"Minis Rules, Board Game, RPG - How do they differ?" Topic

Not sure if I can present this properly, but looking for thoughts on how mini rules, board games, and RPGs differ from each other.

Some folks say a minis game is really a board game using miniatures and when does a narrative minis game become an RPG? What defines each, their similarities and differences?

And do you play only one, both or all?

I'm sure this is open to interpretation and there isn't a single right answer, but I am looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say.

You know it when you see it? :)

From my perspective, playing pretty much everything:

A board game will have clearly defined rules and there is no expectation to do things not explicitly mentioned.

A mini's game will have fairly defined rules and there is some expectation to do things not explicitly mentioned.

An RPG will have defined rules but the GM is fully expected to cover everything that isn't explicitly mentioned.

*****

An RPG will (almost) always have a GM. Miniatures games may have one, board games will likely not.

*****

A board game or miniatures game is always tied to the physical products (board, terrain, miniatures, counters etc.) while an RPG rarely requires them and even if they are used, they are limited to specific situations (combat).

Those are a few that spring to mind. Sometimes the line does get blurry.

edit:

Board games and mini's games generally have clear conditions of winning and losing, in an RPG, those are nearly always absent or they are defined for the specific characters.

RPGs are easiest. They are a different kettle of fish from a board game or a miniatures game. They are about telling a story and focus on characters. Even games like NUTS which have character traits don't even come close to an RPG in that regard.

The difference between board games and Miniatures is simply a matter of degree. As weasel said board games are typically more tightly written since a hex map is usually involved (but not always).

A roleplaying game is one where each player usually only controls one model.

A board game has very defined movement, usually using a gridded map of some kind. Might be hexes, might be squares. Might even be a node-map, kinda like a road map.

A miniatures game is one where the players use minis. Some roleplaying games are also miniatures games, like D&D4. Other roleplaying games don't work well with miniatures, like Exalted or Qin. Some board games are also miniatures games, like Space Hulk and Legions of Steel. Some board games are not miniatures games, like the Avalon Hill games or original OGRE, where all the unit stats are written on the cardboard unit counter.

I agree that the RPG is definitely the one of these things that's not like the others here. RPGs are a collaborative story telling effort between the players and the GM. The objectives are largely defined by the players and there are usually no clearly defined conditions for viictory. A gaming session is almost always part of a larger campaign whose story may unfold over many sessions with some campaigns lasting months or even years.

The differences between board games and table top miniatures games can be somewhat fuzzy sometimes. As a rule of thumb, I'd say the difference between the two often boils down to complexity and the level of abstraction.

I tend to think of tabletop miniatures games as tactical simulations with lots of detailed rules to "realistically" simulate distinct unit abilities whereas to me board games involve the use of much more abstract game mechanics and concern themselves more with the "game" experience than with trying to simulate something "realistic".

The time frame Daricles brings up is a good one.

RPG's can be one shot but are almost always intended for campaign play.

Mini's games often support campaigns but it's not a norm.

Board games tend to be stand-alone.

RPG's to me are ultimately about a story and not really about the winning. Board games tend to be very contrained. Minatures games is varied.

Most of our games of Maneouver Group are closer to what some call RPG games. They are about the story not about winning. they are "How would you command this unit(s) in this situation to make the best of it". A lot of mini games lose out because they lack an RPG element. Doctrine of forces is an example where it should be Role played not "ruled". RPG players accept the relative limitations of one characted ves another. Wargames seem often to lack that skill.

"… RPG's to me are ultimately about a story and not really about the winning…." I wish you have told that to a few players I knew in the OD&D days on the Left Coast.

I assume you are asking how the differences appear to players and not GM/DM types – nearly always found in RPGs, sometimes found in Miniature war games, and almost never found in Board games) with this thread?

I think Board games have a greater appeal to multiple personalities because they are more predictable (standardized movement units (hex, squares, "spaces",) than many (not all) miniatures games and RPGs; They often include wider factors of play (economic "resources," "politics" and/or cultures in game play for many board games,) for the players; and they frequent are mildly competitive or cooperative without overt tones of "war" that many of my past friends would eschew as "bad/evil" while playing 'cut throat' Monopoly.

I think presenting the same 'scenario' or gameplay in miniatures games, RPGs, and Board Game format is a difficult balancing act of not losing the essential flavor of the base 'game' or scenario as you change the format.

RPGs have mo morale, which is good imo.

When I used to play them 30 years ago, we always played a few characters each and maybe some hirelings. I've played skirmish mini games but nothing has compared to the feel of an RPG.

The Fantasy Trip had morale! You pushed your hirelings too far and they bolted, leaving you to fight the dragon on your own…

It's all about the rules and how rules are used as either a definition of the game, or rather a guide to achieve something else.

Board games usually have a very strictly defined environment. Rules are not meant to be interpreted nor altered. Very often, the rules *are* the game. The game is not the "reality" or "story" the rules try to model.

