The new Iron Kingdoms RPG: does it require minis?

[Sincereagape]

I too am for minis being used.

rather favor battle maps like the current iron kingdoms 3.5 system over using tape measures

[StJason]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it is 2d6+stat. Crafting skill + 2d6 vs difficulty, stealth + 2d6 versus detection/perception, bluff + 2d6 vs insight, etc etc.

I don't think so.

Consider how Warmachine does magic abilities and skills like Repair. I'm thinking that might be the model for how skills will work.

...not thrilling.

Still, with a bit of granularity, some focus/bennies/fate points... maybe.

[Lanz]

I don't think so.

Consider how Warmachine does magic abilities and skills like Repair. I'm thinking that might be the model for how skills will work.

...not thrilling.

Still, with a bit of granularity, some focus/bennies/fate points... maybe.

Skill checks in warmachine don't necessarily make sense, though, and seem more like an abstraction on having a challenge versus a static difficulty. Even stuff like repairs would likely be against a difficulty normally (as in how badly damaged what you're repairing is).

That said, the rolling mechanic of rolling 2d6 under a static value, such as with command checks, repair, stormcall, etc, probably will exist. Though I doubt it'd be for skill checks, unless difficulty of the challenge is reflected in other values.

An example of how it could work for skill is that a character has a skill set like, say, 'jack marshaling. Whenever they go to give a 'jack a command, they take a marshal roll based on their marshal skill, which is static. However, based on battle conditions, or the warjack, there may be bonuses and penalties. Like getting a +1 to marshaling skill if right next to the 'jack, or a -2 if its cortex is old/damaged, etc.

Still not as dynamic as just 2d6 + stat vs stat in most cases, though. Good for static stuff that won't change much, but skill checks typically involve as many variables and modifiers as normal combat rolls, so an additive system works a bit better.

In my opinion, anyways. I've designed with both, and they work well in separate instances.

[PG_The Captain]

Whatever could be said about the playability of the old D20 system, at least one thing - the most important thing - in the old IKRPG was done right - it was a role-playing game, not a miniature game disguised as one.

My whole gaming group is hoping, praying, that the new one will be, too. Miniatures or no miniatures in combat situations, it's what you can do when you're not trying to kill someone that makes or breaks a role-playing game.

Of course, most RPG systems are mostly combat systems, because fighting is generally the most complex form of action you have in an adventure. A fast-paced, fluid combat system with realistic options to defeat your opponent without taking him to 0 Hp would make me at least satisfied, if not yet happy. As a GM I can generally improvise most social encounters and even physical challenges, but when a player wants to capture an enemy instead of killing him, and the system has no options for that, it's hard to make an ad hoc resolution, because the same trick will certainly be attempted again.

If a character can't shoot a fleeing enemy in the leg to slow him down, or knock a guard unconscious from behind, or, for heaven's sake, point a gun at an opponent and make him fear for his life instead of just losing 2D6 out of his 50 Hit points, without a GM having to invent a page's worth of new combat rules on the fly, the system degenerates back to 1st edition D&D hack & slash where you only try to make the other guy run out of Hp before you run out of Hp yourself.

Then again, it would be silly of PP to just discard all the goodness that made the first IKRPG so good in the first place. I'm not used to expecting them to make stupid mistakes, and I'm not going to start now. So I believe it'll be great until proven otherwise.

[Lanz]

A fast-paced, fluid combat system with realistic options to defeat your opponent without taking him to 0 Hp would make me at least satisfied, if not yet happy. As a GM I can generally improvise most social encounters and even physical challenges, but when a player wants to capture an enemy instead of killing him, and the system has no options for that, it's hard to make an ad hoc resolution, because the same trick will certainly be attempted again.

If a character can't shoot a fleeing enemy in the leg to slow him down, or knock a guard unconscious from behind, or, for heaven's sake, point a gun at an opponent and make him fear for his life instead of just losing 2D6 out of his 50 Hit points, without a GM having to invent a page's worth of new combat rules on the fly, the system degenerates back to 1st edition D&D hack & slash where you only try to make the other guy run out of Hp before you run out of Hp yourself.

