose, power, and validity as elements of the SIS.

Cheers,
Darcy

Thanks, Darcy. That Krasnoarmeets thread and game are really useful right now. I owe James for being such a great DitV GM, so stealing some stuff from him would be nice.

I agree with your disagreement, so I think you're underestimating my literal-mindedness. The figures don't actually cut each other up with swords no matter how detailed they are. But yeah, the idea is, the toys are the baseline of the SIS, you build up from there, but you don't undercut the toys.

Can you elaborate on that "speed of plot" idea, komradebob? For those of us who tend to calculate speed as a function of race and armor?

-----------------------------

So, back in I'm-still-recovering-from-D&D-land. (Though I really appreciate those of you who are going way out beyond it, keep up the good work.) Here's a thing I like: equipment.

You get
- the armor your mini is wearing
- the weapon(s) your mini is carrying
- a dagger, if you want it
- the clothes/gear your mini is wearing
- one satchel with a modest amount of stuff (what would fit in a shoulder-bag, basically)
- small jewelry

and that's it. If you want more, buy and paint a mule mini, etc.

I like this because it's another approach to managing encumbrance without those lists, weights, etc.

I also like it if the following dynamic is observed in play: there's usable stuff at the adventure site. So, your mini has a sword, that's cool. You want a spear. If you grab one off a spear rack in play, you're good to go, you have a spear until you use it up. But what's not on your mini and in the small allotment of 'carry-ons' doesn't carry over from adventure to adventure, etc.

-----------------------

Another way of looking at D&D, old D&D, was as a recipe book for building your own Dungeon/Magic Realm/Heroquest/Runebound/Heroscape/Descent etc. type game, as a kind of meta-boardgame, with repeat play value. It's pretty easy to put roleplaying on top of that kind of game if you want. 

I was thinking about this idea on my way home the other day, and a few things struck me.

First, you could easily make this a GMless game.  If everyone is responsible for running their own miniatures, and for making up rules for their own terrain, the thing supports itself.  You can even make this support hard-core gamist play by saying that you get XP for every NPC model you own which gets killed, and MEGA XP if one of your models kills a PC. 

Second, I think a system that rewards incorporating details from the miniatures and the scenery into narrations of what happens is essential if you want any kind of shared imagined space.  Otherwise gamist plaers will treat it just like a wargame.  If you reward describing what is happening in the SIS, with reference to the models, I think you'll get a lot more engagement with the game as an RPG, rather than a wargame.  If that's what you want. 

Regarding equipment.  It's cool to want to define exactly what each model is carrying, but I think it's cooler to not define it, until it is used "in game".  Say a model has some oddly coloured belt pouch.  It's cool to say "That's where she keeps her rations and stuff", but it's even cooler to let the player say, in game "Oh damn, I'm poisoned? Well, lucky I've got some antidote in this belt pouch" or if the model has some weird sci-fi gun, to say "Activate STUN mode!" or whatever.  I think rewarding creative interpretations of the models (with restrictions that preserve gamist "balance") is a cool way to go.

I think the ideal form for this game to take, in my mind, is one where you can get half a dozen people to come to the game, bringing whatever models they like, stat everything up either ahead of time or within a few minutes, and get down to a wild, fast paced adventure.  Letting people do whatever the models and the scenery would seem to allow should be a big part of that.  Traditional GMful games rely on an "impartial" GM to keep the game on track.  I think this game would rely on every player's love of and respect for their own models.  Everyone is the expert on their own models. 

"Speed of Plot" is a term that eco5norway used on this thread ( post #17) over at rpgnet:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=309308&page=2

It sounds very similar to a concept called "variable length bounds" that I've heard used in some wargames.

Basically, it's like scene-cutting or fast-forwarding, or even slo-mo. How far does a figure move? It moves far enough for something else interesting to happen. I really don't know how else to describe it.

One warning about that game I was working on: It doesn't handle action scenes well. That is one of the major points I'm starting to work on now that I'm tinkering with it some more.

Also, for a two player game, coin-flipping between two options works just as well. For two players, use the "Yes, but", "Yes, and" and "Instead" as sentence/idea starters rather than the full-on mechanic.

Simon's suggestions are again pretty close to what I've been thinking of. I'd like to have both the "family" version of something like this and a more "adult gamer" version. The bring'n'play idea has a ton of appeal to me, especially as a minis fan.

You might try crash building something. I think you hit it right with the "reset" concept to the basic figure. Grab some index cards to keep handy. Perhaps instead of xps, the player can choose to keep a few extras in later adventures that aren't shown on the figure ( a bit like Frodo's hidden mithril armor, perhaps?).

