Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8362617" data-attributes="member: 58197">I have thought a lot about this, and taken various stabs at it over the years.Ultimately, what I realized is that the tactical element is a huge stumbling block to designing a system that plays well with D&amp;D. If you try to build out combat rules to that level of detail, you end up flipping awkwardly back and forth between a miniatures wargame and a D&amp;D adventure, with endless friction points as you convert &quot;D&amp;D scale&quot; to &quot;wargame scale&quot; and back again, and a ton of new rules to keep track of.BECMI was on the right track with the War Machine--BECMI's implementation was a mess, but the basic idea to keep mass combat at a highly abstract level was sound. I believe the ideal approach would be a system that uses mass combat as a backdrop, and generates a range of possible outcomes for a given battle. Then it helps the DM to create &quot;flash points,&quot; where the PCs can intervene personally at pivotal moments. Each flash point is a regular combat encounter, where the PCs have a certain goal or goals (hold back the enemy for X duration, etc.).At the end of the battle, you'd go back to that range of possible outcomes; look at how many of the &quot;flash point&quot; goals were achieved; and select an outcome from the list based on that. So, if the PCs hit all of their goals, they get the most favorable outcome possible for that battle, like rolling a natural 20. If they miss all of their goals, they get the worst outcome, like rolling a 1.As I recall, &quot;Red Hand of Doom&quot; had a system very much like this for defending the city against the hobgoblin horde. The challenge would be to create a generalized version.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 8362617, member: 58197"] I have thought a lot about this, and taken various stabs at it over the years. Ultimately, what I realized is that the tactical element is a huge stumbling block to designing a system that plays well with D&D. If you try to build out combat rules to that level of detail, you end up flipping awkwardly back and forth between a miniatures wargame and a D&D adventure, with endless friction points as you convert "D&D scale" to "wargame scale" and back again, and a ton of new rules to keep track of. BECMI was on the right track with the War Machine--BECMI's implementation was a mess, but the basic idea to keep mass combat at a highly abstract level was sound. I believe the ideal approach would be a system that uses mass combat as a backdrop, and generates a range of possible outcomes for a given battle. Then it helps the DM to create "flash points," where the PCs can intervene personally at pivotal moments. Each flash point is a regular combat encounter, where the PCs have a certain goal or goals (hold back the enemy for X duration, etc.). At the end of the battle, you'd go back to that range of possible outcomes; look at how many of the "flash point" goals were achieved; and select an outcome from the list based on that. So, if the PCs hit all of their goals, they get the most favorable outcome possible for that battle, like rolling a natural 20. If they miss all of their goals, they get the worst outcome, like rolling a 1. As I recall, "Red Hand of Doom" had a system very much like this for defending the city against the hobgoblin horde. The challenge would be to create a generalized version. [/QUOTE]

Verification