Worlds of Design: The Nature of Armies

If you’re building a full-scale world for your campaign, that will likely involve armies. Let’s discuss what happens in the real world so that you can avoid straining the disbelief of your players.

“I am not afraid of an Army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of sheep led by a lion.” – Alexander the Great

There are lots of different kinds of armies. This column and next, I'm going to talk about some of those kinds. This time it’ll be about armies in general, next time about specific kinds of armies.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

National Armies​

In the modern world we’re accustomed to “national armies”, the military consisting of roughly 10% of the entire population of a country.

Of course, we’re used to the idea of nations, people with similar culture and language in most cases, all loyal to the idea of a single political entity. That is, a nation is a people, not a political state/country. Some nations have no country. Yet a nation in this sense is primarily a modern idea. (I'll talk another time about the nature of independent “states” (not USA states).)

Here I'm interested in the different kinds of armies that might become involved in melee warfare, usually quite different from national armies, and often not professionally trained.

National armies in the sense of a levy of an entire population (conscription - the draft) are an idea of the French Revolution (1789) and later. Before that, political states rarely became wholly embroiled in warfare (ancient Greece is an exception). Warfare was a matter for the ruler rather than for the populace as a whole.

Tribal Armies​

Perhaps the idea of national armies is not so different from age-old tribal armies in conception, but conscription results in professionally-trained armies who serve continuously for years. Tribal armies were a temporary levy of all males of military age, who were expected to have some ability to fight, but no formal training. Greek city-state armies relied on well-to-do men who had some training, but were called up temporarily, and could include as much as a quarter of the entire (free) population. All the groups regarded as "barbarians" by civilized countries relied on tribal armies; but the "barbarians" were typically so tough and used to conflict that they could overcome civilized armies - even Empire-era Roman professionals.

In most fantasy worlds you won’t have modern-style nations, except perhaps when an entire species is identified as a nation. And the rulers of those polities that are not nations won’t be able to mobilize the entire populace. Often, the populace won’t give a damn about the impending war, because one ruler (of the same species) will be much like another from their point of view.

Agricultural or Monied?​

A major question to ask about the nature of armies is whether they came from an agricultural economy or a monied economy. In the latter coinage is widespread and used for transactions, while in the former coinage is rare and most transactions are barter, with agricultural goods being the primary local trade goods. In the monied economy soldiers will usually be paid, whereas in the agricultural economy soldiers will usually be obligated to serve and are not otherwise paid. This is, for example, a difference between the Roman Empire (the entire Empire was organized around paying the soldiers) and the Roman Republic.

Humanoid "monsters" may organize armies in much the same way as humans do. But so many monsters don't seem to be attached to a political state, they're usually what I've called tribal.

Logistics​

I've quoted Napoleon about logistics. Keep in mind that armies are obviously important in warfare, but logistics, and leadership, are often more important. Keeping your soldiers in supply, of food, water, clothing, transport, weapons, and all the other paraphernalia of war, makes a huge difference. But not much of anything can compensate for poor leadership.

Next time I'll discuss particular kinds of armies, such as dynastic and feudal armies.

Your Turn: How important is the nature of armies in your RPG campaigns?

 

[eyeheartawk]

Your Turn: How important is the nature of armies in your RPG campaigns?

Pretty minimal.

In a practical sense, assuming a sort of standard D&D type world, what good would even large standing professional armies and walled fortifications really do against all sort of giant monsters, flying monsters and magic users?

Unless, of course, your army is a bunch of giant monsters, dragons and wizards.

 

[Mezuka]

Gygax apparently based D&D on the War of the Roses (1455 to 1487). So, late Middle-Ages. I go with that for my armies. It connects with my creative sensibilities.

 

[Arilyn]

Pretty minimal.

In a practical sense, assuming a sort of standard D&D type world, what good would even large standing professional armies and walled fortifications really do against all sort of giant monsters, flying monsters and magic users?

Unless, of course, your army is a bunch of giant monsters, dragons and wizards.

These are my thoughts as well. And then there are the deities. Are they mature enough to stay out of it? What about pacifist deities? I'm thinking Organians from original Star Trek forcing peace.

I don't want to spend the time trying to sort out what a D&D economy looks like, let alone standing armies with worlds of D&D craziness!

 

[Gammadoodler]

Pretty minimal.

In a practical sense, assuming a sort of standard D&D type world, what good would even large standing professional armies and walled fortifications really do against all sort of giant monsters, flying monsters and magic users?

Unless, of course, your army is a bunch of giant monsters, dragons and wizards.

Would go with "it depends".

Military technology and tactics have always evolved in response to the nature of the threats they are expected to address. We still have large standing armies now, when military capabilities are often significantly beyond what any DnD monsters can accomplish.

How threatening armies are to monsters and vice versa is ultimately a slider which is under the DMs control.

