RPG-Lite Elements in Wargames

[Simlasa]

I'm another who got into wargames and RPGs roundabout the same time as a kid... but there weren't many (any?) narrative/skirmish games back then (AFAIK).
One of my big attractions to Warhammeer Fantasy 3e (long after its heyday) was seeing it's rules for baggage trains and being able to bribe mercenaries. I was drawn to anything that added narrative flavor beyond straight up "pew! pew!" combat. I've got NO interest in the purely competitive angle, where there's just two random armies on the table, hacking at each other. I want/need a story.

Most of the RPGs I like (Mythras, GURPS, etc.) can work as small skirmish games also... and a boardgame like Shadows of Brimstone has elements of both, with card draw events to add elements of surprise and an involved town element to visit between delves.

[frd]

I'm yet another person who came to wargames from RPGs. I got into it when I was delving deep into the FKR playstyle and the overlap of RPGs and wargames. I've been investigating and experimenting with it since, as I'm really fascinated by what it can offer.

The big difference I see between wargames and RPGs is the presence of tactical infinity. RPGs allow you to attempt anything, including things not covered by the rules, while wargames explicitly forbid it. Hence, adding rpg-like mechanics to a wargame will still keep it a wargame, juts one with more of a narrative sprinkled in. To really turn a wargame into an rpg-lite, you should have at least some way of accessing that tactical infinity.

Before RPGs became a thing, there were games that offered this tactical infinity in a wargame context. Braunsteins are the most documented examples of this, but I'm sure there were more games like that happening around peoples' tables - just on a smaller, more personal, scale. We don't really have much proof of that, as a lot of it happened on the fly, without being written down or codified. Then D&D happened and assigned the idea of tactical infinity to RPGs and rest is history.

But not all is lost. More recently, John Bobek's "The Games of War" tackled similar ideas in his book. He recommends a game master to act as an arbiter when resolving this, but with the recent advancement in solo RPG/wargaming procedures, I'm sure we can come up with a way of adding tactical infinity to wargames without a need for a GM.

Even before the recent burst of solo games, Matrix Games offer a way to include tactical infinity in a wargame context without a explicit need for a GM.

Anyway, I feel like I'm moving a bit too far from the original topic in my musings, but I thought it would be good to share some different approach on making RPG-lite wargames.

[Patrice]

FKR playstyle
Braunsteins

 
Never heard of those, thanks for the links.

[Easy E]

Good adds. 

The idea of a game master is one that is often overlooked in sci-fi/Fantasy/ aspiring Commercial wargames.  However, it is a great concept and one that is alive and well in other places. 

It can add so much flavor, including real friction and Fog-of-War elements.

[Elbows]

I think the use of a game-master is always a good idea.  I think it's more rare simply because it's less likely to have a spare person on hand when gaming.  Most people seem to struggle to find time/opponents to game with on a regular basis.

We frequently use a third player/GM...though I don't think we take full advantage of it.

[Daeothar]

Interesting discussion

In my RPG group, we always use miniatures in combat settings (which are plenty), to visualize where everyone is during the conflict. We experienced too often that the highly visual thinking members of the group (read: all of us) had wildly different interpretations of the proceedings. And this often resulted in discussions along these lines:

Player: 'I hit the left thug on the head with my cudgel'.
DM: '... But you are in the back giving fire support with your bow'.
Player: 'Yes I was, but last round I told you I moved forward'.
DM: 'Yeah, but not that far and there's a fire pit in the way too!'
Player: 'But those are all the way over to the right!'
DM: 'No; they are over here as well'.

And so on. You get the drift. Once we introduced miniatures and limited terrain pieces to our sessions though, this was instantly resolved. And I, often being the supplier of terrain and miniatures, had a reason to hunt for and paint miniatures for all the PC's and some important NPC's as well. Which is nice.

However; when not in combat, we solely do the Theatre of the Mind thing. Miniatures are just a great visual tool for us to keep everyone on the same page when things get chaotic. basically we play RPG's with wargame-light elements

In wargames though, things are wildly different (for us).

I am well aware of the origins of RPG games, but having been introduced to the hobby through games like Hero Quest and Space Crusade, gatewaying into Warhammer (40K), it was decades before I was introduced to other wargame systems, and by then I was so set in my ways, I had trouble 'getting' the RPG light aspects of some games.

An example that comes to mind is Infinity. In the rules there are abilities related to hacking for instance. And by edition 2, this became almost like a mini game in itself, with attack skills, defence skills and utility skills, all in the virtual world. I had no real problem visualizing this (hey; I read Neuromancer!), so this was to me just another weapon.

But then there are skills like Mimicry and Stealth. On the higher levels, these allow a miniature to either be invisible and not even present on the table (Stealth III; the owning player places the mini on the table before the game and takes a picture of its position (while the other player looks away), and this kind of works. But then there is mimicry, which allows a miniature to pose as one of the opponent.

And this requires a level of roleplay. Because the opposing player fully knows that the mini on the table right there isn't one of his. So his minis within LOS can test against the skill of the mimicking miniature to check if they can see through the disguise.

But just imagine: you're in combat. The enemy is right over there. And then a soldier in a uniform just like yours is moving around behind you. He's clearly one of ours, so stop getting distracted and shoot back at the bad guys. You know; over there.

Even though the player knows that the skulking soldier isn't one of his, his troops on the table cannot possibly know or suspect (unless something untowards happens, obviously). Yet in every game where I have used this, the opponent started testing against the skill with every mini in the vicinity, regarless of whether it would be 'logical' for them to do so.

I've mentioned this a couple of times; put yourself in the boots of the mini on the ground and imagine whether or not they would be inclined/aware/suspicious enough to check against the imposter. It's an RPG element.

But Infinity, at its heart, is a competitive game (which is why I mostly turned away from it), and honestly RPG-ing such a situation might actually be detrimental to your results. So most, of not all, players will not stoop to that level and will make checks as much as they can, regardless of the 'logic'.

So this, to me, is a situation where RPG elements in a wargame do not work. And this is only enforced by the strict division between RPG and wargame I grew into back in the day.

Which is not to say that I am adverse to the idea though, and I've been well intrigued by smaller rules sets that offer RPG elements in their skirmish games. They've just never found traction in my group, but they still might; who knows