The Legacy Of Frank Perry: Ken Gillings' Role Playing PW Article
This is the last of the PW articles, another article that I found inspirational. It appeared in issue nine with a picture of Timpo plastic Revolutionary soldiers - a line of firing foot and mounted officer:
'D.I.Y WARGAMING. - ROLE PLAYING
By Ken Gillings.
What is D.I.Y. Wargaming? It differs from other wargames in that those who play
it make up their own rules, ideas, countries etc. and do not replay old campaigns
and battles ( e.g. the Battle of Waterloo, the Napoleonic Wars etc.).
There are plenty of us about, but one aspect of this type of wargame
which has been somewhat neglected is role-playing.
Although many games being sold to day include the principle of role-
playing, they lay down rules for deciding the character etc. of role to be played and therefore do not qualify as D.I.Y.
The late F.E. Perry and I played wargames since 1925 which included the principle of
role-playing. Any of you who have read 'The Caspross Experiment' by F.E. Perry will
have read a practical example of role playing as the book is an account of a wargame
which F.E.P turned into a novel. All people in the book are model soldiers, each
of whom he his own character. Three of us took part in the series of wargames which
made up the story and each of us made up his own characters for each of his own models.
Originally the wargames played by F.E.P. and myself were about a
character called J.K. Krotochecan, F.E.P himself was supposed to be stranded in a
foreign country called Caspia, the inhabitants of which disliked foreigners and he took
a local name to conceal the fact that he was English, He had to join the army to get a
living and the first games were about his rise from Private 2nd class to
General. This took years! he was of course represented in the games by a model soldier.
In the course of time all the anomalies arising from this simple idea were ironed out and many
other characters appeared. As a result of this we are accustomed to the idea of role-
playing whilst playing wargames and four out of five of our games begin with one or
more characters being involved. So used are we to the idea of role-playing that many
times series or campaign which begins without characters acquires one or two during
the course of the game.
Role playing enables players to get away from the perfect cold-
blooded, cool headed general to one of those generals who, too frequently, alas, direct
the affairs of men (remember W,W.1?). It produces some interesting and realistic
results if you are prepared to let your characters have faults as well as virtues and
are prepared to play the game properly. However if you are one of those who must always win
all battles and are not prepared to lose a few then role-playing is not for you.
On the other hand if you are a curious person who would like to work out what happens
in imperfect situations then you will find wargames combined with role playing very
interesting. For example, one amusing situation which happened to me was when my
commander (role-played by me) who was not a very bright cavalry officer, made a wild
cavalry charge at the enemy who were well placed but not entrenched (no time). This
was in accordance with his character but not something that I would have done. The
enemy missed every shot but one and were over-run easily. This could happen - see the
Boer War, it was Boer infantry who charged. This demonstrates that a flustered or
panicky group of people can be defeated by an idiot! It also demonstrates that one
should sometimes have characters who are not very bright, it produces some fascinating
results.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own photo of Revolutionary War Timpo officer and Britains Americans.
It is the story making and creative aspects of Frank, Ross Ken's games that fascinate me.
I must admit that I have not yet fully used character traits for commanders probably because I am the commander and I already have enough character traits to fill a book as have the other players. And we can all get distracted or flustered and make rash decisions that might or might not work out. However, in a campaign, especially, there is, in theory, more than one commander leading various armies and each of those might not have a different player to represent them. So why not generate personalities? They might not even obey the overall commander's orders!
The nearest I have come is that different generals have different leadership abilities to raise the morale of nearby troops or the whole army when it is reduced by half. There could even be a negative influence if he is particularly bad! one can roll dice for leadership ranking and ability. Tony Bath had rules for this (along with kings, nobles etc) in his campaign book.
Warhammer and Warhammer 40k from Games Workshop has a long tradition of using characters for heroes that can perform missions or bolster the morale of units they attach to. Mat and I have used this idea in our medieval fantasy games.
It is the deficiencies of character that tend to be left out but make for interesting additions.
I am certainly going to explore this more for leaders in our next campaign game.
