Mass Combat: Abstract or Tactical?

[shadow]

When it comes to mass combat it seems that there are two divergent schools of thought. One holds that the fate of entire armies should be resolved by one dice roll (or a small number of rolls). The other school of thought says that players should play out mass combat; some even go as far as making it like a wargame. What do you think that a d20 mass combat system should be like?

 

[DanMcS]

Abstract. The battle system should support the story, not supplant it. Resolve the battle in a few die rolls, maybe a check for the commander's talent, an opposed roll for the main battle itself, and leave a little room in the middle for PCs to do something heroic and turn the tide one way or the other, then move the heck on.

If you want a good tactical system, it's easier to switch to a system designed for it, like DBM, for the duration.

 

[Tonguez]

I want both actually but I want my Tactical System tto be Abstract so that the PCs remain the center of attention and their troops are just stat bonuses that I can use strategically

 

[shilsen]

What Tonguez said.

 

[Darkness]

Either or both, as the situation demands.

A short while ago, we (three 12th-level characters mostly lacking in spellcasting ability) fought a battle of attrition against a small army (70 men or so) of (mostly) 6th-level paladins who were guarding a caravan transporting a holy relic.
It took a while, but we beat them.
The actual skirmishes with the defenders were played out, while we handled some bigger - and less directly combat-oriented - things more abstractly.
If both forces number a sizable amount of troops, though, it's probably best to further crank up the abstraction factor by a couple notches.

 

[the Jester]

Good poll!

I like mixing in a certain amount of wargaming when feasible. I don't decide the outcome of things in my campaign in advance; I think that way lies railroading, and one thing I've learned is that railroading is bad. Plot hooks, good; but let the players back away from them when possible.

When pcs are involved in battles, I like to let them play them out. The often find it satisfying when they win- and it gives them something to avenge if they lose. Just rolling a die or something to see how it turns out is... dissatisfying, in my experience.

 

[Kithmaker]

I didn't vote, because it really depends on how mass-ive my mass combat is...
If it's smaller squads as part of a larger unit, I'd go with tactical. If I'm dealing with entire companies or armies, I'd go abstract, but have things calculated out with charts/tables to consult when making the rolls.
I really liked the old system presented in the original D&D "Companion" set rules...

 

[John Crichton]

I didn't vote because there are times when I'd like to do some serious number crunching battles and other times when just a few die rolls would do the trick. It would be great to have rules for both.

For example: The army of 6th level paladins may have feats assigned to the army (Crusader's Charge, Divine Wall, etc.) itself which could be easily suited to the system by doing some creative rounding off of numbers (sets of participants) and adding in modifiers based off of leaders, terrain, equipment, weather, race, blah, etc. Could be a ton of fun and could theoretically last as long as a fight with a dragon/lich/BBEG/etc.

But I would also like to have some quick-n-dirty rules to just do a few fly-by rolls, check a DC and decide who gets crushed. So I would like to see both since it is such a broad part of the game.

 

[Arnwyn]

Tactical. I know that my players like to make decisions, and they want results based on their decisions. If they build a trench/wall/etc, hide their unit(s) well, or destroy supply lines, they want pure, in-game mechanics to ensure that what they did made a difference - and *not* rely on the DM's judgement call/whim.

 

[arwink]

Abstract, although I'd also favor a vote of theatrical. I occasinally plan out a battle in advance, and let the end result occur based on the outcomes of a flow-chart like sequence of character actions success and failure.