RPG Errata: Miniature Wargaming

I’ve been getting into miniature wargaming, recently.

Well, “getting into” might require some qualification. I haven’t been purchasing and painting miniatures or anything, but I am recognizing that my love of RPGs is bleeding into the wargaming sphere in a surprising manner. I decided to explore this phenomenon, and came up with several interesting points. After all, I’ve talked at length about the influence of Miniature Wargaming on the hobby, but there is a case to be made that I’ve ignored Miniature Wargaming as a kind of RPG.

As I’ve discussed before, it’s hard to separate the two completely; combat can be a story and story can inform combat both in some very real ways. Ignoring that fact, even just brushing past it, can leave our understanding of the RPG Medium underdeveloped.

“Why?” I hear you ask through my carefully hidden microphone (don’t look for it, you’ll never find it). “Sure, D&D was born as a wargaming mod, but it’s certainly developed since then. Do we really need to pay attention to Necromunda to understand Monsterhearts?”

Well, no, I don’t think a historical study of the medium is required to understand a specific RPG or even a whole genre of RPGs, but if we want to explore the RPG Medium as a whole (as I do), then it’s an important aspect to consider.

I mean, look at the number of RPG systems that maintain a connection to the tactical experience: Lancer is my over-used example, along with Trespasser and Gubat Banwa, but there are a lot more, like Valiant Quest, Gunmetal Sonata, Tactiquest, Eden Aeterna, Knights of the Stars, Quasar, Tales from the Endless Void, Tailfeathers, Urchin’s Fall, Zafir, or Voyager: Tactics.

There are also a lot of tactical system hacks built for narrative or at least non-tactical systems; like Pie Lent Hill, Pie-ing Light, Conqueror, Extended Conflicts Supplement to The Gold Hack, GunCraze Miniature Battles, Mauskrieg, Strife: The Scalable Wargame, 4X, and FIST – Tactical Module.

And let’s not ignore the wide variety of tactical games that can be hacked into or bolted onto any system you like; such as Skirmish, Tactics.min, Before the Sun Fades, Cardhammer, Mortal Tactics, Fudge Dice Miniature System, Meminis, Guardians vs. Kaiju, Escape-the-Catastrophe, Skirmish: 52C Black Edition, Tracktics, Ashes of the Arcane, or Arena Wizards: HEAVY SUIT T.O.W.E.R..

And that’s not even mentioning games that could fit into multiple categories, such as Vyrmhack, Strike!, Starcross Arena, Lo! Thy Dread Empire, or The Darkest Outcome.

If that wasn’t enough, a lot of wargames deal with similar issues that RPGs play with; determinism, collaborative competition, dice or cards, GMs or GM-less, Narrative vs System…there are even systems that use the same ARTTRPG design ethos as .dungeon.

When looked at as an RPG, Wargaming can be described as, obviously, very system-focused. Story comes almost exclusively from the meta-narrative, with game-narrative largely insignificant if not absent. Focusing on the system is not a bad thing, however: meta-narrative is still narrative and a lot of RPGs use meta-narrative in varying degrees.

What does this almost exclusive focus on the system do? Well, one of the things it does is encourage players to think tactically rather than narratively, which in turn forces players to break down the player/character barrier. Focusing on achieving tactical success encourages the player to use their own skills and abilities, while narrative allows players to rely on their creativity and story-telling passions.

Again, this isn’t to exclude story-telling. Indeed, the meta-narrative becomes a kind of writing prompt, where different rolls can result in dramatic standoffs, casual routs, or pathos-filled tragedies.

Look at the variety of wargaming systems out there. Along with their own genres and similarities, we can see a few aspects that I think are worth paying attention to, not the least of which is tactical objectives: one of the so-obvious-it’s-often-unspoken goals of tactical combat is “to win the fight.” This is a very loose goal, and can get players in a limiting mindset of what success looks like. Fights can end when one side is dead, sure, but it’s far more interesting when the fight itself is a tactical choice designed to prevent an opposing goal from being reached.

Suddenly, we’re not fighting hordes of zombies because they’re trying to eat us, but because “they’re in-between us and the door.” We’re killing these assassins because “they’re trying to get the chalice before we do.” We’re fighting bandits because “they’re delaying us while their leader escapes.” If any of those sound no different than a regular combat, consider that in all three of those examples, killing your foes is not the primary goal and might actively hinder your success. A sleep or web spell might be a good opener in a kill-em-all combat, it could be a finisher in a goal-oriented fight.