Miniature wargames usually have a more flexible structure. Rules are often used as a guiding force, interpretation or alterations are accepted within a gaming group, because the rules are not the goal, but simulating a military conflict is the goal. Scenarios are designed by the players themselves (not seen in boardgames), so a good level of creativity is often needed. An umpire may or may not be present.

Roleplaying games can be close to miniature wargames in rules philosophy (no surprise given their ancestry), but roleplaying games have developed towards putting the story first. An umpire is almost always a necessity. However, I don't see a big rift between miniature wargaming and roleplaying. They very much share the same gaming philosophy.

In miniature wargaming and roleplaying altering and discussing the rules is possible, because one can always judge a rule vs. the reality that rule is supposed to represent. This is not possible at all in (abstract) boardgames. You cannot discuss the "realism" of a the movement of a pawn in chess, but you can discuss the "realism" of a rule stipulating how much gear you can carry and what effect that has on combat.

Of course, there are many games that sit on the continuum inbetween these genres. It is very much possible to have boardgames that try to simulate some underlying reality, as there are miniature games that are very strict on rules.

Well Ed, you have a fairly peculiar problem, in that you're one of those folks making games that live in that fuzzy border area between clearly defined examples of each of those different game types!

As a player of all of those types (though less so board games), I kinda love your stuff for that reason.

In general, if I was to try guess where the split was between a miniatures games and a roleplaying game using miniatures…

It has something to do with these two things:
1) Portrayal of the characters is important to the fun. It isn't just a nicety that can be present or absent. It really needs to be there at some level.

2) While _highly_ unlikely, the current situation/crisis/obstacle may be overcome without violence.

Now for a mean personal impression I've picked up after spending much time on internet forums. Among RPG fans, there is a deep, deep seated fear of their non-gaming friends and family catching them playing with miniatures and judging them for it.

Really, beyond any issue of costs, or hobby skills at painting and assembling minis, or even the logistics of transporting minis and laying out a table, it's the fear of being judged, I dunno, mentally/socially stunted for being caught playing with toy soldiers/dollies that keeps RPG fans from branching out, or from considering a game that uses miniatures a "proper" RPG.

Komradebob

You're saying that RPG players are afraid or being laughed at for playing miniature wargames, but they *aren't* afraid of being laughed at for being role players???!!! My experience has been exactly the opposite. When I explain wargaming and wargamers to people they seem to understand that we are recreating history and the most common reaction is "wheew! That sounds complicated". On the other hand a pimply 12 year old explaining he is Conan the Barbarian, or a 250 pound chick saying that she's an elf warrior would have a tough time explaining that they are anything but weird.

No, I would posit that a lot of RPGers are pretty all around afraid that someone will call them out for playing pretend at all.

Having a bunch of toys around makes that even more likely.

I didn't say it made a great deal of sense, I'm just saying, it's there and a factor.

My own experience is that trying to explain either minis gaming or RPGs (or any of their variations)is a pain when dealing with the uninitiated.

On the other hand, bringing the curious uninitiated to some kind of event where you can show them _something_, and a lot of folks are pretty impressed, even if it turns out not to be their cuppa tea.

>>My own experience is that trying to explain either minis gaming or RPGs (or any of their variations)is a pain when dealing with the uninitiated.<<

I don't try to explain pulp era gaming. As you say, that would be a pain. But I jump at the chance to talk about any sort of historic wargaming. A fellow engineer where I worked had bought a couple of wargames, but never discussed them or had a chance to play them. While we were discussing the ACW one day wargaming came up and we were both surprised to find that we had that in common and he jumped at the chance to play "Squad Leader" with me. When my neighbor learned about wargaming from me he tried "Memoir '44" and *loved* it. So I never miss a chance to talk about wargaming.

Boardgaming is usually pretty easy to explain at the basic level. I mean, people have played board games. They have probably seen Risk or played it. It isn't a big jump in understanding.

Minis gaming? Bring them over and show them the table laid out and have a couple friends handy to demonstrate. They probably built models as a kid or had a sibling who did. Or they've coo-ed over a model railroad layout they saw or a museum diorama. "…And _we_play games with that stuff too! Neat, eh?"

They get it.

RPGs though? Good lord there's a ton of weird misunderstandings, and even playing a bit with someone seems not to clear it up very quickly.

I don't play RPG now but in the end hated it, not the folk, not the ruls but the utter anachistic approach to solving problems with disparate uncoprative players (this is how RPG's see them selves so is not a creitisism its just an observation). When the lad had a brief forey into Live Role playing I was taken to task in a big way while monstering. Being Urukhai and trained, we organised a proper ambush. This was unacceptable as it would kill the disorganised players and was "bad form". That is a big diffrence between minatures and RPG. Minatures is about trying to get your forces to to co-operate as much as is practical. What I did learn from the RPG men (and women) was that ia valuable, is that the story is what counts not the ending.