Are there many systems that have this problem? As far as I've seen, most systems have some kind of social/convincing/intimidating skill that can be used to cow a weakened foe into submission. Whenever we needed to capture someone alive, we just declared our attacks to be "non-lethal", and when it reduced the target to 0 health, it knocked them out instead of killing them. So hitting with the flat of the blades, shooting a limb instead of the torso, etc. Sometimes we'd need to heal them up afterwards if it was hard to justify an attack being non-lethal (IE; a fireball), in which case it was less 'non lethal' and more 'doesn't kill them instantly'. You can only be so delicate with fireballs.

[Sthiel]

Never played an RPG where the group didn't want to use minis on a map. As long as it isn't like Inquisitor and just another excuse to sell a new mini line.

[shahryar]

umm stupid question but techincally mini's are not needed
The bases are.
dont want to use minis order a big bag of bases print out your character sheet picture glue to base DONE.

[Sthiel]

umm stupid question but techincally mini's are not needed
The bases are.
dont want to use minis order a big bag of bases print out your character sheet picture glue to base DONE.

I don't think people's issues are with having to use miniatures per se, but whether the system requires a physical component (such as a base), and if game information assumes that (such as giving distances / sizes in inches versus feet).

[Whimper]

That's right, Sthiel. With distances in feet, represented on a grid, it becomes very easy to visualize even without a battlemap. It's easy to adapt (to shrink or enlarge, to convert to ASCII, to draw on graph paper) and it's no problem to replace figures with assorted junk like dice.

Once you start taking steps to ensure that only a certain kind of representation works-- for instance, having rules for nested 30mm circles, or determining LOS by volume on inclined surfaces -- it becomes much harder to do without. It is a fact that my tabletop gaming group will not go in for anything that looks like a wargame, and it has nothing to do with whether they have to go out and purchase miniatures.

[Lanz]

Well, to be fair, the PP base system is pretty much 5ft anyways. Maybe 6ft. You look at the actual size of the models compared to the space they occupy and it's nearly the same as the 5ft grid used in D&D compared to the size of their minis. You could probably just say it's 5ft and most of it would work out.

Where it becomes difficult is whether or not there even is a grid. PP might be going the route of dynamic measurement like warmachine, where you're not moving in predefined spaces, you're moving in measured lines and using radiuses(that's probably the wrong pluralization) to determine areas. That will be a bit harder to find a work-around for with out some kind of way to track everything going on.

[Kaiser]

I don't think so.

Consider how Warmachine does magic abilities and skills like Repair. I'm thinking that might be the model for how skills will work.

I think this would be interesting and I'd like to see what they can come up for this. Although I think it could possibly work against the game if some of the time you are trying to roll OVER a number and others your are trying to roll UNDER.

[Kalranya]

Dude. D&D 4e is capsizing after about 4 years of existence. Do you really think that the best course of action is to follow its steps?

I hope the IKRPG 2.0 gets as far from being similar to D&D 4e as it possibly can. I'm waiting to see what it will become. The news about miniatures are not making me very hopeful. If a map becomes necessary for playing, then it will cement my preference for Pathfinder definitively.

Don't confuse an unpopular product with a poorly-designed one. 4e didn't become the latter until Essentials hit.

But I'm sure you'll like the new edition just fine. It's got all of that "classic feel" that everybody's been whining about for years now. I say good riddance to the lot of you; I'll stick with a game that actually makes sense, thank you.

[PPS_Simon]

Guys, the edition war is not welcome here on either side. Let's try and talk civilly about our favorite games in which we pretend to be elves.

[PG_snapshot_superhero]

Let's try and talk civilly about our favorite games in which we pretend to be elves.

Pretend?!​ Psh... :P

[Siranaul]

The Dungeon Bastard has it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRZ1CYYIsCg

[PG_fildrigar]

If you can't figure out a way to play any RPG without miniatures, you're doing it wrong.

[ProtoClone]

My hope is that the new IKRPG will not be just a new type of minis wargame. I don't even want a RPG lite minis wargame...I just want an RPG that could run minis if you want it to.

But, the book is already in motion and probably at the point where it will be what it will be regardless of what my hopes are.

[The Happy Anarchist]

The Dungeon Bastard has it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRZ1CYYIsCg

That was just about the best thing ever. "Insulting someone's edition choice is like telling them their prom date is ugly. You may have your reasons, you may even be right, but your still a ****."

[Psychomancer]

Aff. How had I never seen this guy before? Thanks, Siranaul.

[Sthiel]

If you can't figure out a way to play any RPG without miniatures, you're doing it wrong.

