Wargame, meet RPG. RPG, meet Wargame.

[jdrakeh]

Some minature wargames are just that, but others closely border the edge of roleplaying proper, much as the original Dungeons & Dragons rules did. These games interest me and, lately, I've actually been eyeballing one of them (Warlord by Reaper Miniatures) for potential use as a rules light RPG in the vein of OD&D (and I do mean Original D&D, not the subsequent Basic D&D).

 

The Warlord rule book contains several basic templates for broad heroic archetypes (e.g., Hero, Cleric, and Mage), as well as several sub-types (Ranger, High Priest, Warlkock, etc). Additionally, it contains basic rules for melee and ranged combat, casting divine and arcane magic, performing stunts (most of which are non-combat actions), and a slew of special abilities.

 

Has anybody else ever used Warlord (or any other wargame) in this capacity? That is, have you ever picked up a wargame and utilized it as a basic, retro-style, RPG? I think it's probably more sane than it sounds (after, all GURPS, D&D, and many other early RPGs started off as wargame rules with some options for model individualization tacked on), but I need some reassurance ;)

[Gimp]

I've used several wargame worlds as the basis for RPG's. While I normally port the idea over to a versatile RPG core system to save time on skill system development, Warlords gives enough to form a very good core system.

 

The fluff is there, and the miniatures definitely are available.

 

The greatest difficulties are in skills and character development. Within RAGE, skills could be handled as easily as an assigned target number, and add levels to assist individual skills as the character advances as they do with combat skill in Warlords.

 

Starting character survival, and how quickly they advance, is the tougher part. RAGE gives a good basic combat system, but models have very few wounds. You need to decide if characters will stay fragile, or become demigods compared to normal models. Do you want characters to easily port back to the wargame? Magic will be a challenge, as well.

 

It can be worth the time, but will only be as functional as the effort you put into it. I'd rather play, so I'll use a core system that matches the campaign style I want, and tweak as needed for races, weapons, and such.

 

We have a Rezolution campaign using the Shadowrun 4th ed rules, and a 7th Sea campaign that is currently running in the Wargods of Aegyptus world.

 

Warlords offers a very well textured world for an RPG. Until they put out the RPG support they plan, cook up your own, or port over a system you like. Taltos would be an interesting place to play either way.

 

When Reaper gets the time for the full RPG setting, you can decide to use the info and change to whatever system they choose, or simply use it as fluff for what you develop now. Either way you can still win.

[Marlfox]

I'm currently running the Age of Worms campaign from Dungeon magazine, but I'm modifying the rules to fit the land of Taltos. I'm enjoying the challenge of refitting a pre-existing campaign into another world.

[jdrakeh]

I've used several wargame worlds as the basis for RPG's. While I normally port the idea over to a versatile RPG core system to save time on skill system development, Warlords gives enough to form a very good core system.

 

Well, I'm not really taking about using wargame fluff in pre-existing roleplaying systems, but using a wargame rule set (i.e., the actual mechanics) as a basic RPG. Note that the original D&D (c 1974) was much more wargame than it was a RPG as they exist today. The same can be said of The Fantasy Trip and other early fantasy RPGs.

 

The greatest difficulties are in skills and character development. Within RAGE, skills could be handled as easily as an assigned target number, and add levels to assist individual skills as the character advances as they do with combat skill in Warlords.

 

Most early RPGs didn't actually have skills (e.g., OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, Tunnels & Trolls, etc). In short, a lack of skills isn't a problem. In fact, I'd prefer that there weren't skills, but that non-combat actions be resolved using a slight variation of the stunt rules. This is much more in line with most old school RPGs.

 

As for character devlopment, you're right - but there are wargames with rules for model improvement and experience (Chronopia had such rules for heroes, IIRC). Any number of these basic systems could be ported over to Warlord quite easily. So that's no big concern, either.

 

You need to decide if characters will stay fragile, or become demigods compared to normal models.

 

Escalating hit point and character health are actually only prominant in D&D and D&D clones - most other game systems don't boast this feature, so not having it isn't a big deal.

 

Magic will be a challenge, as well.

 

I don't think so. The system in the Warlord book seems to be very functional. I'll have to create larger spell lists, sure, but aside from that I can't see that anything needs changing.

[paleskin]

Call me a purist,but I always find that using the rules system "as intended" works better from a players perspective.I also find that games run more smoothly and the overall enjoyment is better if both players and DM( ) have an understanding of the world/background etc.