When I bought the 1st edition of Dungeons and Dragons back in the 70's I had no idea what "role playing" was. In fact, IIRC, the term wasn't in common use. Anyway, when I read the rules and realized that there was no winner, and no definite end to the game, and that we actually needed a DM to develop the story line, I sold it the first chance that I had. Some people seem to view pulp era gaming as a kind of RPG, and I guess if you want to say that one of the characters represents you, it would be. But I only see pulp era gaming as a chance to recreate situations that I've read in pulp magazines or have seen on the screen in serials and "B" movies. I'm not in the game. I control a unit, just like in a squad level skirmish game.

Yesterday I was in a Verizon store looking for a new telephone. While the salesman pointed out the "aps" that were available I asked him if there were any wargame "aps". He seemed puzzled by the question and asked me what a wargame was. It was easy enough to explain. I asked him if he had ever heard of Axis & Allies and he said "sure". So I said "Axis & Allies, but on a video screen" and he understood that completely.

I tend to find that in the 37 years I've been gaming that rpgs last a session at a time (anything from 3-6 hours) but the overall campaign can (and has done with some great campaigns I was a part of) run for years. Boardgames (more accurately defined as historical strategy boardgames in this case), especially the big ones like MMP's Case Blue/Enemy at the Gates/Guderian's Blitzkrieg, ASL's campaing games like Red Barricades or Clash of Arms' La Bataille series of Napoleonic games, can take multiple players many days to finish – I know from personal experience that several of us have taken off four day weekends several times in the past to play a big boardgame and we basically played those suckers non-stop for four days (and had a TOTAL blast doing so – I count those experiences among my favorite gaming memories). Miniatures games tend to more single session games lasting no more than an afternoon at most (although I have played the occasional large GW Fantasy and 40K Apocalypse games with large groups of players that have lasted all day).

In other words, I think there would be absolutely no expectation that a miniatures game would be expected to be left 'set-up' to continue later whereas that is a very distinct possibility with many historical boardgames (although of course there are also historical games that can be played in just a few hours also…).

Then there is the question of space. An average miniatures game (of the ones I typically play, anyway) use a typical table area of 6'x4'. For a historical boardgame, that would be an unusually large game, most games use one or two maps with an area of 3'x2' each, only the large four+ map games get up to that sort of area and those are the ones that last a weekend or more to play. RPGs of course (at least the old school mapless ones I prefer) don't really need much table space at all, just chairs and somewhere to roll the dice :)

Board Games are "Shake and Bake" games. Shake the box, dump it out, there it is, same game you put away last time. It'll be the same the next time you open up. Everything you need to play is in the box. The rules are the rules are the rules, and that is it.

Role Playing games is a box of rules and minis which needs the DM or GM to make it work. It's an adventure story or folk tale you make up as you go along through interaction between the players and the GM. The GM ranks everyone. The rules are there until the GM wants to depart from them. The GM has the music and you play the notes.

Mini Rules are a booklet of indeterminate size which govern the movement and actions of toy soldiers on the table top, generally with a nod to representing history. There's no game in there unless you make it up. Rules can be added to or taken away by consensus. No one ranks anyone and there's no music.

Miniature games

Board games: Represented in two dimensions.
Miniature games: Represented in three dimensions.
Role playing games: Represented in an infinite number of dimensions, as no two players can interpret the gameplay the same way. (what does a thought look like?) No physical representations of maps or game pieces absolutely needed,just dice and stat sheets.

Note that these are just the physical differences.

If I buy a board game I expect to bring it home and not have to do anything other than read the rules before I play it.

A wargame has the expectation of quite a bit of collecting, painting, and preping before I can play a game.

An RPG I would expect to play mostly in my head with just a few dice and play aids. Though more and more RPGs are requiring cards and such.

Tangential point: Not all RPGs have GMs. They're uncommon, but they exist.

A boardgame is like a bookcase bought at IKEA: all the parts are in the box, you follow the instructions, and you have exactly the same bookcase as everyone else.

FRP and mini wargames are more like you bought some wood, a hammer, nails and some paint. Now make your own bookcase. Whether it turns out ugly or beautiful doesn't really matter. What matters is that it will be unique!

So, Ed, you've seen all these various answers.

I assume some of your initial question was about where exactly your games fit into this scheme.

What's your take-away from all of this?

….I can't wait for the next part.

Yeah, I am hoping this is going somewhere :)

So reading these posts I could say I play RPG's 'caue the current game has gone over about 10 weeks, its at bound 132 and I have screwed up AGAIN and now have "lost" about 5 times. We are still playeing as its the, game not the winning that counts and its the best fun ever! My opponent was role playing in his head the arguments between the guy at the sharp end asking for help and the area commander who thought (rightly as it turned out) that it would be a waste. Shows minis can be an RPG.