The issue some people are concerned about is not whether its possible to play the game without miniatures, but whether the game assumes you use miniatures and all distances are indicated throughout the rules (Weapon ranges, movement distances, etc) in miniature units (inches, centimeters, or even worse squares).

[PG_ThatRickGuy]

It's still reverse-able. If your Character is SPD 6, and you're playing with out mini's, you just have to ask the GM, "Can I get to the target this round?" And the GM (and you hopefully) will visualize the scene, as people have discussed it, and decide if you are within a 9" charge range.

One of the things that I love about not playing with mini's is that it leads to some amount of confusion. With mini's everyone knows exactly where everyone is. With out, you get situations where people are visualizing things differently and someone will say, "I shoot at the guy hiding behind the barrel!" and someone else will say, "Wait! I'm sneaking up behind him, if you miss, you might hit me!" followed up by "I thought you were taking out the other guy". This is the kind of confussion you'll run into in a real combat situation. You don't have perfect knowledge, and the individual visualizations add to that effect. It leads to some really interesting situations Combat becomes less about a perfect strategy, and more about a reactionary cluster $#@!

-Rick

[Kaiser]

Or you could multiply all the distances listed by five or whatever number you would like to give you distances in feet/meters/parsecs.

[Defenstrator]

I'm rather hoping miniatures will not be required. I lean more on the rolepaying side than roll-playing side. And if you want to add miniatures it's generally easier to add them to a system than remove them. For most of my roleplaying miniatures have not been used. Only in D&D where the combat rules
depend on them were they an issue.

It's also a tech level thing. Games with more modern settings tend not to use miniatures that much for a simple reason, guns have long ranges and it isn't practical on the table. And with things like Long guns around I don't really feel like having to break out the 6x4 table just so the guy hanging back can use his range.

[Whimper]

Really, most things you'd need miniatures for, you could substitute cardstock standees, or bases, or bottle caps. My only real concern is that the exact size of bases and the volumes of minis in them will be important for calculating area of effect, line of sight, and reach.

Grid-based combat systems have their limitations, but one thing they excel at is making it easy to visualize and represent tactical combat even without miniatures or other stand-ins. Once you go to a grid-free, 360 degrees of freedom kind of scenario... I'd be very impressed if Privateer managed to do this and still make it playable without minis and terrain.

[Nyarlathotep333]

All this talk of miniatures brings up one more important question in my mind. We know that the combat system is based on Warmachine/Hordes right? In those games (I'm inferring here since I don't actually play the tabletop miniatures - just going from what little I've read) base size is important in determining movement and ranged distance....

How important?

Since we don't have a lot of miniatures from the Monsternomicons we, as GMs, are forced to proxy in other lines of miniatures at times. Now, using bases with glued on pictures notwithstanding, how vital is it if my miniatures do not have 30mm or 40mm bases? Most of my existing D&D miniatures are 25mm for medium/small, 50mm bases for large and 75mm for Huge, indeed even some of the 'medium' sized WM/H minis I've painted up for my own IK RPG games I've based on 25mm bases since we use a 25mm TactTiles battlemat and 30mm bases tend to make for very uneven crowding if several are used at once.

Not being familiar with the tabletop game I'm unsure as to exactly how 'off' movement would be is the base sizes are not true to the 30/40/50mm sizes it uses so I could be worrying about nothing, but I am wondering if I'm going to have to start modding my minis back to a 30mm standard.

*EDIT* I just realized that Whimper essentially posted a similar statement too.

[StJason]

Base size is not related to movement at all (save for those who cheat and measure from the front to begin, and the back to end...) It does change how line of sight is done, and what special moves can be done. (It's a lot easier for a warjack to throw a human then a human to throw a warjack)

Short story: Don't worry about it. Even 'minis required' systems like D&D or SW run just fine without minis.

[Eross]

Mnis in an rpg should never be an absolute requirement, they should always be there as a visual aid to help keep track of complicated combats, a game should still be able to run perfectly fine without them, i played a sci-fi adventure horror game called S.L.A Industries for 8 years for an average of 1 game per week and although we occasionally used hand drawn maps we never used miniatures.

I have nothing against using miniatures in an rpg, their a useful tool, but id rather have them as an option rather than being required to have them or you cant play.

[Lanz]

If it's grid-based, going without minis should be a realistic option, whether intended or not. If it's actual measurements, then it would be much harder to keep track of without minis.

