Mass Combat

[Aldus Vertten]

I'm reading right now The Last Argument of Kings, and while i was reading the chapter The seventh day, i keep thinking of how cool would be to be able to play this kind of "mass combat" scene... each player in a different place, doing different things, killing scores and scores of enemies...

[Gentry]

This seems precisely like what a Mass Combat dramatic conflict should embody. My personal holy grail in this respect is actually the MC rules from the Legend of the Five Rings RPG.

[SnowDog]

I know that this is an old topic but I didn't want to start a new one about this...

I think that some sort of descriptive mass combat would work best where PCs would take on individual "encounters". On the other hand I would not mind more strategic approach, either even down to hex paper and counters but I suppose that this won't be the case.

At the moment I don't see a need for mass combat but given time, it will be a very likely that I need to run it one way or the other. Besides I would just love to run a Black Company style campaign at some point and then mass combat would be extremely useful.

Anyway, are there any news when we might be able to see the mass combat rules?

Thanks again!

[Khaalis]

Also, is there any update on when we might start seeing the release of some Dramatic Conflicts?

[Nepenthe]

I know that this is an old topic but I didn't want to start a new one about this...

I think that some sort of descriptive mass combat would work best where PCs would take on individual "encounters".

One of the 3.5e supplements (edit: Heroes of Battle) featured a pretty nice system along those lines - I seem to remember it was kind of modular and might be drag & dropped into Fantasy Craft while the Crafty lads work their magic on mass combat.

Of course, it's OOP, but then again, I just got a mint d20 version of Dark Matter for 10 euros shipped

[SnowDog]

Thanks for the tip!

In fact I have Pirate Islands for Conan RPG and that has some sort of mass combat system, too. I suppose I'll check it out first as I own that one and see how well it can be adapted to FC (unless Crafty's system comes out in time when I need it).

[ThatBlastedSamophlange]

Just to pipe in, I've never been a fan of mass combat rules.  While this is my personal opinion, I have always found that if you are telling a story, which RPG gaming embodies to me, that the outcome of a large battle should be pre-determined.  So if you have an army of undead at the walls, and the players are helping to defend the castle, you as a GM should know that the undead are going to be defeated, the question though is how? 

This is where the party comes in, if the party can accomplish specific goals, it lets the pre-determined victors win more decisively.  So if the party can sneak out and destroy the siege engines, while the battle is raging, the walls of the keep stand, meaning that the soldiers of the line survive.  Or the party can decide to strike at the enemy casters that raise fallen troops, this action, while sacrificing the safety of those on the wall, prevents any enemy reinforcements.

Mass combat should be a scripted encounter, where the party has the ability to affect the outcome, even though it is predetermined.  The trick is, never let the PC's know that they are destined to win, otherwise they won't try anything.  Of course, in Fantasy Craft if the party doesn't do anything to fight the undead army at the castle walls, they should lose a helluva lot of reputation, since they will be marked as cowards.

[SnowDog]

I can understand why you feel like this and part of me feel like it, too.

Still, some sort of system that adds story elements and combat scenes in addition to help resolve the outcome is something that I'd like to have. Personally I feel like telling a story where even I don't know what happens. Will the forces be defeated or not, how many will survive etc.

[Nepenthe]

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, I'm enough of a storyteller GM to prefer to have my broad strokes set out... But to have the results of every battle decided beforehand? What's the point in playing, then? Not seeing it...

[drnuncheon]

Just to pipe in, I've never been a fan of mass combat rules.  While this is my personal opinion, I have always found that if you are telling a story, which RPG gaming embodies to me, that the outcome of a large battle should be pre-determined.  So if you have an army of undead at the walls, and the players are helping to defend the castle, you as a GM should know that the undead are going to be defeated, the question though is how?

Why predetermine it, though?  Isn't the story of the castle falling while a band of heroes escapes with the queen and her infant son just as potentially interesting and compelling as the one where the castle stands battered but unbroken at the end?

[Crafty_Pat]

We don't normally talk about releases before they're imminent. However...

Also, is there any update on when we might start seeing the release of some Dramatic Conflicts?

If our current schedule holds, they're in the pipe for 2010.

[Krensky]

Just to pipe in, I've never been a fan of mass combat rules.  While this is my personal opinion, I have always found that if you are telling a story, which RPG gaming embodies to me, that the outcome of a large battle should be pre-determined.  So if you have an army of undead at the walls, and the players are helping to defend the castle, you as a GM should know that the undead are going to be defeated, the question though is how?

Why predetermine it, though?  Isn't the story of the castle falling while a band of heroes escapes with the queen and her infant son just as potentially interesting and compelling as the one where the castle stands battered but unbroken at the end?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes the alternative destroys the assumptions of the GM's campaign world or the themes and overall plot of the game.

It really depends on the type of campaign, the table, and the circumstances.

[ThatBlastedSamophlange]

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, I'm enough of a storyteller GM to prefer to have my broad strokes set out... But to have the results of every battle decided beforehand? What's the point in playing, then? Not seeing it...

This is why I stated that it is important to not let the players know you are doing this.  Maybe it's because I've (been victim?) to groups that don't do anything to further the story, they just kind of stay in a holding pattern.  My players need a kick in the proverbial ass when it comes to doing things. 

That aside though, when you write the overarching story, where the castle stands or falls depending on what you've done, it can keep the campaign flowing. 

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. 

[ThatBlastedSamophlange]

Why predetermine it, though?  Isn't the story of the castle falling while a band of heroes escapes with the queen and her infant son just as potentially interesting and compelling as the one where the castle stands battered but unbroken at the end?

Yes that story is equally compelling, so if you chose to decide the outcome of the battle, you have to weigh the options carefully. 

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. 

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. 

Fantasy Craft is a game based on careful planning of an adventure on a personal heroic scale, not one for mass battles.  There ARE other games for that.   

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.

[Zeure]

+1 for the cards

Additionally, I'd actually really like it if it was vaugely both ways on the whole 'series of encounters' vs. the 'massive overarching battle'.  Some GM need it spelled out for them and are loathe to foster any rule not specifically stated in the physical book; so, having rules for both especially in a PDF would not really be that troublesome.

Personally I'm for the 'series of small encounters' approach because the other feels too much like you should just be playing dynasty warriors.