How do you deal with armies?

[Garnfellow]

The Grim Tales system is really excellent -- to me it hits the perfect balance of detail and simplicity. I would use it to resolve any large-scale conflict that the PCs are not directly involved in as commanders or soldiers.

As Wulf said, the Fields of Blood system is great if war is going to be an ongoing, central focus of a long-term campaign. But if this is going to be a temporary side-show, it's probably far too much detail for your purposes.

I am also a HUGE fan of the representative battle rules from Green Ronin's Advanced Game Master's Guide. Basically, you have the PCs play through a series of small scale battles that are representative of the larger scale conflict. If the PCs win these small battles, the larger army wins the battle. Modifiers due to circumstances (larger armies, better troops, better positioning) can make the small-scale battle tougher or harder for the PCs.

So if you were going to resolve the battle of Helms Deep using these rules, rather than stat out the whole orc army and all the defenders, you would run a representative battle with just Aaragorn, Gimil, and Legolas taking on individual sorties of orc raiders.

I used this system in my last game and my players loved it. We had tried out some other systems to resolve big, in-game battles -- like Mongoose's Open Mass Combat System (OMCS). But my players weren't much interested in learning a new sub-system, and didn't like that their PCs largely got lost in the shift of scale. The Representative Battle system let them be right in the thick of the action without having to add on lots of new rules.

 

[Quickleaf]

Testament?

I had thought of most of those things, speacial slvae rovolts, but you did mention a few I didn't think of, thanks for that

Yeah, Green Ronin's Testament: Biblical Role-Playing has a small section on the Biblical Battlefield that I found useful for its commander & unit feats, and discussion of sides. Also as already said GR's Advanced Gamemaster's Guide has some great rules too.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I own Fields of Blood, and I wrote the Grim Tales product.

I would say that Fields of Blood is good if you want to run a mass-combat themed campaign. Its army- and kingdom-governance rules are nice, but I don't think the actual combat resolution is all that great.

Grim Tales is good if you want quick, common-sense resolution of big battles. (And, it's only 2 bucks...)

However, it seems like the original poster wanted to be able to pit his heroes against units of enemies. Neither Fields of Blood nor Grim Tales is really going to satisfy this need particularly well.

I haven't seen the Mob rules but I suspect that's going to be closest to what you need.


Wulf

Hmm, a shameless plug

Anyway, I am looking for something that I can use for unit against unit, but also something where the players can be apart of the action by attacking a unit by themselves of give bonuses for fighting with their unit.

I looked at Fields of Blood, I like the rules for buying items, seemed nice and easy, I liked the ability to buy temples and such, but I think the overall units are a bit more complicated than I was looking for. However, it was nice that they listed all the monsters from the Monster Manual at the end of the book so for that reason alone I am very much heading that way.

I like the mobs rules in DMII, but it would have to be modified.

I was thinking of buying Grimm, but two bucks, way too much money

Ah, I might look into it, just to see if it is easier than Fields of Blood.

 

[DM-Rocco]

The Grim Tales system is really excellent -- to me it hits the perfect balance of detail and simplicity. I would use it to resolve any large-scale conflict that the PCs are not directly involved in as commanders or soldiers.

As Wulf said, the Fields of Blood system is great if war is going to be an ongoing, central focus of a long-term campaign. But if this is going to be a temporary side-show, it's probably far too much detail for your purposes.

I am also a HUGE fan of the representative battle rules from Green Ronin's Advanced Game Master's Guide. Basically, you have the PCs play through a series of small scale battles that are representative of the larger scale conflict. If the PCs win these small battles, the larger army wins the battle. Modifiers due to circumstances (larger armies, better troops, better positioning) can make the small-scale battle tougher or harder for the PCs.

So if you were going to resolve the battle of Helms Deep using these rules, rather than stat out the whole orc army and all the defenders, you would run a representative battle with just Aaragorn, Gimil, and Legolas taking on individual sorties of orc raiders.

I used this system in my last game and my players loved it. We had tried out some other systems to resolve big, in-game battles -- like Mongoose's Open Mass Combat System (OMCS). But my players weren't much interested in learning a new sub-system, and didn't like that their PCs largely got lost in the shift of scale. The Representative Battle system let them be right in the thick of the action without having to add on lots of new rules.

Okay, here is the situation, the party, after many adventures has returned to their keep. They took over the keep long ago but have been away. If you really want more details than that, check out the Tomb of Horrors story hour, it lists everything.

