"Different wargaming modes of play?" Topic

What sort of play modes are there in wargaming? Player v player, solo wargaming, player v player (umpired), player v player (computed moderated)… anything else? I've heard the term "plenary game" used before, for example. If there are other modes, why aren't they popular?

Cooperative play or same side, with all players versus the game mechanics. We cover solo, same side, and head to head in all our rules.

A friend of mine has a starship Troopers game in which all players play both sides….one unit of troopers and then bugs on the other end of the table (tho the bugs are mostly run by dice).

Multi-player versus Multi-player?

You might want to look at the Wargame Developments handbook

PDF link

The WD Conference of Wargamers traditionally opens with a plenary game – an ice breaker involving everyone at the conference (unless they really don't want to play) – the idea is that people who haven't been to the conference before will have met and played a game with at least some of the attendees in the first hour.

Player team vs umpire(s), rather like an RPG.

Double blind. Two players or teams in separate rooms each with its own board, referees keeping both boards updated with what that side can actually see.

Thanks guys. Martin, that is what I was wondering about. Given the success of RPGs, how come there aren't more wargames played using that method? It seems to sit between PvP and solo.

And thanks John. Seeing as I've just joined, I really should read the Handbook!

Isn't an RPG a wargame?

Technically yes in the broadest sense (not all of them deal with war or combat), but that's not my point.

We;ve played wargaming scenarios with RPG systems (White WOlf of all things) and we've played RPG campaigns with wargaming rules (Rogue Trader) :-)

Add:
"Narrative" game where the players aren't specifically on certain sides but all make decisions about what happens on the table as the game (and story) unfolds.

I run lots of games as player teams vs an umpire. Means you can have a proper command structure, genuine hidden movement and can generate a decent narrative without lots of rules.

In fact you don't really need any rules at all, but some sort of framework generally helps:)

So why with all those advantages and with RPGs as an example of a successful umpire v player play structure has it not become more popular?

Perhaps because it requires rather more effort to set up the game, possibly because it hasn't occurred to people to try it, possibly because players prefer a traditional game with players on both sides.

Collaborative-cooperative – groups of players have a common objective

Collaborative-competitive – groups of players have a common need (defeat the Nazis) but different objectives (each wants to control the battleground country at the end of the game)

Solo umpire – playing against yourself

Solo automata – playing against a written set of rules or a computer moderator

Multiplayer Competitive – head to head to head to head …

No sides – players have objectives and may command any forces on the board to achieve them

Play by Mail/Email – players submit turn orders to a referee/computer that adjudicates them and publishes the results

Multi-Resolution Games – players have separate strategic and tactical games (think Risk where the battle outcomes are determined by a small tactical 28mm vignette)

Rolling Games – games where players can drop in or drop out (or possibly be dropped out by losing their forces)

Campaign Games – games where the outcome of one battle dictates the starting conditions for the next

Pick-up Games – games where players arrive and agree to starting and victory conditions on the spot

Big Baddie Games – a sub-genre of collaborative-competitive where one side has one, uber-powerful figure seeking to destroy all other forces while the other players all collaborate to take the big one down, but must have enough forces to establish control in the aftermath

… why do we think these are not 'popular'?

"So why with all those advantages and with RPGs as an example of a successful umpire v player play structure has it not become more popular?"

Because it isn't a "proper wargame", and as John says, it can take a bit more setting up.

This is what I'm trying to understand Martin, why isn't it considered a "proper wargame"?

I suspect he may be facetious :)

As Ed the Two Hour Wargames guru said,

Cooperative play or same side, with all players versus the game mechanics.