"Personality" and "Character" in historical miniatures games? Terrain?

[FifteensAway]

Simple question, or variation of the question perhaps, but how do you add "personality" and "character" to historical miniatures games that are not low level (1:1 or so) games?  And avoid role playing per se?  Or is that an "element" too far?

[Cat]

In Napoleonics, 'national characteristics' work in large level games like DBN.  French get bonus in melee for being in assault columns cause they're like that, British get bonus for firing because they do live shooting drills regularly, Russians get penalty for firing because they barely do any live firing drills, etc.

[fred]

Named units and commanders is a good way.

Then these can have rules to make them behaviour like their historical counterparts (elite, raw, untrained etc)

[Moriarty]

Bruce Quarrie did a book on Napoleonic wargaming, ‘Napoleon’s Campaigns in Miniature’, that delved into this sort of thing. His section on logistics has become my constant source of information, and it will apply to the 18th century, 19th century and early 20th century.

[Dolnikan]

The main thing for me is naming units and commanders. They don't even need special rules or the like, but over the course of multiple games, some will reach a special status so to say. Although, when playing with the same opponent a lot, you can always agree to give small bonuses to such units on both sides.

[Easy E]

I think there could be an argument made that the "personality" of commanders is a staple in Horse and Musket gaming BUT that is because a lot of early sources were written when the "Great Man of History" methodology was still en vogue.   Now, modern work (especially of the amateur variety i.e. wargamers) keep echoing this approach and methodology as they are drawing from these sources.  Therefore, I feel that the Personality of commanders is all ready overblown on the tabletop.  Indeed National characteristics are also questionable in many cases. 

I mean in the grand scheme of things, we are all ready role-playing as the General anyway!  Gamers do tend to like things like Commander personalities, Unit differentiation, and National Characteristics so as game designers we should lean into them.  Afterall, these games are for fun and pleasure.  They are not designed (and should not be) rigorous simulation and historical research projects.  There is a different venue for that!   

Now, with that said I still do like to have named Commanders and a few elite units called out in my battles where applicable.  For Diadochi, I for sure want to know which of Alexander's minions is leading the force, I want to know if the Silver Shields are there, etc.

The question "how much" personality and character are unique to each gamer.  I prefer more of a blanket canvas approach where I have my own little heroes.  Others want to recreate Dan Sickles at Gettsyburg.  Neither is wrong, but it is a matter of preference. 

 
 

[mikedemana]

Although I'm not a fan of the game myself, Muskets and Tomahawks added side plots or secondary missions that gave some personality to the officer in control of the troops the player was representing.

Mike Demana

[Elbows]

I'm with Easy E, more or less.

Unless you're looking for a hex-and-counter style simulation...we always abstract personality, national traits, etc. and give them Hollywood levels of presence, because it's tough to design a game that's "fun" and engrossing if you realize that a lot of genres would be 99% identical forces, etc.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, except when it's unbalanced (i.e. Warhammer style lazy design).

[FifteensAway]

I think, so far, Elbows has come closest to where I'm heading with his Hollywood reference.  While it all starts with 'history', isn't fiction and cinema a much greater source of inspiration for what we 'historical gamers' are really doing?  So, I guess I'm thinking more in terms of the 'star' rather than the leader (though could be both star and leader).

I do understand the commander and national characteristics elements but I agree that the latter is not just overblown but often misplaced and skews rules away from 'reality' while keeping in mind we are talking about a game, not reality.  And I tend to disagree a bit with Easy E on modern commanders - easy to list many from Garibaldi, to Grant, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Custer (perhaps in the negative), Pershing, Patton, Rommel, Slim, Montgomery, Ho Chi Minh, Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf,  Colin Powell, David Patreus (foolishly tragic that his **** got that tactical genius removed, the man had true vision) - and that is a very short list of personality commanders that made a big difference in the modern era (if you count ACW timeframe as modern).

Of course, units can have something of a 'personality' or 'character' which could be renown or disrepute depending.  How do we allow such defining qualities make a game more memorable?  Certainly, often times it happens in an 'organic' process like the stalwart figure whose dice rolls make that figure a 'legend' in the local gaming community, perhaps wiping out an entire opposing unit when the rest of his unit has been wiped out.  And, no, I'm not saying this in the context of a skirmish but a battle.  So much easier in a skirmish game to achieve both personality and character.  More of a challenge, I suppose, in battle level games.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I find historical gamers are much more willing to accept generally uniform units with minimal modification from personality, but fantasy gamers often cannot  accept that heavy infantry, be it dwarf, human, elf or orc, would all plausibly behave the same way and demand differences.

[Khusru2]

When you are talking personalities you are talking Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Wellington, Frederick the Great and such. Many lesser commanders also stoid out so all these can have a direct affect on the troops on the tabletop.
Give them a bonus for command action or tactical switch. Give their unit/army a morale bonus.
Conversely, a commander known for poor judgement or leadership can have the opposite.

[Elbows]

I find historical gamers are much more willing to accept generally uniform units with minimal modification from personality, but fantasy gamers often cannot  accept that heavy infantry, be it dwarf, human, elf or orc, would all plausibly behave the same way and demand differences.

I think this is also a sign of many 'modern' mainstream games.  A lot of fantasy and sci-fi games need really vast differences because the core gameplay is ankle-deep.

[FifteensAway]

"ankle-deep" << a curious 'yard stick' which leads me to wonder what is hip deep, waders deep, up to the neck, and in over the head?   

And, yes, I like it. 

[Rick]

It also depends on whether you're wanting to play a fun game or something approaching a historical reenactment (not that there can't be both of course). A fun, not too serious, game that captures the feel of the period has more leeway with special rules to make things more interesting and unusual for the gamers whilst a reenactment will try and recreate the mechanics of period warfare and have less room for characterisation, or assume the players have done their research and bring some of the personality of their commander to the game themselves.

[Dice Roller]

Lots of interesting ideas so far.
I fully agree that some personality comes about through club legends, etc. That will always happen, whatever the period and whatever the size of game.
However, the real trick is how it can be baked in to the game.
For me, a lot of problems arise when one set of rules tries to cover a large period. This frequently occurs in ancients games.
Rules such as the soul-destroying FoG try to cover such a large period that they homogenise and lose any flavour and just become a bland transaction. It's almost like a game of chess - only you'll use your Star Trek pieces and I'll use my Simpsons pieces. It'll still play the same.
And I'm not such a fan of rules that have a long list of 'Special Rules'. My heart always wilts a bit when I see that. The worst offenders for this seem to be fantasy and sci fi rules.
So, for me, the answer can often be to create period specific rules. So, rather than a set of ancients rules, play a set that focusses specifically on, for example, the Roman Republic. That way any flair or specifics to that period can be built in rather then either have to iron out all idiosyncrasies (the FoG approach) or create a power-gamer's delight of endless 'special rules' (the Warhammer approach).
That's how I see it, anyway.