what do you want in a mass combat system?

[mattcolville]

Lines like the following imply that you're abstracting the D&D rules in Book of War:

I don't mean to imply that a 7th level fighter would be able to take on an army of thousands on a D&D ruleset battlemap, but under the BoW ruleset, would the D&D rules decide that, or some artifact of the Book of War?

I'll ask upfront, then: How much are you abstracting or re-interpreting the current ruleset? By not using standard D&D rules on PCs, this seems inevitably what your rules must do - unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible)!

I don't know how to answer this. D&D is an abstraction. It's one that *doesn't have rules* for armies vs armies. When you say: "would the D&D rules decide that, or some artifact of the Book of War?" You imply the D&D rules *could* decide that.

The Book of War is like the Psionicists Handbook. If you wanted to be a psionicist before the handbook, you couldn't. There were no rules for it. If you want your army of thousands to fight someone else's army of thousands, you can't. There are no rules for it. The Book of War gives you those rules, just like the Psionicists Handbook gave you rules for Psionics.

If there *were* rules in D&D for mass combat, this thread wouldn't exist.

There are many people who don't want rules for Armies vs Armies (which we have a word for: war) they want rules for My PC Takes On An Army Of Thousands And Wins. That's a different product. The Book of War is about war. It's not the Book of Your PC Victorious Against An Army Of Thousands.

I, personally, think the idea of a single individual standing alone against an army is. . .not an interesting one. Why would the army stop and fight you? Why wouldn't they just swarm past you, take the few dozen kills you'll inflict, and take whatever it was you were defending? Why don't they just swarm you and tie you to a rock?

I have a rather oblique piece of datum to report. My favorite minis game is a little known FASA product called Vor. There's a Vor mini called Razorfang who is, literally, indestructable and furthermore capable of instantly killing virtually any unit on the field. There's some hyperbole in there, I don't want to explain all the rules, but you get my drift.

It took awhile, but eventually those fighting against him time after time began to realize that ignoring the beast was the best option. Games only last 4-7 turns and in that time, the beast could only attack a few individuals out of several dozen.

Without going into a lot of detail, the Book of War is like that. You're only going to be able to move so far and attack so many dudes. Let's say you take out 500 men over the course of the battle. That's reasonable. A fighter with Whirlwind attack, against oppoents who, every round, fill up all the squares around him so he never has to move could kill 480 people in an hour. That presumes he never misses and each blow is fatal and he never critically fumbles. Well that's a little less than 5 units in the Book of War and even then it's moderately unrealistic. I think you could easily run a battle with 10,000 men on a side. If that's true, the fact that one dude killed 480 people isn't a deal breaker.

But I really think the Book of War is going to be fun and many, many people will like it. People who open it up and see the Battle Magic and rules for Elven Light Cavalry and rules for starting your own country are going to want to *use* those rules and do those things. Furthermore, a lot of the design data is in the book, so people can convert spells from other sourcebooks and monsters from other monster books.

And, ultimately, your PC can ride out, challenge the leader of the opposition, and—if victorious—cause the opposing army to rout. Given this—and the other ways PCs affect battle by casting spells and leading units—I don't think people will feel as though their characters can't do anything in the game.

 

[mattcolville]

To state my assumptions:

2) Abstracting combat that PCs are directly involved in is dangerous; it leaves the wargame system open to claims that it doesn't accurately portray what a PC might be able to do (and what would happen as a result of that) if it were resolved on a 3E battlemap using standard D&D 3E rules.

All this is true; but I look at it like this; there are things people worry about, and there are things they don't worry about. When things turn out badly, but they do so reasonably, players don't worry about it. When things turn out badly, and players feel fahucked, then they do worry about it.

It's *real* hard for your PC to get fahucked in the BoW. Real hard. And really the only way you can get boned, is through Single Combat with an opposing leader, and that uses the actual real D&D rules that I didn't have anything to do with, so you can't blame it on me.

When Richard III lost his crown on Bosworth field, he did it because he was fighting someone using the normal D&D rules, not because of the BoW rules.

But, while it's powerfullly hard (if not actually impossible) to die on the battlefield because of the BoW, it's easy to *rule* the battlefield because of the Book of War. That's why it's *fun*. I think.

So the question is; will things turn out badly and the players feel boned because of my rules? Hmmm...maybe some small percentage will, but that's a statistical fact. I think the vast majority will feel enabled, not boned.

 

[Darklance]

Matt-If it matters I'd like to let you know that your taking the book in exactly the direction I (and I believe most people) would like to see it go.

 

[rounser]

I don't know how to answer this. D&D is an abstraction. It's one that *doesn't have rules* for armies vs armies. When you say: "would the D&D rules decide that, or some artifact of the Book of War?" You imply the D&D rules *could* decide that.

With a big enough battlemap, enough miniatures, and enough time, you could resolve armies vs armies battles with D&D 3E rules - with some caveats:

1) No rules for morale.
2) No rules for leading units.
3) Unrealistic maneuvering of unit formations....

