That's why I'm turning to you, my readers, for thoughts and suggestions on how you have handled wars and large-scale battles in your roleplaying game campaigns. What rules or approaches did you use and how well did they work? Did they mesh well with the RPG you were playing? I'm honestly curious about every aspect of this question, since I have such limited experience with it in my own campaigns and would appreciate learning from those of you who've successfully incorporated mass combat into yours.
That said, I should make a few things clear about my own preferences as a referee. Between my dislike of combat as an activity in itself and my feeling that most RPGs have too many rules, I have a natural aversion to any kind of mass combat system that plays out like a wargame. If I wanted to play a wargame, I'd play a wargame. What I want – and this may be impossible – is a solution that doesn't require me or the players to learn a whole new set of rules to simulate their characters' involvement in a big battle. Additionally, I'd like for what the characters do to have an effect on the outcome of the battle, even if they're not directly involved in everything that happens. I realize this is likely asking a lot, but I have lots of smart and knowledgeable readers, so maybe one of you can point me in the right direction.
To date, the only RPG I've ever played that had a decent set of mass combat rules was Pendragon and, even there, I wasn't wholly satisfied with the results. The main virtue of Pendragon was that the participation of the player characters still used the standard combat rules and the results of their individual battles had some impact on the final outcome of a larger fight. I didn't have to keep track of lots of wargame-y rules to adjudicate the battle satisfactorily. That's more or less what I want here, though, as I said, I may be asking for too much.
Your thoughts on this matter are thus greatly appreciated.
This guy had much the same criteria, and presents his answer here: https://youtu.be/2FE60ORaQB4?si=0QOOdwBHikf2O1e1
ReplyDeleteYou could check out the BECMI line’s War Machine rules. I believe they are in the Companion rules. They are also included in the Rules Cyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteFor a more ad hoc approach, you could resolve the battles through a series of competing dice rolls. First side to win 5 times wins the battle. Winning the prior roll lets the winner use a larger die in the next roll off (like moving up the dice chain in DCC RPG). Give the party mini missions during the battle. If they are successful, their side gets a bonus on the next roll.
None of us were wargamers, and we never bought the Battlesystem boxed set back in the day, so the Companion rules were all we had to go by. We used them to great effect in our campaigns - and we used them a lot, since we really got into the dominion-style play the Companion rules modeled for us. I don't recall them being at all difficult or rules-y or intrusive, and they specifically noted that characters did not die due to the War Machine rules; individual combats during pitched battles for both winning and losing sides were a staple of our play, and we loved it.
DeleteI think the way an Echo Resounding by Kevin Crawford handles mass combat (more or less: a military unit is a character and using standard combat rules with a couple of fixes for scale) is a good way to go about it.
ReplyDeleteDelta's Book of War has a similar approach I'm told but looks more wargamey/historically accurate.
Or you could go another way about it: run everything on a 1:1 scale, but only around the PCs.
Everything else happens off scene and you resolve off-scene parts of the battle by rolling 1d6 vs 1d6, highest wins (ok you can elaborate on that like ise the ratio of average hd*number of soldiers vs hd*number of soldiers, magicians and monsters with special abilities count double their HD to determine dice pools for the two sides) each 6 is a special battle event like a wounded or killed hero, mage, monster
I'll email you. :)
ReplyDeletePlease do!
DeleteWhat's worked for me in the past is to just use the rules for single-character combat in whatever system you're already using and apply them to large units of fighters, grouping them up so that there's one unit per player, and roughly as many opponents. Everyone already knows the rules, and you know its balanced. I did this with 5th edition, and the only real change I had to make was adding a few special rules for cavalry charges and making units only move about 1 square per turn. You can jump back and forth between the big battle and the PCs directly fighting the BBEG. It might be a little less realistic if they're part of the military, but its a lot more fun
ReplyDeleteIf you have to have mass-scale battles, you could group the antagonists into companies or squads or whatever makes sense for the actual scale of combat. Each "unit" is given stats that meet its makeup - elite troops have a higher attack/defense bonuses and more "hit points." Then simply conduct the battle using the same combat rules you use for characters in any other combat. You could add in a "breaking" mechanic too. If a unit takes damage, it has to save against breaking and fleeing. If you want to get more granular, you can add bonuses or penalties depending on the type of unit (particularly zealous units have huge bonuses against breaking) or based on how much damage they take at once (if a unit loses 50-60% of its "hit points" in a single attack, it gets a penalty to its roll to save against breaking). Once a unit breaks, it's out of the combat*, leaving the unit that won the encounter to keep fighting.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of system simply replaces individual characters/npcs/enemies with "units" made up of however many troops you want, but keeps the same rules of combat you're already using. Does your rule system give an advantage to hit an enemy that's already engaged? Give the same bonus to a unit making a flanking attack on an enemy already facing another unit. Etc.