It seems like some of the mechanisms of Donjon would work well in a game of this sort.  Specifically, I'm thinking about Successes being used for placing terrain, for making that declaration of having the antidote in the pouch, etc.  It sounds interesting to me, but then, I'm a wargamer in addition to being a role-player.

That's an interesting direction to go.  I think this could really help encourage narration in a game that's otherwise gonna be more like a wargame than an RPG.  I think a key element of any rules would be that NOTHING can contradict what is shown plainly on the models.  You can't call something weak when the model clearly makes it look strong.  You can't use a crossbow when your model is clearly holding a sword.  But maybe you can use successes to describe things that are left ambiguous by the model.  That dinosaur miniature doesn't look so fierce.  Maybe it's a herbivore? That mutant is wearing a breathing mask - I think severing the breathing tube will suffocate it.  Anything that encourages players to interpret the miniatures.

Thinking about it, while I totally understand the "speed of plot" ideas presented by komradebob, I think that, given that the game uses miniatures, this is a great opportunity to use some interesting movement rules.  Miniatures games benefit from some tactical elements, and, in my opinion, tactical choices can easily become thematic choices - roleplaying.  One of the cool things about Mechaton is that every time you roll you're presented with several "live" options, about how to distribute dice, and movement is one of the options.  Off the top of my head, I think your game would need two kinds of movement - tactical and overland.  Tactical movement moves your model in relation to other models, while overland movement introduces new terrain elements. 

This is still an exciting idea, and I look forward to seeing where you go wih it.

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

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

Toy Soldiers In=War Games Out.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all -

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

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

So, more soon.

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

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

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

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

I'll throw one out there to start:

Limited space/table surface

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

Two points about that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let’s dive right in shall we.

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

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

So, what is a tactical RPG?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MrAtomek

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

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

komradebob wrote: Chainmail Bikini, which is a light, minis oriented rpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

Good luck,

Troy

Hi Calithena,

Another thought popped into my head, and it may have done so in parallel to Troy's last post.

1. Pick a 'non-combat' type of scene (MrAtomek's example of "can I convince my girlfriend that I'm not the Green Ghost" is a reasonable starting point).

2. Decide how you'd use miniatures in that scene.  Not in a "um, my guy is here, she's here, so let's put their minis on the 'apartment' map.  Sitting.  Doing nothing."

Once you've sorted that out, I bet that you'll have the game in the bag.

Cheers,
Darcy

1) It's OK with me if we use this thread as a coordination/linkage thread, and I can't see why on earth Ron or Clinton would object, though if they do they'll let us know.

2) However, I would say that we should start gradually tapering off general discussion here if we're going to use it that way. The thing to do of course is to go to other First Thoughts or Actual Play threads (linked here) where specific ideas are pursued in a concrete play or design process, followed by Endeavor when we actually have something written up, etc.

3) I agree that there are (at least) two paths represented here and I like what Troy and Darcy have to say about this. I would say that Krasnoarmeets seems in some ways to straddle the line between them so that may be a valuable model to learn from. I fully endorse the idea of 'uplifted children's play' (though I'd want to get that spirit even into a skirmish minis RPG, to be honest, and I think that some '70's D&D material actually is still useful for inspiration if not solutions on this problem) and I think that every answer to Darcy's question is going to represent a genuine design opportunity on these lines.

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

Here's something that pops to mind and is an issue with "RPGing" miniatures: Time and Space.

An RPG has a much greater ability to change the setting than a miniature wargame. And by "setting" I mean with a short paragraph, a group of characters can be transported anywhere in existence. And a short paragraph later, the characters are back.

Shifting around tabletop terrain in a similar manner would not be as easy and probably is impossible. It takes time to setup a scene.

Furthermore, if a character's physical location on the table does not create any added tension, then it really isn't going to be fun to play that on the table top. For example, your character has to travel 12" across the street and talk to a civilian. Well, there is no need to play that out. That is why I developed the Complication. A verbal form of play that is used to setup subsequent minis gaming.

However, if a character had to work his way across a flast flowing river filled with big pieces of ice--jumping from ice to ice--to work his way across to a civillian--well, that would be fun to play on the game board. Add some ferocious wolves chasing your character, and it could be even more interesting.

But, you can't always include tension building elements to relatively insignificant actions. Sometimes, a conversation is just that. So having some form of verbal play to help propel a story forward without needing to setup the whole scene on the tabletop is fun and has worked well in the games I have played with Super Force Seven.

MrAtomek

Here's a sample of a fast-play game that combines narratives, complications and conflicts. Its only a draft and is missing more of the color text, but it is an example of stitching together a story with both verbal and tabletop elements:

Riddle Master’s Revenge

A serial killer is on the loose in Big City. So far, there have been three victims and every indication that there will far more. The police department is completely baffled and seems unable to crack the case. The perpetrator is openly challenging the authorities to capture him, which only adds to their frustration.
With time running out before the next murder, detective Smith calls on one of his old friends for a little help.