Another consideration is how do we stop characters and leaders getting killed soon in the first battle? In Warhammer they can attach to units and, are the last removed when the unit is reduced by missile fire. I am now tending to lean towards rolling separate colored dice for character casualties from shooting once the unit gets down to a suitably low number. Characters unattached to units receive a minus 1 for enemy to hit them in shooting but can be targeted. They also have multiple wounds usually two or three, and saving throws.
In a campaign you can say that when a character 'dies' he can be
brought back to life' in a future game (usually not the next game as he is recuperating from being 'knocked unconscious' or if the enemy takes the field he has been taken prisoner, hopefully to be eventually rescued, escapes or is traded in prisoner exchange. To make him (or her) not seem totally like a super hero if this happens twice he is presumed dead!
This makes me wonder about Frank and Ken's personal characters surviving for years as they progressed through the ranks. Did they use mechanisms like what I described in the paragraph above? And were they 'revived' a number of times with or without a limit?
As for the commander acting in a way consistent with the character traits I wonder how this worked. I suspect that in Ken, Ross and Frank's case this was simply observed as a matter of course and through gentlemen's agreement. A thought I have on this: Even with a disadvantageous character trait such as overly cautious or overly brash (or even cowardly!) the characters could still make occasional sensible decisions. A dice could be rolled to see if the leader can make a decision 'against character'.
As for D.I.Y. I use a mixture of rules borrowed from others and with my own refinements. The A.C.O.T.S. various rules sets, especially those from Bob and Steve, have a lot to owe Featherstone but have evolved to have their own variations. I use these but also rules from Paul Wright's Funny little Wars (which in turn are developed from H.G. Wells). I also borrow from Games Workshop rules. But some rules are agreed on by Mat (my regular local opponent) and myself to suit situations.
Our games are occasionally based on historical battles, other times on generic historical wars but just as often based on totally invented wars and fictitious countries partially related to real ones. Usually, but not always, they correspond, generally, to particular historical eras.
My next post will most likely be a wargaming report but I'll be writing some more posts on Frank Perry's legacy in the next weeks.
Many thanks to Plastic Warrior for my re-typing their articles by Frank, Ross and Ken.
'D.I.Y WARGAMING. - ROLE PLAYING
By Ken Gillings.
What is D.I.Y. Wargaming? It differs from other wargames in that those who play
it make up their own rules, ideas, countries etc. and do not replay old campaigns
and battles ( e.g. the Battle of Waterloo, the Napoleonic Wars etc.).
There are plenty of us about, but one aspect of this type of wargame
which has been somewhat neglected is role-playing.
Although many games being sold to day include the principle of role-
playing, they lay down rules for deciding the character etc. of role to be played and therefore do not qualify as D.I.Y.
The late F.E. Perry and I played wargames since 1925 which included the principle of
role-playing. Any of you who have read 'The Caspross Experiment' by F.E. Perry will
have read a practical example of role playing as the book is an account of a wargame
which F.E.P turned into a novel. All people in the book are model soldiers, each
of whom he his own character. Three of us took part in the series of wargames which
made up the story and each of us made up his own characters for each of his own models.
Originally the wargames played by F.E.P. and myself were about a
character called J.K. Krotochecan, F.E.P himself was supposed to be stranded in a
foreign country called Caspia, the inhabitants of which disliked foreigners and he took
a local name to conceal the fact that he was English, He had to join the army to get a
living and the first games were about his rise from Private 2nd class to
General. This took years! he was of course represented in the games by a model soldier.
In the course of time all the anomalies arising from this simple idea were ironed out and many
other characters appeared. As a result of this we are accustomed to the idea of role-
playing whilst playing wargames and four out of five of our games begin with one or
more characters being involved. So used are we to the idea of role-playing that many
times series or campaign which begins without characters acquires one or two during
the course of the game.
Role playing enables players to get away from the perfect cold-
blooded, cool headed general to one of those generals who, too frequently, alas, direct
the affairs of men (remember W,W.1?). It produces some interesting and realistic
results if you are prepared to let your characters have faults as well as virtues and
are prepared to play the game properly. However if you are one of those who must always win
all battles and are not prepared to lose a few then role-playing is not for you.
