Mass Combat

[spinningdice]

Of course most of my players are wargamers, so I think they'd largely like an actual semi-wargame. Which if I were to ad-hoc I'd create NPC stats for Units (i.e. that block of 50 men over there is actually a Swordsmen collossal folk walker) & then play it out as normal.

[drnuncheon]

Now, imagine on the flip side where the outcome is truly random, the players come up with all these really interesting ideas, they seem to do everything right, but victory is taken from them because of some arbitrary dice roll?  Isn't that just as unfair to the players as pre-determining the outcome?  Potentially more so in my opinion, as the players will think that nothing they do will ever matter. 

Sounds like an issue with the mass combat system you've chosen, then - you want one where player actions weigh more heavily in determining the outcome rather than having it be "truly random".  You probably want one that involves more than a single die roll, too, to minimize the effect of said randomness. 

If the player still manage to lose through that - and you're a "roll in the open" type of GM - they will know they have been defeated only by bad luck, which will at least have them blaming the dice instead of you.

[drnuncheon]

For instance, if I was writing a massive battle into a story for Fantasy Craft it would be the first scene.  If I want to run an adventure where the party is trying to find out where the undead army came from, I'd want the castle to survive.  If I wanted to run an adventure where they castle falls, and the party is under constant threat of being discovered while the sneak the queen and her infant son through an undead controlled nation, then I would write that adventure.

And if halfway through your scripted siege, the players decide "we're not going to win this one, screw this, lets get the hell out of here"? 

It all comes down to everyone having fun, and that included the GM.  If he spends weeks writing adventures only to have the outcome of the battle and the fate having to scrap weeks of work, because someone rolled an 8 instead of a 9, then as a GM I'd feel disheartened.

Well, yeah, because you're acting like the outcome is predetermined and scripting the adventures based on that.  But that's just the railroad question all over again.  Let's take random chance out of the equation - what would you do in a situation where the PCs decided not to follow your adventure path, and you had to scrap weeks of work because of that decision?

It does all come to personal preference though.  As the person who runs a game because he is sick of playing games where everything is rolled randomly and has no real story, I want a REASON for the story to continue.  So, like I said, in a mass conflict you have a predetermined goal, either army A or army B wins.   The trick is how it is done, how the party affects the outcome, without derailing the entire campaign.

Derailing is only a problem if you are trying to run your campaign on rails.   

True story: one of my absolute favorite moments as a GM was when I put a player in a situation where she had to make a choice.  One path would leave the campaign mostly running as it was, and the other would completely alter everything.  The choice came up at the end of the game session, so she had a week to agonize over it.  Eventually she picked the second, and it didn't destroy the campaign, it made it.  I don't think the game would have been half as memorable or interesting if she had gone the "safe" route.

Anyway, if I wanted a predetermined story I'd be a novelist.  I'm a GM because I want to put my players in interesting situations and see what they do.  That's the real story - the choices the PCs make.  So I guess my point is, there is always a reason for the story to continue, for as long as you want it to, as long as you remain open to the possibilities.

[ThatBlastedSamophlange]

And if halfway through your scripted siege, the players decide "we're not going to win this one, screw this, lets get the hell out of here"? 

Then, if I scripted the siege to be successful, the queen and infant son escape, and the party loses lots of reputation and possibly labeled as traitors.  If the siege is scripted to fail, then there are lots of lives lost on the defenders side, the party is once again losing lots of reputations, and declared to be cowards, not to mention possibly traitors as well.

Well, yeah, because you're acting like the outcome is predetermined and scripting the adventures based on that.  But that's just the railroad question all over again.  Let's take random chance out of the equation - what would you do in a situation where the PCs decided not to follow your adventure path, and you had to scrap weeks of work because of that decision?

Well, any written adventure is pretty much a railroad - it just depends on which scale.  How many adventures are published with more than one way to beat the big bad at the end?  Or at least get to him?   
As to the pc's deciding not to do said adventure, if it was important to the overall story line, there are going to be repercussions.  Going with the example of the siege not being successful and the players not even being there, the castle stands, but troops have to be pulled back from other areas leaving them weaker, not to mention undefended areas through out the kingdom.  This increases the difficulty of following missions.  I will script one adventure in advance, especially with Fantasy Craft where I feel the mission must be laid out properly.  So if the PC's don't want to do the first adventure, or the Second one I have ready, then.  I say I'm done for the night, and either pack up and go home or someone else can run, and with my group that's not very likely. 

You see, being a GM is hard work, I would think we all know this.  Many of us do it because we want to have fun, and crafting adventures is what 'gets our rocks off' so to speak.  If the party isn't going to do anything, and you can't spell out why their characters would want to do it in the opening scene, then there really is no point running a game.  Let someone else do it.

Derailing is only a problem if you are trying to run your campaign on rails.   

A tongue in cheek comment, but an accusation none the less.  I don't run my whole campaign on rails.  If you play in an adventure that has some written story, you are on a rail my friend.  If you have a plot, or goals that is a rail.  Quick question, how many people run a game with out any ideas as  GM?  Do you let the players just sit around until they think of something to do?

True story: one of my absolute favorite moments as a GM was when I put a player in a situation where she had to make a choice.  One path would leave the campaign mostly running as it was, and the other would completely alter everything.  The choice came up at the end of the game session, so she had a week to agonize over it.  Eventually she picked the second, and it didn't destroy the campaign, it made it.  I don't think the game would have been half as memorable or interesting if she had gone the "safe" route.

