Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: BZ on 27 January 2022, 09:10:21 AM
-
I just finished the "Thronebreaker: The Witcher Tales" (a fantastic hybrid RPG/Card game in the world of witcher), and started to think about: Why isnt there any tabletop game in this world (yet)?
The books set up a big, rich universe with a fresh taste of eastern-european feel and fantastic characters. The Witcher games detailled it even more, then the Thronbreaker showed the world from another, more strategic angle. And there are even board games, a tv-show and a classical RPG too. So there is a detailled and very popular world with its distinct taste, a lot of different factions, characters and monsters (which is a very important trait for a tabletop game):
- Nilfgaard (with mass armies of heavily armoured soldiers)
- Nothern Kingdoms (with classical, european medieval armies)
- Toussaint (with a lot of knights)
- Mahakam (dwarfs)
- Skellige (viking-like kingdom)
- Ofir (arabic-like kingdom)
- Zerrikania (african-like kingdom)
- Scoia'tael (a partizan faction with non-humans, mostly elves)
- wizards, witchers, spies, kings, generals
- vampires, trolls, dragons (just to take some of the more or less intelligent ones, which could be possible used in armies)
In my opinion, everything is given to make a really good tabletop game (big battle game or small skirmish game alike). But why isnt there any?
Would be really interested in Your opinions!
-
I don't think the Witcher IP has enough fans to justify the investment that would be needed to produce rules and a range of figures that large. It is nothing like as popular as Lord of the Rings but has a bigger (although less well developed) world.
-
I don't think the Witcher IP has enough fans to justify the investment that would be needed to produce rules and a range of figures that large. It is nothing like as popular as Lord of the Rings but has a bigger (although less well developed) world.
Songs of Ice and Fire has a miniature game, and I wouldnt think that the Witcher world had a much smaller fanbase (it may generally be smaller, but most of the SoIaF fans are coming from the tv-show, and most of the Witcher fans are coming from the computer-games, and I think that an average tv-viewer is much less interested in a miniature game than an average computer gamer).
-
There's a Witcher tabletop rpg.
https://rtalsoriangames.com/witcher-trpg/ (https://rtalsoriangames.com/witcher-trpg/)
Cheers,
Stroezie.
-
There's a Witcher tabletop rpg.
https://rtalsoriangames.com/witcher-trpg/ (https://rtalsoriangames.com/witcher-trpg/)
Cheers,
Stroezie.
Its a tabletop rpg. Im not into rpg, so I dont really know whats the difference between a tabletop rpg and pen and paper rpg (and why you couldnt play the last one with miniatures too), but they are definitely not mass battle or skirmish games.
-
I think that it just comes down to the fact that SoFaI is more about the clash of larger armies and nations, whereas in the world of the Witcher they're mostly backdrop for the adventures of small band of heroes fighting monsters.
At first you might think this would lend itself to a skirmish game, but it really only has two sides, and most everyone will only want to play one of them.
-
Elder Scrolls game by Modiphius seems to be doing well and i would think it being along the same lines as The Witcher for setting background and History.
Could make for a good game.Rangers of Shadow Deep might be a good rules set to use for it.
-
I think that it just comes down to the fact that SoFaI is more about the clash of larger armies and nations, whereas in the world of the Witcher they're mostly backdrop for the adventures of small band of heroes fighting monsters.
At first you might think this would lend itself to a skirmish game, but it really only has two sides, and most everyone will only want to play one of them.
I agree, but only partially. Because SoIaF is also much more about diplomatical manipulation and the character stories, than about the actual war. In the books are battle-scenes very rare, and even in the series arent that much. But yes, more than in the Witcher (except Thronebreaker, because its clearly about the war).
Still, this world is at war, and its not Nilfgaard against everybody else. There are occupied/collaborating, and more or less neutral countries and factions, and there are fractures and tension between the nothern kingdoms. And the complete world is very much grey (like in SoIaF), and not black and white (like in LotR). I dont think, that everybody would wanted to play with only one side.
Elder Scrolls game by Modiphius seems to be doing well and i would think it being along the same lines as The Witcher for setting background and History.
Could make for a good game.Rangers of Shadow Deep might be a good rules set to use for it.
Elder Scrolls is a great example! I bet, that its not as popular, as the Witcher world (maybe in computer-games only, but not overall), it has really only two sides (as I know, but I never played any of them), and still, it has a tabletop game.