Note: This Fast Play Adventure pits Riddle Master and his crew versus members of Super Force Seven. You can, of course, replace any of the heroes, villains and civilians with any of your own characters.

Team Roster: 1000 pts

Narrative
Riddle Master, a crazy and cruel villain, has returned to Big City to exact revenge upon those individuals that were the cause of his twisted life. They were a group of elementary kids, 30 years ago, who were mean and treated him horrible. They caused him to be ostracized by all the other children and began his lonely trek into insanity.
Even all these years later, Riddle Master can recall their names and faces—and the terrible deeds they committed against him.

1. Complication

Villain: Riddle Me This
The villain purposely left a clue, taunting the police to catch him. Pick one character and determine the best TN possible using his Mind, Super Intelligence, Super Presence, Literature (Profession) or a similar power. You can also use any applicable feats or special abilities.
That TN is the TN that the heroes will challenge for their complication.

Heroes: Madman on the Loose
Select a single character to challenge the complication and solve the riddle left behind by the villain. The character can use his Mind, Divine, Super Intelligence, Literature (Profession) or similar power to make 1 Round of action rolls versus the TN (see Riddle Me This).

Successes Results

0 You were unable to decipher the clues left behind in the riddle. Your best hunch is that the villain will strike in one of two places next. You are forced to split-up your forces and send them to two different locations.
The villain secretly writes down either number 1 or number 2 on a piece of paper (or uses some other method to record which location he will strike at next). The heroes indicate which character/s will travel to which location.
The villain reveal which location he will strike at and only those hero characters that were sent to that location may play.

1-2 You were able to decipher the riddle, but realize the crime is going to be committed within in minutes. Unless the character has Super Speed, Super Sonic or Lightspeed, he cannot be used in the next conflict. Instead, he contacts his teammates that must move quickly to prevent the next murder.

3+ You were able to decipher the riddle and realize that Riddle Master is seeking revenge against the classmates that made his life miserable. Not only do you arrive 1 Round earlier than the villain, but you also gain a free Monologue special ability.

2. Conflict: Murder at Madison Avenue
Riddle Master has prepared to strike again. This time, his target is Sally Smith, the mean, pig-tailed girl that would bully him in elementary school.

GV: 500 pts

Setup: Players start at least 12” from her apartment building. Roll for intiative.

Objectives: Heroes must protect Sally Smith.
Villains must eliminate or capture Sally Smith.

End Game: The game lasts 5 Rounds.

Victory Conditions: At the end of 5 Rounds, if Sally Smith is eliminated or captured by the villains, the villains gain 1 victory point. On the other hand, if Sally Smith is still alive and free, the heroes gain 1 victory point.

Consequences: Any characters eliminated during this Round remain in play. Any captured heroes are Riddle Master’s hostages and start as captives in the final conflict. Any captured villains are arrested. If Riddle Master is arrested, he manages to escape; however, the villains total GV for the final conflict is reduced by -100 points.

Sally Smith (Special Rules): Sally Smith is controlled by the heroes (the heroes do not pay for Sally Smith). She is not initially placed inside the apartment, but is placed as soon as the villains either enter the apartment or use a power to find her and make a successful action roll.


Sally Smith
Hero

Actions: 2
Mind: 1
Body: 1
Spirit: Good
Life: 3
Max Lift: 100 lbs

2 Move

Amazing Dodge
Monologue

3. Complication

Villains: More Riddles
Once again, Riddle Master challenges the authorities and the heroes to prevent another murder. He determines another TN in the same manner as he did in Scene 1.

Heroes: Time is Running Out
The heroes must once again solve the riddle. The heroes can only use a character that was not eliminated or captured in Scene 2. If it is the same character that challenged the complication in Scene 1 and that character scored a 3+, then the TN for this riddle is automatically reduced by half.

Successes Result
0 You were able to decipher the clue, but it took much longer than you hoped. You enter the game in Scene 4 at the beginning of the 3rd Round.

1-2 You were able to decipher the riddle.

3+ You were able to solve the riddle quickly. You deploy your characters after the Riddle master deploys his. Your characters must be at least 6” away from any villains. Furthermore, you automatically win initiative—no roll is made.

4. Conflict: The Final Countdown

The Riddle Master has setup an elaborate ending to his murder spree. He has setup all his captives beneath a giant clock that will crush each of them in turn. Besides any captives from Scene 2, the Riddle Master has also kidnapped Brian Stark and Edward “Chip” McCleod.

GV: 750 pts

Setup: Villains setup anywhere on the map, including placing any captives. The captives must be in a line, 3” a part from one another. The heroes start along any edge of the game board, no closer than 12” away, no farther than 24” away.