It seems you are assuming that, me saying that because I would predetermine the outcome of a mass battle based on what is better for the overall story, that I don't give the players any choice at all.  This is false.  How the party got to the besieged castle was because of their choices, when I write my own campaign I write at least one adventure ahead.  This is a backup adventure of sorts, a natural conclusion of the previous adventure.  IF the party decides at the end of the  previous adventure to do something else, especially completely different, then I will take a week to write that other adventure (assuming of course I have time) if I don't someone else can run that week.

Anyway, if I wanted a predetermined story I'd be a novelist.  I'm a GM because I want to put my players in interesting situations and see what they do.  That's the real story - the choices the PCs make.  So I guess my point is, there is always a reason for the story to continue, for as long as you want it to, as long as you remain open to the possibilities.

Okay, quick question to you then.  Say you bought the Darkest Hour adventure that Crafty sells.  You get the group together to run it, and after the first encounter nobody wants to continue with that story.  How does that make you feel?  You've spent money and time to run a game  and the players just dick off an do something else at random.  How about if this happens constantly, only the players don't have any ideas of what they want to do.  They just drop the adventure to stand around.  I've had that problem.  That is partially what has given me the viewpoint.  For my group, running is a chore, hell a lot of players don't like to run a game, but you know what someone has gotta do it.  So, if it's going to be me I'm going to do the game my way.  If we were in the same group and you didn't like my GM style I'd ask you or someone else to run.  If nobody else would then I'd go see a movie or read a book.  That's the way it is.  If I'm going to put lots of time an effort to run a game, especially since I am constantly on call and don't know when I will be working next, I want to have a concrete idea of where to go in a game.

[SnowDog]

I think this is getting a bit OT, but let's continue

Personally, I like some kind of mass combat system to have in hand. I don't like to script things but rather see how things go. If you don't want to use a system like this, noone is forcing you But then again you didn't say that there should not be a mass combat system, you just don't need one. That's okay.

Personally I have played too many campaigns where we had only one way to win I don't want to do that to my players. In addition to that I, too am a very busy man. I simply don't have time to prep the games all that much, so my reaction have been almost absolutely opposed to your way to handle the situation.

I try and get as far as I can without making too much preparation. I just do some preliminary work and think what will happen if my PCs will do one thing or the other. So, my approach is a pretty much a sandbox style.

I'm not saying that my way of running things is only way to do it, but it works for me. If your style works for you, more power to you

[TheAuldGrump]

I very much dislike the term 'scripted' - it implies the existence of a script that the PCs are expected to follow. My least favorite moments as a player have nearly always been because a GM was expecting the players to do one thing, and one thing only. As a GM my least favorite adventures were because the author had that same expectation. (White Wolf, I am looking at you!)

I much prefer a flowchart  where I have prepared for several likely actions, rather than just one. The players may still surprise me, and I hope that they will, but I have a lot more options to build upon.

The Auld Grump

[drnuncheon]

Okay, quick question to you then.  Say you bought the Darkest Hour adventure that Crafty sells.  You get the group together to run it, and after the first encounter nobody wants to continue with that story.  How does that make you feel?

Disappointed - that's why I try to avoid the possibility as much as possible. 

When I'm not using prewritten stuff, I try not to have a "plot" in mind at all.  I try to put the players into situations where they can make interesting choices and run with the consequences of those.  If the plot is about them and what they do then it can never be derailed, it can just go off in unexpected directions.

I also have a pretty good feel for what my players enjoy and will go after, so when I do decide to use a prewritten adventure it's never "off the shelf".  I pick one that they are likely to enjoy and that fits in thematically with the game, then spend some time working it into the game, coming up with some hooks to get the players involved that are specific to their characters rather than whatever generic ones come with the adventure, etc.  Basically, I take some time to change it from "generic adventure" to "this is what I would have come up with had I been writing this adventure for this group".  My players have so far rewarded that effort.

So I don't know what the Darkest Hour is about past the catalog description, but in my game the PCs would have a reason to defend the village, or seek out what was threatening it, or whatever - one that related to their own desires and goals.

You've spent money and time to run a game  and the players just dick off an do something else at random.  How about if this happens constantly, only the players don't have any ideas of what they want to do.  They just drop the adventure to stand around.

…of course, this only works if they have goals.  If they don't then I would be very disappointed, and I would take it upon myself to strongly suggest one, even if it's as simple as "you're looking down at your last paltry handful of copper as the innkeeper knocks on the door and demands you finally pay your tab."

[MugMug]

It does all come to personal preference though.  As the person who runs a game because he is sick of playing games where everything is rolled randomly and has no real story, I want a REASON for the story to continue.  So, like I said, in a mass conflict you have a predetermined goal, either army A or army B wins.   The trick is how it is done, how the party affects the outcome, without derailing the entire campaign.

Nothing wrong with that, but don't unduly limit yourself. It's entirely possible to have the outcome of the mass conflict unknown, but still have an idea of what direction your campaign will go if one side wins, and what direction it might go if the other wins. The story can still continue. From my own personal viewpoint, though, I like that the outcome might be affected by player choices.

I have little interest in mass combat -- the point of RPGs for me are the individual stories of the characters. If I were going to run some sort of mass combat, I'd probably have the party be an elite (or otherwise set aside) unit tasked with certain special functions -- the "destroy the siege engines" thing posted earlier would be an example of this. This allows play to remain focused on certain objectives, and provides a lever by which the party can affect the outcome of the battle.

Walter

[MaskedBrute]

I know you folks at Crafty have about a million things going on these days... but is there any further word on these?

[Crafty_Pat]

I know you folks at Crafty have about a million things going on these days... but is there any further word on these?

Assuming you're talking about Dramatic Conflicts, there's nothing new to report... yet.

[LordKruelos]

Holy thread necromancy batman!

[MaskedBrute]

Well, this is the thread that came up when I did a search on the subject and I read it through to the end.