On the other hand if you are a curious person who would like to work out what happens
in imperfect situations then you will find wargames combined with role playing very
interesting. For example, one amusing situation which happened to me was when my
commander (role-played by me) who was not a very bright cavalry officer, made a wild
cavalry charge at the enemy who were well placed but not entrenched (no time). This
was in accordance with his character but not something that I would have done. The
enemy missed every shot but one and were over-run easily. This could happen - see the
Boer War, it was Boer infantry who charged. This demonstrates that a flustered or
panicky group of people can be defeated by an idiot! It also demonstrates that one
should sometimes have characters who are not very bright, it produces some fascinating
results.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own photo of Revolutionary War Timpo officer and Britains Americans.
It is the story making and creative aspects of Frank, Ross Ken's games that fascinate me.
I must admit that I have not yet fully used character traits for commanders probably because I am the commander and I already have enough character traits to fill a book as have the other players. And we can all get distracted or flustered and make rash decisions that might or might not work out. However, in a campaign, especially, there is, in theory, more than one commander leading various armies and each of those might not have a different player to represent them. So why not generate personalities? They might not even obey the overall commander's orders!
The nearest I have come is that different generals have different leadership abilities to raise the morale of nearby troops or the whole army when it is reduced by half. There could even be a negative influence if he is particularly bad! one can roll dice for leadership ranking and ability. Tony Bath had rules for this (along with kings, nobles etc) in his campaign book.
Warhammer and Warhammer 40k from Games Workshop has a long tradition of using characters for heroes that can perform missions or bolster the morale of units they attach to. Mat and I have used this idea in our medieval fantasy games.
It is the deficiencies of character that tend to be left out but make for interesting additions.
I am certainly going to explore this more for leaders in our next campaign game.
Another consideration is how do we stop characters and leaders getting killed soon in the first battle? In Warhammer they can attach to units and, are the last removed when the unit is reduced by missile fire. I am now tending to lean towards rolling separate colored dice for character casualties from shooting once the unit gets down to a suitably low number. Characters unattached to units receive a minus 1 for enemy to hit them in shooting but can be targeted. They also have multiple wounds usually two or three, and saving throws.
In a campaign you can say that when a character 'dies' he can be
brought back to life' in a future game (usually not the next game as he is recuperating from being 'knocked unconscious' or if the enemy takes the field he has been taken prisoner, hopefully to be eventually rescued, escapes or is traded in prisoner exchange. To make him (or her) not seem totally like a super hero if this happens twice he is presumed dead!
This makes me wonder about Frank and Ken's personal characters surviving for years as they progressed through the ranks. Did they use mechanisms like what I described in the paragraph above? And were they 'revived' a number of times with or without a limit?
As for the commander acting in a way consistent with the character traits I wonder how this worked. I suspect that in Ken, Ross and Frank's case this was simply observed as a matter of course and through gentlemen's agreement. A thought I have on this: Even with a disadvantageous character trait such as overly cautious or overly brash (or even cowardly!) the characters could still make occasional sensible decisions. A dice could be rolled to see if the leader can make a decision 'against character'.
As for D.I.Y. I use a mixture of rules borrowed from others and with my own refinements. The A.C.O.T.S. various rules sets, especially those from Bob and Steve, have a lot to owe Featherstone but have evolved to have their own variations. I use these but also rules from Paul Wright's Funny little Wars (which in turn are developed from H.G. Wells). I also borrow from Games Workshop rules. But some rules are agreed on by Mat (my regular local opponent) and myself to suit situations.
Our games are occasionally based on historical battles, other times on generic historical wars but just as often based on totally invented wars and fictitious countries partially related to real ones. Usually, but not always, they correspond, generally, to particular historical eras.
My next post will most likely be a wargaming report but I'll be writing some more posts on Frank Perry's legacy in the next weeks.
Many thanks to Plastic Warrior for my re-typing their articles by Frank, Ross and Ken.
Comments
Post a Comment