Etcetera. And it would take a loooooong time - that's why we need a wargame ruleset for 3E mass combat - to take care of these unit simulation factors that the D&D ruleset doesn't cover, and make the mass combat much quicker and easier to run.

The Book of War is like the Psionicists Handbook. If you wanted to be a psionicist before the handbook, you couldn't. There were no rules for it. If you want your army of thousands to fight someone else's army of thousands, you can't. There are no rules for it. The Book of War gives you those rules, just like the Psionicists Handbook gave you rules for Psionics.

I don't really think your analogy stands. The difference between the Psionics Handbook for 3E and a mass combat ruleset for 3E is that there are already combat rules in 3E D&D, and there were no psi rules before the Psi Handbook was made.

What does this mean? Well, IMO, a mass combat system for the game should be simulating an extrapolation of those existing combat rules along with their quirks of a 20th level fighter being able to destroy armies if the opposing army is stupid enough to line up and attempt to beat him down - not redefining the mores of D&D combat with regard to PCs just because it happens to take place on the battlefield.

As the DMG says, PCs of a certain level could conceivably take on a limitless number of creatures of a low enough CR. If a mass combat ruleset doesn't reflect this, then it's not reflecting D&D - and arguably isn't a valid mass combat ruleset for the system. There is, as you point out, no guarantee whatsoever that they'll line up for his blade, and they probably won't....but if they did....

If there *were* rules in D&D for mass combat, this thread wouldn't exist.

Indeed. But it's possible for me to make a D&D compatible mass combat ruleset that doesn't reflect D&D's "realities" (if you will), but rather base it on tastes that are more in line with another system's "realities", such as, say, Rolemaster.

There are many people who don't want rules for Armies vs Armies (which we have a word for: war) they want rules for My PC Takes On An Army Of Thousands And Wins. That's a different product. The Book of War is about war. It's not the Book of Your PC Victorious Against An Army Of Thousands.

If that's what my epic level character would be able to do under the normal ruleset if he faced said armies (their objective: his death) on a huge battlemap using standard D&D rules, I doubt that the fact that the goblins are in units rather than acting as skirmishers or individual combatants (which the D&D rules are arguably set up to handle) should affect the outcome to the degree that you state. That's a stylistic choice that may not represent the D&D universe, if you will. The D&D universe isn't a simulation of reality, after all...

I, personally, think the idea of a single individual standing alone against an army is. . .not an interesting one. Why would the army stop and fight you? Why wouldn't they just swarm past you, take the few dozen kills you'll inflict, and take whatever it was you were defending? Why don't they just swarm you and tie you to a rock?

I think you're setting up something of a straw man here, because they could swarm past you on a huge battlemap using D&D 3E rules. They could try and grapple you, or trip you - there are existing rules for that. My question is, to what degree do your rules replace or re-interpret the existing ones with regard to PCs?

 

[rounser]

It's *real* hard for your PC to get fahucked in the BoW. Real hard. And really the only way you can get boned, is through Single Combat with an opposing leader, and that uses the actual real D&D rules that I didn't have anything to do with, so you can't blame it on me.

Fair enough. That is something of an ace up your sleeve.

 

[mattcolville]

With a big enough battlemap, enough miniatures, and enough time, you could resolve armies vs armies battles with D&D 3E rules - with some caveats:

1) No rules for morale.
2) No rules for leading units.
3) Unrealistic maneuvering of unit formations....

Etcetera. And it would take a loooooong time - that's why we need a wargame ruleset for 3E mass combat - to take care of these unit simulation factors that the D&D ruleset doesn't cover, and make the mass combat much quicker and easier to run.

Well you've got a choice; either it doesn't cover it or it does, you can't have it both ways. If it does, then you don't need the BoW. If it doesn't, then you need *some* new rules and there are *no* new rules I can introduce that won't make someone think "that's unrealistic."

I can't introduce rules for Morale that don't, to someone, break the rules of D&D because in D&D there is no morale. There are no rules for giving and taking orders, if I introduce these, you'll be able to say 'Wait, why does my unit of Cavalry have to make a Command check when in normal D&D 100 dudes of horses don't have to make Command checks?' I can't introduce rules for Units without the same thing happening.

People looking for a reason to disagree with the design choices I've made will find many of opportunities. People looking for a good set of rules that solve the problem may be happy. But in any endeavor such as this, there are many people who have an idea of how *they* would do it, and in those cases, only their game will satisfy them.

 

[rounser]

Well you've got a choice; either it doesn't cover it or it does, you can't have it both ways. If it does, then you don't need the BoW. If it doesn't, then you need *some* new rules and there are *no* new rules I can introduce that won't make someone think "that's unrealistic."

Yep, it's a compromise. But there's a difference between adding new rules, and adding new rules which replace old ones with regard to PCs. For example:

Under a mass combat system, I wouldn't complain if the men-at-arms my PC was fighting beside broke and ran because of some add-on morale rules defined by the mass combat system, nor would I complain if the opposing goblins maneuvered in a certain way in order to stay in formation and keep their bonuses against other units from doing that (defined in the mass combat rules).