[Sosthenes]

The major issue for me is grid-dominance. I can live with something that uses "squares" or "hexes", as most of the time it's easy enough to ignore it (and you have to work with distance, reach anyway), but I really dislike the trend towards maps that are slavishly aligned towards grids, especially the quite coarse 5 feet ones. That leads to ridiculously wide corridors and freakishly huge rooms.

But to be honest, given the WFT, I do expect that I would have to rework PP maps a lot, anyway

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

The major issue for me is grid-dominance. I can live with something that uses "squares" or "hexes", as most of the time it's easy enough to ignore it (and you have to work with distance, reach anyway), but I really dislike the trend towards maps that are slavishly aligned towards grids, especially the quite coarse 5 feet ones. That leads to ridiculously wide corridors and freakishly huge rooms.

5'x5' squares are interesting in that regard. In a fairly average, middle-class American house, each bedroom would be just slightly over 2x2 squares, with a master bedroom that MIGHT hit 3x2. A dorm room at a typical state university would be roughly 2x4 squares, and that's designed for two people to inhabit with all their stuff. An entire house, even a reasonably spacious one, would still look puny on an RPG-style map. People just don't think about that when they're making their own maps, so you end up with the situation you describe. The part I find particularly funny is that in that kind of map, every wall is either infinitely thin or five feet thick.

[alchahest]

people saying minis should never be required for roleplaying are pushing their bias as fact - that's exactly the same as someone saying "books and dice should never be required for roleplaying". In some systems you need books, or dice, or minis, and in some you need two of those, and in others you need all three, and there are yet others which require other things. So you're wrong, if what you meant is "games should never require minis". if what you meant was "roleplaying should never require minis" then you're right. You don't actually need a game to roleplay either. and the roleplaying aspect of the game won't require minis. but combat resolution might!

[novakidx]

Well most people have models if they play WM/H, and if not...the models aren't that expensive [$10-15, considering the books could be anywhere from $30-60 altogether].

In my case, I'd probably just bring in Vlad and proxy him for whatever character I'm using unless I'm really interested in getting a better look-a-like.

Of course the game is going to be better with models!
It's the same thing with WM. I could get a stat card and use a bottle cap (I actually use bottle caps for focus) to work as the model.
Same thing with IK, I could make a character and use a penny or something that would fit (In the case of a grid).

[dailor]

If you can't figure out a way to play any RPG without miniatures, you're doing it wrong.

Yeah. Sure. And if you can't figure out world peace, you're doing it wrong, too. Sadly, it isn't that easy, obviously.

Some games rely heavily on miniatures. If Powers, Talents, Feats and Tables all referr to positioning and grids, you'll have a hard time playing that game without miniatures and keeping it fun. You'd have to put a loooot of work into it, for the game to run smoothly without.

I am a newbie to Iron Kingdoms. The look of the game, the artwork and the overall notion always appealed to me, but i just didn't like 3rd edition for its (in my oppinion) clumsy rules. I am a friend of rules-light-systems. I tried to strip the attacks of opportunity from the d20 rules but monk-powers, several feats and cross-feats made heavy use of this stuff, so i realized i'd have to put a quite a lot of work into that. I didn't have the time for that.

I am no friend at all of playing rpgs with miniatures or grids. I do see the advantages of that, though. But i just like to keep the game more story-based. That being said i just wish the miniature rules to be optional. Not having character-feats and stuff rely on positioning would be a big plus or precisely a necessity for me. Roleplaying games that require minis are a strict no-go, as far as my gameplay is concerned.

Sigh. But i know, i am not the center of the world. I am still curious of the rules, the gameworld and the artwork of this next incarnation of Iron Kingdoms. If i couldn't play that game for its heavy implementation of miniature gameplay, so be it. I have nothing to lose but much to gain.

Go, Privateer Games, go! And make the game such as you want it to be!

[Rapier]

Well, to be fair, the PP base system is pretty much 5ft anyways. Maybe 6ft. You look at the actual size of the models compared to the space they occupy and it's nearly the same as the 5ft grid used in D&D compared to the size of their minis. You could probably just say it's 5ft and most of it would work out.

Where it becomes difficult is whether or not there even is a grid. PP might be going the route of dynamic measurement like warmachine, where you're not moving in predefined spaces, you're moving in measured lines and using radiuses(that's probably the wrong pluralization) to determine areas. That will be a bit harder to find a work-around for with out some kind of way to track everything going on.