But as this is essentially the denouement of the campaign, can you give the players a discrete task to complete that influences the overall outcome of the battle? The benefit to this is that you don't have to worry about mass combat; if the characters succeed, the battle is won. If they fail, they're likely dead and the outcome of the battle doesn't really matter. You could give it some additional weight if you set a time limit - you must take this bridge within 10 rounds or the enemy will overwhelm your troops, for example.
*Unless they rally, which you could decide happens if you feel like the narrative needs it. Maybe a high priest collects fleeing troops and reforms them, reinforcing their will to fight with dark magic...
This is essentially what I do. 3e, 4e and (I think) 5e have "swarms," which are basically a big "creature" made up of a bunch of little creatures. You can use the same concept to make a single "unit" that represents the individual soldiers in that unit all acting in unison. You then just apply normal combat rules to the unit as though it was a single, but very large, creature.
DeleteNormal morale rules apply, but also, when the unit runs out of hit points, it does not necessarily mean that everyone in it is dead, but rather that they have lost cohesion and run away as individuals.
If you want to know how powerful to make the unit, I would just make it a creature worth the same XP as the sum of its members. So a squad of 10 gnolls worth an average of 46 XP each, would be worth ~460 XP. So roughly the equivalent of a 1e giant boar.
I've gone with the use of figures, 1 PC or NPC or Big Monster per figure, but one squad (of other mooks/goons/men@arms) per military unit.
ReplyDeleteMilitary units against PCs do only 1 point of damage per die of damage per hit, unless they roll a critical, then a normal roll of damage; PCs, NPCs, and Big Monsters do normal damage to military units.
Then they break down to Left, Center, Right for morale purposes. And the battle is just one big, normal battle, but with a LOT of "henchmen" on both sides.
Works like a breeze. Never had to do it online, though...
Do some kind of influence system with a list of things the PCs can accomplish before and during the battle. Each thing they successfully accomplish adds a +1 to the die roll to determine who wins the battle. Assume an even fight with a 50/50 chance to start. Just an idea...
ReplyDeleteArs Magica in the Ordo Nobilis supplement covers mass battle but I've never used it. It is quite similar to an approach that has appeared in old versions of Runequest apparently, but I'm not sure where. The approach is to focus on areas where PCs are and just handwave the rest.
ReplyDeleteMy advice is not to play the situation as a wargame at all. You're directing the experiences of the characters in the battle, not the battle itself, so see everything from their perspective and simply describe the battle raging around them. What are their goals while the battle is happening? If you want them to be involved in combat, it can be individual battle vignettes, either with a group of soldiers and/or some important character(s). Or it may be that they have to get some McGuffin that will change the tide of the battle, and you can have that play out in a particular location (in the palace, underground, tc), or interspersed with combat encounters as the characters rush through the battlefield or the city aflame.
ReplyDeleteYou're not playing a wargame, you're playing a RPG, so I certainly wouldn't rest the outcome of your long campaign on any set of wargaming rules. You may predetermine the outcome of the battle for story reasons, in which case it can be set dressing to a large or small degree; or you may decide to let the action of the players determine it, either by achieving their goals during the battle or actually killing some important enemy character.
A filmic example that springs to mind are the episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer set during the Boxer Rebellion. The battle is going on all around them, but the characters have their own goals and stories within it.
Anyway, that's what I'd do!
In my day when we had to rolm -play any military battles in the campaign, we used a basic D6 variation based on some of the Microgames we liked to play. It was easy and worked like a charm.
ReplyDeleteIt's obscure, but I've enjoyed FGU's Aftermath! mass combat rules. You calculate a an offensive/defensive strength for each side, and make rolls to see how the battle goes each turn, adjusting strength each cycle. Separately, the characters determines what level of activity they're going to take - acting heroically, hanging back, etc. Based on this, the risk is applied to the individuals, and the subsequent loot and recognition.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, Aftermath! is a very acquired taste LOL
That sounds a bit like Bushido, which I often hear is the best rules for war and battles that still involves the player characters.
DeleteAftermath shares designers and design with Bushido, so yea, it's probably the same system, or at least a close derivative.
DeleteI have seen this in Bushido and Savage Worlds. You have a series of rolls for the battle and the pc's have major or minor combats during the battle.
ReplyDeleteAs noted above, Aftermath shares designers and design with Bushido...
DeleteI have used a PC Game, Rome Total war to create custom battle maps and run AI vs AI to determine outcomes of large battles in RPGs. You can run scenarios as many times as you like to get results you can interpret.
