RPG-Lite Elements in Wargames

[Easy E]

I have a lot of jumbled thoughts on this topic, so I will try to lay them out here as best I can. 

I have an interest in RPG or Role-Playing Games.  Therefore, I also have an interest in the overlap between wargaming and RPG games.  In RPG games, a player often only controls a single player in the game, while in a Wargame the player controls multiple characters.  Therefore, there is a big difference between the play experiences.  Wargames came first, and RPGs grew out of the wargaming scene by changing the "scale" of the games.  The closely linked nature of the two types of games is interesting to me. 

What is RPG-Lite

Typically, a wargame is interested in resolving the 4Ms within the game.  Those 4Ms are Movement, Missiles, Melee, and Morale.  When you add RPG-Lite elements you are adding a few more pillars into game play, and adding more options a player can follow to resolve the game. 

Typically, RPGs have a different set of criteria beyond the 4Ms.  Those are commonly referred to as the Pillars of Gameplay.  In this case, RPGs use the following as the basic forms of the game; Exploration, Social, Combat, and Intrigues.

When a wargame includes elements of RPG-lite it is allowing players to resolve conflicts within the game outside of just the 4M process and instead dip into the RPG Pillars of Gameplay as a form of resolution. 

So, typically in a wargame you resolve a challenge by either shooting it or hitting it with a stick.  If you are adding elements of RPG-Lite a player could resolve a challenge with a social ability, Intrigue, or even exploration. 

Here is an example in gameplay.  Player A has a unit standing on the objective.  Player B moves his unit up, and the commander of that unit tries to "bribe" the unit holding the objective to move.  The game has a mechanism to resolve the bribe attempt, and the result is Player A's unit leaves the objective, and Player B's unit occupies it.  The challenge of moving Player A's unit off the objective was not resolved by shooting or melee. It was resolved by an intrigue.  This is RPG-Lite in a wargame. 



If this topic interests you, take a look on the blog for some more thoughts on the subject.  This really isn't the space to go into detail on the subject.
 
http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/09/wargame-design-rpg-lite-and-wargaming.html

Thanks for reading and I look forward to your thoughts on the topic.  I look forward to hearing a wide array of constructive criticism and more detailed, better thoughts from the larger group. 

[tereydavi]

A great post (as always), this is quite an interesting topic.

I spent 15 years as a RPG GM (mainly Call of Cthulhu, modern horror an action rpgs) before I turned to miniatures Wargames.

Since I started with Wargames I wanted a RPGlite wargame, I tried strange aeons, perilous tales, pulp alley, Rangers of Shadow Deep (reskined for weird ww2)... But there was always something missing that I didnt find...

That's why I made Fear of the Dark a horror skirmish wargame. I made the Game I wanted to play: a mix between RPGs and miniatures Wargames with a lovecraftian setting.

The Game included many aspects from RPGs as you detail in your post but also has something that I missed in all miniatures Wargames that claimed to be RPG lite and that was the surprise aspect: as you start the scenario you dont know what is really happening, and as you investigate you Discover the plot and what has happened.

In most RPG lite Wargames you know from the very begining what has happened, snd you just play a combat/encounter through the plot. I tried to make each plot as a case to investigate that you Discover along the scenario, trying yo surprise the player.

I'm going to put a link to the Fear of the Dark's blog as a selfpromotion link (I hope no one feels this is spam) where I explain how the Game works:

https://fearofthedarkskirmishwargame.blogspot.com/2021/03/what-is-fear-of-dark.html?m=1

[Easy E]

Interesting thoughts. 

I always though of "surprise" as more of a key aspect of solo-play.  However, after reading your post- I decided that was a pre-conceived notion on my part, and nothing inherently about wargaming. 

Now I have to go have a think.....

[FramFramson]

The emergent storytelling in Pulp Alley games immediately comes to mind.

[Grumpy Gnome]

An interesting read.


Easy E and Tereydavi, you both make some great points.

Quite thought provoking.

I came to wargaming and role playing games pretty much at the same time. To me it seemed natural to mix them.  A wargame without a narrative, without flavorful decisions that make sense for what I am playing, seems a flat experience to me. But then I am not keen on competitive wargaming.

And an RPG without combat (or at least the risk of conflict) also seems a bit flat to me.

While it is a computer game, it is interesting to see how much people talk about both the RPG and combat aspects of Starfield. It seems getting the mix right really helps folks get immersed and enjoy the experience.

The balance of game and simulation perhaps?

[tereydavi]

One of the aspects that Easy E points is that in RPGs you usually have only one character while in Wargames you Range from 4-5 to 100 miniatures easily, sso the more miniatures you have on the table the hardest It is to have a RPG aspect in the Game.

I'm working on a Game where you only have one character, and could be teamed with a partner that helps him, trying to make a deeply tactical wargame and with a highly RPG aspect.

That would fit perfect the RPG feeling of having a character, while having just 4-5 would work as well (thinking of pulp alley, perilous tales, Fear of the Dark...)

[ced1106]

> If you are adding elements of RPG-Lite a player could resolve a challenge with a social ability, Intrigue, or even exploration.