I've been worried about this since reading the NQ. 42 article - it previews 4 spells for us and one of them has a range of Control - for those of you that don't play the wargame a control area spell is a radius in inches around the caster equal to double their focus or fury stat. (Correction thanks to Trollslayer)

Now you could attempt it on a grid (you'd get a half square effect but then you get a half base effect in the wargame sometimes anyway so spells usually say completely within - and that would mean half squares count as out), but you can't really do it as an abstraction - running it without a game aid at all would require the players to all specify whether they intentionally stay in the control area of their friend the caster or not - as well as the caster to state what else he's trying to keep within his control area each round - it would be a nightmare.

What's worse - it would involve players stating their characters attempt to remain in an area that a magic unaware character shouldn't know about - in the wargame the player has a birds eye view and perfect control of all the army pieces so the fact that in character winter guard don't know about control areas isn't a big deal - in a role playing game where we're talking about individuals it requires every character to play massively sub-optimally or else for them to some-how understand the control area concept with no magical training (and indeed to be able to stay perfectly within someone else's)

That said, I'm not overly worried by the fact that the promotional video for the game is taking advantage of some of the fantastic wargame terrain that PP has in there collection. I too would play with models on that terrain to represent my roleplaying if I had it available - I just hope PP have thought about the fact most role-playing at best uses a grid with drawn lines to represent buildings and not the real terrain that their wargame would use.

I say this as someone that enjoys both wargaming and roleplaying - I want the IK Mk2 to appeal to my friends who won't use terrain and that should be PP's target audience, my friends that play WM/Hordes already buy there stuff.

[PG_TrollSlayer]

Just for clarification, Control is double the users focus or fury stat. Command range is equal to the Command stat.

[jdripley]

I'm not sure that the whole argument about "my character cannot manipulate magic, therefore they're completely unaware of magic in all ways." If your character pals around with a wizard, don't you think the wizard would explain some things? Sure you cannot manipulate it, but it's not too hard for the wizard to say "when you hear me shout 'armor for all of my buddies!!!' you should stay within 20 feet of me if you want extra magical armor protection."

I think that the whole "require minis or not" thing in many cases comes down to how detailed you want combat scenes to be. Sure there are some systems that just flat out do not require minis at all (Mouseguard), and some where minis are super useful (D&D). But could you pull off D&D without minis? Sure, but your combats would take on an extra layer of abstraction. Are you OK with that? I'm not, but if you're the sort of player that doesn't want to bother with minis, maybe you are.

[Rapier]

Well, really what I'm saying is I want to be able to play a character that is ignorant of magic - I'm not saying that all none magic uses are complete idiots - it may well be that winterguard (from my example) train at practising how close they can be to the warcaster for optimum performance.

I'm willing for pc's to represent people equally practised, I just hope they can also represent people that haven't worked together and make mistakes - miniatures generally reduce these mistakes by giving best tactical options. Ultimately I'm fine with using miniatures I just hope I don't have to get them out for every fight.

[Weaselcreature]

It sounds like it's not going to be grid-based, but open-field like the tabletop games:

Pre-measuring is allowed in the RPG. The grid conversion is doable but not recommended due to some weird things that start to occur on diagonals.

I am also of the camp that any game can be played without minis. Even 3.5 (I've done it). As long as your GM (and players, to an extent) have decent and fair visualization skills (it's more important for the DM, as it's his call on whether A can attack/see B.

[Mastervalrik]

I think people are jumping the gun, I do not think they are making the Mini part manditory, just because they had some cool shots of them play testing with mini's, I think they included that, cause I mean it looks really good. They said it would be compatiable with Warmachine and Hordes, so i think all the fuse about it being a mini's required, do not see it. As for having to have mini's to play any RPG, lack imagination, I mean minis are great in DnD and other games but not required.

[Lanz]

As far as I've tested with various sytems, converting inches to grid-based is not hard, so long as you're doing it the Tactical-RPG style, and not the D&D style (as in you can't move diagonally, and all measurements are in 4 directions, so a 'diagonal' would be a stair-case). This feels a bit restrictive, maybe, but it's the most balanced.

Of course, I can't speak for IKRPGmk2, but I've experimented with Warmachine on a grid.