Mass Combat Figures

[rounser]

About 1 in 5 either don't care for mass combat, or want the the outcome generator you talked about.

I'm not talking about an "outcome generator". You could build a non-counter, non-miniatures system through the roof strategically, and even get rather detailed on a tactical level too.

Your choice of disparaging terminology suggests that this discussion isn't worth pursuing further, though, since you're dismissing the idea of d20 mass combat without toy soldiers. In my experience, they cost a massive amount of time and money, and though the origins of the game stem from wargaming, mixing lead-n-paint wargaming and paper and pencil RPGs requires double the amount of investment in terms of both time and money (much less of the latter for RPGs) in two hobbies notorious for the former...thus the popularity of the idea of using counters, perhaps. Roleplayers shouldn't have to turn modeller to run a war in D&D.

 

[Kevin O'Reilly]

Rounser

Please accept my apologies, I in no way meant to disparage your remarks and in hindsight I can see how my choice of terminology was condensending.

I am very interested in your ideas on how to represent at the tactical level a miniature free game for I completely agree with you that cost is a barrier and that the game should not denegrate into a war-game. That is not the main focus of d+d.

Please continue to share your ideas and accept my apologies.

 

[rounser]

Please accept my apologies for going off half-cocked, I shouldn't have reacted in such harsh way.

As I see it, the problem with wargaming simulation and RPGs is that the miniatures seem to promote the idea that the moment you start running a war, you step back from the idea of simulating the exploits of a D&D party, and start simulating a wargame instead.

This is appropriate when the PCs are running armies and nations, but most games aren't like that. That's not to say you shouldn't have the option (Birthright analogues should exist, for instance), but it would be nice to see some more original approaches to the problem, such as a system designed to (a) deal with the PC's interaction with the war and (b) deal with the impact of the war on the campaign world. Instead, the default approach seems to be the traditional (c) - simulate the battle directly - in other words, a wargame.

tactical level...miniature free game

Miniatures are great for tactical gameplay, it cannot be denied...but even games involving large numbers of miniatures (e.g. Warhammer and 40K) still end up effectively only being skirmish battles, with handfuls of troops. Modern consumers don't seem to like games involving one miniature representing 10 troops. Using counters or pre-painted miniatures would alleviate the problem somewhat.

A pen and paper system would be indeed be inferior on a tactical level, as far as representing the clash of armies on a tactical level goes. For strategic, clash of nations, armies marching across the lands to do battle "over there" purposes, it would be fine - and most of that happens off-camera, anyway. You don't need to get down to brass tacks to represent (b), the impact on the campaign world...so it's appropriate in that respect.

As far as (a), the PC interaction with the war, goes, a system could conceivably identify skirmishes which the PCs get involved in if they get directly involved in the battle, or the outcome of the leadership decisions they make. If they're on the front line, or hurling fireballs from the battlements, then yes, they'll be getting attacked by waves of minis/counters, and the system will need to generate enemies and allies in the near range to fight - but on the standard d20 battlemap only, and not using a substitute for the d20 rules - use a proxy system, and players may well whinge that if simulated using real D&D, they might never have died. If they move to another part of the battlefield, the paper and pencil system might be able to generate what's going on there as well, add up the PC impact on the battle, and alter the flow of the battlefield accordingly.

Oh yeah, and it'll make you coffee and walk your dog too. Of course, it's a huge design goal, and might not even be possible, but it seems to match D&D campaign needs more than a wargame sub-game does.

With regards to combining RPGs and wargames, there are no limited army lists, so you'll need minis for all array of strange beasties and troops, or just be forced to compromise with proxies - thus the RPG mini battle probably won't look as good as armies built from dedicated and supported army lists. When you add to that the overhead of time and money a miniatures wargame consumes, combined with the time (and to a lesser extent, money) that roleplaying consumes, it will be interesting to see whether WotC's long term plan to turn roleplayers into wargamers as well (thus the intentional exclusion of mass combat rules from the DMG, so I read) is feasible. In the Warhammer hobby, modelling seems to come first, or at least, a very close second to playing for most folks.

I'll shut up now.

 

[hammymchamham]

personally if I could find a handfull of pre-painted minature, I'd buy a few. I don't have the time nor the skill to pain them.

 

[Kevin O'Reilly]

Great Post

... the problem with wargaming simulation and RPGs is that the miniatures seem to promote the idea that the moment you start running a war, you step back from the idea of simulating the exploits of a D&D party, and start simulating a wargame instead.

I think this is what chainmail suffered from and why it ultimately failed. Players wanted a way of simulating large scale battle (if not true mass combat) and instead where given a mechanic for simulating a war game.

- but on the standard d20 battlemap only, and not using a substitute for the d20 rules - players may well whinge that if simulated using real D&D, they might never have died.

