suggestions for mass combat rules
- Thread starter yves
- Start date
Herzog
Adventurer
It depends on what you are looking for.
There have been many attempts at mass-combat rules in the past, not in the least the one D&D originated from.
However, in the context of the D&D game, it is mostly in the interest of both the DM and the players to 'ignore' the battle as a whole, and focus on the impact the players can have on the battle, and the battle on the players.
I'm running a game myself that at one point will have my characters in the middle of a (world) war, and have been looking for something similar quite some time.
My most recent find in that direction is 'heroes of battle'. Although i haven't had the time to read it through, my first impression was that this is a book very helpfull for DM's and players running characters against the background of mass combat. (I'm sure there are others on this board who can provide you (and me?) with a better insight into heroes of battle and how it can be used)
On the other hand, if you really want to run mass combat: why not look to the obvious rulesets: Warhammer springs to mind. I think there was also a recent 'Lord of the Rings' mass combat ruleset, although I'm not sure by what company.
there is also 'buttonmen' by (I believe) cheapass games.
There is the 'orcs of thar' gazetteer from the OD&D sets that includes mass combat rules if I'm not mistaken. There's the mass combat rules from the Rules Cyclopedia, although I was never very impressed by that one.
I've heard of other systems mentioned here on the boards, but no specific names come to mind right now.
There have been many attempts at mass-combat rules in the past, not in the least the one D&D originated from.
However, in the context of the D&D game, it is mostly in the interest of both the DM and the players to 'ignore' the battle as a whole, and focus on the impact the players can have on the battle, and the battle on the players.
I'm running a game myself that at one point will have my characters in the middle of a (world) war, and have been looking for something similar quite some time.
My most recent find in that direction is 'heroes of battle'. Although i haven't had the time to read it through, my first impression was that this is a book very helpfull for DM's and players running characters against the background of mass combat. (I'm sure there are others on this board who can provide you (and me?) with a better insight into heroes of battle and how it can be used)
On the other hand, if you really want to run mass combat: why not look to the obvious rulesets: Warhammer springs to mind. I think there was also a recent 'Lord of the Rings' mass combat ruleset, although I'm not sure by what company.
there is also 'buttonmen' by (I believe) cheapass games.
There is the 'orcs of thar' gazetteer from the OD&D sets that includes mass combat rules if I'm not mistaken. There's the mass combat rules from the Rules Cyclopedia, although I was never very impressed by that one.
I've heard of other systems mentioned here on the boards, but no specific names come to mind right now.
jedavis
First Post
I've looked at several mass combat systems for 3/3.5e, and must say that AEG's mass combat system from 'Swashbuckling Adventures' is my personal favorite. It's both simple and versatile, allowing players to fight groups capably and vice versa, running off of the standard d20 mechanics, and not bogging down with details of terrain, movement, positioning, scale (it can handle groups of 10 as easily as groups of 1000), etc. I daresay that it was almost worth buying Swash, although their feats are excellent (perhaps broken) and their naval combat system is not bad either. Their rules for blowing up buildings have also proven entertaining.
The system from Malhavoc's 'Cry Havoc' system was neat, but required a bit more in terms of conversion and had stricter movement and targeting rules, as well as some assumptions of scale (regarding the number of combatants per "unit").
Eden Studios' 'Fields of Blood' contained a mass combat system, but it required a basically-total conversion of all combatants from d20 and had a pretty restrictive scaling (100 men per unit). Really, though, the focus of FoB is more on realm-building and management, with combat as a subsystem.
I have not read Heroes of Battle, nor the other sources mentioned by Herzog.
The system from Malhavoc's 'Cry Havoc' system was neat, but required a bit more in terms of conversion and had stricter movement and targeting rules, as well as some assumptions of scale (regarding the number of combatants per "unit").
Eden Studios' 'Fields of Blood' contained a mass combat system, but it required a basically-total conversion of all combatants from d20 and had a pretty restrictive scaling (100 men per unit). Really, though, the focus of FoB is more on realm-building and management, with combat as a subsystem.
I have not read Heroes of Battle, nor the other sources mentioned by Herzog.