I would complain if said goblin unit tied my PC to a rock (whereas they wouldn't otherwise) because the mass combat rules came up with something that replaced the existing grapple/trip etc. rules in D&D 3E. You've already noted that this isn't going to happen under BoW's combat paradigm, but I mention it for illustration of my point. The distinction is fine, and subjective, but relevant when it comes to PCs in particular, I think.

Anyways, as you've mentioned, the point is somewhat moot!

 

[jollyninja]

thanks for the input, i didnt expect this much feedback as most gamers i know don't really care for mass combat.

my goal is to provide rules by which the only limitations to do with the combatants involved are imposed by the dm. my system as it sits covers both land and air battles. as expected, the added comlexity of a third dimension adds complexity to the battle. sea battles are something i am currently working on.

as for pc involvement, that level is somewhat customisable. the system currently supports a high level of pc ability to effect battles, a really low level of pc influence on the outcome and i will probably add something between the two just to be thurough.

magic: i currently have a system that i am not to terribly displeased that does follow the standard rules of dnd but i'm not really happy with it as is. this probably means that everyone would love it to death

minature use is 100% optional, you decide what you wany the minatures to represent, or the quarter, or the eraser, or whatever else you have kicking around. if you don't want to use miniatures at all, don't. i'm not going to tell you the right way to play. you know what you like. it's easy enough to keep track of on scratch paper.

as for balance, a disciplined unit of 20 hobgoblins is every bit more powerful then a disciplined unit of 20 level 1 human fighters as they would be in single combat. if it's d20, it fits into the system quite easily. admittedly i do not have coc so i cannot really judge that system's compatability. star wars seems to work just fine as does wheel of time.

in summary, if you really want to stat a unit of 50 great wyrm gold dragons, i'll show you how, and that unit will easily kill gods. if you want to stat out the villiagers to fight the orcs, you can. either of these two will take only a couple of minutes. the level of detail is left to you and how much work you want to put in. pc's can act as unit leaders, single entities, or rank and file troops depending on your style and their level of power. i'll admit that throwing a level 18 fighter into a unit as a grunt sort of messes with the system a little. but it fits in, he will not have as much impact as if he were leading the unit but he will still effect the battle more then a level 1 fighter would.

it was originally designed for a campaing in which two paladin characters had followers and were taking on a small army of orcs. it scales up nicely.

 

[mattcolville]

Yep, it's a compromise. But there's a difference between adding new rules, and adding new rules which replace old ones with regard to PCs. For example:

Under a mass combat system, I wouldn't complain if the men-at-arms my PC was fighting beside broke and ran because of some add-on morale rules defined by the mass combat system, nor would I complain if the opposing goblins maneuvered in a certain way in order to stay in formation and keep their bonuses against other units from doing that (defined in the mass combat rules).

I would complain if said goblin unit tied my PC to a rock (whereas they wouldn't otherwise) because the mass combat rules came up with something that replaced the existing grapple/trip etc. rules in D&D 3E. You've already noted that this isn't going to happen under BoW's combat paradigm, but I mention it for illustration of my point. The distinction is fine, and subjective, but relevant when it comes to PCs in particular, I think.

Anyways, as you've mentioned, the point is somewhat moot!

Well that's kinda what I meant when I was talking about "it doesn't matter how I do it, only if it bones the PCs." It's easy not to bone the PCs, if you think outside the box. I think. And if no-one ends up tied to a rock, and if I can do that without denying them them opportunity to really affect the battle, then I think many people will be happy.

 

[Altin]

Well, to yank this back in the direction of the orginal poster's question, what I'd like in a mass combat system is something which produces D&D stat blocks for a group. What I essentially need is a Monsterous Manual entry for '20 Archers' which lets me allow PCs interact with '20 Archers' as well as figure out when they interact with '20 infantrymen'. A bit like you could fight swarms of insects in the old D&D as if they were one critter.

These units should probably have fairly good BABs to reflect the fact that, when you roll 20d20 in D&D, you should statistically hit anything once (but won't always do so) and they should have hit points which reflect that you need to do a fair bit of killing to eliminate the unit as a threat. The ACs could probably be the same as that of a single individual, the other 'stats' (abilities and saves) the reflections of an average. How you'd do dammage is anybody's guess. I'd probably assume that 20 people concentrating on one guy would hurt like all hell if they were effective (ie. if the unit 'hits') and give them something in the order of five times the base dammage of a single archer (or whatever) and more if they crit.

This sort of approach produces a system which makes masses of people more effective than they would be if you ran them mano-a-mano (as it were) but that isn't always a bad thing. Also, it is stupidly, stupidly unrealistic but if you want realism in your combats you've really playing the wrong game and should look into something like GURPS. Most of all, it is quick, easy and makes mass combat fully compatible with the D&D game if in a somewhat arbitrary way which admitedly fits rather poorly with the existing spell system (what happens when a mage casts sleep on a unit? Or some sort of charm effect? I guess you could rule that anything which effects individuals in ways which are complicated to resolve would be more or less wasted on a massed unit but this weakens non-evokers in this type of situation).

Anyhow, just some thoughts.

Yours,
Altin