In Place of Chainmail?

[Zaruthustran]

Does anyone know any elegant rules for handling Movement and Command? If you're going to scale up D&D to skirmish level and beyond, you don't want each team's player to min-max every single individual soldier's 5' step, Attacks of Opportunity, and so on.

Well, what you're asking for is an abstraction of an abstraction: D&D combat. I think that's a mistake.

Meaning, the rules of D&D combat (5' step, AoOs, other min-max factors) are suited to RPG combat, and don't necessarily belong in a mass combat wargame.

Which begs the problem: if the D&D rules don't necessarily belong, but you want the wargame to be "D&D mass combat", what components of D&D do you include in the mass combat rules? How do you make your wargame seem like D&D?

Chainmail tried solve these problems by including D&D races, classes, weapons, magic, and certain values (armor class), while creating new values (hits, attack bonus, a single saving throw, command points). In some cases, it kept a concept (like attack of opportunity) but changed the way it worked (which confused many, including me). So, it looked and sounded very similar, but there were enough differences that players just didn't get it.

If I were making D&D mass combat, I'd keep the flavor of D&D but create entriely new rules, with (almost) entirely new terms. Top features:
+ No record-keeping needed (mmadsen's stateless health is a great idea)
+ Fast play
+ No AoO's (players don't get it. Instead, just use the easier concept of Reach)
+ Familiar classes, races, factions
+ Keep the Command Point rules, but include a cardboard cheat sheet with every ruleset that details how CPs are spent, and what an out of command model can and cannot do
+ Use inexpensive, prepainted, plastic models with a standard 1" base--and print the models' Offense and Defense scores right there on the four sides of the base

No need for that silly click dial thing. Too complex, and it's a pain in the butt to pick up and put down your models. But it's even more of a pain to have to refer to a little sheet whenever you attack, or have to constantly ask (or be asked for) a model's AC.

In short, keep it simple, keep it cheap, keep it fast, and keep it D&D flavored--without D&D's complexity.

 

[Zaruthustran]

card reader

One other thing: WotC's sports CCG games (the soccer game, others) use an electronic card reader. When there's a conflict, the players swipe the cards into the reader and the reader reads the values of the cards and then determines the outcome.

WotC might want to use this tech in their new minis game. Let the reader crunch the numbers and consult the tables, and let the players move the little figures around the table.

Although... half the fun of playing minis games is rolling dice. Take away the dice, and you might take away the fun.

 

[Sulimo]

(Heh, rather than re-edit my previous post yet again, I'll just have another post. )

Have any of you ever run a military campaign inside the context of a D+D campaign? I'm just curious to see how many people: a) have done this; or b) wanted to do it, but never bothered because of the lack of ruleset?

I did one once back during the days of the first Battlesystem for D+D.

Yeah. I've used the old AD&D Battlesystem on occasion too. Plus we've used the Birthright mass combat system as well for our BR campaign.

 

[CRG]

mmadsen

Can you email me here to discuss a few things on this topic?

 

[mmadsen]

Well, what you're asking for is an abstraction of an abstraction: D&D combat. I think that's a mistake.

There are multiple ways to handle mass combat in a D&D game. Some seem quite abstract, but not very "D&D" -- e.g. most mass combat systems for large wars. If you're just adding up points for how strong your force is, that's quite abstract, and none of the nuances (or "wonkiness") of D&D show through. Others aren't very abstract at all, just a bit streamlined -- e.g. Chainmail, or our proposed replacement for Chainmail.

Meaning, the rules of D&D combat (5' step, AoOs, other min-max factors) are suited to RPG combat, and don't necessarily belong in a mass combat wargame.

That's true. When you remove those inappropriate rules though, you want combat to play out like D&D combat on a large scale. You want the creatures to remain roughly as powerful, and you want the PCs to interact with large armies as if the whole battle played out by D&D rules -- no hand-waving for spells, magic weapons, etc.

How do you make your wargame seem like D&D?

I think you need a crystal-clear mapping of D&D abilities into Skirmish D&D abilities. You shouldn't need a supplement that tells you how to translate Fireball into the new game; you should immediately know what a 5d6 attack with a 20' radius does.

Chainmail tried solve these problems by including D&D races, classes, weapons, magic, and certain values (armor class), while creating new values (hits, attack bonus, a single saving throw, command points).

