Mass battles in a campaign -- best way?

[Fundin Strongarm]

We're looking to possibly have some larger battles occur in our campaign where the player characters might be present. What we're looking for is some help in running the battles and what might be involved.

Has anyone tried the Mass Battles from the Miniatures Handbook? What about the Heroes of Battle supplement book?

(Most of us play Warhammer as well so any comparisons would be useful.)

 

[Terwox]

I liked Heroes of Battle, but it was mainly because it focused on small skirmishes (basically normal D&D fights) in the midst of large battles. It's a neat book, although there's not much system at all for speeding up unit on unit combat, unless I'm forgetting something.

I found it useful. However, I'm very much not a warhammer fan, so your party might have more luck with a unit-focused supplement instead of heroes of battle, which does not have much about resolving army versus army with dice.

I normally wouldn't reply like this, as I've got opposite taste, but you've gotten no feedback, so hopefully this may help. Check the reviews section, I guess. I think a number of people prefer a different system than the miniatures handbook system, although I'm not sure which. Fields of Blood? Something else? I'm unsure.

 

[Bagpuss]

The Heroes of Battle details the best way to run a mass battle in a RPG, IMHO. In that you don't turn the RPG into a wargame.

Many of the other "war" themed books go into detail about setting up units, moving troops, etc. and the whole thing turns an RPG into a wargame. Personally if I want to play a wargame I'ld play a wargame.

Heroes of Battle instead is about putting the heroes in the middle of a battle over which they have some influence, it breaks a battle down like combination of site based and event based adventure.

It suggest that the GM decide the outcome of the battle in advance, as if the PC's weren't there, then introduce key events or locations in the battle where the PC's can have influnence. For example holding a bridge against an orc assault (site/event), or raiding the enemy's artillery to destroy cataputs (site), rallying a group of fleeing troops (event).

The GM then works out a best case senario for the battle, assuming the PC's achieve the best results on all the events they are involved in. A worst case, if they fail terribly in all those events. And a couple of results, either side of the average but not a dramatic as the very worst or very best.

It could be the very best result could still mean the PC side lose the battle, but instead of being a terrible rout for the armies of light, it is a controlled retreat with minor loses as the PC's were able to hold the bridge long enough, etc.

It has a Victory Point System to give a better idea as to how influencial player's actions might be and a Reputation Point System for how the players actions might effect any reward or chance of promotion.

It is full of ideas for a GM sample encounters (prisoner exchanges, raids on supply conveys, king of the hill, etc), tips like flowcharts to map events and decisions points in a battle, or maps to show the flow of the battle.

It's a very refreshing change from the War books previously released which tend to either need a spreadsheet to calculate everything, and/or end up being a wargame more than a roleplaying game.

There isn't really a comparison between Heroes of Battle and Warhammer, as one is an RPG focused on individual players and their actions, the other is a wargame focused on large units and individual trooper doesn't really matter that much.

If you wanted to play a wargame I'ld imagine you'ld play Warhammer, when you are playing D&D then I'ld recommend Heroes of Battle method for putting the PC's in the middle of a huge battle and yet keeping it character focused.

 

[Bagpuss]

It's a neat book, although there's not much system at all for speeding up unit on unit combat, unless I'm forgetting something.

It recommends DM Fiat, which is as as fast as any system gets. Anything else is an over complication IMHO, the focus of any RPG should be the players actions, so you only need to get a rough idea of what the NPC's do.

It suggest using CR's as a estimate, ie: If 20 1st level fighters face three CR 3 ogres then the fighters will win but lose roughly half their number from being combat effective (not all dead, most just injured, fled the battle, etc). There's also a morale system which is handy since units tend to break and run in large battles rather than be destroyed.

 

[delericho]

As others have said, probably the best way to proceed is to avoid going the wargame-route, and instead using the battle as a backdrop for the heroic actions of the PCs. I use a system adapted from the Dungeon adventure "Foundations of Flame" (I don't know what issue that was in off hand, but it's also in the Shackled City hardcover). It's very similar to the system in "Heroes of Battle", but I think it's a bit simpler. Certainly, it doesn't take as long to describe

The first thing to do is to consider the forces available, and the victory conditions for each. So, taking the Battle of Helm's Deep as our example, and considering Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli as the PCs (and using the film version of the battle where there's a conflict), we have 300 men, a few hundred elven archers, and the PCs inside Helm's Deep (powerful terrain advantage), versus 10,000 uruk-hai and their assorted war machines. The PCs win if they hold the fortress until daybreak (let's say 10 hours), the uruks if they kill all the men, or they break down the fortress walls within those 10 hours.

The next thing to do is to prepare a timeline of events, assuming the PCs do nothing heroic. So, if the PCs take their position in the battle, but are otherwise unremarkable, what happens? In the example, I would rule that the uruks break down the walls in 8 hours. (It's usually best if the outcome favours the opponents of the PCs. That way, the heroic actions of the PCs matter most.)

