I'm running a Labyrinth Lord game and we're getting close to the end. The players have made allies with four different groups and have amassed quite a bunch of warriors. So it looks like there will be some kind of battle with appx 50–70 combatants on each side.
Any suggestions on how to run this? Are there OSR games close enough to B/X that I could swipe out a combat system that manages quick'n'easily these kinds of numbers? I'd like the PCs' parts of the battle to be zoomed in while the rest of it goes on in the background.
Thanks
People are always bragging about how quick combat is in B/X, how long would it take to handle 70 combatants per side?
How long to you want to take to handle 70 combatants per side?
Quote from: gleichman;644774How long to you want to take to handle 70 combatants per side?
It's less a question of how long than how interesting. 140 d20 rolls per round tracking AC, HP, and # To-Hit will get stale fast.
Quote from: languagegeek;644776It's less a question of how long than how interesting. 140 d20 rolls per round tracking AC, HP, and # To-Hit will get stale fast.
How many d20 rolls per round tracking AC, HP and # To-Hit aren't boring?
Quote from: languagegeek;644776It's less a question of how long than how interesting. 140 d20 rolls per round tracking AC, HP, and # To-Hit will get stale fast.
Just break them into like units of 10-14 and run them as if they were single monsters. D&D's most ubiquitous combat mechanics were derived from Chainmail wargaming anyway, so it's trivial to just turn the clock back a little.
One option is the D&D Companion Set (or Rules Cyclopedia) War Machine rules. I'm not sure how enjoyable they'll be, because you'll have to do a number of calculations to get each force's Battle Rating, and then potentially take into account battlefield variables. But perhaps you can make it interesting by engaging the PCs in some set-piece battles ("heroic actions" against monsters or high-level opponents), or having them perform some tactical recon, to potentially shift the results of the battle in their favor.
I would just use Hordes of the Thing by WRG at least that's what I do, if you have the 15mm fantasy figures, if not, you can always use cardboard squares with troop pictures on them, I've done that in a pinch as well.
What are the forces like? Are we talking 50-70 high level/HD opponents per side or several high level opponents and lots of fodder?
Quote from: K Peterson;644810One option is the D&D Companion Set (or Rules Cyclopedia) War Machine rules.
Oh yeah I remember those, the most dangerous type of soldier within that system was a well trained leather clad spearman with a shield.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;644818What are the forces like? Are we talking 50-70 high level/HD opponents per side or several high level opponents and lots of fodder?
Several mid level opponents and lots of 1 or 2 HD fodder.
Quote from: SineNomine;644778Just break them into like units of 10-14 and run them as if they were single monsters. D&D's most ubiquitous combat mechanics were derived from Chainmail wargaming anyway, so it's trivial to just turn the clock back a little.
Pretty much what I do except I break them down into logical fights so a area with 14 fighters is treated as a unit, another area may have a group of 6 and so on.
Quote from: languagegeek;644834Several mid level opponents and lots of 1 or 2 HD fodder.
If you have very much in the way of magical support, the fodder will be toast after a round or two anyway then the numbers will be more manageable.
One way to do it is to concentrate on the main members of each group, and base the outcome of the fodder war on how well the leaders are doing. For example if there are 10 or so leaders per side and one side loses 2 and the other 4 members after a couple rounds then apply those casualty ratios to the rest of the force.
Morale rules will also do a lot to make a combat take a lot less time.
Chainmail.
Quote from: SineNomine;644778Just break them into like units of 10-14 and run them as if they were single monsters. D&D's most ubiquitous combat mechanics were derived from Chainmail wargaming anyway, so it's trivial to just turn the clock back a little.
This works well if many of the combatants are nearly identical.
Quote from: Bill;644982This works well if many of the combatants are nearly identical.
Why take the effort? This is after all D&D, simulation isn't highly prized.
I'm a fan of letting the high levels on both sides fight it out; then the low levels of the winning side get to gleefully slaughter the opposing low levels in celebration.