Chainmail tried to deliver a parallel game with its own stats but D&D "fluff" -- the armies were composed of Gnolls, etc. If you can't put your PCs miniature on the table and start fighting, I don't think you have Skirmish D&D.

+ No record-keeping needed (mmadsen's stateless health is a great idea)

Thank you. I think that's the key to mass combat -- less "state" information to track.

+ Fast play

That's an important design goal, but how do you achieve it? Primarily, I think, by taking away min-maxable decisions for each unit.

+ No AoO's (players don't get it. Instead, just use the easier concept of Reach)

See my previous point. We don't want Attacks of Opportunity, 5' Steps, etc. Ideally we'd have a simple mechanic that rendered the same results with less work.

+ Familiar classes, races, factions

Whether you come up with a new game or just a variant of D&D, a thin D&D veneer goes a long way toward selling figures and bringing people in, I'd think.

+ Keep the Command Point rules, but include a cardboard cheat sheet with every ruleset that details how CPs are spent, and what an out of command model can and cannot do

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

+ Use inexpensive, prepainted, plastic models with a standard 1" base--and print the models' Offense and Defense scores right there on the four sides of the base

If you only have a few kinds of units, a "character sheet" card seems fine to me -- maybe even one that stands upright on a stand -- so you can see the big, bold AC, To-Hit, hp, and Save scores.

No need for that silly click dial thing. Too complex, and it's a pain in the butt to pick up and put down your models.

That's true!

In short, keep it simple, keep it cheap, keep it fast, and keep it D&D flavored--without D&D's complexity.

Agreed.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: card reader

WotC's sports CCG games (the soccer game, others) use an electronic card reader. When there's a conflict, the players swipe the cards into the reader and the reader reads the values of the cards and then determines the outcome.

WotC might want to use this tech in their new minis game. Let the reader crunch the numbers and consult the tables, and let the players move the little figures around the table.

Interesting. I haven't seen card readers used in games yet. How much does a card reader cost?

 

[mmadsen]

To reiterate, people seem to want:

• Compatability with D&D -- Not only should character stats be easy to convert to their mass-combat versions, but PCs should be able to interact with mass-combat enemies seemlessly.
• Cheap Plastic Figures -- Everyone can use hordes of Goblins and Orcs, even if they're not playing a wargame. Also, the game shouldn't require specialized figures (e.g. clicky bases).
• Mass Combat -- At the very least, PCs should be able to lead a band of soldiers. We don't need streamlined rules for 5-on-5.

 

[mmadsen]

Yeah. I've used the old AD&D Battlesystem on occasion too. Plus we've used the Birthright mass combat system as well for our BR campaign.

What were your experiences with those two systems? Good? Bad? Too complicated? Not enough like D&D?

 

[CRG]

Battlesystem did this thing with hit-dice versus hit-dice that I didn't like. It's been years, but if I recall it basically said "this unit of 100 orcs is 100 hit dice of orcs" and "this unit of 10 fighters at 10th level each is 100 hit dice as well". Comparisons, etc. were made from there. A fireball, instead of doing 10d6 or whatever did "10 hit dice of damage", etc.

But, take it for what its worth. That's my memory.

 

[kenjib]

Re: Re: Yes...

I can certainly see why people want high-quality pewter figures, and I can certainly see why they'd enjoy assembling and painting them -- it makes for a great hobby whether or not you game with them -- but it does seem odd that no one sells bags of cheap men-at-arms, goblins, zombies, etc. Gamers snap up children's games (like Weapons & Warriors) for the cheap plastic soldiers, yet no one sells bags of spear carriers. Odd.

I think it has good cross-marketing potential as well. Make them collectable. Sell them at toy stores, Target, etc. because kids like to play with cool plastic figures. This could also tie in very well with the Dragonlance cartoon and Forgotten Realms/Spelljammer TV series' in the works (all potential product lines). Put the standard humanoids in packs with 5 or so. Also release larger creatures (dragons, beholders, etc.) that sell individually or in pairs. Strong product branding is important so that you also might also win some potential future RPG customers -- for this reason it's important that WotC does it instead of a different company. That way they can put the D&D logo on it as well as using classic creatures from the Monster Manual and the product identity of their campaign settings.

Anyway, that's my arch-villain-take-over-the-world vision of a miniatures line.