Weasel | 06 Aug 2014 10:53 a.m. PST |
This is mostly for the skirmish gamers I suppose. Do you like to mix a bit of role playing with your war games or is it strictly separate stuff? I'm mostly thinking of factoring in the characters history and motivation in your decisions. Last game I played with my buddy Dave, one of the characters very quickly became established in our joking around as an over eager glory hound, so he'd constantly make more rash moves with that character than might normally be sensible. |
45thdiv | 06 Aug 2014 10:57 a.m. PST |
Some times, but normally no. |
Mserafin | 06 Aug 2014 10:59 a.m. PST |
That's pretty much how D&D began, by incorporating role-playing into a medieval wargame (Chainmail). Eventually the role-playing took over and gaming's never been the same. |
Dynaman8789 | 06 Aug 2014 11:10 a.m. PST |
I keep them seperate. Mainly since my RPG friends and not the same people who are wargamers. |
nnascati | 06 Aug 2014 11:20 a.m. PST |
I think virtually all of the current crop of Wild West and Pulp games mix role playing and skirmish. |
Murphy | 06 Aug 2014 11:23 a.m. PST |
It all depends actually…. Waaaay back in 2000 when I was running my 20mm Vietnam "2000-68" campaign, using Rafm's "Charlie Company" rules, RP was a good part of the game. In a way it can be good and add flavor and fun to it…as long as it doesn't get too carried away… |
steamingdave47 | 06 Aug 2014 11:32 a.m. PST |
A couple of the guys in our club organise a US/Vietcong game once a year. All of the club members play the part of a squad leader, with one poor sap as the "loot". Getting into character is essential, great fun. All communication is done through messages recorded on a mobile to simulate radio contacts. Potential for miscommunication is enormous. You can imagine how I responded when the loot called in an air strike near my squads location, but mixed up the easting and northing coordinates! |
skippy0001 | 06 Aug 2014 11:50 a.m. PST |
Successful mixed campaigns- Space 1889 had both genders learn the ship system and Soldiers Companion-they had no problems For Venus they were taught a variant Richthofens' War/Hostile Aircraft for aerial battles and they liked it a lot. Space1939-used Gearkrieg/Luftkrieg even my ladyfriends got into the tech. Space 1959-so far used AirWar C21 and everybody liked it. Generally, I pre-game the scenario with soap opera and campaign reasons for the players to be in a battle situation. It really opens their minds up to tactics and game systems when they have reasons to be there. Also some quick games to show what is happening nearby while they're roleplaying a scenario that impacts the battlegame. |
OSchmidt | 06 Aug 2014 11:56 a.m. PST |
Dear Weasel Oh we intermix role playing in big battles in the 18th century all the time. The guys in our group try and play what their generals would do and how they would react, and what tactics they would use. They think of how their general would act in character and try to do that. They don't always themselves ACT in charater, but players will determine, and often explain what in a situation their character would do. and then do it. That is, they explained why they were doing what they were doing. One began organizing a withdrawl when he felt he could not win the game. Others have other ways of implementing it. |
Garand | 06 Aug 2014 12:18 p.m. PST |
Depends on how far you define role-playing. I don't do funny voices or dialouge "in character," but I ALWAYS try to make decisions and fight just as a real-world leader would do. Often this also means minimizing casualties if I can. Damon. |
Martin Rapier | 06 Aug 2014 12:56 p.m. PST |
I try and put the players in the same situations as their historical counterparts, so role play to the max whether it is a patrol in Afghanistan, rrfighting Borodino or once more trying to end the war before Christmas at Arnhem. |
etotheipi | 06 Aug 2014 2:48 p.m. PST |
Even if you are wargaming your own role (and nothing else) from an actual combat from your own past, you still have to get "in character". The you of today is not the you of you then. I (almost) always put some type of milieu around my QILS wargame scenarios. Generally, the background for the "characters" gives hints on how to best approach the combat. |
Katzbalger | 06 Aug 2014 2:57 p.m. PST |
I always put a little role playing in with the gaming, giving folks some background material on their characters. It makes things interesting, and frequently ends up with figures not obeying the orders they've been given (or at least not in the way the giver intended, anyway). Rob |
sillypoint | 06 Aug 2014 3:29 p.m. PST |
Yes, communication between players on the same side must be with appropriate medium- semaphore, trumpets, or the particular waving of the army standard ;) |
rmaker | 06 Aug 2014 3:56 p.m. PST |
Our group always has. And not just skirmish games either. Half a century ago, our Napoleonic games were enlivened by the likes of Baron Semaj von Kralc, Lieutenant Pierre Fromage, Prince Arneev and a host of others. |
Timbo W | 06 Aug 2014 3:57 p.m. PST |
Had one RPG morph into a war game, it was merp and the characters raised and led units of troops – warhammer v1 iirc, to defeat an Orc invasion. |
Gone Fishing | 06 Aug 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
I like it all--from sketching personality traits, to in character voices (silly or otherwise), to appropriate headgear. I can see how it might come to dominate a game if one's not careful, but I haven't found this much in practice; rather it just makes things more colourful, in a good way. There are times I think I'd roleplay in chess if I could. Don't forget the delights of adding good thematic food and drink to a game: curry and IPA to a Mutiny game, beef stroganoff and vodka to a Russian Revolution scenario, rye whisky and, well, more rye whisky to a Pulp game…the possibilities are limitless and add a great deal to the fun, or so I think. I also like the idea of using lighting to add to the atmosphere, though I've never actually done it. There was a fellow here on TMP who used candlelight for a Call of Cthulhu game (which I realize isn't a wargame, but still…). The photos of that game were very inspiring! Again, some control is needed, and these things shouldn't be in every game, but judiciously used they're great. |