I've just noticed that AS&SH has some "Warfare and Siege" rules in the back of the Player's Manual. It might be good to give that a go for the main battle, but then have the players face off against their arch-rivals. How well the players vs villains battle goes would add/subtract morale from the main forces.
Quote from: languagegeek;644995I've just noticed that AS&SH has some "Warfare and Siege" rules in the back of the Player's Manual. It might be good to give that a go for the main battle, but then have the players face off against their arch-rivals. How well the players vs villains battle goes would add/subtract morale from the main forces.
You may also go with, what I like to call "Dynasty Warriors* Approach". If you are playing with the rule that fighter gets bonus attacks against 1 HD opponents, he is going to cut a bloody massacre through them anyway - and that is why the opposing "generals" - players, important figures, nobles etc etc - will seek themselves out to engage in combat, in order if not to defeat a powerful combatant, then to at least tie them up in a solo combat. It is not that gamey as well - it's a notion as old as the Illiad, and it may have some historical truth to it as well (especially in Middle Medieval Period it wasn't unheard of, and a reason why best warriors were standing under kings' standards was because, well, everyone tried to get to the king).
Then, use some battlefield resolution mechanic/simple wargame system for sides resolution.
*I think it's that game, at least >,<.
I know, it's not Swords & Wizardry Appreciation Day yet, but S&W has a chapter on mass combat.
And since it's free you can check if it suits your need:
http://www.d20swsrd.com/swords-and-wizardry-srd/for-players/characters/higher-level-play#TOC-Mass-Combat
For God's sake break it up into units.
I've seen a full battleboard with each character rolling dice individually. There must have been over a hundred combatants.
Rounds, each and every round, took over an hour to play out. Ridiculousness.
Quote from: gleichman;644986Why take the effort? This is after all D&D, simulation isn't highly prized.
I'm a fan of letting the high levels on both sides fight it out; then the low levels of the winning side get to gleefully slaughter the opposing low levels in celebration.
I think the degree of simulation desired varies. Some would prefer to play out the battle with every individual, some would just narrate the battle results.
Quote from: Bill;645277I think the degree of simulation desired varies. Some would prefer to play out the battle with every individual, some would just narrate the battle results.
It's D&D, there is no simulation.
Quote from: baran_i_kanu;645275For God's sake break it up into units.
I've seen a full battleboard with each character rolling dice individually. There must have been over a hundred combatants.
Rounds, each and every round, took over an hour to play out. Ridiculousness.
Odd that, I was able to have battles with over 300 combatants on the table in a system far more complex than D&D. No round took anywhere near an hour to play out.
You sure their real focus was on playing the game?
Quote from: gleichman;645297It's D&D, there is no simulation.
You can certainly argue the degree of simulation, but the 'Weapon type vs armor type chart' is an example of an attempt at simulation.
I might not be defining simulation the same way; in this context I think it means attempting to simulate reality and apply logic.
Quote from: gleichman;645298Odd that, I was able to have battles with over 300 combatants on the table in a system far more complex than D&D. No round took anywhere near an hour to play out.
You sure their real focus was on playing the game?
they came from wargaming backgrounds.
At 70 per side I would probably just bring a lot of d20s and resolve it normally. It's a bit too small a fight for War Machine abstract combat or Battlesystem style squads of 10 men.
I ran a battle much larger than that (ca 50 vs 150) in 4e D&D with most of the combatants being Minions, and that worked ok, taking around 3 hours per battle, similar to most regular wargames like Warhammer. I've also used minis-less AD&D combat with up to a couple hundred per side and again that works fine IME, and didn't take long.
My main advice, again: Bring Lots of d20s. You want to know what the target number is for eg Ftr-1s attacking AC 7, then roll 6-10 attacks at a time. Resolve all the attacks, then roll damage. Simplest approach is to accumulate damage on wounded targets within a squad until they're dead, but you can spread it around for a more realistic result, at the cost of more book-keeping.
