The IQ II: Yes, They're Wargames

Addressing the perceived contradiction between immersion and wargames

We’re far from done exploring the Immersion Question or, as I’m calling it, “The IQ.” Today, I want to spend some time addressing one of the perceived contradictions that exist between the pro-immersion crowd, namely the 4D crowd, and others in the hobby, namely the BrOSR. This contradiction is, as the title suggests, the status of Dungeons & Dragons and other related RPGs as wargames. People like the incomparable Jon Mollison and Alchemic Raker have done great work bringing forward the wargaming aspects within the text of D&D. In particular, I frequently call back to Mollison’s excellent video on using resources as a first level fighter to start the game in command of up to 5 men-at-arms. I love the wargaming aspects of RPGs, but I find that others are hesitant to embrace them. I especially find that there’s hesitation among the players who like immersive roleplay. Let’s explore how wargaming can be immersive though and how RPGs bring more immersive mechanics to wargaming. There’s no reason why RPGs can’t be both immersive and wargames. Let’s explore how these things can coexist.

First things first; are wargames antithetical to immersion? Well, no, they aren’t. Anyone who’s watched Secrets of Blackmoor has heard wargamers talking about the ways in which they became immersed in their battles. The fact of the matter is that, even though wargames predate the concept of a “roleplaying game” by hundreds of years, going back to the Kriegsspiel and even before that, there is a de facto “role” that players play. In a wargame, the players are the general. In a Napoleonic scenario simulating the Battle of Waterloo, one player will, by default, be stepping into Napoleon’s shoes while the opposing player embodies Wellesley the Duke of Wellington. This is implied by the scenario, but the obstacle that keeps these roles at something of an arm’s length is the perspective. Traditional wargames offer only one perspective, top-down. Even games like Warhammer 40K which endeavor to flesh out specific characters that you can field as commanders of your army struggle to really convey immersion because of this fact. There is no option to enter into direct control of your commander in-camp as he interacts with junior officers. There’s no way to call for negotiation with opposing command rather than continue a battle. There’s no sending a courier to call for reinforcements. There’s only the battle at-hand and command over the troops on the field in front of you. Nothing exists outside of the field.

By contrast, RPGs offer a broader perspective on the world in which a battle could take place. They allow you to simulate battles, yes, but they also allow you to interact with other player characters and NPCs. They allow for multiple scales of combat from dueling to mass battles without changing the core mechanics. They encourage you to view things at a small scale as well as a grand scale and, in theory, cover everything that lies between. An RPG allows players to conduct clandestine missions in advance of a battle to thin the ranks of their adversaries before armies march on each other. Players can order a ceasefire, retreat, regroup, fight to one last unit standing, take on a traditional army with only a group of 5 commandos, or do any number of things that fall outside the bounds of traditional battlefield simulations. Even so, RPGs of the D&D lineage explicitly build towards the domain level and combat at a grand scale. To deny this is to deny a core part of D&D’s very DNA. It’s an aspect of the game and, if you are truly immersed in your role, you will take on the challenge of moving into a position of leadership.

For certain, there are RPGs that aren’t inherently wargames. Vampire, for example, does not necessarily terminate in your character leading a military campaign against their rivals. Games that exist within the ethos of fantasy roleplaying do, however, contain elements inextricably tied to wargames. Players ignore these elements at their peril. We’ve seen what happens over and over when these elements are removed from fantasy roleplaying. Core aspects begin crumbling and previously non-existent problems become critical. The game devolves into repetition and, as a result, people begin to fall off at the midpoint instead of wanting to see things through to the end. This cuts to the very heart of the issue; true immersion is impossible when the logical conclusion of events is removed. Every class has a logical endpoint with some kind of domain management. A Fighter eventually becomes a lord, king or general. A Wizard gets a tower, apprentices and a dungeon. Thieves get a guild. When poor designers and lazy GMs pull these pieces out without replacing them, they create games that have no payoff.

For those of you who into high-immersion roleplay but are hesitant to engage with the wargame aspects of fantasy RPGs, I encourage you to reconsider. Examine the rules and how they push you upward in power and influence. Embrace the change as your station changes and think about how this character that you have brought up to a position of power would deal with these changes. How would you run a domain? How would you lead men? How has power changed you? How has it reinforced your existing personality, flaws and all. It’s not the death of your character. It’s your character taking on new life. Wargames and immersion are not opposed to each other. The immersion should be all the richer because you’ve built up to this point.