A really good point and one that has to reconcile that 3e is simply too complex to facilitate mass combat. The simulation needs to streamline combat, allow for feats and skills, and respect that players are bringing role-play characters into a mass comabt and permit players the flexibility they are used. In short, it can't be a new system, but it must essentially be 3e.

With regards to combining RPGs and wargames, there are no limited army lists, so you'll need minis for all array of strange beasties and troops, or just be forced to compromise with proxies - thus the RPG mini battle probably won't look as good as armies built from dedicated and supported army lists. When you add to that the overhead of time and money a miniatures wargame consumes, combined with the time (and to a lesser extent, money) that roleplaying consumes

Seems to indicate that counters, preferably the tool to create and print them, would be required, or it needs to be miniature company independent.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Another reason that chainmail failed was it did not differentiate itself from the competition. GW holds a large portion of the skirmish level games with the Warhammer Line.

Mage Knight seperated themselves not as much as by rules, but with pre-painted figs. People who don't want to paint or feel they can't paint can still play the game and not feel less important or good as those with more time and artistic ability.

Chainmail used a different rule system than GW but did not do enough to make peole stop collecting and playing Warhammer and start chainmail. I believe WoTC thought they could get roleplayers interested in skirmish wargaming through chainmail and pick up a new generation of players. They were wrong, most RPGers don't seem interested in a new Skirmish game.

GW started the LoTR skirmish game and used a well defines and dynamic setting that has many many followers and is supported by the success of a major motion picture and will continue to have that support for th enext 2 years as the last movies are released. Don't underestimate the effect those movies have on the sale of the product.

 

[Kevin O'Reilly]

Another reason that chainmail failed was it did not differentiate itself from the competition. GW holds a large portion of the skirmish level games with the Warhammer Line.

Mage Knight seperated themselves not as much as by rules, but with pre-painted figs. People who don't want to paint or feel they can't paint can still play the game and not feel less important or good as those with more time and artistic ability.

Chainmail used a different rule system than GW but did not do enough to make peole stop collecting and playing Warhammer and start chainmail. I believe WoTC thought they could get roleplayers interested in skirmish wargaming through chainmail and pick up a new generation of players. They were wrong, most RPGers don't seem interested in a new Skirmish game.

GW started the LoTR skirmish game and used a well defines and dynamic setting that has many many followers and is supported by the success of a major motion picture and will continue to have that support for th enext 2 years as the last movies are released. Don't underestimate the effect those movies have on the sale of the product.

All good points.

I agree that the market does not have space for a new miniature game - LoTR not withstanding. The movies and the beautiful true scale minis by the Perry brothers have created a masterpiece game. The rules are pretty good too.

WoTC missed a massive chance to gain a fotthold in this marketplace with Chainmail. The vs. GW strategy was always going to fail (even if they did not think so). If all it took was good models and good game system Crucible, Chronopia and Confrontartion would have had must better penetration. All these new wargames can find players, just not enough for market sustainability. There are an estimtated 1.5 million casual 3e players in the market; get the right product that touches into these players desire for a mass combat simulation and you'll see 150,000 people picking up the hobby immediately. Make any models usuable for 3e roleplay and add another 300,000 buyers. Make them usuable immediately and the uptake will be fats.

Of course, IMHO

 

[pogre]

Mass Combat

I used mass combat in my old WFRP campaign from time-to-time. There happened to be a mass combat fantasy game that worked pretty well with the rules. It made for a nice change of pace and everyone got more involved in the game with their character involved. It's amazing how much less valuable an objective can seem when your rear end is on the line!

I think there is a place for a D&D mass combat game. I also think you can have both a regular miniatures style game and an abstract version with a narrative table.

I would never use pre-painted miniatures on a regular basis. I can crank rank and file if I am in a hurry. Otherwise, I believe figures in a roleplaying game deserve a lot more attention than mass painting could provide.

 

[KnowTheToe]

All good points.

I agree that the market does not have space for a new miniature game - LoTR not withstanding. The movies and the beautiful true scale minis by the Perry brothers have created a masterpiece game. The rules are pretty good too.

WoTC missed a massive chance to gain a fotthold in this marketplace with Chainmail. The vs. GW strategy was always going to fail (even if they did not think so). If all it took was good models and good game system Crucible, Chronopia and Confrontartion would have had must better penetration. All these new wargames can find players, just not enough for market sustainability. There are an estimtated 1.5 million casual 3e players in the market; get the right product that touches into these players desire for a mass combat simulation and you'll see 150,000 people picking up the hobby immediately. Make any models usuable for 3e roleplay and add another 300,000 buyers. Make them usuable immediately and the uptake will be fats.

Of course, IMHO

I think that is exactly what they tried to do. Chainmail figs are easily interchangable with D&D and are nice figs. The minis are not inspirering, but they are one of the cheapest wargame miniatures. RPGers just did not see a reason to add thie to their hobby. I know I did not, I bought several figs, but used them for D&D.

 

[Kevin O'Reilly]

Keeping this a live a while longer