I find it's helpful to set up a numeric count of victory points across time for each side. Once a victory point total is reached, the battle is over, and one side as won. In this case, the uruks need 100 VP to win, and gain 13 per hour. The PCs win purely by preventing this - they don't accumulate VP in this case.

Next, work up a list of things that the PCs can do to change the outcome. These are things that the PCs have to do - merely stating that they will shore up the fortifications is meaningless, since any competent commander will do that anyway. However, if the dwarf PC can bring his particular engineering skills to the task, that's another matter. Likewise, if the sorcerer calls in that favour he's been holding for months, and has a dragon join his forces, that's worth quite a lot. Other possibilities include single combat against the enemy champion, a rousing speech from the party bard, and so on.

For each of these events, work out a method of resolution (stats for the enemy, a Perform check DC, whatever), and the effect on the number of VP the PCs gain, or the number of VP their enemies get. Make sure you generate enough events for the PCs to swing the battle suitably (how much impact the PCs can have is up to you. I generally favour allowing them to swing a battle from crushing defeat to narrow victory, or from narrow defeat to sweeping victory).

Finally, create some "chaos of battle" moments - either bits of narrative where you will describe what happens to the PCs allies, scenes where the PCs battle run-of-the-mill enemy soldiers, or whatever. Note that, if there are any named NPCs you want to kill off, you really should create a scene where this NPC is shown dying. This may either be a death the PCs can prevent (in which case it's a heroic action), or one they cannot, in which case it fits here. Either way, you should show the death of any NPC who has a name. It's just the done thing.

Then, run it. Have a period leading to the battle, then run the "chaos of battle" moments and the "heroic action" moments in an arbitrary order. Make sure the PCs have plenty of opportunity for heroism, and don't get bogged down in the details. And, if things start getting too much for you, have a bunch of orcs charge the PCs position, and run the combat on autopilot while you think of what to do next.

Oh, one more thing: prepare a map of the battlefield, and some small markers for the positions of major units. Use this to keep track of where the PCs are on the field of battle. This should help keep things organised during play.

Edit: Couple of things I forgot: For a battle the size of Helm's Deep, I would probably want to create a dozen or so "Heroic Actions", and require the PCs to succeed at 8 or so of them. Also, you need to allow for the possibility that the PCs might make their own "Heroic Actions", and adapt accordingly. For each non-combat action, I would give XP as though for a monster of CR equal to the average party level. Combat actions give out XP normally, of course.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think Fields of Blood is very good, but it's a bit broader in scope I guess. Anyway, here's some reviews, elsewhere on the ENWorld site.

I just realised, after checking out the 'Comparison Review' link in JoeGKushner's (5 *) review, that I've got all of those supplements. . . except Empire. Can't say I'm unhappy about that, either.

 

[Tarangil]

I've used mass battles in the past where PC's were present. I haven't done it the way the miniatures hanbook presents it though, it does slow things down. You can keep the combat relatively fast paced if the PC's are present but not commanding anything -that's where the M-handbook would come in-.

What I've done was when planning was to compare the armies that would be in conflict, and depending on where the story is to go decide who would be winning, and how, by usually running quick battle tests. I would then write battle changes/events as one would writing a room description in a dungeon. This is where the PC's come in. Wherever they are placed, or come in on the conflict might make a difference in how the battle may change. Inventive PCs can still change the course, but even if they don't they can still take place in the event, and either assist with the routing, or helping with a retreat. Either way they still have the experience of partaking in a mass battle and assisting in whatever way they can.

This usually works best when you're dealing with armies in the thousands. Smaller armies can be done this way too but you have to plan for more directions the PC's can make/change in the environment.

 

[diaglo]

Chainmail by Gygax & Perren

 

[Bobitron]

Heroes of Battle seems pretty solid for such things. I haven't read the mass combat portions, but there are plenty of ideas on how to integrate your players in.

The Bad Axe games supplement, Grim Tales: Mass Combat, has a good reputation as well. I haven't used it yet in game, though.

 

[Henry]

I've handled it several different ways, from Cry Havoc by Malhavoc Press, to just eyeballing it, and my two favorites are:

1) As described above. Make a conclusion about the battle, then insert several key events that could turn the tide or have an effect. That way, it's nothing more than just another adventure.

2) I used the forces, with a counter for every five men, and ran a mock battle. Every round, I'd roll attack rolls for every one to five counters (depending on number of counters) and then describe results based on those numbers. High d20 roll meant they did well, with 17-20 meaning degrees of enemy counters disabled, and 1-4 meaning degrees of friendly counters removed. Spells like bless/curse meant a +1/-1 to the result, and area effect spells had to be big enough to make a difference to more than 1 or 2 counters. (5 or 10 men). It was very rough eyeballing, but it made for a very fun battle, as the players maneuvered forces into position, planning strategies, etc.

If I wanted to run a full-on campaign of it, I'd probably use Cry Havoc, which while not perfect, does take into account magic as well as physical might, and can scale from dozens of combatants to thousands.