I guess we can separate RPG mechanics into:
* Non-combat mechanics used within a scenario (the RPG-lite you discuss).
* Narrative elements between scenarios.

I played three different solo generic fantasy miniature skirmish games (that's a mouthful) and all of them have RPG-lite, but differ in narrative:
* Sellswords and Spellslingers: You can take one campaign action between scenarios, such as Worship at a temple to prevent a draw from the Event deck.
* Lasting Tales: You roll on a random encounter table and may make a skill check. Then you can take actions in a settlement, typically visiting a shop.
* Five Leagues from the Borderlands: You roll on various tables depending on your activity. You can even make a living avoiding combat.
* Also, various "RPG-lite" boardgames are similar to S&S, such as earlier versions of Descent, where you take a Town action between games.

While they have *elements* of a narrative, they don't create an actual story, unless you create a story and use the game mechanics for the gameplay, or use an additional campaign designed to use the ruleset (eg. LT's Nethering Lord campaign).

Myself, I do prefer solo game systems with narrative mechanics, and find the RPG-lite mechanics within a scenario to add variety to the usual fighting in a miniatures game, which I think can become redundant and boring.

[Grumpy Gnome]

While I realize this may be something of a micro issue in what is more of a macro topic…

One RPG-lite element I really like is the reputation mechanic in Core Space: First Born by Battle Systems. Not necessarily a pure morality mechanic, it can help help drive decision making in the game that can lend itself to moral dilemmas and consequences which further enhance tactical decisions. By having the default be middling-poor, which then constantly pushes to return to this default the player has to take active decisions to push for famous (positive with the law enforcement community) or infamous (positive with the criminal community.)

This is just one small mechanic but for me the kind of thing often overlooked in placing the conflict in the game into a wider perspective. An element of immersive world building. Something that further removes the game from chess or checkers.

[Patrice]

Interesting, I don't think i ever tried to analyse things so precisely.

IMHO an important element for a real RPG dimension in a skirmish game is having a GM running the scenario, the objectives, and the NPCs.
Argad ruleset, for example, works better when a GM provides secret elements and informations to each player character and moves the NPCs.
Then it's even easier to run a game when all players are on the same side (“against“ the GM).

[tikitang]

Despite RPGs having their origins in wargaming, I've found that I don't like roleplaying with miniatures (preferring 'theatre of the mind' only), nor do I like 'roleplaying' in wargames. When it comes to games with miniatures, I really don't care for actions that don't relate to combat, finding them irritating. I see miniatures purely as fighting pieces (though I am quite happy if they have some kind of narrative backstory beyond the scenario). If a game scenario requires my miniature to talk to or bribe another miniature, you've lost me.

I don't know why this is, but I hate the idea of making little toy soldiers talk to each other on the table, whereas I'm totally okay having them shoot or maim each other. Probably says something about my psychological state...

What I do like is roleplaying games that have a well designed combat system which can be directly translated into a tabletop wargame. The best example of this I've found is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which has solid miniature movement and combat mechanisms (they wrote the rules with the idea that you'd use miniatures to resolve combat scenarios), but also a full bestiary with a complete conversion system between Warhammer Fantasy Battle (based on the game's 2nd Edition) and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, so literally any Warhammer profile from any supplement can be converted into the RPG.

I found the WFRPG system only breaks down (i.e. becomes boring), if you have too many miniatures in play; it works best with only a select few per side.

[Dentatus]

Big fan of narrative wargames, but I loathe the combat grind of most RPGs and dislike interrupting tabletop action.
So my approach is to separate the game session into two parts: a narrative cut scene with simple, 'theater of the mind', non-combat challenges, followed by straight-up combat.
The narrative scene gives players a chance to act out, have a laugh, as well as affect their deployment, disposition, and load-out in the imminent tactical engagement. 
Only for certain games, but it's worked well for our group so far. 

[Patrice]

I see miniatures purely as fighting pieces (...) but I hate the idea of making little toy soldiers talk to each other on the table

That's funny, I am at the other end of the spectrum.
Well, I can have fun sometimes when I am invited to a game where figures are just fighting piece ... but it's not what I really like.
To be really involved in a game I need to think that they are all alive. 

I'm totally okay having them shoot or maim each other. Probably says something about my psychological state

Well, if you don't think about them as live beings that's OK.
I could ask the same question to myself?
...I know I wouldn't be so worried to see them in danger if I wasn't trying to believe that they are really alive it would spoil the fun for me. 

It's a great hobby with so many different approaches. 

[Doug ex-em4]

I’m with you, Patrice. As soon as I give a figure a name (and I always do), I’m invested in him/her and what their fate is becomes important.

Doug

[tikitang]

As soon as I give a figure a name (and I always do), I’m invested in him/her and what their fate is becomes important.

I find it really hard to do this; I've spoken often about my 'creativity void', but I find it hard to break out of the 'chess' mindset, where the pieces are merely functional tools with different roles to play. Making up names and/or narrative is just not something I can do, unless the game provides a list of tables to roll on to generate this, in which case I'm fine with it.

[Grumpy Gnome]

I’m with you, Patrice. As soon as I give a figure a name (and I always do), I’m invested in him/her and what their fate is becomes important.

Doug

Same here. I can still order them to their doom however.