Yes, you could home brew rules for it in many systems (for mass battle and for skirmish too), but this is something, you could do to anything. It would deserve an own game (in my opinion).
-
And the complete world is very much grey (like in SoIaF), and not black and white (like in LotR). I dont think, that everybody would wanted to play with only one side.
If we're talking about nation vs nation, I agree, but I was speaking about a potential small-scale skirmish game, which would invariably Witchers vs. monsters, and if anything would be more of a hunt than a skirmish. That sort of thing is more suited to a system built for solo play, as even with players willing to play the monsters, you still severely lack for variety of forces.
-
..... a potential small-scale skirmish game, which would invariably Witchers vs. monsters, and if anything would be more of a hunt than a skirmish.
At skirmish battle level there would be much more scope for gaming if you stick to the wars that are happening in the background, (the bits without Geralt, Yen or Ciri and other characters present) but that kind of defeats the point.
There have been several Witcher projects on here over the past 5 or 6 years, sadly I don't remember any of them going much beyond ideas and first few converted/kit-bashed figures. Maybe they are on personal blogs now but not seen anything on them for a while.
As for a hunt, that may well be an option, something like a version of Tusk perhaps.
-
It doesn't necessarily need to be a monster "hunt". I've not read the books and played the game only a bit but in the tv show there was quite a cool monsters vs witcher battle in the hall of Kaer Morhen. Multiple witchers vs multiple monsters.
The witchers could all have different abilities and the varied monsters could make each battle quite different.
I think Rangers of Shadowdeep would suit this very well though.
-
At skirmish battle level there would be much more scope for gaming if you stick to the wars that are happening in the background, (the bits without Geralt, Yen or Ciri and other characters present) but that kind of defeats the point.
That's the main problem with a Witcher-based battle game (i.e. larger in scale than a monster hunt or a small skirmish with 5-10 minis per side) - it shouldn't really feature witchers, since they were just hired monster slayers. Geralt was dragged into a political plot because of the Law of Surprise, and - as robh pointed out - the main characters of the book don't really take part in the big battles (IIRC they do fight in one, but get involved by accident).
And the game would feature mostly human armies, with some wizards and occasional dwarven mercenaries or elven & dwarven guerrillas. To be true to the books and games, there should be no monsters in any army, maybe apart from some summoned demons or a dragon (but these are featured in the games only).
I'm aware that ASOIAF is a fantasy game with almost no fantasy creatures, but it does feature the characters from the book supporting the armies.
-
Maybe, for a skirmish game, it would be interesting to convert some roman gladiators rules to introduce something like tiredness?
-
I think the simple answer is "probably not" and it there was it would not do what most people want of it (as the answers in this thread show, most people want different things. We tabletop gamers are an awkward bunch!).
No reason not to game in the Witcher World however, just pick the rule set that best suits how you want to play (single figure skirmish, small unit skirmish, mass battle or whatever).
-
No reason not to game in the Witcher World however, just pick the rule set that best suits how you want to play (single figure skirmish, small unit skirmish, mass battle or whatever).
And, of course, posting AARs and your proxy figures...
-
If you want to play a skirmish game where a small group takes on hordes of monsters, then I'd recommend playing Nightwatch. Can be played solo or coop. I'm sure there's some 'unofficial' Witcher figures floating around on Etsy or Thingyverse.
-
If we're talking about nation vs nation, I agree, but I was speaking about a potential small-scale skirmish game, which would invariably Witchers vs. monsters, and if anything would be more of a hunt than a skirmish. That sort of thing is more suited to a system built for solo play, as even with players willing to play the monsters, you still severely lack for variety of forces.
Why could it be only monster hunt? Its like if every game set in LotR world could be only about carrying a ring. Why couldnt be there other scenarios? The focus of the games, books and tv-show is on Geralt, but that doesnt mean, that there couldnt be other things there.
That's the main problem with a Witcher-based battle game (i.e. larger in scale than a monster hunt or a small skirmish with 5-10 minis per side) - it shouldn't really feature witchers, since they were just hired monster slayers. Geralt was dragged into a political plot because of the Law of Surprise, and - as robh pointed out - the main characters of the book don't really take part in the big battles (IIRC they do fight in one, but get involved by accident).
And the game would feature mostly human armies, with some wizards and occasional dwarven mercenaries or elven & dwarven guerrillas. To be true to the books and games, there should be no monsters in any army, maybe apart from some summoned demons or a dragon (but these are featured in the games only).