ReplyDeleteHowever my preferred method is to run proper Chainmail with miniatures and players controlling their factions with their PCs represented on table as heroes.
Assume players are decision makers in the headquarters tent, with a panoramic view of the battle, and then use Chess board and pieces with these modifications.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that each piece represents a body of troops, size is up to you, that correlates to that piece’s value. For example, pawns are mass levies, the Queen is an elite regiment, rooks could be archers, etc. The King represents the HQ tent (with the PCs inside). Each side gets no more than eight pieces. For each side, select only those pieces appropriate to its composition. For example, an army of militia would have only pawns and a King, others might have three knights or one rook, etc. In any case, no more than eight pieces per side and make opposing sides proportional to their actual number. For example, if my army is twice the size of yours then I get eight pieces, and you get four. Then assign AC and fighter level (to hit bonus) to each piece as befits its composition. For example, mass levies in padded armor carrying polearms are represented by pawns with AC 8 or 9 and fighter level 0. On the other hand, to represent a phalanx of heavy cavalry use a knight with AC 5 and fighter level 5. Jot those statistics down on a short list for reference during play. Each side knows the other’s composition.
As usual, the objective is to capture the other side’s King, but the rules differ. The Players make the decisions for their side. The DM can play the enemy if necessary.
Place a screen across mid-board so that the opposing sides cannot see each other’s initial deployments. Then, the opposing sides set up their pieces “in secret” on their respective board edges. Remove the screen and roll initiative.
Each turn (10 minutes) each side can move one piece one space. As required, the DM could declare certain spaces as off limits to movement due to terrain, swampy ground for example. A fight occurs when you try to move into an enemy occupied space. At that time, both sides make simultaneous d20 attacks against the opposing AC. If only one side hits, then that side wins the fight and the opposing piece is destroyed. If both sides hit, then the one that succeeded by the wider margin wins and the losing piece is destroyed. If the “moving” player wins then he occupies the target space with his surviving piece. A victorious defender merely holds his ground.
Carry on until you achieve check mate at which time you revert to traditional roleplaying with the players either surrounded by the enemy or surrounding the enemy King.
That's an interesting idea. Too bad I'm terrible at chess :)
DeleteThen you should check out BROZER; now FREE on DTRPG! The essay at the back "Battle Rules For Old School Fantasy Games" solves this problem. And you get 3 rules to approaching Braunstein play. For free! Wow!
ReplyDeleteI will definitely check this out. Thanks!
DeleteWould love to exchange contact info, I am currently puttng togetehr a one shot of Dallas: the Television Roll Playing Game. After that I'll probably run a one shot of Brozer, then finally I might try to fuse the two to create a "soap opera Braunstein" where "war" is less about combat and more about legal wrangling, hostile takeovers, board elections and such.
ReplyDeleteThat was addressed to bdubs. Phones can be annoying sometimes
ReplyDeleteI'm very famous on twitter you can find me there
DeleteA lot of people here are commenting with "granular" ways to resolve the issue, and that's 100% valid. Your post seems to suggest that you might want a more abstract solution, though.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you could do is just work out logically the general path the battle is likely to take without player intervention. Just draw up a brief narrative of how the day would go if the PCs weren't there.
If you can't, or don't want to, determine that by fiat, then you could resolve it into a roll of some kind; even just a contested "leadership" roll for each prince, with perhaps some modifiers based on their respective military and magical resources. Whoever wins the roll is going to win the fight unless the PCs swing the scale. Again, use the results of the roll to draft a narrative.
For a little more complexity, you could make it a handful of rolls -- one for the magical sphere, one for military might, one for public relations, etc. Whoever wins the most rolls carries the day, but the results in specific areas could add some interesting texture. Again, the result is a narrative of what would happen without the PCs getting involved.
Whatever point along that spectrum of fiat-to-mini-game you use, the resulting narrative becomes the background and scene-setting for whatever the PCs choose to do. Then when each scene of PC activity is wrapped up, consider whether and how it would shift the overall narrative, and work from there.
This might feel a little wobbly, and definitely does depend on a certain degree of improv skill on the GM's part, but I can see it working well as a story-centric alternative to the treating-it-as-a-wargame solution.
I've read and run many mass battle systems. The best by far was Tsr's old Battlesystem box from the 80s. It was simple enough to use and still had plenty of good strategic wrinkles while allowing for hero PCs to shine as well.
ReplyDeleteOr just take them into the thing in first person. Roll some good/bad dice about what's happening on a macro level and let them make character-based decisions that influence and/or drive the conflict.
There were mass combat rules in the 2d or 3d edition of GURPS that were designed to give a broad overview of the battle outcome but concentrated on events in the immediate neighborhood of the PCs. I sure don’t recall what supplement they were in, though…
ReplyDelete