In short I am not a fan of bastardised rules systems,personal preference,but would still be curious to know how your idea pans out,good luck with it!

[Ranzadule]

I have a d20 campaign going in and around the Anhur/Kargir border. I am converting it to Rolemaster though as RM is just too cool not to play.

[Gimp]

Well, I'm not really taking about using wargame fluff in pre-existing roleplaying systems, but using a wargame rule set (i.e., the actual mechanics) as a basic RPG. Note that the original D&D (c 1974) was much more wargame than it was a RPG as they exist today. The same can be said of The Fantasy Trip and other early fantasy RPGs.

Chainmail grew into D&D, and it worked fine for what it was. Melee & Wizard grew into The Fantasy Trip, and then on to GURPS, and again they worked. Any system can work if it works for the people playing. That's why there are already systems that range from simplistic to incredibly complex.

The greatest difficulties are in skills and character development. Within RAGE, skills could be handled as easily as an assigned target number, and add levels to assist individual skills as the character advances as they do with combat skill in Warlords.

Most early RPGs didn't actually have skills (e.g., OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, Tunnels & Trolls, etc). In short, a lack of skills isn't a problem. In fact, I'd prefer that there weren't skills, but that non-combat actions be resolved using a slight variation of the stunt rules. This is much more in line with most old school RPGs.

 

As for character devlopment, you're right - but there are wargames with rules for model improvement and experience (Chronopia had such rules for heroes, IIRC). Any number of these basic systems could be ported over to Warlord quite easily. So that's no big concern, either.

The stunt system works for basic skill ideas. You can let players say what they are doing, and simply assign a target number. Again, so long as players are happy without having skills, it can work.

Likewise, having limited change in combat skills may not bother players that are having fun, but a MAV range of 0-6 for normal characters, and even less for RAV, doesn't leave much room for character development. That's why a lot of RPG's added skill systems. Characters had a lot more options for development when they had access to changes in other than combat stats.

Will you limit characters to the stat maximums in Warlord, or will they become better fighters than anything in the game?

You can run a game with no change in the characters, or very minimal change, and it can work IF the people playing like it that way. I've met few players through the years that didn't prefer character improvement.

You need to decide if characters will stay fragile, or become demigods compared to normal models.

Escalating hit point and character health are actually only prominant in D&D and D&D clones - most other game systems don't boast this feature, so not having it isn't a big deal.

I'm not just talking about escalating hit points. Some people like those systems. I don't, but will play with them if it's a good group.

The concern I was addressing is the core mechanic of Warlords. Most models go down after a single hit. Warlords go down after four hits. That doesn't bode well for characters in a small group.

Most RPG players would like to have a bit more staying power than one hit and down. You don't have to become a demi-god, but players are likely to want to take at least one moderate hit before going down. The Warlord system doesn't have much difference between a grunt (starting character) and a warlord (major extablished hero).

Magic will be a challenge, as well.

I don't think so. The system in the Warlord book seems to be very functional. I'll have to create larger spell lists, sure, but aside from that I can't see that anything needs changing.

The magic system on the battlefield is fine. Using the miniatures rules for RPG magic can work. However;

the magic system buys spells based on the points for an army. How will a character do that? How will a character replace spells that have been used? How many spells can a character know? How can they learn new spells? Will you use a spell slot, spell point, or fatigue style system? Spell slots like D&D would be a close match, but limits spell casters away from the battlefield. What other non-combat spells would you want to add? How will you create a starting mage that is balanced with other characters?

The magic mechanic is fine. The magical character will need the work.

[jdrakeh]

In short I am not a fan of bastardised rules systems,personal preference,but would still be curious to know how your idea pans out,good luck with it!

 

Ever played D&D? It's the grandaddy of "bastardised rule systems" (it started out as Chainmail) ;)

[jdrakeh]

Chainmail grew into D&D, and it worked fine for what it was. Melee & Wizard grew into The Fantasy Trip, and then on to GURPS, and again they worked. Any system can work if it works for the people playing. That's why there are already systems that range from simplistic to incredibly complex.

 

You're preaching to the choir (I'm the head reviewer at RPGNow, a published game designer, and long-time collector of RPGs). The reason, incidentally, that I'm looking into this is that none of the first generation RPGs that you mention (Original D&D, TFT, etc) currently enjoy frequent or easily accessible support.

 

The stunt system works for basic skill ideas. You can let players say what they are doing, and simply assign a target number.