I'm aware that ASOIAF is a fantasy game with almost no fantasy creatures, but it does feature the characters from the book supporting the armies.
If we stick to the books, then you are right. But on one side, it doesnt need to be so (every new product is getting farther away from the books): in LotR, there were only one time, when an army of ghosts fought in a battle, and still, in the tabletop game, you can choose them for every battle. On the other side, I dont think that it would be so bad thing: the Thronebreaker game also doesnt really involve witchers, and the monsters have more or less an own faction, and it worked pretty good. And another possibility is to use monsters as a neutral, "AI" controlled features on the battlefield (as I know something similar is planned for Star Wars Legion).
I think the simple answer is "probably not" and it there was it would not do what most people want of it (as the answers in this thread show, most people want different things. We tabletop gamers are an awkward bunch!).
No reason not to game in the Witcher World however, just pick the rule set that best suits how you want to play (single figure skirmish, small unit skirmish, mass battle or whatever).
Yes, but that doesnt mean, that if there would be some kind of tabletop game, it couldnt be successfull.
-
.....in LotR, there were only one time, when an army of ghosts fought in a battle, and still, in the tabletop game, you can choose them for every battle.....
Only one of the many nonsensical options that turning the LotR Strategy Battle Game into a primarily tournament/competition rule set has led to......Gondorian Armies of mainly Fountain Court Guards led by Boromir of the White Tower and Isildur (with the ring)?.... :-[
I don't think anyone said games set in the "Witcher" world should only be monster hunts, rather, that that was probably the best way of actually using the iconic characters in a tabletop game format.
I really enjoyed the TV series and would certainly play a small skirmish game centred on the hunts and character led fights of the stories (especially if there was a good option for figures) but have no interest at all in building armies for the various nations involved in the wider background world.
There are similar issues with creating games for the backgrounds created by David Gemmell, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Jordan, Raymond E Feist et al; plenty of scope, but apart from possibly key characters are they really identifiable enough to warrant extensive figure ranges. What you would need could just as easily be represented by Warhammer figures painted differently?
-
There are a couple of The Witcher board games.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a Tabletop minis game at some point but I would imagine it more like Modiphius' Elder Scrolls game than a mass battle game.
-
I would say, pick what figures you think best represents the different factions paint and convert them up. And play them with what every rule set you preferer for mass battle. :D
-
Some news to this old topic I started:
https://monsterfightclub.com/pages/the-witcher-no-mans-land?srsltid=AfmBOopcpthv9tq64r6mqeO3ZUER9f9rOCCEhcBFd5EyDTpRMv9XUFa8
-
Interesting. No mention of scale. And the dice-based reaction system looks interesting.
-
Its the same company (Monster Fight Club) who made the Cyberpunk: Combat Zone tabletop game (made from another CD Projekt RED video game, like the Witcher series). The ruleset looks very similar, so I assume that the scale will be too, which is then around 32mm.
-
I think as a publisher I'd be terrified of taking on the Witcher, because it has three overlapping fanbases who all seem quite invested in the universe being portrayed exactly as they imagine it.
You've got book only fans who would want it to be based on the books, you've got game fans who would want the mechanics to match the video games in style, and you've got the far larger but far less commited TV show fans who want to see Henry caville with his shirt off.
The chances are you'd only get the IP for ONE. Version of the Witcher, so you have to pick which fanbase is going to be cut out of your potential customer base/annoy you with constant demands for something you can't do.
The game announced above seems to be going for its own style and sticking to the books which is probably the safest and more sensible of the three options. Although I am surprised CMON haven't already done Witcher zombicide.
-
The Witcher: No Mans Land is based on the video games, because:
- Letho doesnt appear in the books or in the tv show, only in the games
- The Griff Captain has the nilfgardian armour design from the games
- Gerlats armour design is also from the games
- another game from the publisher (Cyberpunk: Combat Zone) is also based on another CD Projekt RED game (Cyberpunk 2077)
- there are a lot of CD Projekt RED logos on the pictures (maybe I had have started with this :))
-
As with Middle-Earth I think I'd be more interested in choosing an existing ruleset that I feel fits the vibe I want for a Witcher game and then sourcing miniatures from existing lines. Much more freedom, creativitiy and and intersting hunt.
-
Yeah, much as I enjoy the Witcher books...I think anytime something gets an "official" release, it's pretty poor.
I'd vastly prefer simply slotting Witcher into an existing agnostic game, and simply making it your own.