Objectives: Heroes must protect as many captives as possible.
Villains must eliminate as many captives as possible.

End Game: The game lasts 10 Rounds (or players can choose to play until all heroes or villains have either been eliminated, captured or exited the game board)

Victory Conditions: The heroes gain 1 victory point for each captive (including captured heroes) that is alive at the end of the game. The villains gain 1 victory point for each captive (including captured heroes) that is eliminated at the end of the game.

Captives (Special Rules): All of the victims—Sally, Brian and Edward—are controlled by the heroes (the heroes do not pay for them). As soon as they are freed by the heroes, they can attempt to escape and exit the game board.

Sally Smith, Brian Stark and Edward “Chip” McCleod
Hero

Actions: 2
Mind: 1
Body: 1
Spirit: Good
Life: 3
Max Lift: 100 lbs

2 Move

Doom Clock (Special Rules): All captives are tied securely to chairs with large weights above them. The TN to free a captive is TN 8 Dif x3. On the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, etc. Round, one of the weights with a force equal to an action roll of 21. The weights will automatically score a Fatal, 4-Hit attack versus any of the victims. The results may vary with heroes.
The weights weigh 5 Tons each. If a hero can, he can use any of his powers to try and prevent or protect the captives.
The villain gets to choose which weight drop when—there is no order to them.

Total Tangent:
"Uplifted Kids' Play" is one of the best descriptions I've ever heard for this sort of thing. ( Even if it took me a few minutes to make the connection, having skipped the Uplift novels...)

Here are some older threads dealing with minis and rpgs that I either was involved in, started, or reference for ideas.

Thoughts on New Directions (Me)

KrasnoArmeets Feedback thread ( James Holloway's Game)

Tears Like Rain A one shot plastic cowboys and indians game I made using Matrix Game rules.

F Scott Banks talks about a minis/ccg hybrid idea

Discussion of my "Village Game"

Hopefully, this is getting closer to the original topic--it's definitely related, though not as much about tactics as it is about RP with "minis":

I am a Looney Labs Demo Rabbit, primarily designing and presenting Icehouse Pyramid games at cons and hobby stores (and bars).

A buddy of mine and I have begun talking about how to use pyramids in an RPG, where each player would "create a character" by spending points to build a stack of pyramids. The position of the pyramid in the stack dictates the function as it pertains to both combat/tactical situations and social/RP situations:
Grounded Pieces - Every piece which touches the ground is considered a "movement ability." The color of the piece determines the medium through which it applies, the size (pip count) of the piece determines range. As a total of three pieces could potentially be grounded (a small under a medium under a large), it is possible to devise a LOT of combinations of movement abilities.
Topmost Pieces - The topmost piece and the next piece that it touches in the stack determines mental and/or social abilities that the character possesses. Size and color again determine effect--color, probably for type of effect; size for power/skill level. (Remember: this is a work in progress--nothing is really "firmed up.")
Body Pieces - Everything between the topmost pieces and the grounded pieces is the character's "body." Color and size determine both what the character can do and what the character's defenses are.

Character development comes through using Rewards (more points to spend) to position new pieces in your stack, at the top, bottom, or in the body.

Character injuries, dimishment (aging, disease, persistent effects), and death come from the loss of pieces in the stack. This has some neat knock-on effects:
1) Lose your topmost, and you're principle mind/social abilities change to the next two topmost in the stack.
2) Lose a bottom piece and your whole movement capability could change.
3) Lose body pieces and see the effects of "damage" eliminate or change your core abilities.

Now, keep in mind that there are currently 11 different colors of Icehouse Pyramids, and you can imagine how many possible "skills" or "points of contact" the system would have. This is why, I feel, it could go beyond mere tactics: there are not that many meaningful tactical movements, if combat is fairly granular. SO, a LOT of those body pieces would support "traditional" social skills like Intimidation, Seduction, etc.

As for the (conflict/task) resolution system... well, I did say it was a work in progress.

I guess, mainly, I wanted to (a) inspire your thoughts about minis and their evolution in play and (b) "tag" this thread, to watch it. ;)

Regarding point (a), perhaps you'd do better to move away from classic lead/plastic minis and look towards the more versatile, posable action figures or even 12" figs? Those figures can be made to hold different items and, sometimes, even support different clothes and what-not. And there's nothing that says you couldn't supplement their paint (white streaks in hair for aging). The utility/flexibility of the Icehouse Pyramids RRG, after all, comes from how easy it is to alter a stack....

HTH;
David

AND... I had to go ahead and start the wiki development process, at Icehouse.org:
http://icehousegames.org/wiki/?title=RPG

If this helps, great; if not, sorry to derail....
David