Quote from: baran_i_kanu;645302they came from wargaming backgrounds.
They either weren't very good, or they weren't really focused on the game.
Quote from: Bill;645300You can certainly argue the degree of simulation, but the 'Weapon type vs armor type chart' is an example of an attempt at simulation.
I might not be defining simulation the same way; in this context I think it means attempting to simulate reality and apply logic.
D&D? Please. It's a game who's strongest supporters here advise not using the rules whenever possible.
This is a good case to not use the rules.
Quote from: gleichman;645307They either weren't very good, or they weren't really focused on the game.
Can't argue that one. :D I refused to play their games. They were rather bad at role-playing. I was just an observer watching my other friends who were playing in the campaign take naps, read a book, etc. Horrible game.
Quote from: baran_i_kanu;645319Can't argue that one. :D I refused to play their games. They were rather bad at role-playing. I was just an observer watching my other friends who were playing in the campaign take naps, read a book, etc. Horrible game.
Painful.
I'm not a 'all the game all the time' type of person, but that type of behavior would be a reason to cancel the game as it would be clear to me they didn't want to play it.
Quote from: gleichman;645310D&D? Please. It's a game who's strongest supporters here advise not using the rules whenever possible.
This is a good case to not use the rules.
I can't speak for everyone, but I advocate not using the rules only when the rules are not needed, or unable to reasonably handle a situation.
Whenever possible would be all the time, and thus may as well play freeform with no ruleset.
GDW's Striker has a combat system that allows you to use melee weapons in small to medium size unit combat. You should use that.
Quote from: Bill;645323Whenever possible would be all the time, and thus may as well play freeform with no ruleset.
My point completely. If one wants the rules to get out the way, then throw them away.
If one needs them to simulate in-game reality, then use them- always.
This is a case where the middle of the road just gets you ran over. Here we have a guy who's tied up in knots trying to handle what for me would be a skrimish level combat but has hit a roadblock because the game makes it too boring. Time to ignore/replace the game.
But really I shouldn't be talking about that in this thread. So I'll drop that and go with my original suggestion- only have the high levels fight it out and determine the course of the battle from there.
Quote from: KenHR;644967Morale rules will also do a lot to make a combat take a lot less time.
Yes! The morale rules will cut that fight down after a couple rounds.
Quote from: gleichman;644986I'm a fan of letting the high levels on both sides fight it out; then the low levels of the winning side get to gleefully slaughter the opposing low levels in celebration.
This is a good suggestion. Once the big guns are down, its doubtful that the low level guys would still hold their morale.
I suggest giving monsters the same ability as AD&D fighters, then you will certainly get a nasty and fast mop up of the 0 level and 1-1HD creatures.
I personally would not run a 70 v 70 combat with the rules UNLESS this was the big culmination of the story arc AND if the players really wanted to play a multiple hour minis heavy battle. I'd talk to the players first.
I have run big battles, but much of my crew were Warhammer guys so they really liked to do a big smash and crunch that ran all evening.
This would be an edge case for me.
Quote from: Spinachcat;645331I personally would not run a 70 v 70 combat with the rules UNLESS this was the big culmination of the story arc AND if the players really wanted to play a multiple hour minis heavy battle. I'd talk to the players first.
From the OP it did sound like the big culmination of the story arc.
Doing it with minis it would take a couple hours and run like a wargame, but it could be run very quickly minis-less - while the PCs fight the enemy leaders, give the mook armies eg 10 attacks/round each on each other, or whatever seems reasonable re frontage etc. If you have 5d20s that's 2 rolls per side per round.
It would depend a lot on the level of the PCs involved and the edition you're using, but really if its old-school D&D the whole thing isn't that terribly difficult to do.
It would be one of those exceedingly rare cases where I would use miniatures though, to keep track of where things are happening (if only to avoid the whole "I can just run straight to hit the magic-user, right?" syndrome).
RPGPundit