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
Can't say I've looked at many options, but the 12th War of the Burning Sky adventure (from EN World Publications) has relatively simple rules including victory points (I think similar to Heros of Battle) and treating units of troops as single monsters (sort of like a customizable mob template). I believe they actually have a separate publication about mass combat but don't recall the name and can't find it.
I've run numerous war-themed adventures that included mass combat - to varying degrees of success. Nothing I'm about to write is new info or particularly ground-breaking - most sourcebooks that address the topic offer some of all of the following suggestions. However, if there were one flaw that the authors of these books and RPG-forum-posters fall victim to is the one-answer solution. I used to fall into the same trap, but if there's one piece of advice I can share, it's that you should determine the reason for including the event in the adventure/campaign/story -- answering that question will help you select which option, or combination of options, may work best.
1) War/battle as backdrop.
How to run it: Mass combat is off-screen. PCs focus on special forces style missions - rescuing prisoners, assassinating enemy commanders, inflitrating behind enemy lines, etc. They may see the build-up or aftermath of a major battle but won't participate it.
Pros: Supports standard play. No special mass combat rules required.
Cons: Outcome of battle is strictly determined by GM-fiat.
2) Set-pieces / Flowchart. (Non-HoB approach)
How to run it: The "camera" stays with the PCs. They are in the thick of battle but the focus is on the individual battles the PCs are engaged in. You create a series of encounters/opponents, i.e. "set-pieces" that the PCs will enconter over the course of the battle. Since the larger battle rages around the PCs, you still need to decide the likely victor. Also, if you want to depict the fog-of-war, chaos-of-battle - don't let the PCs fight every opponent to the bitter end. For example: They may start the battle engaged against 3 orcs and 2 goblins, but on round 3 - a hobgoblin attacks a PC while the PC's orc opponent is carried off by the press of battle.
Pros: Again, standard rules apply as the focus is at the character level.
Cons: Outcome of battle is largely (but perhaps not solely) determined by GM-fiat.
3) Set-pieces/Flowchart (Heroes of Battle approach)
How to run it: Create a series of encounter and flow to the battle. Most encounters should include two outcomes - one if the attackers are successful, one if they are not. Ideally, more than one path, or frontline of battle, is available. Each encounter/objective is worth a # of Victory Points. The PCs select (or are assigned) a path that places them on the flowchart. If they successfully defeat their foes or obtain their objectives, they earn Victory Points for their side. Define victory/defeat conditions based upon Victory Points gained. This way, the PCs actions directly influence the outcome. If they don't earn enough points, their side may be defeated, but they may not be slaughtered or routed, for example.
Pros: Standard rules for resolving the set-pieces. Includes strategic component (one path may accumulate Victory Points faster/easier than another; or be high-risk, high-reward).
Cons: Pre-defined encounters. Multiple paths recommended but results in more GM prep. Need to define "baseline outcome" that the PCs can then influence.
4) On the front lines/commanding the troops.
How to run it: If the PCs are commanders of the troops or just enjoy the tactical/strategic element of running the mass combat, you're going to need some mass combat rules. As others have noted, there are several options out there. Most are bundled in sourcebooks that also deal with rulership/realm management. I've purchased AEG's empire, Mongoose's Strongholds & Dynasties, and Eden's Fields of Blood and have Cry Havoc or a subset from Green Ronin supplement somewhere. My system of choice is Fields of Blood as I felt it kept the basic D&D combat mechanics in place while providing meaningful tactical choices but they all have their good and bad points. You need to develop the forces for both sides and design the battlefield.
Pros: Strategic-level combat. Outcome of battle is not pre-determined.
Cons: Need to learn mass combat rules. Need to prep both sides. Doesn't normally focus on PC-scale actions unless combined with one of the other options listed above.
Personally, I've had best results in combining 3&4. Some players love the min-game of moving troops and planning strategy. Others just want to flex their D&D muscles in a non-dungeon environment with larger stakes on the line. By merging 3&4, I've been able to satisfy all players.
Also, each battle/scenario is different. My current campaign is a war-themed one. I've had battles that focus on the macro troop level (combining #3 & #4), PC-focused (#3), and war-as window dressing (#1). Figure out what works best for your adventure/story and have at it!!
