Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 7730296" data-attributes="member: 30518">If you run a big RPG campaign, with a lot happening other than the adventures of the characters, often there will be a war on. I had to create a list of fundamental patterns of warfare for an online class I'm teaching, and thought the list might benefit GMs.[ATTACH]91638[/ATTACH][PRBREAK][/PRBREAK] <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One side is destined to win the battle or the war because they have such overall superiority, but they have time constraints</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Different forms of military superiority<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">sea/land/air</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">technology (or magic)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">manpower</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Economic superiority versus military superiority</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Defense of a place</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rough Equality (often seen in battle games)</li> </ul>The first fundamental form is that one side is destined to win the battle or the war because they have such overall superiority, but they have to do it within a certain amount of time. The constraint is sometimes real-world, sometimes a constraint for the purposes of making a game of it. One side will win the fighting but can they win soon enough to "win" the RPG campaign (save the nation?)? For example, <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In the American Civil War, if the South had held out long enough, the North might have given up.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A siege must be successful before lack of supplies, and disease, defeat the besiegers.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Consider the Pacific War in World War II. Once America was "all in" because of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, it was inevitable that the Japanese were going to be defeated, so this is where a game constraint (time limit) is added</li> </ul>The second and perhaps most interesting form derives from different forms of military superiority. For example one side is powerful on the sea, the other side is powerful on land. Athens and Sparta is a classic. Sparta finally won because the Persians subsidized Spartan fleets long enough for the Spartans to defeat the Athenians. Of course the plague didn't help the Athenians at all, they lost their (sane) leadership. Another example is England versus France. Most people would think of this in Napoleonic terms but it had actually been going on for more than a century. England needed help but they could provide subsidies to allies, because England could make lots of money with overseas trade.  In a fantasy world, the obvious possibility is superiority in magical capabilities, versus superiority in physical capabilities. The next form is economic superiority versus military superiority. This would have to be an entire war, not a single battle, because wars are usually economic and battles are not. One side starts with economic superiority and the other side has military superiority, the question is can the latter use their military forces to eliminate the economic gap before the superior economy provides an overwhelming military force? This is the form that World War II took once the USA joined. Manpower can provide a form of military superiority. My graduate school prof Theodore Ropp used to say there were so damn many Romans that they triumphed, and their available manpower was certainly vast. You can say the same about the Han Chinese and their fertile North China Plain, in many respects. Another kind of superiority that could be suggested here is technological superiority. For example, British versus Zulus, yet the Zulus actually wiped out a substantial British force at Isandlwana (while outnumbering it around 15 to 1). The allies versus the Iraqis, cowboys versus American Indians, Spanish vs Aztecs, British versus Indians from the Asian subcontinent, Europeans versus Africans, in so many situations technological superiority won the day. In fantasy RPGs this is likely to be superiority in magic rather than real world technology. Technology is most likely to rear up in science fiction games involving different species, as in many "4X" games (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate). Another fundamental form is defense of a place. It can be a city, supply dumps, supply lines, etc. This includes sieges. I think the game result can feel unreal because armies rarely fight to the last man, especially an attacking army. The last form, and I think the least desirable from a standalone game point of view, but perhaps fruitful for a party of mercenary adventurers, is that the forces have rough equality. This is often seen in games about battles of a brief duration, one day to three days or so. You can ask yourself, if there isn't at least a perception of rough equality will the battle happen at all? Each side needs to feel that they have a good chance to win or they won't fight a set-piece battle. Any of these forms, other than the first, can end in stalemate. I hope this gives you enough ideas to make the overall flow of warfare in your campaign distinctive and "real."contributed by Lewis Pulsipher</blockquote>

Verification