 

[Argyle King]

In D&D, the way levels work often conflicts with how I would prefer armed conflicts to work out.

Being able to tank a cannonball to the chest (due to high HP) is pretty cool for DBZ or mythic fantasy but not so much for a campaign which involves political intrigue and PCs leading armies rather than soloing armies.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Would go with "it depends".

Military technology and tactics have always evolved in response to the nature of the threats they are expected to address. We still have large standing armies now, when military capabilities are often significantly beyond what any DnD monsters can accomplish.

How threatening armies are to monsters and vice versa is ultimately a slider which is under the DMs control.

I think it's more relevant to the type of setting you choose. Could I make a believable scenario in which large scale medieval-ish armies clash with one another and not have the logic be fundamentally broken by all the stuff that exists, in say, The Sword Coast?

Sure I could.

But, even so, I would say it makes way more sense for that stuff to exist in something like Harn or Chivalry and Sorcery than it does in a D&D game with level 12 superhero PCs running around.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think it's more relevant to the type of setting you choose. Could I make a believable scenario in which large scale medieval-ish armies clash with one another and not have the logic be fundamentally broken by all the stuff that exists, in say, The Sword Coast?

Sure I could.

But, even so, I would say it makes way more sense for that stuff to exist in something like Harn or Chivalry and Sorcery than it does in a D&D game with level 12 superhero PCs running around.

Sure, it's not as easy to just directly import real-world historical analogues.

But fundamentally ground is still held by people. So it makes sense that people would be trained to take or defend that ground, likely in groups, possibly large groups.

When you start bringing in your level 12 PC types it just changes your tactical options/priorities for attacking or defending that ground.

Edit: A caveat to all the above. Some of this does depend on the implicit system assumptions. In a bounded accuracy system like 5e, every creature, no matter the level, has at least a 5% chance of doing some damage to pretty much any other creature no matter the level, so armies of commoners can make sense and be effective. In a system like PF2e, where character level gets baked into AC, DCs, and saves, and there are tiered levels of success, it can get to the point where no matter how many dice are thrown, success is not possible. In these cases, the commoner army would not function, and something more professional (or ar least with more mechanical potence) would have to exist.

 

[Argyle King]

Sure, it's not as easy to just directly import real-world historical analogues.

But fundamentally ground is still held by people. So it makes sense that people would be trained to take or defend that ground, likely in groups, possibly large groups.

When you start bringing in your level 12 PC types it just changes your tactical options/priorities for attacking or defending that ground.

Edit: A caveat to all the above. Some of this does depend on the implicit system assumptions. In a bounded accuracy system like 5e, every creature, no matter the level, has at least a 5% chance of doing some damage to pretty much any other creature no matter the level, so armies of commoners can make sense and be effective. In a system like PF2e, where character level gets baked into AC, DCs, and saves, and there are tiered levels of success, it can get to the point where no matter how many dice are thrown, success is not possible. In these cases, the commoner army would not function, and something more professional (or ar least with more mechanical potence) would have to exist.

I'm not so sure that I would say the "bounded accuracy" of 5E facilitates that either.

Maybe the new books will address this, but it's not very difficult to create a PC that monsters can't hit -even at low levels. At higher levels, the issue swings back the other way. With HP being used as the primary way of scaling monsters, a lot of military tactics don't work due to D&D damage not being anything resembling injury (as long as the target is above 0 HP).

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not so sure that I would say the "bounded accuracy" of 5E facilitates that either.

Maybe the new books will address this, but it's not very difficult to create a PC that monsters can't hit -even at low levels. At higher levels, the issue swings back the other way. With HP being used as the primary way of scaling monsters, a lot of military tactics don't work due to D&D damage not being anything resembling injury (as long as the target is above 0 HP).

Facilitates, probably not, but you start throwing 100, 200, 1,000, 10,000 d20 rolls at the situation, each with a 5% chance to succeed, at some point, numbers will work as a solution. Comparatively, in PF2e, you can get to a level where a nat 20 still results in a failed attack roll. At that point whether there are a thousand attcks or a million, there is zero threat.

In either case though, if you assume that a threat/conflict can be addressed through violence, and that the threat/conflict is not something wholly new to the world, then it becomes a matter of determining what systems and methods the people in the world have developed to deliver the violence required. An army with tactics tailored to the opposition could be one solution, contracted adventurers with high level gear another, powerful magic a third. Or you combine these or find some other way.

Then, if there is ground to take, someone or some thing has to be there to occupy it. And whoever or whatever it is would likely need to be able to defend against the application of violence from other people/creatures who want that ground. As a result, systems and methods would have to exist for how to defend against applied violence. And thus far, this is a task for which I haven't seen any substitute for an army. Adventurers and D&D magic just aren't good at occupying space.

The concept of "boots on the ground" has been around for a long time for a reason.