Mass Combat: Abstract or Tactical?

[megamania]

I like to play it out so to show how chaotic battle tends to be. To make it easier for myself as a Dm I let the players know in advance that there is a big battle coming (usually obvious anyway and allows for everyone to figure in time and NOT be tardy) and then I give all archers the same stats/skills/feats and sioldiers the same and etc. One time I even spent fifteen minutes before hand to preroll 100's of d20, d10 d6 and d4 results so save time. It takes time to do this and a lot of space and figures but it is impressive to see it progress.

 

[maddman75]

How about an option for 'By fiat'

What I mean is that IMC, whever there is mass battle, dice don't determine the outcome. I do. Whatever needs to happen, happens.

Now where do the PCs fit into this? Simple. You just determine that if PCs accomplish mission A then result B happens. If not, result C happens. An example

The heroes have been commanded by the military forces (assuming they are part of the military) to deliver a message to the field general. They have learned new information. It seems that the enemy will be using tactic X, and unless he retaliates with tactic Y, the Eastern army will be crushed. FOr instance, maybe they will fire crossbows into the pikemen before the cavalry charges. Unless they have heavy shields ready, the front lines will be broken. Or whatever flavor text you prefer.

Now they must go on an adventure through wild and/or enemy territory, evade capture, outwit spies, etc. to meet the general before the battle. Adventures on a timeline are always so exciting!

Nowhere in here do I have any need of dice to figure out what happens in the background. If the characters succeed in their mission, the Eastern Army wins. If they fail, the army is decimated.

 

[jmucchiello]

How about an option for 'By fiat'

I also did not vote because the third choice "DM decides ahead of time" was not available. Maddman's example of player participation is perfect. Unless you have players who like tactical mass combat, there is no point to foisting it on them.

 

[Arnwyn]

How about an option for 'By fiat'

What I mean is that IMC, whever there is mass battle, dice don't determine the outcome. I do. Whatever needs to happen, happens.

Great. Thankfully, however, that choice was not up there. This option already exists now, and can continue to exist regardless of what d20 rules are brought in for mass combat. For those who like more defined rules, though, "DM fiat" is a poor suggestion as to what a d20 mass combat system should look like (the original question of this thread).

 

[jmucchiello]

Great. Thankfully, however, that choice was not up there. This option already exists now, and can continue to exist regardless of what d20 rules are brought in for mass combat. For those who like more defined rules, though, "DM fiat" is a poor suggestion as to what a d20 mass combat system should look like (the original question of this thread).

That is, unless you believe it SHOULD only be by DM fiat. That war is too important to an ongoing campaign to leave up to die rolls. Maddman's description of involving the characters is far more fun than any tactical or abstract system could work. Afterall, the characters are individuals during every other part of play. Why should this change when war occurs?

The other missing option is, run it using standard combat. Just because it's insane to run 4,000+ combantants using the standard rules doesn't mean that can't be the official method either.

I'm also surprised that both is not an option. But others have articulated that far better than I would.

 

[Kilmore]

So far, everybody in here has had great suggestions. Maddman's correct in many cases, of course, but there are the situations where the characters have gotten themselves so high level and in a position of such authority that they may well be the ones responsible for leading the armies into battle. And that's the situation that the mass battle rules are useful for.

So I know it's a tall order, but I think the best mass battle suppliment should address all three aspects of a battle adventure.

1.) Full tactical deployment of miniatures on a battle board.

2.) Abstract resolution of battles similar to old D&D's War Machine.

3.) Rules for running PC's in large battles. One thing I think would be useful for this is a system of determining how many attacks the character recieves per round, from whom, and what effect his comrades have on his battles.

 

[jmucchiello]

So far, everybody in here has had great suggestions. Maddman's correct in many cases, of course, but there are the situations where the characters have gotten themselves so high level and in a position of such authority that they may well be the ones responsible for leading the armies into battle. And that's the situation that the mass battle rules are useful for.

I play in one game (out of all that I ever played in) where it would be in character for one (and only one) of the players to lead troops into battle. Her character is a CG paladinoid in a 1st ed game that we still play. The only problem with her leading this battle is that she (the player) has no concept of stategy, tactics or methods of war. Just because she plays a character who is supposed to know everything known about warfare, is a tactical genius and has crush armies before does not mean we want the player to actually stand at a table and decide where to place units, etc. The DM, a trained tactician in real life, would destroy her.

This is my objection to tactical battle rules. Now those 25 ranks in Knowledge Battle Tactics is meaningless since we are using the player's tactical abilities instead of the characters.

Most abstract rules also assume the player is going to lay out the field, there's just less troop movement shown on the field with an abstract system. Again, initial placement requires player knowledge of how battles work. In this case, the battle is far more palatable if the DM just describes her plan to her (no die roll) and explains how the battle goes over the course of the day. The other good thing about not running the war with die is speed. A day of wargaming can last two weeks with detailed tactical rules or a good 1-4 hours abstractly. The DM can make up a description in minutes and move use on to the next character driven interlude that much faster.

 

[Redleg06]

Abstract.

Wanna play tactical? Play Warhammer.

 

[bolen]

How about just some rules. It is amazing to me that everyone comes out with the same types of products. There are four orc books for D20 rules out and no books for mass combat!!!

 

[Tonguez]

1.) Full tactical deployment of miniatures on a battle board.

2.) Abstract resolution of battles similar to old D&D's War Machine.

3.) Rules for running PC's in large battles. One thing I think would be useful for this is a system of determining how many attacks the character recieves per round, from whom, and what effect his comrades have on his battles.

Nah I'm gonna make it difficult for you - I want Tactical with NO minitures Abstract Tactical - maybe Option 3...