 

That's pretty much what I did, but I broke play up into Roleplay Scenarios and Tactical Scenarios, each of which uses its own set of basic rules (both built around the same core mechanic).

 

Likewise, having limited change in combat skills may not bother players that are having fun, but a MAV range of 0-6 for normal characters, and even less for RAV, doesn't leave much room for character development.

 

I increased the range of trait ratings and introduced level progression. Characters gain a new special ability based on their class at every third level (1st, 3rd, 6th) and two points with which to boost trait ratings when they obtain an even level (2nd, 4th, 6th, etc).

 

The concern I was addressing is the core mechanic of Warlords. Most models go down after a single hit. Warlords go down after four hits. That doesn't bode well for characters in a small group.

 

Characters have a Health rating which ranges from 5 to 20 initially (dependent upon character race). It can be boosted per the rules for character advancement (mentioned above). Combat is still pretty lethal, but that makes sense for the default setting that I've attached to the rule set (Icelandic-inspired fantasy).

 

The magic system on the battlefield is fine. Using the miniatures rules for RPG magic can work. However; the magic system buys spells based on the points for an army. How will a character do that? How will a character replace spells that have been used? How many spells can a character know? How can they learn new spells? Will you use a spell slot, spell point, or fatigue style system?

 

Charcters can cast any spell with a rank less than or equal to their Arcane Aptitude rating, provided that they have access to that spell in-game (i.e., they have read/studied it). They are limited to casting a certain number of spells per day based on their level (see below).

 

How will you create a starting mage that is balanced with other characters?

 

Magic-wielding characters don't gain a different special ability every third level as non-casting characters do, but rather, gain the ability to cast more spells per day at every third level. It balances out rather well in actual play (i.e., my players and I haven't encountered any imbalance so far).

 

I'm about 14,000 words into the game - so far it has departed from Warlord and RAGE in several ways (no cards, the inclusion of character races and occupations, etc), but the influence should still be obvious to anybody who has played Warlord. Also, I've re-tooled base measurements to work with cardstock counters (as they're more accessible to non-wargamers).

 

The game is (as previously mentioned) Icelandic-inspired fantasy. Character races include the standard dwarves and elves, as well as fairies, giants, and trolls (and humans, of course). Occupations include druids, hunters, warriors, and so on. Magic items are very rare. Combat is lethal, but not crazy lethal (and dying doesn't mean the end of a charcter, but a trip to the Underworld).

 

I'll post a rough draft after I get done with the section for the Game Master, the spell list Appendix, and the introductory Tactical Scenario (in which dead characters fight their way out of the Underworld and back into the lands of the living). Also, expect a few typos (e.g., I know that one of the diagrams demonstrating LOS has a typo). I'm looking at another month and a half or so to finish up.

[Gimp]

Good luck on it all. Sounds like a major effort to make it worthwhile.

[Sivrel]

Of course to really keep it as Warlord's Taltos you will need to have lethal combat with somwhat low fantasy. There are very few mages that live long in Taltos which would justify low magic items. Clerics are even more hard to come by.

 

If done right you will do Taltos justice.

[mrbuddylee]

This is a great topic, thanks for posting it.

 

I am really wanting to play a wargame that has some RPG elements, so you can carry over stats, equipment, etc, etc.

 

I've been looking into Mordheim, but I like the Warlord gaming engine. Please post the results of your troubles!

[Gimp]

Mordheim can be a fun game, but the advancement scheme is a bit limited, and the possibilities of overpowered characters with the right skill rolls can make a campaign less interesting. We played with friends and were quick to retire or reroll characters that got out of hand.

 

The first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay had a conversion set for using characters in the TTG, but that was dropped from the new edition. The new WHFRP is a good RPG, and can play with Reaper figs as easily as GW figs for most anything, but there is no longer a crossover unless you hunt up the old rules.

[jdrakeh]

This is a great topic, thanks for posting it.

 

I am really wanting to play a wargame that has some RPG elements, so you can carry over stats, equipment, etc, etc.

 

I've been looking into Mordheim, but I like the Warlord gaming engine. Please post the results of your troubles!

 

Well, I'm closing in on a final draft (I worked out the rules for custom creature construction last week). It might be closer to the end of August before I get finished up, though (bah- real life and its intrusions!).

[mrbuddylee]

Yeah, real life always seems to get in the way... :( Thanks for keeping us updated!