1) War/battle as backdrop.
How to run it: Mass combat is off-screen. PCs focus on special forces style missions - rescuing prisoners, assassinating enemy commanders, inflitrating behind enemy lines, etc. They may see the build-up or aftermath of a major battle but won't participate it.
Pros: Supports standard play. No special mass combat rules required.
Cons: Outcome of battle is strictly determined by GM-fiat.
2) Set-pieces / Flowchart. (Non-HoB approach)
How to run it: The "camera" stays with the PCs. They are in the thick of battle but the focus is on the individual battles the PCs are engaged in. You create a series of encounters/opponents, i.e. "set-pieces" that the PCs will enconter over the course of the battle. Since the larger battle rages around the PCs, you still need to decide the likely victor. Also, if you want to depict the fog-of-war, chaos-of-battle - don't let the PCs fight every opponent to the bitter end. For example: They may start the battle engaged against 3 orcs and 2 goblins, but on round 3 - a hobgoblin attacks a PC while the PC's orc opponent is carried off by the press of battle.
Pros: Again, standard rules apply as the focus is at the character level.
Cons: Outcome of battle is largely (but perhaps not solely) determined by GM-fiat.
3) Set-pieces/Flowchart (Heroes of Battle approach)
How to run it: Create a series of encounter and flow to the battle. Most encounters should include two outcomes - one if the attackers are successful, one if they are not. Ideally, more than one path, or frontline of battle, is available. Each encounter/objective is worth a # of Victory Points. The PCs select (or are assigned) a path that places them on the flowchart. If they successfully defeat their foes or obtain their objectives, they earn Victory Points for their side. Define victory/defeat conditions based upon Victory Points gained. This way, the PCs actions directly influence the outcome. If they don't earn enough points, their side may be defeated, but they may not be slaughtered or routed, for example.
Pros: Standard rules for resolving the set-pieces. Includes strategic component (one path may accumulate Victory Points faster/easier than another; or be high-risk, high-reward).
Cons: Pre-defined encounters. Multiple paths recommended but results in more GM prep. Need to define "baseline outcome" that the PCs can then influence.
4) On the front lines/commanding the troops.
How to run it: If the PCs are commanders of the troops or just enjoy the tactical/strategic element of running the mass combat, you're going to need some mass combat rules. As others have noted, there are several options out there. Most are bundled in sourcebooks that also deal with rulership/realm management. I've purchased AEG's empire, Mongoose's Strongholds & Dynasties, and Eden's Fields of Blood and have Cry Havoc or a subset from Green Ronin supplement somewhere. My system of choice is Fields of Blood as I felt it kept the basic D&D combat mechanics in place while providing meaningful tactical choices but they all have their good and bad points. You need to develop the forces for both sides and design the battlefield.
Pros: Strategic-level combat. Outcome of battle is not pre-determined.
Cons: Need to learn mass combat rules. Need to prep both sides. Doesn't normally focus on PC-scale actions unless combined with one of the other options listed above.
Personally, I've had best results in combining 3&4. Some players love the min-game of moving troops and planning strategy. Others just want to flex their D&D muscles in a non-dungeon environment with larger stakes on the line. By merging 3&4, I've been able to satisfy all players.
Also, each battle/scenario is different. My current campaign is a war-themed one. I've had battles that focus on the macro troop level (combining #3 & #4), PC-focused (#3), and war-as window dressing (#1). Figure out what works best for your adventure/story and have at it!!
dontpunkme
First Post
I've DM'ed the players in the middle of a world war (premise was the super-uber evil diety was about to be released from his imprisonment. All good gods against, some evil (they didn't want to give up their power)). I ran a mass combat letting the PCs control the good army (100 units) vs 1500 unit enemy force. Suffice to say, while it was fun, it was a huge headache by the time it was done. Took us several entire days of playing and was just one non-stop headache for me as a GM. I suggest keeping it small-scale and keeping them on set missions rather than huge conflicts. If they are in a huge battle, have them have specific objectives, not just holding the front lines.
