This Means WAR!!!! (My players stay OUT!)

[palleomortis]

I have several characters that are going to end up in a "little" war, he he. I was wondering how you guys handle large group wars, and things of the such. Do you actually roll for most of the people or groups, or just let them all kinda die, or...?

 

[The Levitator]

I found Farland's Mass Combat program to work really well for my needs.

It's free, and you can find it here

 

[Warren Okuma]

Step one Find approximate CR of army.

Pluses/minuses.
Bonuses: Lots of broke classes, better equipment, etc...
Minuses: Lots of NPC classes, low BAB, not much magic.
Tactics and operational doctrine: (Scry and fry etc..., fly and fry etc...) or a lich with timestop and delayed blast fireballs, etc... recon bonus, spell bonus etc... (eyball this)

Roll is D20 + CR+ Minuses + Bonuses for each side. Compare. Describe which side is winning, which units are dying. Let the PC's react. Repeat.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/masscmbt.htm

Mostly I just avoid it because of the problems it presents. Wars take place "offstage". But what the above link boils down to is I handle it more with roleplaying and LIMITED PC interaction with the larger battle(s) going on. The PC's don't fight the whole battle or the whole war - they only touch on their own little piece of it and the larger events are mostly out of their hands. Most importantly, I decide on the larger outcome before the PC's ever get involved, and then decide upon how much they can actually influence events and how they can do that. If they're down on the front lines, it isn't going to be much.

 

[haakon1]

Wars take place "offstage". . . .
The PC's don't fight the whole battle or the whole war - they only touch on their own little piece of it and the larger events are mostly out of their hands.

Nod, exactly. Watch any war movie (some good ones from different eras are "Glory", "The Longest Day", and "Platoon") or documentary like the recent WWII PBS documentary "The War". Individuals have adventures within a larger context. Rarely does one little bit decide the whole war, but perhaps the success or failure of the PC's is indicative of the overall effort . . . and there could be some "save the world" missions. For real world versions of that, the book "Skis Against the Atom" about a special operation in WWII Norway is awesome.

Most importantly, I decide on the larger outcome before the PC's ever get involved, and then decide upon how much they can actually influence events and how they can do that. If they're down on the front lines, it isn't going to be much.

Maybe. I tend to decide the strategic trends, but not necessarily who wins. Usually, the PC's don't have much influence on events, but that could change at higher levels, which in my campaign world are relatively low (9th level +) compared to most campaigns I read about here. Certainly, I've seen a 4th level party have a significant tactical effect (saving a castle that would otherwise have been overrun).

 

[palleomortis]

I don't intend for the PC themselves to decide the war, but the thought has come and gone about letting them control skirmishes of a smaller kind (one phalanx vs. another type of skirmish). Enough that they have a sense of larger command, but not too much to actually influence a war. I was wondering what you would do for the phalanx itself. Would you roll for the majority of the individuals on the front-line (8-10 collums of 10-ish men deep) or do you roll for a majority? What kind of things should come into play? Should I let the PC's have a commanding rank, or a fighting position?

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I've actually gave an estimate of the forces each character was controlling, controlled the rest of the forces (both good guys defending a village and bad guy orcs invading) and based the results on whether or not I thought the player used his skills, had his character show courage in the face of the enemy, and made sound judgements with the limited information he or she had available (only knew what was happening in their portion of the field). No dice, and a lot of fun.

 

[Arnwyn]

I have several characters that are going to end up in a "little" war, he he. I was wondering how you guys handle large group wars, and things of the such. Do you actually roll for most of the people or groups, or just let them all kinda die, or...?

For us, we have the PCs control units (especially units that are related to their class) in each battle that their characters "interact" in (i.e. those that they are in the vicinity of).

For rules, if the skirmishes are small, we use the mass combat rules from Mongoose - their "OMCS II" (Open Mass Combat System II). Found in Book of the Sea and Strongholds & Dynasties, they're quite good.

If the battle is quite large with huge units, we instead use Eden's Fields of Blood.

Both sets of rules work fine, even when used in the same game world (provided one does some prep work first). We like the mechanics of mass combat, and the fact that it gives the players a bit of variation (which we highly value), so this method works for us.

 

[Flynn]

This is what I use:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4037

It works great, and allows for a high level of abstraction, so that the actual battle doesn't eat up your game time and you can move on to the rest of the adventure.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Oryan77]

I haven't done it yet but I would like to get a battle going in the Blood War.

I would handle it like I do riots in a town. The PC's fight normally and can target NPC's and areas normally. But I would describe how there are many more people around the area than what minis I display on the table. I would describe cut scenes between rounds so they know what else is going on on the battle field. Like others said, I would determine the outcome of the war before we played. The PCs actions would just show how well or poorly they did in their section of the battlefield.