Mass Combat and Appendix N

[geordie racer]

Mass combat in rpgs ranges from the very abstract ('treat each unit as a individual', 'biggest side goes a bonus') to the very complex. Usually PCs are just part of the rank and file, with only magic-users treated as special.

From what I've read of Appendix N, the characters play a decisive role in mass combats. How can we cater for this literary focus on the PCs in gameplay while adjudicating the outcome of the battle ?

[GnomeBoy]

I have sometimes put PCs into larger battles with dozens or more to a side. I usually just play out the PCs portion of the conflict, with or without allied troops in the mix, and narrate that the battle overall went similarly to what was played. It gives the players a chance to shape things, and it spares us the set-up time and extra time and space requirements to play out a full scale miniatures battle. I've been involved in attempts at that in the past, and it usually winds up with us playing a few rounds and then having to narrate things anyway, not having covered as much ground as the DM expected to cover...

[smathis]

Mass combat in rpgs ranges from the very abstract ('treat each unit as a individual', 'biggest side goes a bonus') to the very complex. Usually PCs are just part of the rank and file, with only magic-users treated as special.

From what I've read of Appendix N, the characters play a decisive role in mass combats. How can we cater for this literary focus on the PCs in gameplay while adjudicating the outcome of the battle ?

Wow. This is a great question. Usually, I've taken the advice in the WEG Star Wars game with large-scale combats. I give the PCs an incredibly important mission to accomplish. One that could turn the tide of battle. Like Luke taking out the Death Star.

I generally ad-lib how the larger battle is going. Sometimes rolling the dice for just a general idea, never on any granular basis. But the spotlight is on the PCs and their allies the whole time. If they succeed, the day is won. If not...

I have sometimes put PCs into larger battles with dozens or more to a side. I usually just play out the PCs portion of the conflict, with or without allied troops in the mix, and narrate that the battle overall went similarly to what was played. It gives the players a chance to shape things, and it spares us the set-up time and extra time and space requirements to play out a full scale miniatures battle. I've been involved in attempts at that in the past, and it usually winds up with us playing a few rounds and then having to narrate things anyway, not having covered as much ground as the DM expected to cover...

I agree with what GnomeBoy says. I've also been involved in large scale combats at the gaming table. It was never as much fun as I'd hoped.

Which reminds me that I've never had the chance to check out TLG's Fields of Battle. Is it any good?

[mythfish]

Chaosium's Pendragon game handled it in a way that gives the characters a lot of options on the field, and really captures the shifting chaos of a battlefield without the GM having to keep track of lots of individual stats.

For each battle, there was a table of random different opponents (for example: foot soldier, peasant militia, mounted knight, etc). The first round of battle, each PC rolls for a random opponent. You do one round of combat with that opponent. Then the battle tears you apart...if you want to stay with the same opponent the next round, you make some kind of roll (I forget exactly...some kind of perception or tactics thing). If you fail or choose not to stay with them, you get a new random opponent. It's more detailed than that, but that's the basic gist of it.

The only downside is that usually the PCs didn't actually have much effect on the outcome of the battle...that was usually predetermined by the story. It was just a matter of how the characters survived, and how much glory they gained while fighting.

[DCCfan]

I agree with you guys. Mass combat should be in the background with the focus on the PC's. I also liked the WEG approach. I have always tried to describe the chaos of the main battle and build up the back and forth of the two sides. I would describe them trading blows based on crits and fumbles in the PC's mission/fight.

[geordie racer]

Which reminds me that I've never had the chance to check out TLG's Fields of Battle. Is it any good?

Dunno, but I've got their Dogs of War: Felsentheim module which has minimal mass combat rules and a siege. The PCs aren't integrated into the battle mechanically but the GM can use hints and NPCs to place them at crisis points (manning the gate as it's breached, leading a counterattack). It's OK-ish.

[geordie racer]

Trying to figure out a mass combat system that's simple, abstract and player-centred, my initial idea is something like this:

Focussing on the PCs, how about whatever HD worth of enemies they put out of action acts as a modifier to a roll on a big 'state of the battle' table that tells us what happened that turn.

The roll is made with a dice type decided by the difference between the two sides (due to numbers, having an advantage like a wizard or a better commander).

The results on the combat table may involve everything from surrender, rout, commander killed, lost 50% of troops to outright victory. Outcomes for that turn may have give a modifier to the PCs combat next round.

I'm trying to get away from statting units or the 'treat a unit as an individual' idea I keep seeing. In trying not to make a wargame, am I getting too abstract though ?

[GnomeBoy]

Keeping focus on the PCs and making the rest abstract sounds absolutely right to me.

If you get some rules done up you'd like play-tested, I'd see what I could do to help...

[geordie racer]

Keeping focus on the PCs and making the rest abstract sounds absolutely right to me.

If you get some rules done up you'd like play-tested, I'd see what I could do to help...

Thanks for the offer, though I fear that anything I come up with will not be a patch on Joesky's Massive Combat System