Bunkermeister | 06 Aug 2014 8:49 p.m. PST |
Always, at least you have to select a single figure to represent yourself and he has to be on the table very soon after game start. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
Jcfrog | 07 Aug 2014 3:25 a.m. PST |
I run a couple of very successful campaigns (not skirmish) set in Spain 1810 with a big dose of role play, down to sketching what they saw with "what do you do now?" It ended up with lack of cooperation, players from same side hating each other etc.. Just like the real ones. |
corporalpat | 07 Aug 2014 3:47 a.m. PST |
Yes, of course. Elements of RPG are included in all my skirmishes. However, when we take on the role of any general from history we are also role playing. |
Gone Fishing | 07 Aug 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
I've never been lucky enough to play in one, but I think Mexican Jack Squint's Science vs. Pluck games always featured a lot of different roles for the players: overconfident English officers (often with conflicting agendas), cowardly Egyptians, unreliable Abyssinian scouts, devious tribal leaders, etc. Sounds fun to me! |
138SquadronRAF | 07 Aug 2014 7:55 a.m. PST |
Actually, since I mostly play scenario driven games regular 'horse and musket' games, rather than 'head to head lead' with points and army lists, I frequently involve elements of roll playing into the design. Roleplaying allows you to bring the command and control 'friction' that occurs in historical actions. |
etotheipi | 07 Aug 2014 7:57 a.m. PST |
Always, at least you have to select a single figure to represent yourself I disagree. In skirmish games, we routinely have one player controlling a small group of figures on the board, each with individual roles (and possibly individual agendas!). In this case, there is no single character that represents the player. In aggregate unit wargames, the orders given very very rarely directly map to decisions made by an individual. The player is almost always acting for several different roles. Only really in a training game or an RPG can (but not necessarilty do) you have the opportunity to directly map one player on to the actions of one character within the scenario. I'm not saying 1:1 mapping doesn't happen, just that it is not a necessity. |
optional field | 07 Aug 2014 9:20 a.m. PST |
Sidney Roundway wrote an excellent blog post on more or less the same topic here: link Which itself generated an interesting discussion a while back on TMP here: TMP link I don't mention that to say "this has all been said before," but rather because I think those posts have interesting & relevant things to add to this discussion. Curiously, I only stumbled upon that post a few days ago, but good Mr Roundway has some very brilliant insights on the topic, as do a number of other posters. |
Great War Ace | 07 Aug 2014 12:27 p.m. PST |
From the outset, in my medieval battles I always had a single figure representing "me". I liked to see where "I" ended up. Usually dead. :) And of course in air combat gaming, where you control a single aircraft, "you" are making role-playing decisions constantly. That is why we have artificial prohibitions in place such as deliberately ramming another player's aircraft. We insist that role-playing must include the need to stay alive as the top priority. Skirmish gaming on the ground is definitely inviting a mixture of tactical battle decisions with units and individual action. I always include characters into my skirmish games…. |
snurl1 | 07 Aug 2014 9:23 p.m. PST |
I ran a home-brewed mashup of Mordheim and AD&D. Everyone wants me to do it again real soon. |
Space Monkey | 07 Aug 2014 10:37 p.m. PST |
Battles without stories are not much fun IMO… and the story usually sets up some character about the troops and their leaders… the motivations at play. It might just come down to some morale rating but I generally think it's fun to play the character of the force… vs. just using the game mechanics in some optimal 'must win' manner (unless, of course, that suits the force character). |
tkdguy | 08 Aug 2014 12:00 a.m. PST |
I do that from time to time, although not recently. |
War Artisan | 08 Aug 2014 2:27 a.m. PST |
Most of my games have a role-playing component, just to give context to the decisions being made by the players. Occasionally, the miniature game becomes more of an overlay for role-playing style interaction between the players. This game, for example, looks like an ordinary AWI game in 15mm:
But when you look over the instructions given to the individual players, you can see that it is more of a role-playing game, illustrated with miniatures: PDF link |
Weasel | 08 Aug 2014 10:13 p.m. PST |
Topic aside, that is a lovely game setup |
Patrice | 09 Aug 2014 4:23 a.m. PST |
Always, as much as possible. One miniature in each troop represents the player. Anyway my rules don't work well if we don't do that :) |
Weasel | 10 Aug 2014 9:41 p.m. PST |
I suppose the THW stuff like Nuts and ATZ have pushed this approach as well, with the "Star" character and everything. |
Stepman3 | 11 Aug 2014 1:12 p.m. PST |
Yes with zombie gaming, the story goes from one game right into the next and with IHMN. Our games are story driven as well… |
Rafm3IC | 18 Aug 2014 9:00 a.m. PST |
RAFM has been running story driven games at cons for years now. We often have a good turn out! One year was the game "Let's be Bad!" where all the gamers played evil groups. Other popular topics have been Fallout and Xcomm games. |