Anyway, They have a small keep and a small amount of Hobgoblins who serve them but if they don't do something quick, they will lose the keep to advancing armies. This is their chance to build a working city and a standing army. They can take it as far as they want. They can fight to get a foot hold in the surrounding lands or take control of the world, it is open ended. They definatly have other things they could do, but I like to keep things open ended. At the very least, they will have to fight in at least one major battle and with very small amount of troops they may have to fight units by themselves until they abandon the idea of owning a keep or raise a better army.

So, that is what I am looking for.

 

[Silver Moon]

When army battles are needed I've always gone back to the old TSR "Battle Systems Rules", specifically the boxed set with the counters. Sure, you're temporarily switching over to a different system, but it's the quickest way I've seen to get through that segment in a playable manner.

 

[Umbran]

I, personally, don't use rules for armies, because they are pretty much unnecesary. The army battle is a background for the real story, whch focuses on the PCs. So, all the action should focus on them...

So, you set up a few encounters for the PCs, set within the battle. Design of these encounters may be informed by player tactical plans ("We're going to hunt down the enemy general, and kill him!" or "We focus on taking out enemy spellcasters, or something") You determine how the battle would go without PC intervention, then see what happens in the encounters, and alter the results accordingly.

 

[The Grackle]

That's pretty much how I do it too. I don't like the omniscient generals peering down at a battlefield from above. Unless they fly up there, they just have to listen to reports on how their troops are doing.

 

[DM-Rocco]

I, personally, don't use rules for armies, because they are pretty much unnecesary. The army battle is a background for the real story, whch focuses on the PCs. So, all the action should focus on them...

So, you set up a few encounters for the PCs, set within the battle. Design of these encounters may be informed by player tactical plans ("We're going to hunt down the enemy general, and kill him!" or "We focus on taking out enemy spellcasters, or something") You determine how the battle would go without PC intervention, then see what happens in the encounters, and alter the results accordingly.

Well, if I am going just for a story arc, then I would too, but the players are 14th-16th level and they are cocky and I want them to know that they can still die to an army, amoungst other things. I also thought it may be a nice change of pace to have a tactical chance for them to call the shots and take control of their own destiny.

The problem with just having it as a story in the background is that it seems to the players as if you are just railroading them into a course of action and that they don't matter in the long term. I want to give them a chance to play it out if they want too. It will make the story richer and they will develope a bond to the keep and the henchmen they control.

 

[nothing to see here]

I, personally, don't use rules for armies, because they are pretty much unnecesary. The army battle is a background for the real story, whch focuses on the PCs. So, all the action should focus on them...

So, you set up a few encounters for the PCs, set within the battle. Design of these encounters may be informed by player tactical plans ("We're going to hunt down the enemy general, and kill him!" or "We focus on taking out enemy spellcasters, or something") You determine how the battle would go without PC intervention, then see what happens in the encounters, and alter the results accordingly.

Umbran sums up the difference between "war as backdrop" and "war as focus" campaigns quite nicely. If armies are sinmply a backdrop for a wider campaign you need nothing extra (and additional rules might detract from the real point of the adventure). Sometimes however you may want to integrate what the characters are doing with what happens on the battlefield. Having a nice succinct not-too-wargamy set of mass battle rules comes in handy in this case.

For what little it's worth...with about a half-dozen different systems out there (that I've seen) I consider Grim Tales and Fields of Blood to come out on tops. The Green Ronin 'represenative battles' section of the Advanced Gamemasters Guide is nice addition as well.

 

[Quickleaf]

Training young recruits, apprentices, or even family members makes the war up close and personal for the PCs - the price becomes tangible. When Mohammed went into battle, rather than send anyone else, he sent those from his family to face rivals in a challenge match before the battle began.

A thought about high-level battlefields. In D&D a wizard can totally demolish a traditional army, and a priest can raise a dead hero. You've got to come to terms with these in some way, either embracing them or minimizing their role.

I found my players didn't mind that war was mostly a story in the background. I played a total of 3 actual battles:
(1) A town martials itself against an invasion ostensibly by a group of justicars to capture a notorious criminal, but really because their leader is in league with a demon after an artifact. Great losses occur, peasants become heroes, one PC makes traps out of farm equipment, and the hidden criminal (a PC) is eternally grateful.
(2) The now mid-level PCs marshal forces and issue a challenge to the justicars, defeating them soundly in a swamp with the aid of magic. It is a massacre.
(3) The high-level PCs (14th) track down the demon to its lair and launch a bold siege on its fortress. Their armies overcome the demons with great losses, but the PCs tell them to hold back as they ascend the fortress stairs. They face the demon alone at the tower's peak, suffering great losses, but they ultimately defeat the demon.