To War!

[haakon1]

I forgot to add -- to resolve the overall course of the war, I worked with a player/DM of another campaign who's also a programmer and a founder of Matrix Games (a wargames software company).

He used a mod of an existing game with the Greyhawk map, and together we built stats for different army units, I believe based on typical HP, AC, and damage potential.

Then we fought it out -- one of us took the "good guys", the other the "bad guys" and ran through the war until one side took the other's capital.

It's a bit like the approach where Greyhawk Wars (a poorly-designed war game that wasn't well versed in Greyhawk, IMHO) was used to re-write the setting to become "From the Ashes".

The results of our little war game are a semi-secret, but I'm slowly getting there in the background of actual campaigns. Since the story is a rough outline, there's lot of room for specific PC actions.

Not everybody has a wargamer programmer buddy, obviously, but I think a similar war gaming approach could work for the strategic outcomes.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

My opinion can be summed up by saying that when PC's are involved directly in combat then things are played out using normal D&D rules, when PC's are not directly involved in combat then almost by definition the player involvement is strictly on a roleplaying level. Winners, losers, and general consequences is very much a matter of DM fiat. D&D rules and conceits simply do not lend themselves adequately to application to large-scale military actions. As DM I would already be the one to decide the compostion of forces, the strategy, tactics, etc. It's just not a useful expenditure of time to randomly play out the results and the players are generally not interested in that minutiae anyway. They care about their characters involvement, and their characters involvement is ALWAYS the focus of the game.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Not too long ago I ran a battle basically using the Victory Point system set out Heroes of Battle, with a few modifications.

First, the characters were in a position to plan battle strategy. Thus, the strategy they devised helped define the encounters within the battle that would let them accumulate Victory Points.

Second, per the HoB system, I defined several (I think four) potential outcomes and assigned VP values to them. But then I wrote them down, sealed them into four envelopes, and wrote the VP values prominently on them. I placed the envelopes where the players could see them, then kept a running tally of VPs earned on a chalkboard where the players could see it.

The players didn't know how many encounters they had to go or how many VPs any given encounter would be worth, but they could see where they were and where they wanted to be, VP-wise. This created a terrific atmosphere of tension throughout the battle.

In some cases, as the Jester also said, the heroes' encounter represented a much larger fight. The outcome for the hoards of peasants manning the battlement mirrored the outcome for the players on the corner tower. But this was really an issue of narrative flavour; the real outcome hinged on the VP accumulation.

I was really happy with how this worked out, and I'll use this system again.

 

[Jack7]

First, the characters were in a position to plan battle strategy. Thus, the strategy they devised helped define the encounters within the battle that would let them accumulate Victory Points.

Second, per the HoB system, I defined several (I think four) potential outcomes and assigned VP values to them. But then I wrote them down, sealed them into four envelopes, and wrote the VP values prominently on them. I placed the envelopes where the players could see them, then kept a running tally of VPs earned on a chalkboard where the players could see it.

The players didn't know how many encounters they had to go or how many VPs any given encounter would be worth, but they could see where they were and where they wanted to be, VP-wise. This created a terrific atmosphere of tension throughout the battle.

In some cases, as the Jester also said, the heroes' encounter represented a much larger fight. The outcome for the hoards of peasants manning the battlement mirrored the outcome for the players on the corner tower. But this was really an issue of narrative flavour; the real outcome hinged on the VP accumulation.

I was really happy with how this worked out, and I'll use this system again.

Sounds like an interesting way to arrange and execute a battle in-game.
I also like the fact that the characters were planning battle strategy.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm experimenting with an encounter table format for abstracted warfare in
4th edition D&D. Essentially it's a skill challenge where the PCs face a sequence of combats (determined by a d20 roll on the table, higher is better, modified by previous results/adventures). It's the unique combat encounters that make it interesting. Winning or losing a combat counts as a success or failure for the skill challenge (the enitre battle). Between each encounter they get a short rest. If they reach the succcess target # before the failure limit #, they acheive victory. Otherwise, their side is defeated and each player rolls to see what happens to their PC.

If this works I'd like to make several encounter tables, sieges, cavalry, etc.

 

[haakon1]

If this works I'd like to make several encounter tables, sieges, cavalry, etc.

If it works, give us more details.

 

[Jack7]

I'm experimenting with an encounter table format for abstracted warfare in
4th edition D&D. Essentially it's a skill challenge where the PCs face a sequence of combats (determined by a d20 roll on the table, higher is better, modified by previous results/adventures). It's the unique combat encounters that make it interesting. Winning or losing a combat counts as a success or failure for the skill challenge (the enitre battle). Between each encounter they get a short rest. If they reach the succcess target # before the failure limit #, they acheive victory. Otherwise, their side is defeated and each player rolls to see what happens to their PC.

If this works I'd like to make several encounter tables, sieges, cavalry, etc.

I'm not sure I'd want to do it exactly like you're proposing QL (assuming I'm reading you correctly), I'd rather have my characters actually fight out the battles and Special Operations in detailed fashion, but I very much like the idea of (warfare, large-scale battle engagement) being a sort of specialized Skill Challenge for which the players are rewarded. In more than one way.

Depending on circumstances I also intend players to receive honorary titles, land grants, monetary rewards, and offers of command (authority) especially in Theme territories for successfully commanding and winning in war.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

The only time I've done any mass combat was while playing 2E Birthright. They had a mini game for battles with each unit represented by a card. It was pretty streamlined but I would say too simplistic for my tastes. The mat you played on represented the battlefield and you only got a small +1 bonus for being the side with favorable terrain. If I ever do Birthright again (probably a 4E homebrew if I do) I'll keep the cards, but make terrain more of a factor. Holding the army off at the pass is more interesting if the players can actually see the pass.

 

[Quickleaf]

If it works, give us more details.

Hey, I added a .pdf of my finished draft

I'm not sure I'd want to do it exactly like you're proposing QL (assuming I'm reading you correctly), I'd rather have my characters actually fight out the battles and Special Operations in detailed fashion, but I very much like the idea of (warfare, large-scale battle engagement) being a sort of specialized Skill Challenge for which the players are rewarded. In more than one way.

That's a really good point, Jack, cause it depends on how a group wants to handle warfare. My approach is to focus on the PCs' actions, not the troops they lead, and to have those actions have a direct impact on the battle's outcome. Also, the table I created is more for PCs taking orders rather than acting as commanders - they might lead a unit, but they don't lead the army.

So these rules wouldn't work for a group that wants to focus on troop movements and strategy or resource management. They are pretty cool for groups who want to give PCs a meaningful role in the midst of war, to act outside the confines of a unit when need be, and to throw surprises representing the ebb and flow of war. Also it's easy to represent prior planning/adventures with a modifier to the d20 encounter table roll.

 

[Mark]

I spent last weekend playing Field of Glory on Saturday and running a rule-light version of my own Mass Combat system for three groups of players on Sunday. Large scale battles are a must for more expansive campaigns, IMO, even if the PCs are only ever on the fringe of the war(s).