Integrating Strategic Miniatures War Gaming Into an RPG Campaign

[pogre]

Greetings!

Paizo is about to release its Ultimate Campaign source book. The book deals with kingdom building and integrating war into your campaign. For most, I think this will be a fantastic resource. For me, however, the choice to go with a narrative system for the war elements is a bit disappointing. I understand I am in the minority, and their choice will serve the vast majority of their fan base very well. I want a more immersive strategic miniatures game to integrate into my rpg campaigns.

My questions for you are have you had success doing this? What rules did you use? I want a game that is satisfying both as an RPG and scales to mass miniatures combat well.

The closest I have come is using 1st edition WFRP with 3rd edition WFB. Not perfect, but it was a fun campaign. I also attempted it, less successfully with the Savage Worlds system. I look forward to reading your suggestions.

 

[Nojo509]

I've attempted to do this a few times, and had more flops than successes. No matter what the rules are, some of my players were not excited at all about managing a battle. They roleplayed a *character* and unless their character was a military commander, adding mass combat they had to direct drained away the fun for them.

The best I was able to pull off was in Rogue Trader. I didn't do full out 40k tabletop, but we did use Battlefleet Gothic minis for Rogue Trader space combat and we used the 40k minis for characters and for big battles. Rogue Trader comes with a few rules options for mass combat, and we tried most of them. The simple rules are narrative, and even the richer ones make sure the PCs get the spotlight. We used the extra detailed rules from Frozen Reaches for mass ground combat. It worked well, but once the tide had turned, no one wanted to play it out, so hands were waved.

Battlefleet Koronus builds on those rules and lets you create a real military campaign.

I'd just be sure to get buy-in from *all* the players before going in that direction. My typical table has a few serious mini players and a few serious method-actors, and a friend or two whose just along for the ride.

The nice thing about Rogue Trader is you can change up the focus. Your players might be at war in some sessions, and doing trade, diplomacy, and treachery in others.

Of course now there is Only War. I'd imagine players who want to play that are already bought into the mindset you want.

 

[Umbran]

I want a more immersive strategic miniatures game to integrate into my rpg campaigns.

No matter what the rules are, some of my players were not excited at all about managing a battle. They roleplayed a *character* and unless their character was a military commander, adding mass combat they had to direct drained away the fun for them.

This has been my experience as well. The primary issue is this - there are very few (if any) strategic miniatures games that are "immersive" in the sense most RPG fans mean that term. Minis wargames are *all* about The Rules. Until such time as you've mastered those rules, pretty much every action in the minis game is a consideration of metagame, rather than being "in character". If you're only using those minis rules occasionally (as far as the campaign is concerned) the players are unlikely to develop the mastery needed to really play that minis game in the way they do the RPG.

My solution, then, has been to frame large battles in terms of scenes/encounters. Each scene is focused on what the PCs themselves are actually doing in the context of the larger fight. Then, I have the outcome of the battle hinge on how the scenes turn out. The players never focus on the abstract of moving large bodies of men, but instead remained focused on what their own characters can do, using normal familiar rules, so they remain immersed.

I had some good luck turning a major battle into a "five room dungeon" - same precepts, different window dressing.

 

[tangleknot]

7th Sea had rules for mass combats. Essentially every round both sides would make a combat roll against each other, whoever got more successes than the other side would progress the combat closer to winning. The heroes would perform mini combats/ actions each round that would add dice to the overall roll combat roll.
This was the only mass combat system I've ever seen work well; I too have seen many flops in mass combats usually because you have too many miniatures on the board and combat slows to screeching halt.

 

[pogre]

I don't remember where I read it - one of the AD&D books perhaps. There was an introduction where Gary Gygax wrote about characters becoming heroes, and rising to build castles, nations, and going to war. That vision has always captured my imagination.

The problem with D20 mass combat is a single Druid or Wizard can pretty much dominate the battlefield.

I would not have mass combat every session, perhaps just once or twice a year - we play pretty much three weeks out of four every month. In other words it would be a change of pace. I have tons of miniatures and terrain and I know my players would not mind playing some mini battles. It would just be more interesting if it was integrated in the campaign.

Years ago I had players play some miniature war games to simulate what was happening in other parts of the campaign world. Doing it this way, I could divorce the mini rules from the rpg completely. It worked out OK, but was not quite the experience I was hoping for - I want the PCs to have a stake in the outcome.

Perhaps I should be engineering from the other side - find a satisfactory set of rules for the mass combat and convert the PCs into stats for the minis game? I don't think player buy-in is a problem at all at my table. My players tend to enjoy some variety. They all like minis games too.