This plays into opponent goals as well. It’s easy to forget that NPCs have their own lives. When the PCs kick down a door and surprise a group of bandits, are the bandits enemy units who will fight to the death? Or are they startled people who will try to escape with as much of their loot as possible? Sure, the Orcs are going to ambush the party, but is that because they’re hungry or poor and looking for easy supplies? Or is it just because they’re monsters and the PCs need XP?

Now, let it not go unsaid that this does increase the amount of work a GM needs to do when creating encounters. If NPCs are just bad-guys to kill, you can throw out a couple monsters without much effort anytime you want. If combat is the focus of the system, monsters who run or have motives/goals of their own can subvert the game. Diplomatic monsters are like teams that forfeit before taking the field. Yeah, you might be outclassed or down your star-hitter, but we came here to see a game.

It makes for an interesting dynamic with tactical RPGs. Ostensibly you’re supposed to role-play, but the many options available to characters can make combat rare. If combat is a significant point of the game, then goals beyond “Kill Everything” can distract or even negate the combat system.

For example: Planescape: Torment was one of the greatest VGRPGs of its time. Even now there is a lot to like about the game. Based on the Advanced D&D, 2nd ed. system, the game’s story is well written, the characters solidly designed, and there are multiple innovative systems that make the game surprisingly replayable. For all the hoopla over Baulder’s Gate 3, Planescape: Torment did some very similar things, and much earlier.

Torment: Tides of Numenera is the spiritual successor to Planescape: Torment. Based on the Numenera TTRPG system, the game’s story is also very well written, with solidly designed characters and a plot that is almost the mirror image of Planescape: Torment.

One of the things that both games did well was combat — or more accurately, alternatives to combat. You could, with high charisma and careful dialogue choices, get almost a third of the way through Planescape: Torment without needing to fight anyone. Torment: Tides of Numenera eschewed the pseudo-random combat encounter dungeon-crawl aesthetic, hand-crafting each fight so you were never just clearing out a sewer of rats or beating off low-level demons just so you could get to the next room. Combats were set-pieces, as important and carefully designed as the dialogues.

Wargames still have their game-narratives, and some say most of the fun comes from these stories. You can play chess if you don’t care about the game-narrative, but if you want to find out if the Ork Waaagh will break through the Chaos Marine frontline and secure a vital supply of go-juice, you play Warhammer 40k.

Now, Warhammer 40k is very purposefully created to avoid some of the more intricate details of war. You don’t have to worry about the morality of your actions because everyone’s evil. There’s no such thing as diplomacy, and politics is generally reduced to ‘who is best at waging war?’ You can bolt on that stuff if you want, but it’s undeniably a hack of the core system.

That said, there are wargames that feel differently: Battletech was full of political intrigue and logistical minutiae. The Clans formalized a bidding process to see who could achieve military victory with the smallest cost in resources. Internal squabbles fractured both the Clans and the Inner Sphere, constantly. You could easily play Battletech as a tabletop wargame and a long-form role-playing campaign. A lot of crunchy tactical RPGs follow this path: not to belabor the point, but Lancer is the obvious one. Tailfeathers and Gubat Banwa are equally inclined, while One Page Rules has campaign rules and ‘quest’ versions of its games.

Heck, just look at the lore/world books for almost any wargame you want; it’s clear that wargaming can be turned into a larger story pretty easily. All it takes is paying attention to what happens before and after the battles, or the places far behind the front lines. Troupe play is ideal here as your player(s) could take the roles of individual soldiers or sergeants in the squad, the high-ranking nobles who levied the troops, or master generals who guide the direction of the war as needed. Diplomacy and politics could easily influence combat, providing reinforcements or limiting resources.

If this sounds like a large-scope play-to-find-out campaign, you’re right! High-level 1st ed. D&D campaigns were often times a lot like this.

Does this mean if you don’t like miniature wargames, you’re bad at RPGs? Of course not. I merely think miniature wargaming is closer to RPG-land than might first be obvious. That doesn’t mean you aren’t a “good role-player,” anymore than not particularly liking french cuisine makes you a “bad chef.”

But I do think that there are RPGers out there who haven’t considered miniature wargaming as “their thing,” and are missing out. I myself am looking at my interest in miniature wargaming in a new light after considering how similar they are.

Your mileage may, of course, vary considerably.